Hmmm,
If I were a cynical person I might think it was more likely to be tax and national insurance that got in the way.

Good thing I'm not a cynic. ;-)

Agreed... but I can't see them cutting the burden of tax, getting loans from banks and NI for employees, so lets blame H&S for eveything

I hope this next review puts and end to all this but somehow I don't think it will

I decided when I read it this morning to decipher the statistics as:

- 72% (4 out of 5) of sole traders don't see H&S as a a major burden to taking on their 1st employee.

- 53 per cent of businesses it questioned as part of a recent survey didn't identify health and safety “yellow tape”* as a burden.

Still haven't read the article but wonder why SHP would print an article that is negative re health and safety?

Yes they make all sorts of unreasonable demands that you do not kill, maim or otherwise make ill you employees or other people in the course of your business. Isn't that why you pay employees danger money and the NHS exists to pick up the pieces?

Although I'm clearly being sarcastic, it is merely the logical conclusion of the type of thinking going on here.

This is the British Chambers of Commerce mouthing off again. They have launched a campaign today on their own webpages and a similar piece has appeared in our local paper. It is partially an attempt to justify their existence to their own membership by playing the “if your business is failing you can blame H&S card” and partially to do with the setting out the line that they will be taking in relation to the Löfstedt review on which they will have seat.
Health and safety regulations to be streamlined and simplified to reduce costs and make legislation more effective;

The points that they have raised can all be demolished quite easily:
1. “Regulations to be tailored to the risk level of the workplace to reduce the burden on low-risk businesses;” well that’s the point of risk assessment then, which is at the core of modern H&S and it is what these people seem to find difficult to get their heads around.
2. “The self-employed to be exempt from certain health and safety legislation, as recommended by the 2006 Davidson review;” Which regs and what is a 'small' business and if they hope to grow and develop, when do the join us in the grown up world and do what the rest of us have to do?
3. “The elimination of any instances of EU health and safety directives duplicating existing domestic regulations and imposing extra burdens on business” We do not duplicate EU directives they have to be transposed in to UK law to any validity- they just don’t understand the process.

Nigel

I can't recall what the initial response was from IOSH with regards to the Lofstedt review, but here was an opportunity for IOSH to make a stand by saying - if you want a proper review then let's have one to include the impact of not just specific legislation, but all health and safety legislation and associated practices. A missed opportunity perhaps?

Bob

Absolutely. Over the years some bits of pre Health and Safety at Work Act law get repealed or absorbed into new leglslation. This is generally done in a considered way, through a consultation where the impact can be assessed.

20% of the statutory 'burden' could be removed at a stroke. Around 40 statutory instruments out of the 200 relate to coal and other mines. If these were consolidated, say the Coal and other Mines Regulations 2012, the legislative 'burden' would be cut by 20%. However the law regarding coal and other mines is in one book instead of your ring binder. But there again it is of little interest to those outside of 'coal and other mining'. Those in 'coal and other mining' presumably know it. As business does not like change, maybe it would be best to leave it alone.

I'm still trying to find any 'Red Tape Challenge' comments that justify any repeal or modification of the law. Most relate to observations or reproductions of arguments first aired by the Daily Mail. To be fair there have been some useful comments in among the dross.

I come back to a point I made some time ago on this topic in a meeting. When I get into a car, I do not need to know the BSI or CEN or ISO standard for how many times the indicator flashes per minute; or the lighting standards for the headlights; or the safety specification for the windscreen or the height of the bonnet to protect pedestrians in an impact. I do need to know how to steer and drive it. While some use may come out of the review, it is difficult to see anything radical. Perhaps if David Young had taken as much interest in how employers and employees could be helped to comply with the law, we might be in a better position.

Ray

I think you're right that an opportunity was missed. However right on cue IOSH has just launched its Li£e Saving initiative. So good health and safety practices can save money as well as people. As the Policy Exchange Report Health and Safety: Reducing the Burden, Young Report nor the Lofstedt Review has improving health and safety standards at their centre, perhaps this should be the central thrust of the IOSH submission and be flexible in interpreting the remit.

Cheers.

Nigel

Nigel

Not convinced me and this latest IOSH initiative reminds me of a previous HSE mantra - good safety means good business. Not enough deck chairs on the Titanic springs to mind. Nevertheless, it may appeal to large organisations, but I don't believe that SMEs will be seduced by the rhetoric.

Bob, just telling it as it is.

Most people only comply with the law for the fear of being detected and prosecuted. The same principle applies with SMEs, except that they are less likely to be caught, when they are it is usually only a ticking off from the regulator unless a serious incident occurs and when they are prosecuted they usually get a meagre fine. Until we address these matters all the pontification in the world is not going to make SMEs compliant.

A family member emailed me the other week to say that he has a EHO inspector visiting his premises and could I supply him with X,Y, & Z documents. I asked how he knew what documents he needed. His reply, "I was sent a list by the EHO inspector of what they want to check." Some proactive inspection that was! So, after many years of non-compliance he now gets a good boy badge. No wonder he is laughing his head off and saying health and safety is a load of crap...shame I can't disagree with him.

Nigel

As I have previously stated, a proper and impartial review of all health and safety regulations and practices without a political influence is well overdue. Unfortunately I think, at least for the time being, we have missed the boat. Objective evidence for the pros and cons will be difficult and time consuming to produce. Even though we have seen a steady reduction in injuries and fatalities since the introduction of HSWA and EU transposed Directives, much of these are the result of less manual and high risk activities as we have moved to softer type industries.

The Lofstedt review has already made an assumption that health and safety is a burden, where the word is used ubiquitously within the report. Not a good start for a proper review. Despite Prof lofstedt's credentials in risk management what does he know about occupational health and safety practices. I will be responding and trying to give a balanced view by highlighting negative and positive comments.

Of course, it could be that we are getting what we deserve. In my opinion health and safety has become overly prescriptive and onerous. There are far too many overly zealous practices in a effort to eliminate every element of risk in activities. By way of evidence for my assertions you only have to read the comments on these forums to see that. The HSE are the biggest hypocrites - promoting sensible safety whilst not promulgating it with sensible and proportionate guidance, enforcement and prosecution.

HSWA is desperately in need over a thorough review to remove or amend some anti-dolphin sections. However, the powers that be often praise it for the 'success' it has been. For example, the need for organisations, particularly small businesses, to have a health and safety policy emanated when there was no such thing as a safety management system. Meanwhile, consultants and others produce reams of generic meaningless documents in the guise of a h&s policy and charge very nicely for it as well. People are not stupid and the small employers know 'paper safety' when they see it. From a h&s practitioners perspective it is embarrassing and I am probably as guilty as anyone else.

End of rant.