For any of you who have nothing planned this weekend here's a a link to the site where you will find this short (92 pages) study report to help while away the hours. For those of us that are fully occupied can I suggest just noting the summary. Seems that Lord Young wasn't so far off the mark in suggesting that we talk to our European partners about reducing the burden on small businesses. http://www.europarl.euro...s/studies.do?language=EN

Yes - speak to them, and they seem to be saying the opposite of what Lord Young was gradually aiming for/wanted/wished/desired. Written risk assessments are good for SMEs, but let's try to simplify the process.........now that's H&S-competent advice and beats hands down the unresearched notion that you can put all H&S requirements into one set of Regs. for SMEs. "The potential benefits to be reaped from OSH are particularly large for SMEs. Firstly, SMEs are more vulnerable to the effects of accidents or illness as they have fewer resources. Secondly, SMEs are more likely than larger companies to not have a wellestablished OSH policy. However, recent research indicates that when small companies lag behind larger companies in terms of OSH management, it is not so much due to lack of time and financial resources - these barriers are more or less equally important for small and large companies. Rather, it is about knowledge-related barriers. Thus, lack of OSH awareness and expertise, or not seeing the benefit of OSH management, plays a bigger role in smaller companies than in large ones. The financial benefits which can accrue from improved OSH management do however vary between Member States, not least due to considerable variations in insurance and social security systems (for instance, the extent to which employers are obliged to offer sick pay). This leads to very different cost/benefit structures which may again affect the level of motivation to invest in improved OSH. This could indicate that the differences in national context call for specific national arguments towards employers rather than a 'standardised' EU approach. In other words, it may be best left to the Member States to design their own OSH policies fitting their national systems, rather than to try to set up a common EU system. This is, in fact, recognised in the Community strategy 2007-2012 on health and safety, which largely leaves it up to the Member States to define and implement their own national strategies. Although it is not possible to quantify the potential financial benefits of OSH, it is clear that they can be significant. The obligatory written risk assessment is a key element in OSH management, and completely eliminating the requirement for a written risk assessment for the smallest companies, as proposed in the Commission’s Action plan for reduction of administrative burden, may have a detrimental effect on the level and quality of OSH in small companies. The proposed measure is therefore assessed as not feasible in its current form. Instead, introducing risk-based approaches, based on the specific risks associated with sectors and types of companies, preferably combined with simplified procedures for the smallest companies, seems a more productive way forward."

Thanks for the detailed response, part of my aim was to highlight this study to show the level of professionalism that should be exercised in these issues. However you will see in the summary that they are considering a further study into the area of reducing the burden. The EU Action Programme on reducing administrative burdens in the European Union, presented by the Commission in 2009, proposed eight measures for reducing administrative burdens in the priority area Working Environment. These proposals were the background for this study. Of the proposals put forward, two have already been adopted. The remaining six proposals are still under preparation. Of these six, the proposal relating to exemption of very small firms from having to produce a written risk assessment is by far the most controversial since the obligation to produce a written risk assessment is one of the cornerstones of the legislation. The proposal is questioned or outright rejected by most experts, and the consequences of such a measure will therefore undergo in-depth study and consideration by the Commission before any action is taken.

Cormac, thanks.....ROFL!

Asking the EU partners for advice on reducing the burden ! Ask the cat to mind the mice ? The biggest "burden", from a biz "study" was the implementation of the working time directive, from memory 18 billion pounds sterling over a decade. That came from the EU. Risk assessment for small biz is small pennies, and for very small biz not even that since they do not have to produce written assessments. Statutory sick pay does not hit small biz, the gov pays it back (one way or another) and if they do not pay it then it can be claimed directly from the gov. Loss of staff due to accidents/illness a burden ? Not with millions unemployed, don't forget...small biz is mainly responsible for the "cash-in-hand-wage".....so no sick pay....just another person to do the job. The biggest admin burden in the EU ......... IS the EU.