You raise a number of imponderables here. However, removing much of the current legislation (if not all) would clearly be a retrograde step. What is needed is for better publicity to get rid of the conker-stoppers and the "oh you can't use a step ladder" party poopers, etc.

H&S is not the black art that many consider it to be, but it is about reasonable care of self, colleagues and others affected by our activities. These are basic moral issues.

Apau 77

All government reviews have the potential to have an impact upon the employment market.

However I believe that this review has been prompted because of an interaction of many aspects including getting public support for some unpopular Government plans by using popular soundbites to get people onside.

If you visit Nick Cleggs website on removing legislation there are many postings surrounding the H&S debate, some valid and some just plain daft. The web site is here http://yourfreedom.hmg.g...ealth-safety-legislation

Type in Health and Safety in the search box and you will see the potential impact if the ConDems take notice of the dafter postings (one I have seen talks about abolition of the HSE simply because it is a Government Quango). No real argument as to why HSE should be abandoned.

Funny how nobody ever mentions the right of workers to keep their health, not to be injured or made unwell because of the unsafe working practices adopted. An example of this may be the new TV advert for a well known window manufacturing company where they proclaim “You wouldn't’t have thought we (company name omitted) would be doing this today would you”. The advert shows a woodworker planing wood without wearing any respiratory protection. Look at the dust that is generated and is now airborne, much of it probably being inhaled by the operative (especially in the background). NO – I would not think a reputable company would be exposing workers to that amount of airborne wood dust. If anyone has not seen the advert send me a PM and I will send you the weblink so you can view the advert on line.

Makes me wonder where this Company are getting their competent H&S advice from though!!!!!!

Do the ConDems really want to reduce the regulatory burden surrounding H&S to allow companies like the one described above to continue adding to the burden we have to pay to keep people well. Do the ConDems really understand risk management as well as what they profess to do?

Also have a look around the IOSH forums and you will see some excellent postings surrounding the Lord Young review and potential impacts.

However the lie is often said and repeated time and time again “Health and Safety produces so much red tape and prevents business from progressing” without being challenged that it is easily believed - just like some urban myths. A lie so often repeated without any supporting evidence or argument, a lie promulgated and living because people are not aware of how to implement risk management efficiently so they believe it, simply because it is a lie that is so easy to trot out – and is often believed by less well informed or enquiring analytical minds. It is often easier and cheaper, to believe the lie, to repeat the lie, than seek and pay for competent advice which may prevent real harm.

Hope these comments are of interest to your debate.

Regards
Tim Briggs VP IOSH

apau 77

May we live in interesting times eh?

Perhaps I am naive but I think the focus here will end up being on preventing overreaction to relatively minor risk and improving the information available to clients to help them judge the competence of the specialist from whom they seek advice. In-house or external. I think that will be quite positive for genuinely competent professionals. I don't think the criminal law will change much at all - maybe a slower proliferation of very specific regulation.

When I read the claims about the quantity of time that small businesses spend 'managing' health and safety what comes to my mind is the repeated photocopying of generic risk assessments that are meaningless in the context of the work being done, reams of documents that are produced externally, sat on a shelf and never used, training that is too general but ticks a box on an employee record, huge policy documents with pages of management responsibilities that are never included in the company performance management system, vast generic procedures that try to cover so much they actually cover nothing adequately, risk assessments that assess non-conformances (like lack of PPE, or no machine guard) instead of hazards; now that's the way to make them extend to 6 A4 folders! - in other words a day a month without any perceptible difference to the safety of the people doing the job.

HSE have been preaching for years about clear, user-friendly work instructions, about only having to record the significant findings of risk assessments; not every tiny part of the process, about only giving workers the information they need to do the job safely; and not all the detail about how you arrived at that method, about involving workers in risk decision making - and yet there are still 'safety professionals' out there who advise clients to do the exact opposite and those who continue to write and sell these huge folders of generic information.

So, I do think it will be positive for the profession and, if executed properly, clients will feel more confident in the advice we provide and the help we offer. It could increase our credibility in the job and consultancy marketplaces. I would also like to echo what Tim said - some industries require more than just competence in risk management, you should also have an intimate understanding of the processes and equipment in use or work alongside someone who has.

For those of you who haven't guessed, I'm a consultant - and now in the interests of levity, here is some of the advice given by others which has brought me new clients over the years - To a parkland manager - you have to fence off all the rivers and lakes (over 100 miles of it) with a 5 foot fence because a child might drown.

To a landlord - you don't have to tell your tenants about asbestos in their houses because the asbestos regulations only apply to workplaces - you only have to make sure its safe if you send a worker in.

To a hotelier - you must give all your domestic staff training in dynamic lifting techniques so that they can fold sheets. (this same consultant failed to notice the broken asbestos boards on the ceiling of the cellar and the back of the cellar door - as did every EHO who visited in the 3 preceding years - both were all over the broken tiles in the kitchen though).

To an infraco - remove the TPWS from the 4 foot because its a trip hazard.

So it not only about overzealous reaction to risk its also about having a reasonable understand of ALL the risk in a business - this is where the in house specialist should have the advantage over consultants....

apau77
It could encourage more than that!

Tories renowned for privatisation - how about privatising the regulation for starters?

What about LA's outsourcing their H&S functions to reduce costs?

Just some of the really extreme thoughts that spring to mind.

Have a look at the TUC report downloadable following this link
http://www.tuc.org.uk/ex...or_health_and_safety.pdf

Regards

Tim B

apau77

I am not advocating the ConDems should do what I wrote above but it would not surprise me to find this is on their (hidden) agenda ultimately.

Which again outsourcing the Regulatory Practice and LA's outsourcing their H&S functions would be bad news for everyone.

We all know what can be disastrous results from outsourcing can occur. And for those employed by Connaught who may lose their jobs (I am really really sorry for those people) and my heart goes out to them. I only hope the employment impact is minimal for them. We only have to look at the finance sector to be shown a distinct lesson - but how many times do we fail to learn the lessons from history?

An attempt at deregulation in America was disastrous as well, so do not think deregulation if they follow the US example would work anyhow - despite what business may wish for. And as for following the BP example of H&S I cannot express words on this forum that fully expresses my contempt.


Regards

Tim B

apau 77,

When people say "why didn't you just use common sense?", what they really mean is why didn't you do it the way I would have done it. Everyone is different and that why we have procedures in place. I don't believe things should be left to common sense as its not always the same for each person

Craig A