On the HSE website Hmmm how many tradesmen reading that might THINK their work poses no potential risk to the health and safety of other workers or members of the public, and not further consult the HSE guidance? Hmmm most journalists I know work a lot outdoors, drive fast, use photographic equipment and DSE, and often 'work' in other people's workplaces ..... Most confectioners I know use mixing machines that mix sugar and flavours with hot syrupy liquids, and use machines/presses that make small sweets, and employ young unskilled assistants when they are busy If they mean a confectionery shop, well most them are on high streets, they allow members of the public to enter, they use ladders, floors get slippy when it's raining, they have just one fire exit at the back, and have lots of boxes in the rear hall and in the back yard, and employ young unskilled assistants when they are busy Most on-line traders I know have a big garage or even a warehouse that has frequent deliveries from traffic reversing onto premises, they use ladders and lifting equipment or employ young unskilled assistants when they are busy requiring lots of manual handling, and use lots of packing materials and knives

Route66, I don't expect many of the "risk-free 1.7 million" will ever get as far as reading the detail that you have. The message most will get via the press is what the HSE said above and is on this page: http://www.hse.gov.uk/self-employed/ Few will ever find out what the link explains http://www.hse.gov.uk/se...ed/what-the-law-says.htm

You're correct, it serves no purpose, other than enabling DC and his cronies to put a big tick in a box.

John, I'd say the answer is yes. Based on the fact that it doesn't apply, 'if no-one else is at risk'. As with a lot of other H&S law cases, the fact that someone does get hurt means that they must have been at risk, de-facto the self employed individual was operating outside the exemption; they may have thought they were covered by it, but the fact that some gets hurt means they were clearly not.

I think that about sums it up!

But it is only the one person show that could even start to think about a possible exemption - just take on one other person to help and you are not self employed but also an employer. So then the exemptions can never apply. A family run shop is not self employment therefore by my reckoning!

This whole process has been very interesting to me as our profession is touched by a phenomenon well known is the world of politics. The unnecessary law passed to increase the popularity of a government that serves little of no purpose and can be actively detrimental. The dangerous dogs act is held up as a classic example of this and I wonder if this law will come to be viewed more generally in the same way. Sadly in a democracy a government will often seek to legislate for popularity more than improving the country. As Churchill may or may not have said, "democracy is the worst possible form of government, apart from all the others that have been tried". Enough Friday pontificating!

Some have ignored H&S law since the act was passed. Mainly the "self-employed" [sic]

I'd like to see the evidence though; I don't know these 'many' who were thinking to do risk assessments because the law said so and who are now not bothering because the law does not say so. In addition I tend to think the HSE do not have nearly enough resources to enforce health and safety laws with the many self employed who work outside business/industry. Regards

Then write to your MP and advise him/her accordingly and please do come back and let us know what reply you got. Regards