I don't agree with your sentiments!

Rich

I agree with your sentiments Mikec,

The conservative party, prior to the election used just about every piece of rubbish from the daily mail to talk down H&S and to gain votes.

When Lord Youngs review found little wrong with the legislation suddenly we have another review (how much are these reviews costing by the way!). The conservatives have all but blamed the whole countries woes on H&S and apparently it seems that becuase the private sector isnt picking up the slack left from the mass sackings in the public sector that is because of 'red tape'!

The whole red tape challenge has done nothing but bring out the uneducated opinions of people which the conservatives can use to their advantage to try to relax safety laws (its like turkeys voting for christmas!)

I ask these questions... if this review (and previous reviews) is about improving safety in this country, why have both reviews been led by people with a vested interest in the business world? why has the HSE's funding been cut prior to the review taking place? and why have I not heard one single positive comment about H&S since may 2010!

My God there are stil some who believe PAT testing is a legal requirement, it is not. The legal need is to ensure that portable equipment is electrically safe to use by checking that it is fit to use not test it every year as some PAT testers like to lead people to beleive. The HSE has published a guide to electrical testing and it does not support anual testing only regular checks that the kit is safe to use. As to the Lord Young and the second bite of the cherry the Tories have decided is needed, it is simply playing politics with the H&S issue in the hope that it will result in reducing the so called burden. Proper H&S management will reduce the burden if it is applied correctly. I have copies of every piece of legislation listed on the Government website and some of it is so specific I ask the question 'if it is withdrawn how do we ensure the risks/issues that the specific legislation covered is not left open to an increase in accidents and illness?'

bob...have a look at the red tape challenge. There are some postive posts but also a ot of garbage about having to PAt test and 'H&S rules' stoping kids doing work experince. I know waht ones David Cameron wil lhave published

..Threinsurance companies are benefiting .... i argued the case for PAT testing... the office has fixed computer stations all new last year and they will not provide us with insurance until we provide them with a cetrificate of PAT testing for all electrical equipment in the office...

Bob - I was trained that you can test computers on a much lower setting!

Am I completely wrong here...
Legislation simply says that portable electrical items need to be visually inspected at an interval highlighted from a risk assessment.
Consideration needs to be given to the use and the areas in which it is being used.
"PAT" certification is just one method of inspection and testing that has been recognised by most, however, if you can demonstrate that a different method is both reasonable and practicable, then there is no issue.
Part of the recognised PAT test can cause damage to computers, however, this part of the test can be removed from the process.
The power lead IS important as this is the part that can be damaged more easily than any others, but don't forget that inside the casing there is quite a hefty transformer..
Wishing you all happy testing...

Mike C

On the 1st December 2009 David Cameron – now Prime Minister - stated at the offices of Policy Exchange that:

‘I’m sure the rise of this over-the-top health and safety culture is one of the reasons why people feel so angry and frustrated with politics in our country today.’

I can think of a few others. I have written to the Prime Minister twice asking what the other reasons might be but his assistant said that Mr Cameron was to busy to reply.

While highlighting this public anger at the damage that health and safety has done to politics – ie making the UK one of the safest places to work - Mr Cameron went on to say:

‘Instead we need a forensic examination of what has gone wrong and the steps we need to take to put it right.’

This ‘forensic examination’ started with the Daily Mail and the Policy Exchange Report: Health and Safety: Reducing the Burden. This report was so badly written and researched, the IOSH comments drawing attention to the vast array of mistakes was nearly as long as the right wing Policy Exchange Report itself!! David Young wrote a forward to the report stating that it was ‘designed to establish some basic facts’, many of which turned out to be inaccurate!

The ‘forensic examination’ over a few months was revealed in Common Sense Common Safety by David Young – foreword by Prime Minister David Cameron. A more accurate title could have been Common Sense Common Fallacy. Various worthy bodies were consulted but it's David Young's report.

At no point was the ‘burden’ of those injured, made ill or killed by work considered. There was no ‘proportionate, sensible or transparent’ analysis of the benefits of regulation contrasted with costs of implementation. It was completely one sided, in line with a political report where many of the recommendations had already been decided before the review.

Where is the evidence that consultants have been giving wholesale bad advice to British employers? There wasn’t any substantive evidence presented in the report. Well – David Young recommended - let’s set up a register anyway because it is ‘common sense’ it must do some good. There are plenty more recommendations where ‘common sense’ is a substitute for convincing evidence.

So now we’ve got till the 29th July to get our evidence in about 200 statutory instruments. Thankfully I hung onto my copy of the HSC Review of Health and Safety Regulation published in 1994. It will be very helpful in addressing this issue yet again.

For those of you that have forgotten, each regulation and ACoP was assessed by one of seven sector task groups, each chaired by a prominent business person. The process started in 1992 and concluded in 1994: 2 years as opposed to the current 3 month review - and there were more regulations to get through then! No 'burden' of health and safety regulation on employers was found. Exactly like David Young's fruitless attempts at finding the elusive 'burden' in 1984 and 1986.

The Minister responsible in 1994, Michael Forsyth, was able to claim that 40% of legislation was removed. This was the cause of some merriment for those involved with the review, like myself. Most of the legislation ‘removed’ was outdated, forgotten and unknown by many people, including the regulators.

Oh the cheers of British Industry and small employers as the Flax and Tow Spinning and Weaving Regulations 1907 were repealed. Who could forget the whoops of joy as the ‘burden’ of the ‘Red Tape’ Celluloid Regulations 1921 was lifted from the entrepreneurial shoulders. Or the sounds of breaking chains that held back British employers from taking on the World economy as the Magnesium (Grinding of Castings and Other Articles) Special Regulations 1946 bit the dust.

What about a review that looks at how we can make complying with regulations effective? We could start with the 60% of employers the HSE estimate do not consult with their employees about matters affecting their health and safety. Which is, of course, illegal.

Cheers.

Nigel

My concern with the review is that it will in some away try to ‘exempt’ SME from H&S regulations on the grounds that the current regs are too onerous for them and not proportional, as there seems to be an assumption that all regs apply to all businesses.
I assumed that risk assessment was used to decide what applies and how (goal driven regulation anyone) and this leads to a number of interesting scenarios. At what point as a company expands does it fall under the remit to full H&S regs. What happens if an employee in one of these companies is injured and cannot take his employer to court as while another person who has an identical accident but a for a slightly larger employer can sue. Is that discrimination, which is against the Human Rights Act?
Some businesses might even look at breaking up their business in to smaller units, so that each one can be classed as an SME and so take advantage of the H&S breaks.

NigelB: yet again, you've hit the nail on the head.

Looking at Lofstedd: he's after concrete 'evidence' i.e. quantitative information, whereas the politicians are consistently responding to badly collected qualitative information e.g. from Policy Exchange, BCC etc.

Whatever happened to well-researched qualitative information? e.g. professionally-run focus groups targeting professionals in the consulting arena, HSE/LAs etc.

Most of us who advise on H&S realise that it is primarily an influencing job, so although I don't have any concrete evidence for Lofstedd, the opinions we all have on what we see 'out in the field' are still valid (and it sounds like there is a consensus on this forum that this 'red tape burden' is a huge myth).

I could not agree more the views on here.

Remember consulted with HSE, IOSH etc does not me listened to. The HSE was probably just told accept 35% cuts and be positive about it, otherwise it will be 60%. God knows what if anything they told IOSH.

But I'm sure that when they get rid of the "Coal and Other Mines (Horses) Order 1956 (S.I. 1956/1777)" new businesses will start springing up everywhere.

A Kurdziel
You're right - particularly in uncertain times, people want to be 'told what to do' rather than make judgements on risk themselves...hence all these simplified calls for 'straightforward' 'common sense' 'proportionate' law (and other such buzz-words). Of course, when it comes from politicians and the press it's just pandering to the masses.

Unfortunately I find that legal advisers and insurers can stoke up the 'fear factor' and ignore the right of the employer to say 'I think I'm doing enough' (SFRP).
I've never found out why when this happens it seems to give H&S people a bad name rather than those that are the source of such scaremongering advice.

Redken

I could provide a substantial list of regulations which I think have little benefit given the resources which go into complying with those regulations. However, hand on heart, I could not say they would not have a negative effect on someone.

Yes, the DSE Regs would be on my list, but I'm sure others would disagree. Top of my list is the Site Waste Management Plans Regulations 2008 - what are they all about! Ok, not exactly h&s legislation per se. I would also do away or amend the MHSWR Regulation 3 - risk assessments. They are in the main a waste of time and effort, give me a SSoW any day. I can feel the guns being loaded...

quote=RayRapp]Redken

I could provide a substantial list of regulations which I think have little benefit given the resources which go into complying with those regulations. However, hand on heart, I could not say they would not have a negative effect on someone.

Yes, the DSE Regs would be on my list, but I'm sure others would disagree. Top of my list is the Site Waste Management Plans Regulations 2008 - what are they all about! Ok, not exactly h&s legislation per se. I would also do away or amend the MHSWR Regulation 3 - risk assessments. They are in the main a waste of time and effort, give me a SSoW any day. I can feel the guns being loaded...

Bob I think you'll find that the new generation of PA Testing equipment are generally PC safe.

Those who are referring to DSE Regs seem to discount that the purpose is to reduce the impact of long term conditions that are not obvious now, although research carried out by IOM indicates not much impact

Also, there is a serious proposal at European level to combine the Manual Handling and Dispplay Screen Directives into an "Ergonomics at Work" directive.

In my view, the DSE regs are perhaps the easiest to implement and least onerous, unless we want to return to stone-age health & safety!

Refer to:- Evaluation of the success in Great Britain of the Directive on minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment-A comparative assessment of the 1997 and 2007 evaluations

http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr622.pdf


DSE research reports:-
http://www.hse.gov.uk/msd/dse/rrintro.htm


An interesting one :-
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr561.pdf