Lord Young keeps repeating that SME's are spending 'up to 1 day a month' on H&S red tape. From memory, this figure came from an FSB survey, but I'm not sure how accurate this is - does anyone out there know? After all, it could have been a 'tick-box' exercise without enough choices or the lowest figure being 'upto 1 day a month' (also, were there enough responders, and were they a representative group etc. etc.). Also, what activities would be in the minds of the recipients of such a survey - writing policies, procedures, risk assessments, method statements would probably be what we're all thinking - but maybe they include purchasing equipment, PPE, disciplining errant staff, housekeeping, tendering etc. Certainly as an independent consultant the potential clients I meet have not been spending this amount of time on the so-called 'Red Tape' side! (and not many of them seem to have been particularly concerned in the past by complying with the provision to get competent advice on H&S)

I strongly disagree about politicians being driven by logic and reason.

Afternoon all There is a new report out printed in summary by Hazards magazine (also available on line) - undertaken by academics at Liverpool John Moore and Liverpool University. Worth reading I might add. authors are Prof Steve Toombs and Dr David Whyte. The article states"There is no evidence for assuming H&S red tape is causing unnecessary burdens" (My interpretation of their words) and gives evidence to the contrary. Also there is evidence from the US who adopted a softly softly approach to enforcement that the softly softly approach does not work. In fact the US government is dropping the Voluntary Protection Programme as the initiative was so called, the evidence is that no protection was afforded by lessening regulation. Cameron and his gang the ConDems want to adopt the BP safety model in the UK - "WHAT" just so we can have Texas City and Deepwater horizon happening over here. Also interesting how the US Government reacted to the Deepwater disaster and attacked the UK especially BP (Cameron having a cosy chat trying to defend BP) = for parity did the US accept and behave with the same manner because of Union Carbides activity in causing the Bhopal disaster. I do not think so somehow. Double standards may be!!!! I will let you decide!!!! Regards to all Tim B

Lord Young keeps repeating that SME's are spending 'up to 1 day a month' on H&S red tape. As a consultant I agree with many other consultants about our clients, that they are not spending anywhere near this amount of time focusing on health and safety - if any at all. I have read articles by Prof Steve Toombs and Dr David Whyte on the so called burden of SME’s. I believe Lord Young has become the political puppet of the Cameron/Clegg alliance in creating an issue that only really exists in media hype? Have they actually thought of the detrimental effect they could be creating by their actions, I very much doubt it - ‘pandering to the masses’! I also agree that the United States ‘softly softly’ approach to enforcement does not work. In the United Kingdom we have a record low in the number of fatalities and serious incidents, so what are the reasons for radical change? What next from the government, get the management team from Chernobyl to overhaul our management of nuclear safety?

No doubt whatever the outcome from Lord Young, health and safety will yet again be negatively portrayed by the media. RayRapp, only just received my tax rebate for last year (arrived last week) followed by a demand requiring immediate payment!

Thre is a very interesting report from the TUC, countering the so called burden of regulation published today. I have started another thread on it in the public OSH discussion forum Press Release:- http://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace/tuc-18416-f0.cfm Full Report:- http://www.tuc.org.uk/ex...or_health_and_safety.pdf

Dave With due respect to your view, I would suggest that what you describe is not bad H&S Regulation burden, but a burden caused by a distinct lack of good enforcement. There are several sides to Regluastory Burdens - one bad law - one bad interpretaion of law and another is poor enforcement of law and finally too many incidences of regluatory actions requiring documentation. I am presuming here you are targeting the poor regulatory enforcement practice? It would appear that the regulators statutory code of compliance may have been breached and that the some or all 5 principles of good enforcement not applied, which you could have used in argument against immediate prohibition: Proportionality - Targeting - - Consistency - Transparency and Accountability See this link http://webarchive.nation...ance-code/page44055.html (Archived because of the change of Government but still in practice.) Also knowing the history of some LA's I would also take time to check that their enforcement policy is in date, because if it is not they have acted "Ultra Vires". there has been cases recently where notices have been rescinded because of out of date Enforcement Policies of the enforcing LA. I would also be wary of saying EHO's cannot recognise a risk, I know of some excellent EHO's who are as knowledgeable as Chartered Practitioners. As I have argued before on these forums and elsewhere, whichever way the Government decides to take H&S regulation it boils down to good education - either good educated risk aware internal enforcers (Safety Professional Advisors Consultants etc) or well educated risk aware external enforcers (HSE EHO's and others). Also "Having taken Technical Advice" may indicate recognition of professional limits which is something all professionals should do - so do not knock people for taking "Technical Advice" even within IOSH we offer each other technical advice, it is about recognising limits. I do have some sympathy for your argument but I suggest that this burden definitely falls in the bracket of needing to have better educated risk aware enforcement officers. Regards Tim B

Dear All David Young’s hunt for the ‘burden’ of health and safety regulation spans over two decades. He failed to find any evidence in 1984 and 1986. Years later Minister Michael Forsyth prompted the ‘Review of Health and Safety Regulation’ in 1993. Co-ordinated by the HSC, 7 Sector Task Groups – chaired by business representatives – reviewed all relevant health and safety legislation. In the final report - may 1994 - it was concluded: ‘the available evidence does not support the suggestion that health and safety regulation is in fact unduly burdensome for business.’ So even a business led exercise couldn’t find the elusive evidence. The issue has raised its head occasionally since but nothing of major note. What about today? ‘By specific area of law, businesses generally view Health and Safety compliance more positively, with significantly more agreeing with a number of the positive statements listed. No specific area of law surveyed is perceived as being any more burdensome than the average.’ This is taken from the National Audit Office Business Perceptions Survey 2010, published on the 15th July 2010. Once the real burden – the annual fatal accidents, injuries and occupationally related ill-health - are taken into account, it is difficult to see why the review into ‘bonkers conkers’ is needed. On the other hand, if the ‘evidence’ considered is that supplied by the Daily Mail and the Policy Exchange Report ‘Health and Safety: Reducing the burden’ – forward by David Young – then a politically motivated review is logical. Headlines in a newspaper publicising unusual, misleading and exceptional situations allows the Government to address the wrong targets, apply inappropriate solutions and claim victory in solving a problem that doesn’t actually exist. This is not to say everything in the regulatory garden is perfect. It isn’t. However it would be more helpful if the Government could promote more action around helping all businesses comply with legal requirements. This is quite complicated, has eluded us so far, is a major challenge and requires the application of resources, particularly to small businesses. As such, it is unlikely to be high on the Government agenda. Oh yes, there is no compensation culture at work either. Cheers. Nigel

To evaluate the various burdens on a business you need to take each area separately and appraise them individually then use appropriate weighting methods to make an overall appraisal and thereafter I would challenge anybody to show that H&S is in anyway the burden that it is being accused of being Try getting to the bottom of VAT or a lease that a business works with or various technical and commercial specifications or QA systems or finance etc which will all show H&S to be the least of a businessman's worries I believe that case law will not be changed nor will common sense vanish but the big problem we face is the vast majority will say nothing then untruths become truths and thereafter H&S law will be changed for the worse irrespective The biggest problem we face as professionals is that most people just follow fashion and if something is unfashionable then it stays that way ----- If we could get enough of the right kind of celebrities inclusive of elected members to come out of the closet in favour of H&S things would change for the better in minutes

Thanks for posting this link. Interesting report.

I think this is a very good report. It actually highlights the Health and Safety Executive as a good example of carrying out impact assessments etc and its simplification programme. However in the same report, it highlights health and safety regulation financial impact assessment being under-estimated rather than being overestimated. The overall regulatory burden arises from employment and environmental legilsation, both from Europe and our own. The report also highlights the role of "guidance" and standards as "soft-law", especialy of "manangement systems standards"

I just love the 'one-in one-out' principle. We can assume from this that the number of SIs is exactly right at the moment, and that one more or or one less would in some way be dangerous. Common sense, John

Just to say many thanks to those who contributed to this discussion - especially the useful links: great stuff. Thank you.