9 am news on radio 2 this morning had Lord Young speaking abut health and safety. He mentioned members of the public being allowed to challenge councils that ban activities on the grounds of health and safety. Further the fact that the same regulations apply to large industrial plants and offices. (Not exactly what he said but you get my drift)? I have always had a common sense attitude to health and safety, that is how I have obtained some work in the past. Perhaps Lord Young is heading us in the right direction.

I have to say, there's not much to argue about if this article of what he was saying is accurate http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11454241 My only exception is his views that there's too much H&S legislation. I don't subscribe to that point of view, but blame the way many misinterpret that legislation as the route of many stupid decisions. It seems that many see elimination of the risk as the first method of control, rather (in my view) as the last resort. The result is often a huge list of 'bans' and ridiculous restrictions that feed the 'elf & safety jobsworth' culture and turn the H&S industry into a laughing stock.

Yes there has been media stories about Lord Young’s report, but before we all go of at different tangents would it not be better to see what the report actually says? Yes Lord Young has given some interviews but I think he also said words to the effect “Wait and see what the recommendations are when it is published” Only a few of the recommendations have been commented on by the media. I suspect its going to make interesting reading.

This is what the BBC says today, which I think is quite a 'sane' report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11454241 and I saw a quite rational report on Channel 4 too. I hope things do change and then the threads on this forum on conkers being removed from trees on the grounds of safety can hopefully be banished forever. I must be one of the few on this forum who is looking forward to the report and I actually hope that positive changes emerge from it. Change is needed IMO.

Yossarian, you might want to read the current thread on conkers bonkers (which is a debate on whether a council was right to remove all the conkers from a tree on safety grounds). As to whether I am a lonely voice in support of change within the H&S industry (and really hoping that Lord Young produces a rational report with rational changes), well, so be it.

messyshaw I was under the impression that avoiding the risk [eliminate] - as far as is reasonably practicable - is the first control method that must be legally considered. At least this is what is stated in law in Schedule 1 of the Management Regs. Has it been amended? Dear All I heard David Young's speech at the Tory Party Conference and he seems very clear. Health and safety regulations applying to hazardous work will be left alone. Thus no bonfire of red tape. Using the usual tooth picks banned in restaurant, councils stop pancake races, rolling cheese etc he is going to stop on to make sure the 40 odd recommendations in his report are enacted. I cannot wait to see schools being able to shred risk assessments and bring back the good old days of letting young ones kill themselves, break arms, legs etc so that they can learn about the risks of life. Indeed as Mr Young himself said on prime time TV everyone should be allowed to be stupid and injure themselves. With this kind of inspired leadership the report is sizing up to be a magnificent read. Cheers. Nigel

Yes, Lord Young is talking common sense and that's what bothers me. 200 million flies can't be wrong is common sense in a nutshell. Which restaurant banned toothpicks? And does it matter what one restaurant does? Won't customer complaints take care of that? The school that banned conkers did it because the master concerned didn't like paperwork (he's a teacher and he doesn't like writing things down?). The red-arrows were never forbidden on H&S grounds. Hanging baskets have not been banned. Schoolkids still go white-water rafting. Common sense tells us kids can't play conkers (David Cameron has actually referred to this utter nonsense in a commons speech), can't go white water rafting, the red arrows were banned from flying because of H&S and hanging baskets have been banned. I prefer evidence, facts and rational enquiry to headlines and soundbites. When was common sense ever equated with facts, rational enquiry and evidence? And anyway, what is the correct amount of H&S regulation? The governments 'one out, one in' rule implies that the number of regulations of all kinds is exactly right, John

Just spotted this in the BBC report "Earlier this year, the annual cheese-rolling event in Gloucestershire was cancelled amid concerns that the location was not capable of hosting the 15,000 people who attended the previous year's event. But the Tory peer told the Daily Mail: "Frankly if I want to do something stupid and break my leg or neck, that's up to me. I don't need a council to tell me not to be an idiot. I can be an idiot all by myself." Couldn't agree with him more. However as a taxpayer I don't expect my taxes to be wasted on NHS treatments & all the costs for "this idiot" - so who will pay for the broken neck & its consequences?

That is the short end of a thick wedge (if that's the right expression). I too believe with Lord Young that it is up to me what I do with my personal time, even if that means bieng an idiot (in the eyes of some). So I do lots of what others to perceive to be dangerous sports (as do many others on this forum) and yes I have had a serious accident (mountain biking) and I did require surgery. I alsao ended up in hopsital with a virus after doing Tough Guy (a very stupid race many would say). So do you not want the NHS to pay for my treatment? Then of course the argument spreads. Why should I pay for someone else to have gastric bypass surgery just because they cant stop eating. Why should I pay for someone to have heart surgery just becase they smoked, drank and ate too much. We all have a different pereception on what we are allowed to do with our bodies and what is reckless. But who is to judge what the NHS pays for. Some may not want to pay for any injuries that I may sustain whilst canyoning but equally I would not want to pay for their gastric band. It equals iself out. That's what we pay our taxes for. I'm more worried that the NHS treats foreigners on holiday here who don't have to be insured to pay those costs, unlike when we visit their country!

Both Lord Young and most of the media have used the example of cheese rolling for councils banning events. This has been totally misrepresented by all. The implication is that it is the sport of chasing a cheese down a steep hill that is being alledgedly banned - absolutely untrue!! This years event was cancelled by the organising committee not the council, police or anyone else as they could not get sufficient public liability insurance to cover the safety of 15000 expected spectators. In fact an unofficial event still took place this year - noone banned it in fact Coopers Hill is even Gloucestershire County Council property. What has actually happened over the years as the event has become ever popular is that there has been a significant increase in spectators whose cars clog up the road preventing emergency vehicles reaching competitors and the concerns that 15000 spectators on the precipice of a steep hill is a Hillsborogh waiting to happen. The decision to stop the event this year on the above grounds to facilitate better crowd control in future is just COMMON SENSE. All the cheese rollers know about personal responsibility they do it at their own risk, the council has not stopped them and have not been sued. Note I posted a similar reply to the Mail and guess what they did not publish it!!

I agree there are a number of strange responses to what (thus far) is widely unknown. I have an open mind and would want to examine the recommendations in detail before condemning or accepting the current speculative comments. I believe that the key should be to examine the agenda. If that is to reduce the number of incidents where H&S legislation has been used as an excuse for not taking appropriate action then I am supportive, on the other hand if there is an agenda to reduce the protection for workers in order to make companies more profitable then I would be wholeheartedly opposed. So for me it is a case of "wait out"

Whilst I agree with the good samaritan concept, in reality I still want some form of action available to me as an injured person if someone goes radically against their training or beyond their abilities and causes me more trouble than I had. I think leaving it to precedent is working so far. "Reasonably practicable" is so good that it is often cheaper to cave in before taking it to a judge. It is the same with "reasonably foreseeable" - amazing what occurs to you after the incident. I don't have alternatives, by the way (but I think the employee of a small company should be as valuable as an employee of a multi-national - yet we know that the expectations and standards are quite different). I would welcome change - but is it needed at the legislative level or the company level? I have had employers who love paperwork because it produces a tangiable output.

Lord Young, IMO, has made a few "generalisations" (is that a real word?), about H&S being the same for large and small types of industry. I personally have a view that shopfitting should not come under the same CDM Regs as more major construction works. Similarly the HSE have an example health and safety policy that all employers, large and small, can use but there is always a much more comprehensive version used by the larger employer. They don't have to do that - Why do they I wonder? Is it a case of the h&s officer justifying the position or the external consultant needing to make a few bob? Am I making sense? Anyway it won't be long now before we hear what it's all about.

The question of a H&S Policy statement is one that has been the subject of much debate over the years. My view is the policy statement should be no more than a one page high level committment to providing a safe environment and the adoption of good practice in every aspect of the workplace. This should be supplimented with sound methods of managing the H&S of the workplace. Both should be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure it is up to date and fit for purpose. The main part of the policy is to set out the managements view as to what its duties are and the supplimentary as how they will achieve the policy. This has been around since the 1974 Act came into force and should now be easy to follow.