Heather Re: post 50 - isnt this "he "red tape challenge" which was started several months ago, or is that something else being done by another department, i honestly dont know/ http://www.redtapechalle...ffice.gov.uk/home/index/ Des

"How many hair places, garages, small builders and the such like will end up doing the same to get round H&S law? Needs a careful approach to avoid statements such as: "I'm not an employer, we are just three self-employed people working together on this fragile roof".... " As said before, you cannot "go" self employed and continue in the same job in the majority of cases. HMRC have quite stringent regulations on self-employment, and the penalties for infringement can be very severe (one I know personally had to declare bankruptcy to avoid selling his house). Not only that, the penalties can go back at least six years, and in the case of deliberate fraud...longer. The way of thinking about it is to consider the window cleaner (!) Does he/she clean a lot of peoples windows ? Yes ? Self employed. Does he/she clean one office block continuously (forth bridge job) ? Yes ? NOT self employed. Does the "employer" supply the material/tools/building ? Yes ? Highly likely to not be applicable for self employment. Note that in many cases the revenue will receive tip-offs from other paye employees. As for Mr Camerons letter: Mr Lofstedt. Thank you for your report. We will consider your recommendations in the coming years. However, we are minded to invoke any considerations towards restricting access to legal advice and action immediately. The DWP has produced figures showing the savings the government made in the previous years by people becoming not-living shortly before they became able to claim the state pension. Some 63 thousand died at an early enough age. This represented a considerable saving to the state. Much greater savings could be made if workplace health and safety could be reduced still further. Yours sincerely David (call me Dave)

There appears to be some disagreement regarding self-employed people being exempt from h&s legisalation. The wording used in the Lofstedt report states 'no potential risk'. There is no such thing as 'no risk' and therefore I susepct it means 'low risk' - just semantics. In principle I do not see an issue with this recommendation taken on face value. Not quite sure how it would in pactice. Most h&s duties are specifically aimed at the employer and not the individual ie employee or self-employed. The employer would still owe a duty to protect self-employed workers as per s3.(1) HSWA. From a regulatory perspective s3.(2) and 3.(3) apply to self-employed workers. These Sections would need amending to cater for the recommendation or alternatively it would stay on the statute but not enforced by the regulators unless there was a clear breach, for instance, a self-employed worker being engaged in high risk activities. It has been suggested that some unscrupulous employers would use this change in policy to reduce their laibility by declaring those working under them as a self-employed. Indeed, some do already. However, in reality the employer still has the same duties to protect them as they do an employee under h&s law, save for a few exceptions. Perhaps an ACoP could make this duty clearer as there is often confusion with this aspect of the law at present. With respect to self-employed workers providing risk assesments and other h&s documentation, if those exempt are carrying out low-risk activities I can hardly see what use RAs would be anyway. Most RAs I have seen from self-employed workers are not very good, generic documents begged, stolen or borrowed. Frankly most are not worth the paper they are written on.

Post #80 Ron This is normal procedure; Lofstetd's Report would have been delivered to the Minister well in advance of the official publication date. This would allow for a "measured" Govt. response. Similar to PM Questions, table a question in advance so that they are prepared for it and can therefore provide their qualified answer. Democracy in action? Jon

Moves are already underway with another Chope Bill by way of the introduction of his "Low Hazard Workplaces (Risk Assessment Exemption) Bill " 2010-11. My mole tells me 2nd reading is on 20th January 2011. Jon

http://services.parliame...assessmentexemption.html Andy

It is a Private Member’s Bill and with the added aspect of debating the magnitude of hazard, I cannot see this getting much support. It will find its own way into the long grass!

Steadman Yes I am only too well aware of the difficulties of the passage of Private members Bills. However, there is no guarantee that it will not hurdle the second reading and make progress. The Health and Safety Offences Act has its genesis in a PM Bill as indeed does the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 This coalition lot flock together and I woud not be at all surprised that we will be hearing a lot more of Chope in 2012. The Young and Lofstedt reports together with their proposals are just preparatory tools. Wake up all Safety Bods - the corporate barons and Coalition forces are are ahead of the game here. J