The TUC response to the current review being undertaken by Lord Young into H&S is one of the best I have read to date.

You too can read it here and I am sure you will agree it’s objective is just what our profession is seeking;

http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/tuc-18203-f0.cfm

Rich, you must have some personal issue with the unions as you picked one line from a fantastic piece and went on a rant.

I applaud the TUC for this piece, well written and concise and certainly makes a very valid point.

I know some people like Rich and many other safety professionals have a thing against unions but we should always remember we wouldnt be here today if it wasnt for their hard campaigning and lobbying over the years.

I think what is clear is that we are likely to come under a barrage of attack from smarmy cameron and his chums and a close relationship with the unions will benefit the safety world immensly in this soon to be hard times

Yes consultation may be defined as listening but do the employers actually hear?

Employers are always in control of the system of work and level of protection and to think otherwise is naive in the extreme!

Given the amount of employees with long term health issues such as mesothelioma and asbestosis then I think it is going to be a while before work related deaths drop to zero!!

A well written piece by the TUC which sums up workplace health and safety pretty accurately IMHO.

I wonder how many IOSH members took the time and made the effort to respond to Lord Young's review? Not many I suspect.

I did but as yet not even had an ackkowledgement. Not surprising really from this lot.

* cloud his judgement

I have just read through the briefing note and I think it an excellent piece of work and a very useful part of the whole debate.
It is well written, easy to understand and covers what most of us would consider to be the key areas of the debate/review.
I did particularly enjoy the comparison between the number of traffic wardens in London as being greater in number than the HSE FOD staff for all the UK.
On a more serious note the identification of the impact of sec 3 of HASAWA and the way it has muddied the waters somewhat with regard to the separation of public S&H from workplace H&S is a useful inclusion in their response.
Thanks for the link,
P48

On the contrary, a report, "Regulatory surrender: death, injury and the non-enforcement of law" by Prof Steve Tombs, of Liverpool John Moores University and Dr David Whyte, of the University of Liverpool, the report reveals that policy changes and the drive towards better regulation by New Labour have seriously affected the ability of the HSE to enforce health and safety law.

Contrary to the current government’s view that business is over-regulated, the report authors suggest that the previous administration’s better regulation agenda has resulted in a more business-friendly, less worker-favourable situation. And the HSE, they argue, “continually sought to accommodate this agenda” with the result that it found itself “less and less able to maintain its formal role in terms of enforcement of safety law

Refer to:-
http://www.shponline.co....lace-safety-deregulation

Neil, you ask what qualifications Mr Young has to conduct this review, apart from being a lawyer, I presume. In 1984 and 1986 – as Employment Minister – he conducted studies into the impact of health and safety laws, as a result of representations made by businessmen.

In a report ‘Deregulation Kills’ by the GMB trade union – in which I had a hand – on the 1993/94 deregulation exercise, the following quote is taken:

‘The Government’s problem with the studies conducted during the 1980s was that they failed to uncover any evidence that health and safety laws placed any undue burdens upon business. In the earlier two studies, only 10% of the firms questioned even bothered to mention health and safety as a problem. The subject was not referred to by 178 of the 200 firms sampled, even when prompted. The later study, based upon a sample of 150 small firms, posed leading questions aimed at encouraging respondents to claim that undue burdens exist. It still failed to uncover any evidence that business found health and safety laws too costly to cope with.’

It appears that Mr Young has experience of wasting taxpayer’s money looking into problems that don’t exist. This, presumably, is why he is such a splendid appointment.

Of course it was not Mr Young who set up the 1993/94 deregulation exercise, which was left to Michael Forsyth. That exercise was estimated to cost the HSE £100,000 [taxpayer]. 7 Sector Task Groups were set up, each chaired by a business representative - the Government ensured it was a business led initiative. Members included CBI and TUC representatives and the HSE acting as secretariat. If the time contributed by members of the STGs were costed at average consultant rates for the time, the GMB calculated their input was the equivalent of around £250,000.

In the final report: Review of Health and Safety Regulation – main report: HSC May 1994, the following is quoted:

‘Health and safety regulations have never been at the top of the list of business concerns, according to various surveys over the years.’

‘The most recent evidence, however, from a March 1994 Barclays Bank survey of new businesses, again put health and safety well down the list.’

‘In fact there is very little evidence of concern over current standards as set out in British legislation. On the contrary, the evidence is that employers both accept the need for regulation and the standards which it sets out. For example the December 1993 membership survey by the Forum of Private Business suggested that most firms were content with the standards required by law.’

So what was the big outcome? HSE – and others - were distracted from their day job into going through the Statute Books to get rid of laws that were no longer used, had been forgotten about and not applied. This allowed Mr Forsyth to claim regulations would be reduced by 40%.

Having lost this particular exercise, the then Government went on to reduce the resources to the HSE. We might not have too much longer for déjà vu on that one!

Nigel