Please refer to the News Release we have issued this morning entitled "Government announcement is misleading"; it can be viewed by clicking on the News item on the Home page of the IOSH web site. Rob Strange OBE Chief Executive IOSH

They don't carry out routine inspections to low risk premises as it is...they don't carry them out for most high risk premises either! Axing or changing 3000 pieces of legislation? I wonder what Europe would say about that! As Ray rightly pointed out recently. Cutting burden on business......by introducing FFI???. hmmmmmm......

Good the IOSH have reacted swiftly to try and curb this - thanks. Its an uncomfortable time for the profession on the back of the economic climate also, there are more safety professionals looking for jobs than vacancies so there are too many in that respect but anymore than any other profession right now I doubt it. There are so many mixed messages coming out from various sources - FFI's this has created concern - in my opinion may well create jobs in a strive for better compliance in some industries. The governments push for larger companies to form Lead Authority Partnerships with LA's - then all of a sudden we see a disappearance of LA Regulators and a massive hush on the initiative. We have institutions of learning pulling we established safety programmes - Nottingham Trent for one. It may well be that its just another reinforcement that we have a completely inept Government that not got a clue. Everyday it seems to be something else negative to read but crack on as somebody once said.

Can anyone shed any light on the the bit about "only civil liability where negligent..." I can cope ( just about) with the tort of negligence but does that mean withdrawing the direct civil liability from regs eg CDM and Client and no h and s plan before work commences?

It would be useful if IOSH could request the DWP/DCLG Ministers to provide, under a FOI request, the proportion of these businesses that the HSE and Local Authorities actally inspect. It is a pity that despite the Lofstedt Review, there is so much spin and very little substance.

Ray what form is this amendment due to take? Is it a bill or just a statutory instrument? If I remember correctly when the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations were first introduced they were civil liability barred but following questions from the European Commission it was decided to permit individuals to sue under this legislation. You cannot sue for tort breach of duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 but that is because the general right to sue for common law negligence more or less cover the same ground. Europe might involved in this.

Please also see http://ioshblog.tumblr.c...31267893604/richardjones Kind regards, Ian Smart

No doubt others will disagree with be but all of the inspection regimes needs to be looked at, not just Health and Safety. Before I retired, from HE, it was almost the case that we have some form of inspection almost every week and I list but a few of the inspectors who had to be accommodated.. HSE General Inspectors HSE Ionising and non-Ionising Radiation Inspectors HSE Bio Safety Inspectors Environment Agency Waste inspectors Environment Agency Radiation Inspectors Local Authority Food Safety Local Authority Housing Officers Local Authority for Commercial Premises Trading Standards CTSAs Home Office Animal Inspectors Chemical Weapons Inspectors Drug Precursor Inspections Customs and Excise Fire Brigade Insurers Liquor Licencing I appreciate that not all were onsite inspections but there were still questionnaires and paper work to be processed by my office What I have not listed are the numerous other inspections that areas such as Admissions, Registry, Estates Management etc which were also subject to. The amount of paper generated has to be seen to be believed.

To A Kurdziel To pick up on some of your points Firstly I did not say to get rid of any of them, what I did say was that all of the inspection regimes needs to be looked at. Perhaps I should have said is rationalised. Admissions, Registry, Estates Management the inspections I had in mind are all at the behest of Government via QUANGOS and Agencies. Employment checks and visa applications for the Border Agency, numerous statistics for the various funding agencies such as HEFCE, all of which are subject to inspection. Taking radioactive substances as another example. Why should a small University, having only a few low level activity isotopes be subject to the same level of licencing, inspection and charging as a large hospital having many high level activity isotopes? There are many examples where the regulators seem to take the view that one cap fits all. The Human Tissue Act I think is another example where it was a knee jerk reaction to what could have been regulated in a more user friendly way. Many years ago the legislation covering the banning and destruction of PCBs, had it been enacted as it been originally written would have all but stopped any research into a number of environmental issues. Fortunately, on this occasion, government did listen for once so the final legislation was changed. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case these days