Ricj, Nikki, to get TechIOSH you need a certificate plus (usually) 5 years post-qaulification anyway, so what he's proposing is by no means going to end the usefulness of the cert to people who want a career in H&S, John

Just finished reading the report, no surprises really. Thought he would have made more of the consultants setting themselves up without any training etc. The number of employers who do not check on qualifications and membership of IOSH etc is alarming. I would/should expect this to be mandatory.....but who am I.................

Chris, I've read it, and I remain distinctly underwhelmed. If you follow may various rambling posts on this thread you'll see why, so I won't repeat anything. It won't stop 'elf'n safety' stories whilever the blacktops can use them in pursuit of their anti-tax, anti-LA and anti-union agenda. And that means they won't ever stop, John

I am glad that the majority of the members see this report as positive. My greatest hope is that the message that some H & S consultants are not competent is shouted clearly from the rooftops.The report clearly requires that people giving advice do so with the highest level of underpinning knowledge coupled with experience. This standpoint has to be applauded by all who see their efforts to gain NEBOSH Diplomas, degrees and equivalents undermined by three week wonders. H & S is not a cash cow for this group to pass an exam one day and set up consultancies the next. Some have asked where we can gain experience try volunteering, most H &S Advisers etc. are sorely pushed and lots will welcome assistance. But of course this means that the prospective consultant will probably not have everything handed to them on a plate. I also do not see where it states that the NEBOSH cert will disappear the strength of NEBOSH and the other awarding bodies has no been reduced. We only have to look at the competence requirements of the CDM Regs to understand the position of NEBOSH. The cert is also a recommended requirement for the Diploma which is a degree equivalent.

Very fair points John and well made. Can't argue with that. No apols necessary at all. You are in a very difficult sector with some interesting challenges. I think in terms of the value of its content John, I am with you in questioning it. I can see people already gloating of the typos in it scoring some sort of moral victory over the basic errors in quoting a regulation here and there. There's enough fodder there to keep people amused for minutes. What I do find of value though is the fact that it exists. I am lucky to be in the position that I can move about, lobby, meet and influence and I appreciate that not everyone can. This report is simply a vehicle for opening doors for some of us to achieve other things. But trust me when I say that I sleep with a copy of Robens by my bedside and it's the spirit of his words that I speak, I'm certainly not riding some hobby horse for large retailers. What we cannot have in my view is a proportional system that's one size fits all. He never said that I neither have I. It can't work that way. I for one really don't want a list of sectors that fall into low or high (why is nothing ever medium anymore?). Your business is what it is and YOU should be able to say where it falls with confidence. Lord Young clearly isn't a Practitioner and given the speed at which the report has been produced it's hardly surprising that it's got some, well, flaws in it. But as I have said, I think that the actual content is worth less than it's value in terms of leverage and influence. I guess time will tell. I won't be spending the weekend reading it. Chris

Yes my thoughts exactly. The media is firmly identified in Lord Young's report as the perpetrator and promulgator of distortions which damage the image of health and safety. And yet not one single recommendation about how the media should change to overcome this problem. Let me see... which papers are the worst offenders? The Mail and the Express. Hmmm. Which party do they support? No wonder Young has left the media alone.

There is a mistake in the overlong executive summary: "Indeed, if we do not, there is a real risk that the Commission will wish to impose these obligations on firms employing five or fewer, who are currently excluded" To the best of my knowledge they are not excluded, they just don't need to record it in writing/ Looks like another misspent weekend coming up proof reading this report...

I take your point Pete48 but how much credible would the report be if it was not littered with errors that a NEBOSH certificate student would pick up?

I am reading this from the safety of my home office having done the checklist. I think we need to pick out and promote the bits we like, reject vociferously the bits that are bad then leave the MPs to vote on it. Have a good weekend P48 et al, over and out till Monday M

Its important to remember that some views on whether this review is welcome or not, may be influenced by the colour of the politics of the writer. I just wish the review had been written by someone who understands H&S, rather than merely satisfying a pre determined agenda to 'reduce bureaucracy'. I wonder what the parents of the children involved in Lyme Bay think of the recommendations?

Well said, NigelB. Excellent summation, MDraper "merely satisfying a pre determined agenda". In that respect, the Report is of course faultless.

They're only "recommendations". The work now has to be done to put them into effect. Trying to bypass EU directives will be interesting, let along figuring out how to get insurance companies to not have employers do risk assessments. Loads of recommendations, not a lot of hope. Not for those injured/killed/given disease/s.

Ray You have made a valid point that should be followed up with regard to trying to address the problems that we know exist. A variety of groups have been consulted over the Young Review. If nothing else, it has certainly stirred things up in the world of health and safety. Perhaps the groups you mention could have some formal arrangement - having loosely done so under the Review - and start a process of ongoing review of health and safety. Taking the business approach of 'continuous improvement' two or three key issues could be analysed and potential solutions identified. These could then be brought back into the respective organisations for action over the medium to longer term. ie single issue drives. To a large degree many issues have already been identified within each individual organisation. What we need are issues that we know exist, are important across the board, action can be taken and all could be involved with the solution. The HSE has already determined 10 strategic points - maybe concentrating on one or two of these could be added value. Maybe such a group should form itself into a recognised 'Be part of the Solution' forum as part of the HSE Strategy. If they could do so under the Young Review why not continue to do so? There are many obstacles to this, a big one being that there is already a large number of campaigns on single issues at play nationally, at sector level and within individual organisations. And, of course, time and resources. Nevertheless if some value is to be achieved by the Young Report, prompting significant players in the health and safety world to co-operate in some formal way might provide a sharper focus on continually monitoring and addressing the real problems in health and safety that we know exist. However concentrating on single issues over long periods. For example the Food Sector Recipe for Safety initiative has run over 18 years. Significant decreases in injury rates have been achieved by a continued drive to provide solutions to targeted causes of injuries. In such an endeavour it would be helpful if the real difficulties of employers and the real concerns of the workforce are reflected in the analysis of such a group. Just a thought. Cheers. Nigel

How delicious that the same day as Lord Young's report is issued the Tate Modern close a gallery because of H&S concerns regarding dust. There appears to be no mention of any serious assessment or monitoring by a qualified H&S professional - but one news report does mention there is management concern that the porcelain seeds would not last for the exhibition's six month period! Ken

Of course it would have been better if..........2 IOSH students could have done a better job. Maybe technically but politically..not a chance. The thing about politics is that it is all about perception and the perception of everyday in the street is always a more powerful persuader than cold fact or evidence. Of course there is no such thing as a compensation culture in any evidential sense but it is common shorthand for the concerns that drive all sides of the debate. So why is it wrong to use it as a term in this report? Why should there be a backlash? Most of our society at the moment sees OSH as a nuisance or burden. They see us as a bunch of anoraks that muddle and middle over minute details while the world wants to be playing at risky things. They will see this report as an attempt at tackling the unnecessary restrictions on them. (whether those restrictions are real or not) You can see examples every day of citizens who take risks and put others at risk; who ignore the requests of their employers to work safely and then still have a means to blame their employer for their injuries. You see examples of employers who knowingly risk their employees. However, it seems they are less concerned about that than the OSH fraternity who are still trawling over the technical inaccuracies in a political report and suggesting that it is fatally flawed as a result. NIgel B, I agree with your last comments. Why not look for ways that we can use this report to achieve improvements? Take the changes and reviews of RIDDOR. It could be taken that the extension to 7 days is a ploy, or amounts to nothing more than, by HMG to somehow produce better performance stats for UK plc. It may be but I am neither arguing nor concerned at all about that point. What I do know is that RIDDOR is constantly called into question by the OSH fraternity and others and there have been calls for a major review. When even the "professional experts" cannot agree on what it covers and when it applies then the Regulation must be, at best, too complex. It looks to me like we are getting a review and will have the chance to change it for the better and that has to be good doesn’t it? I might make a similar point with regard to the risk assessment area. A good set of recommendations to make it easier to achieve risk assessment; providing tools to almost take away the present obstruction " it is too difficult or too expensive to do" and therefore nothing happens until either the enforcers enforce or the insurers say no more. The report chose to use the term low risk which means something to a safety aware person but commonly means something entirely different to others. And since the report is not for those who already know the answers it is perfectly valid to use it in the common sense. So for the sake of debate let’s just look at the recommendation from the view that in many undertakings the risk profile is relatively simple and there is no in house safety anorak. Why should it not be possible and acceptable that competent people put together an interactive tool that will make it much more likely that a small employer or one with a simple risk profile can comply with the requirement to risk assess and access the "norms" of risk controls without the need to understand all the technical needs. Seems to me that will more likely result in not only better controls but better understanding of what is acceptable and what is not. Just when and why did we move away from the need to record “significant findings” and the understanding that in small groups that it was the act of assessment that is important and not the recording (fewer than 5 rule). Somewhere along the line of “got to have evidence or it is your fault or guilt” methinks. So if that can be better resolved why would we not welcome it? The question of simplifying the claims procedures must also have many benefits? Pitfalls and unseen or feared consequences, it would be a first if there were not. For example, I seem to recall being told that Woolf would do this and it clearly hasn’t. Is that reason not to welcome the recommendation? I am very surprised at the comments about whether controls were required on media reporting. It should never be possible to control the media for such everyday matters; surely that is contrary to a key precept of our society. What you can do rather like controlling a fire is to starve it of fuel and it goes out. I see, within this report, many opportunities for getting rid of the sources of the current media interest in OSH. Whether you would want to put that explicitly into a report like this I doubt but I would be surprised if it were not in the rationale somewhere. The report is what it is, warts, errors, omissions and all. But like it or not, it will be used to focus efforts in this area for the immediate and potentially medium term. Therefore, I hope that IOSH will continue to be very actively involved in making sure that HMG does deliver on this report and be very proactive in the achievement of most if not all of the recommendations. Now I am going to take an afternoon nap as well, I understand that it what most politicians do anyway!!  P48

It's good to see that as a forum we are hitting the mark re interpreting Young's report. It's a shame he has neglected to apologise for being in government when most of the issues he sees fit to change were enacted. I recall a similar review on the over-burdensome H&S legislation some years ago under Majors government. That resulted in a raft of redundant legislation being removed from the statute books, many relating to specific industries that no longer existed. Pete48 makes some good points though I'm not sure I agree with him on every point: Simplify claims procedures. - Agreed, if it help injured parties secure the compensation they deserve. However, I still doubt the sufferers of asbestos related illnesses and their families will receive their just deserts any sooner. Restrict ambulance chasers The issue of a claims culture per se is as a direct result of successive governments from Thatcher to Brown reducing access to the legal system for the less well off. There is no legal aid for civil cases so the only way ordinary people can access justice is if solicitors and barristers operate on a no win no fee basis. Hence the ambulance chasers. This has directly impacted on businesses, especially in construction where the big players operate very strict PPE focused safety regimes, which give safety a bad name and hasn't had any impact on the accident stats. There is still around a death a week in construction and it was the same when I started my H&S career back in 1983. Clarification re well intentioned voluntary acts. - No matter how well intentioned if it results in someone's death or injury the individual concerned ought to be subject to the same sanctions as anyone else. The judge will decide how well intentioned the motives are. Make it easier to understand and achieve risk assessment in many SME. Risk assessments are already simple if one is assessing easy to understand hazards. If a SME is involved in complicated hazardous operation then their RA's will and should be more detailed and complex. The idea of allowing SME's where the vast majority of the UK workforce are employed from less than thorough RA's seems both irresponsible and immoral. Exemptions for home work and self employed from RA. Yes Not sure this is a good idea though I understand the cock eyed approach to homeworking that some employers have taken. However, we must not reduce the standard of safety experienced by homeworkers when compared to that of those in the office, factory or elsewhere. Professional stds for H&S to become a requirement. Agreed. Too many lame duck people in the profession who are as one person eluded 'the book jobsworthy' types. Restrict insurers imposing risk regimes and regimes on clients. So long as it is in line with compliance and not excessively so I don't see a problem with this. However, insurers are in the business of making money by reducing claims so if they can reduce their risk by imposing a strict regime on a poorly managed business so be it. After all we unfortunately have to have regard for the worst type of business where compliance is seen as an unnecessary burden and something to be avoided whenever possible. These are the businesses that kill people every year and we can do without them. If they can continue to operate under the strict restrictions of insurers that is fine by me. Insurers to review arrangements for insuring worthwhile events. No opinion so long as the risk of those attending is not unduly compromised. Simplify r.a for schools inc using risk-benefit.. Makes sense I'm not sure what this means. Simplify how? IOSH promote a simple RA process based on a 5x5 grid. Itr could not be any simpler. Schools should not be let off lightly. There have been too many kids killed through the incompetency of teachers. Any relaxation of the rules as applied to schools is a bad move. LA to justify public safety decisions in writing. Yes Not likely to make any difference to the way LA's interpret the law and they are after all the one body suffering more inappropriate civil claims than any other group. Citizens rights to challenge decisions formalised. Yes Agreed, so long as it doesn't restrict plaintiffs ability to successfully access the judicial system. Simplify regulations. Not sure about this, what and how This is such a load of old tosh. There has been cross party agreement not to undermine or weaken existing h&s legislation through the introduction of new legislation or amendments since the H&S at work act was enacted. This has been supported throughout the industrial unrest of the 70's & 80's as well as the changes in government over the past 35 years. It's not the regulations that need to be simplified but the guidance and codes of practise, which can be as full of legalese as the regulations themselves. RIDDOR change to 7 days. Bad mistake. It seems a history lesson is in order. The problems that arose due to the introduction of NADOR 1980 took years to rectify. Accident statistics were wholly unreliable until RIDDOR 85 was introduced, and even then it took until the 90's to sort themselves out. The reason over 3 days was introduced is a legacy of the days when statutory sick benefit was not paid for the first 3 days of a claim (they are called 'waiting days'). I believe this is indeed still the case though the introduction of self-certification meant that a doctors sick note was no longer necessary to make a claim. If anything we should be moving in the opposite direction and make all lost time accidents reportable that way we can simplify the whole reporting process and regard any accident resulting in time off work as a serious accident. The important thing is not to reduce an already lamentable rate of reporting but to enhance it. Why? Well without the official stats the HSE will have no reliable evidence to make future legislative changes. Review RIDDOR is it still the way? Refer to my previous comment Combine some LA inspections. Having worked as an inspector in an Env Health department I can say that EHO's already combine inspections. If you visit a food premises you look at everything as an EHO not just food hygiene. If you visit a tyre fitters you look purely at H&S issues. I don't see that Young's comments have any relevance to the way LA's operate. If we expect Trading Standards Officers to undertake H&S inspections then that is fine so long as they are comp[tent to do so. More clarity around “heroes” and emergency services. The Police forces and Fire & Civil defence services should in no way be any less exempt from their H&S duties than any other organisation. However, I fully understand the political pressure to allow looney police officers or firemen to rush in where angels fear to tread (most likely to kill themselves but win a posthumous bravery medal). It will probably lead to even more officers suffering 'PTSD' and spending the rest of their working lives living off tax payers money. Abolish the AALA. Not sure. A lot of reliance is placed on the assurance that an AALA licence provides re safety especially for school adventure trips Agreed. Too many kids killed by incompetent adventure/activity suppliers. However, we do tend to wrap our kids in too much cotton wool so I can see why as a society it may be healthier to allow for more risks in our developmental years. At the same time if you were a parent, who had lost a child in such circumstances as the Lyme Bay tragedy I doubt they would want to see any relaxation of the licensing process.

Regarding the safety qualifications ie NEBOSH General, little wonder that unions are in denial on many points as it will mean that stewards will be largely unqualified to deal with their issues as normally they attend one or two-day short courses on various activities. Interesting.

The "sick-note" changed to the "fit-note" in April. The FN is issued after seven days (hmmmm) The problem being that many employers just will not have people at work if they are sick...mind you, the Fit-Sick-Note helps with the money....since the pay will be salary endowed by SSP. From personal experience I can state that an employer whose employee presents for work with a "fit-note" stating "Back injury. Displaced disc in lower back. Fit for any non-manual-lifting work" will get no return to work, even IF there is any other work they CAN do. And you need to take into account that many employers querying the sickness (physical injury) with their insurer will find the insurer less than enthusiastic. AND the changes to RIDDOR are taking no action on the less than 50% that are reported in the REAL world, which is not located anywhere near the Palace of Westminster.

Just read pages 15/16/17. It saves a lot of time. You can then try to deduce the routes of improvement, or not. Try this bit: "Clarify (through legislation if necessary) that people will not be held liable for any consequences due to well-intentioned voluntary acts on their part" Legislation to exempt people from liability if they kill/injure/damage/reduce-value-of-items......the word minefield comes to mind. "Insurance companies should cease the current practice that requires businesses operating in low hazard environments to employ health and safety consultants to carry out full health and safety risk assessments" That will just be ignored, unless Whitehall is going to carry the liability. I prefer not to mention self-employed in low-hazard work not having to do risk assessments, as if any ever do risk assessments unless forced by the client. "Shift from a system of risk assessment to a system of risk–benefit assessment and consider reviewing the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 to separate out play and leisure from workplace contexts" As they say: one childs place of education is another persons place of work. "The UK should take the lead in cooperating with other member states to ensure that EU health and safety rules for low risk businesses are not overly prescriptive, are proportionate and do not attempt to achieve the elimination of all risk" That takes care of the next 20+ years then..... "The HSE should also re-examine the operation of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 to determine whether this is the best approach to providing an accurate national picture of workplace accidents" With less than 50% reporting, falling to less than 10% in self-employed workers (see above comment) I fail to see the reasoning. Operation of RIDDOR = good, Operation of employers = dismal (no change) Oh: Finally: © Crown copyright 2010 You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence.

Phil is correct - this is the specification given in Paragraph 23 of the ACoP for the regulations: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l21.pdf