Ian, why ask self employed for risk assessments when they may not be a legal requirement? Surely that is in breach of the spirit of Loftstedt? I know the question has to be asked about how they determine they are low risk - would that need a risk assessment? I am self employed - H&S consultant. Would I be asked for a risk assessment if I worked on your site?

Well said Ray! Can I suggest you start another thread addressed to IOSH president requesting exactly that.

quote=RayRapp] Furthermore, I note in the SHP online article two pernicious initiatives following on from the report. First, a so-called 'challenge panel' from 1st January which will allow businesses to get decisions of health and safety inspectors overturned immediately if they have got it wrong. This initiative is not obvious within the report and it seems the DWP/ Government have put their own spin on the report already. Is this the same Government which is condoning the HSE to charge for enforcement notices? Talk about mixed messages. Quite agree - On the basis that the report is all about evidence, is there evidence that inspectors are getting it wrong sufficiently to warrant this costly "challenge panel". It appears that before the ink has dried on Professor Lofstedt's report, the Government are still trying to intervene in matters they clearly have no knowledge of. I do hope that respected organisations like IOSH take the opportunity to rebuke the Government for continually asking the question - until they get the answer they are looking for. Enough is enough.

Little or no change, unless perhaps you work in Local Authority Enforcement - some significant proposals there and real allegations of disproportionate enforcement. This 'challenge panel' thing I believe harks back to concerns that "officials" routinely cite "health and safety reasons" for something not being allowed or something not being done. I believe that is the intended focus (although hardly worthy of a central goverment function), and nothing really to do with matters of enforcement. I expect more to come out of the planned 2013 Directive review. We may ultimately see something of substance arising from that. Revocation of the Display Screens Directive would be good (not the correct Directive title but you'll get the jist that we could live without DSE Regs).

Chris, I'd be very dissapointed if you came to one of my sites and didn't give me a risk assessment, you're a risk assessor!

Steve, perhaps 'challenge' the Government would have been a more politically acceptable phrase. Without wishing to appear facetious, working with Government does not appear to be very fruitful. Maybe it's time for a review of the philosophy and tactics?

I heard the Radio 4 PM with Eddy Mair between Prof. Lofstedt and Richard Jones yesterday. Although Prof Lofstedt himself is very clear that only low risk activities for self employed should be exempt, I personally feel that he has not realised the nightmare this will create for the enforcing authorities in differentiating between the low and higher risks. Also, he seemed to imply that the definition of self-employed should be made clearer?? Richard did highlight IOSH's concern regarding the impct on HSE for all the extra work it has to do i.e. reviewing the ACoPs, consolidating sector specific regulations, directing LA enforcement activities, etc in light of the cuts HSE has to make--The prof was very clear that resources must be provided, but there is very little in the report that highlights that HSE is heavily under-funded and under-resourced! I am disappointed that the report did not include the effect of "supply chain" requirements of large organisations whose "certified quality and health & safety management systems" also requires "paperwork" for getting onto approved contractor lists for provision of goods & services that has a disproportionate impact on SME's and self-employed-nothing directly to do with regulations as there already are exemptions for not recording risk assessments for Employers of less than 5 employees and also the self employed. It is starnge that the review did not try to dig deeper into "the why" when this exemption already exists ( note the exemption is regarding recording of the significant risks I very much welcome the aspect that "the original intention of the pre-action protocol standard disclosure list is clarified and restated" His second part of the recommendation from the same theme "that regulatory provisions which impose strict liability should be reviewed by June 2013 and either qualified with ‘reasonably practicable’ where strict liability is not absolutely necessary or amended to prevent civil liability from attaching to a breach of those provisions" is challenging

I think that in this day and age, it better to influence the government by being "constructive" rather than to simply oppose it. I am dissapointed that apart from IOSH and ROSPA, no other health and safety professional body or organisation has so far responded to the report in the form of a press release. In the distant past, there was one personality that indeed did things differently, James Tye of Bristish Safety Council. No doubt that in those days, it worked partially, but even British Safety Council and IIRSM, his legacy have moved on.

Redken, Sorry I didn't make myself clear, it was an attempt at humour. If I hired Chris, it would be to carry out risk assessments.

It appears that there is not response so far from the main representatives of British Industry, i.e. Confedertion of British Industry, British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses, despite the so called business burden of Health & Safety Regulation! As far as I am aware, only the Engineering Employers Federation has responded.

The total number of Regulations may well be reduced by 50% but for most businesses they will have to comply with the same (remaining) 50% that they do now. The old, redundant and out of date ones to be revoked will make up the 50% reduction, thus making great headlines for politicians but no real change for most of us and our employers or clients. The Red Tape Challenge will be trumpeted as successful by the HMG Press Office.

Very pleased to know that IOSH has a potential influencing role in the in a European Union-wide review of health and safety regulations http://www.iosh.co.uk/ne...ews/iosh_in_eu_role.aspx

Historically British Governments have been notoriously good at drafting new legislation, but poor at clearing away the old (out of date) ones even when they have had well publicised initiatives such as in 1993 when Neil Hamilton was specifically appointed by the PM for this task. If you also look at the time taken to introduce the Corporate Manslaughter Act British Governments are also not good at handling changes to H&S legislation. I cannot see where the resources are to complete this current initiative so I fall into the ‘cannot see much changing camp’!

Ken Not sure what the relevance of the article and prosecution is to the original topic of this thread? If it is the prosecution of a self-employed roofer, he was prosecuted as an employer pursuant to s2(1) and doing high risk work he would not come under the ambit of Lofstedt's 'self-employed, low-risk worker' exempt from h&s law.

Not a chance [of leaving the EU] None of the major parties have any interest in doing so. Dave never vetoed anything, since no treaty existed to veto. And in any case, financial matters are dealt with by the procedure known as "qualified majority voting" so he could have vetoed that until the cows came home and would still have made little difference. He also cannot repatriate powers.... And we'll get no referendum, and even if we did the government is not obliged to pay the result any attention. And.....if we leave the EU I don't think the French will be willing to use our carriers, so they [it] will be floating around with a load of helos' on-board....the harriers cannot go back, we've sold them.