According to The Press Association, the Government is to continue reviewing H&S laws: http://www.google.com/ho...Id=N0108771300628787848A As part of this, the review is to be chaired by the above gentleman. Who is he, and has anyone had any dealings with him either at HQ or more widely in the safety community? I have briefly read his biography and it appears to be slanted towards business/insurance risk, rather than an understanding of the philosophy and morality underpinning health and safety laws.

Unless we get something from the DWP website, this is surprising as the "progress report", apparently dated today does not refer to it. "Common Sense, Common Safety – progress report Government departments’ progress on health and safety reforms March 2011" http://www.dwp.gov.uk/do...scs-progress-21mar11.pdf On the other hand, the reduction in HSE routine inspections by a third has been previously reported and it could be that the HSE is consulting on the matter. It is very clear from the progress report that unless there is a change at EC Directive level that grants exemptions, for all the rhetoric, it cannot be done-copied below From reading his details, i.e "a believer in the building of public trust in regulators and industry via proactive risk communication and argues that high regulatory/industry trust is equivalent to low public perceived risk" he is better qualified than his predecessor"

A Point of order before you discuss this further, please avoid any statements that could be deemed in breach of FR 9, by sticking to verifiable facts about the individual. Thanks

Yossarian, It is premature to comment until specific details are known. There is no press release as yet on the DWP website, except on the front page at the very end there is a paragraph ie. "Reviewing health and safety legislation- The Government has established an Independent Review of Health and Safety legislation to make proposals for simplifying the existing raft of health and safety legislation. This review - under the chairmanship of leading risk management specialist Professor Ragnar Löfstedt - is due to make recommendations to Ministers by autumn 2011" http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/health-and-safety/ The Guardian has reported more--to look at gold plating of implementation of EU Directives etc. This has been there all the time and only those who do not understand or know the difference between regulations, ACoPs and guidance are the ones who have this view! http://www.guardian.co.u...ty-inspections-cut-third

The DWP website has now got a press release:- http://www.dwp.gov.uk/ne...mar-2011/dwp030-11.shtml

Fair enough stevie40, but I would also expect to see Professors of Moral Philosophy & Law on such a review panel. After all, we wouldn't want to see a business not having an emergency plan for dealing with the aftermath of a major incident to the wider community on the scale of say Bhopal or Flixborough, purely because it was not cost effective in terms of that business.

Having just rear through the document 'Good Health and Safety, Good for Everyone'; my first thoughts are that this is a much better thought out review than last year's. The summary on page 12 does seem to make sense to me. It makes it clear (in my opinion) that it is not just about getting rid of a raft of legislation in order to 'simplify' things. However, I do still have a slight concern over the timescales involved - released in the spring, recommendations published by the autumn.

Don't worry, I won't. Just trying to put a positive spin on it. Maybe playing devil's advocate. We'll see. Like I say, the one thing that does concern me is that once again, they seem to have a very tight timescale for such a comprehensive review.

Have a look at this! Ragnar E. Löfstedt is Professor of Risk Management and the Director of King’s Centre of Risk Management, King’s College London, UK where he teaches and conducts research on risk communication and management. Previously he was a Reader in Social Geography at the University of Surrey, UK. He is also an adjunct Professor at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health where he co-directs the Risk Communication Challenge Course for continuing education professionals with Mr. David Ropeik, he is Adjunct Professor at the Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, and he is a Visiting Professor at the Centre for Public Sector Research, Gothenburg University, Sweden. Dr. Löfstedt earned his BA and MA degrees at University of California Los Angeles (1988) and Clark University (1991), respectively, before completing his PhD in geography at Clark University (1993). After a post-doctorate position at the Risk, Society and Policy Group at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) (Laxenburg, Austria), he joined the University of Surrey as a lecturer in social geography. He has conducted research in risk communication and management in such areas as renewable energy policy, transboundary environmental issues (acid rain and nuclear power), telecommunications, biosafety, and the siting of building of incinerators, nuclear waste installations and railways. He is a believer in the building of public trust in regulators and industry via proactive risk communication and argues that high regulatory/industry trust is equivalent to low public perceived risk. Dr. Löfstedt is the author/editor of ten books and over 90 peer reviewed articles/book chapters, is the editor-in-chief for Journal of Risk Research, editor of the Earthscan publications' Risk, Society and Policy book series, and is on the editorial boards of International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, Journal of Health Communication, Risk Analysis and Risk Management. He is on the Society for Risk Analysis-Europe's Executive Committee and is the previous chair of the Society for Risk Analysis' Risk Communication Specialty Group. He is on the Academic Advisory Board of the UK National Patient Safety Agency, the Scientific Advisory Board of the UK Environment Agency, member of the European Food Safety Authority’s Advisory Group on Risk Communications and the Swiss National Science Foundation’s expert group on non-ionizing radiation. He is a senior advisor to the City of Vienna on risk communication and nuclear power and to the City of Gothenburg on climate change. His work has been funded by the European Science Foundation, European Union, the National Science Foundation, the Swedish Council for the Planning and Coordination of Research (FRN) and UK EPSRC. He has given invited lectures on risk communication and management issues at Cambridge, Harvard Business School, Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Law School, Jet Propulsion Laboratories-Cal Tech, MIT, NASA Head Quarters, Oxford, Princeton, and Yale School of Management. He has consulted widely for industry and regulators including Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), NASA, National Grid plc, Shell Oil, the State of Baden Wurttemberg (Germany), Swedish Chemical Industry Association, the Swedish Chemical Inspectorate, and Vattenfall AB. He is presently advising BBC News on how the corporation should communicate risk to the general public. In December 2000 Ragnar Löfstedt was awarded (as the first non American) the Chauncey Starr Award for exceptional contributions to the field of risk analysis for someone under the age of 40 by the Society for Risk Analysis and in 2005 he was made a Fellow of the Society for Risk Analysis. Why oh why has this coalition lot engaged this guy. I see no reference to NEBOSH or NVQ or health and safety advisor competence in his pedigree. Similar to Lord Young I guess. I wonder what Professor Frank B. Wright (home produced) is thinking right now. Undoubtedbly, the best man to undertake such a review. Jon

Bring on the four horsemen...

Dear All I wonder why esteemed members of this venerable institute are not being consulted ?

Where is the evidence that current UK Health and Safety Legislation is stiffing economic growth? The powers that be bandy about "common sense " approach to H&S. If it existed there would be no need for our profession - "Good Sense" is what we need to preach. Lets not forget where most deaths and serious injuries occur in the work place - not the large employers who except that good H&S means good morale which means good productivity which means profit. Accidents and injury in the workplace are caused by the greedy and inept employer who does not take any notice of legislation - so by cutting legislation / burden of red tape, who isthis going to help? Whilst I have no political affiliation to any party - does it not look like the present government is trying to put us back in time and look after its fund donators yet again? Rant over - but I don't believe I am the only Safety Professional that thinks this way By the way I believe we started the recent riots in the Middle East!

Jay - I've taken a look at the link you posted. Is the regulation being referred to by the FSB employment regulation rather than H&S regulation per se. That's how I read it anyway. Overall - I'm really struggling to see what real H&S benefit any of this government debate will bring. The majority of views I have read have been largely unsupportive / sceptical of what is going on. Me too. As some have already commented - it appears we are the root of all evil !