I can see where you are coming from, there has been a mass of regulation since HASAWA, although looking at legislation generally, there has also been a move towards consolidating legislation, e.g. the Equality Act. The problem is that it would be all too easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and the whole question of health and safety legislation has become political, so it depends on whether you trust the politicians.

But when you have provided solid advice in the past, have your employers always listened?

The problem is if you give an inch they take a mile, give a mile and they will be romping around on the moon.

It would be nice to think that we could have one piece of legislation that just states you should not hurt anyone by your undertakings – full stop. However, that will not work because you will get “yes but it was never meant to cover a paper cut or bruise etc”. Ok you modify it to Seriously hurt, then you have to define that or you will get widely different views on what serious means and so on until we inevitably end up where we are now.

Its only once something serious happens we discover things are not done “within the spirit” of what was intended, despite loopholes.

Before the recent disaster in London what would have been the H&S bod’s solid advice? do you recon they were even consulted about the cladding, doors, gas pipes or a myriad of other decisions.

So, no I don’t think it is a time for deregulation, but do think better and more detailed ACOPs / guidance would be better, so the opposite of what you feel. I don’t see the advantage of deregulation as it would just be one big loophole.

I have worked for employers at both ends of the scale, one who was reasonably receptive and willing to discuss H&S issues and another who was not. Deregulation would definitely not be good when working for the latter. 

Just my view of course

Chris

I have long held the view that we have failed, as a society and as a profession, to crasp the opportunity to evolve our approach to the workplace/workforce that the HASAWA presented us with. None of us would dispute that the whole world of work, and workers, has changed dramatically since 1974 and yet much of what we do is still entrenched in the processes, procedures and risks created back then (in 2011 80% of the workforce in the UK worked in the service sector). The Robens Committees findings were revoluntary for their time, but no longer meet the needs of this changed and changing world.

The answer, in my view, is the setting up of a new 'Robens Committee' as part of the brexit process to look at all aspects of health, safety,welfare and enforcement which reflects the needs and aspirations of Employers, Employees, Insurers, a Multi-cultural Society and the Legal Systems (Statute & Civil). I am sure that other forum users will have theoir own ideas on who should Chair such a committee.   

Originally Posted by: O'Donnell54548

The answer, in my view, is the setting up of a new 'Robens Committee' as part of the brexit process to look at all aspects of health, safety,welfare and enforcement which reflects the needs and aspirations of Employers, Employees, Insurers, a Multi-cultural Society and the Legal Systems (Statute & Civil). I am sure that other forum users will have theoir own ideas on who should Chair such a committee.   

Hmm, not sure if all of Robens has gone by the board by any means, though the old tri-partite order of the world has certainly changed. And I certainly wouldn't put employers first in my list of people who's needs need to be met; they're not the ones who get killed at work, generally speaking,

John

Deregulation is a concept dreamed up by government in order to appease the business community. We have seen two reports by Lord Young and Prof Loftstedt, to reduce the 'burden' on employers. One was woefully inadequate and the other just inadequate. Yet, I would fully support an independant review of health and safety and the role of the regulator. Indeed there are many initiatives which have crept into our industry and regualtions that leave a lot to be desired in my opinion - CDM 2015 springs to mind! 

Penalties for health and safety offences have increased substantially since the introduction of new guidance by the Sentencing Council in 2016, which will go a long way in ensuring a commensurate punishment and deterrent for would be offenders. Previously this was sadly lacking as many of the fines were nothing short of pathetic. Now, if we can get regulators who have the resources and the will to proactively seek out and prosecute offenders it would go a long way in ensuring health, safety and welfare is fit for the 21st century.   

The final part of the jigsaw is for IOSH, IIRSM, et al, to get their act together and to promote positive initiatives and, dare I say, to highlight negative ones, rather than feed us with bland offerings like the so-called IOSH 2020 strategy - so far the silence has been deafening. 

There is a school of thought that the law is only there for the bad boys; the good guys will already be complying. As long as, therefore, we have bad boys, in terms of those who disregard health and safety concerns, ridicule legal requirements, and generally care nothing for the wellbeing of their workforce, then we need regulations. The reports of accidents and prosecutions regularly feature such people, so the notion that we can scrap whole rafts of the law and not return to Victorian times, is a pipe dream. We need to ensure that retaining the law is the default position, not getting rid of it, until such times that we can rely on employers doing the right thing, and I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Originally Posted by: boblewis

and not regulating that which does not need regulating.  

To get my head around your argument, what H&S legislation are you thinking of when making this comment.

Also, what H&S legislation do you feel does not fit in with our legal system, as an example.

Just trying to understand your point of view.

Originally Posted by: O'Donnell54548

Increased sentences do not prevent accidents, they punish after the event. When I speak of a review of enforcement I envisage a totally radical re-think of how we promote/reward good safety practice from within the law. Also why do I put Employers first, because without them we have no workplace, and so no need for workplace safety? Without a tangible business case for occupational safety we will continue down the same roads we have travelled since 1974.

Which seems to me to be a road of steadily diminishing harm and a gradual improvement in protection...

John

At no time was the UK required or obliged to enact any specific DSE Regs. Our Legislature could have translated the requirements of the Directive into UK law in any way they chose.

I do agree that DSE requirements are entirely meaningless and entirely superfluous, as are many key players within the EU. Has we stuck around, we could have been part of the discussion to repeal  90/270/EEC. Chances are that this will happen in the EU before we get around to repealing our own DSE Regulations given the £billion cost monumental task of righting the creaking hull of the UK post-Brexit.

Originally Posted by: boblewis

As for the EU regs I think I would start with DSE regs as everything in it can be read into the general duties of care in the 1974 act.  

This is the crux of the matter for me with regard to the point above and deregulation: -

“they can, but would they”

Sorry I don’t believe a lot of companies would believe a H&S person who said after assessment that adjustable chairs and a workplace assessment are needed as part of the requirements under section 2 of the HASAWA.  

Employers seem to be able to get their head around the person on the factory floor and need for safe work place /equipment etc., but an office. I remember years ago Lord Sugar on the apprentice whinging about having to provide adjustable seating for his office people.

Don’t get me wrong I think the DSE regs need a big overhaul and things removed, even incorporated in something else. However, if we were only to rely on the main legislation, I think it would fail to protect workers. Even now you can go to many places and see people working at and sitting at wholly inappropriate workstations. But who cares, hard to bring a case that you have a bad back from sitting awkwardly at work for years. How could you possibly prove your bad back was work related. I know we could have HSE visit random companies, no wait I think that was tried and decided it was too expensive.

How many times in your life have you been asked “show me where it says I have to do that”. Shortly followed by “your risk assessment is your opinion” or words to that effect. How many have even changed employer’s due to that type of attitude.

BTW isn’t it 1 in 3 out at the moment!

Interesting debate, and wish I could read anywhere near as quickly as Ron regarding that link. 

Chris

But the new idea is not to use hearing protection but turn the bells off instead.  Seems to be a good use of eliminate to me and is perfectly covered by our goal setting HASAWA, just as many pieces of current regulation are also.

Many of these comments aren't so much de-regulation, rather than consolidation.

In essence the regulators got it wrong when they came up with the '6-pack' in the 1990's. Never any need for separate Regulations. An updated HASAWA, with sub-sections covering the 6  pack topics would have worked just as well. Plus sub-section for noise, lead, CoSHH, confined spaces, DSEAR etc

As others have said - why separate Control of Lead Regs, Noise etc.

DES should have been incorporated in to PUWER, as a 'Schedule', if it follwing the 6 pack model etc

I think the point from Bob was not consolidation necessarily, but removal of all the detail. We will then be left with everyone making up their own mind about what is suitable and sufficient, which we do with a lot of things anyway, but at least in these areas where there is detail, there is some degree of consistency. 

If you take detail out of legislation, and say put it in an ACOP, then the ACOP will have requirements that the legislation does not call for. If you put it in guidance then it is free to be ignored.

You end up with a load of smaller companies that cannot really afford a H&S consultant, but could find their way through some well written legislation / ACOP, who would then be lost. Even if they can’t quite get their head around it, they will get more of a view and be able to challenge consultant’s opinions!

My personal view, which I’m not sure will be supported by others is that one company should not have a commercial advantage over another due to H&S (or lack of it). You end up with either company A deciding to interpret what remains in such a way as to weasel out of proper costly SWP’s and thus taking the gamble, but winning work over company B. Alternatively Company A gold plating what they need to do and pricing themselves out of the market.

Don’t get me wrong if a company can come up with a new and unique way of working which naturally reduces safety issues, so get an advantage, great. But the specific legislation is not normally in such areas.

You only have to look at posts over the last few years on this site to see what would happen. How many people can I stuff in a room x by x dimension. Can I have more people if I make them stand all day and provide a post with a small shelf to stand at. Can I go on a roof without edge protection, do I really need to get scaffold inspected, surely their travel time is not work, Who has to provide PPE because we don’t want to, can H&S training be done in peoples own time, CDM who is supposed to do….(so many examples), What does CDM cover I think I exempt I’m only building a.., do I have to do a CPP, I don’t want to put in proper controls can so I force people to shave so they can wear masks, and last but not least, Fire controls ( think their intending to create more detail here).

Don’t we learn by our mistakes and the mistakes of others in the past, so is not this detail just a written version of experience and so a shame to lose it. Some HSE documents have already turned into the “Janet and John” versions of what they used to be, and of little use anymore.

Get rid of out of date legislation - donkeys in mines etc, you don’t need a 1 in 3 out policy for that, just do it, but don’t let it stop new better legislation being put in.

IMHO

Chris

I think I agree with a lot that Ray says - if you look at the current crop of ACOPS and guidance and took a red pen to them you could remove about 50% of them as pointless guff and leave some really good well targeted and well written material that people could use constructively.  Are the HSE copy writers paid by the word? 

As someone has already said “deregulation” is not a process but and ideological position. It is also not clear what people actually mean by “deregulation”. Some want all regulation to disappear as they “hold back business etc”. The Rt Hon John Redwood, years ago stated that he wanted the Health and Safety at Work Act repealed as we did not need it as businesses would always take the pragmatic approach which would of course not harm anybody. Since then there have been loads of example of businesses taking the “pragmatic” approach and ruining peoples’ lives.

Others suggest that we take a “common sense” approach , which was of course the point of the Health and Safety at Work Act in the first place, replacing loads of very specific regulations that lead to a check list approach to H&S. It also meat that if you complied with the requirements of the checklist you got away with it even if you killed someone because in law that was all you had to do. The risk assessment based approach puts responsibility firmly on the employer to look at what they are doing and deciding what they need to do to make it safe. This is what some of them do not like. They want checklists and specific instructions.

Originally Posted by: O'Donnell54548

There is another thread asking for views/comments on the Work 2022 IOSH Strategy, so I will make this my last comments on this subject. I believe that to Enhance and Influence we must be radical in our approach, for example, abolish all ACOPs, replace ERICPD with 3 Ps (Prevent, Protect, Perform), abolish 'no win no fee', remove claims for workplace injuries/ill health from the civil courts and transfer them to industrial tribunals, review the remit of the HSE to a more proactive role (something similar to the food standards ratings you see in shops and restaurants), update the HASAWA 74 to the HASAWA 2019, replace risk assessments with task analysis and in doing so abolish the need for the majority of Regulations.   

Not sure about this. I do think that the original concept of “self-regulation” as defined in the Roben’s Report had largely gone out of the window. This is largely because industry itself did not take the lead in developing suitable ACoPs, which was Roben’s intent. The gap has been filled by EU directives which tend to veer between self-regulation through risk assessment and a more prescriptive approach (they want to have the gateau and eat it!)

You suggestions are a bit worrying:

• “abolish all ACOPs”- well the point of the regulation is to be goal setting and you need a direction of travel, which the ACoP should provide-without it, I can imagine lots of arguments about what the regs actually mean( the main beneficiaries of this being the lawyers)
• replace ERICPD with 3 Ps (Prevent, Protect, and Perform): I am not sure what you are referring to. Do you mean that we get rid of the hierarchy of controls and replace them with what? As far as I can see “Prevent, Protect, and Perform” is at present just a slogan.
• abolish 'no win no fee', remove claims for workplace injuries/ill health from the civil courts and transfer them to industrial tribunals- This looks like creating the sort of  worker compensation scheme that most countries use- if you have a accident at work or a  work related illness, you are paid a fixed level of compensation from a fund. Your employer’s level of contribution to the fund being dependent on the number of claims against it. These schemes do have issues with what is included as an accident at work or a work related illness. If it not included you are screwed and secondly there is evidence from some parts of the world of employers and governments trying to keep the levels of compensation as low as possible
•  review the remit of the HSE to a more proactive role (something similar to the food standards ratings you see in shops and restaurants), there are a lot of employers in the UK (3 -4 million). I am not quite sure how the HSE would actually be able to assess each one and keep this information upto date. Furthermore what would the rating mean? How would you score a company which has a poor H&S system but has been lucky (or good at hiding its accidents) against one that has had a major incident but puta lot of effort into brining its systems in line with best practice.
• update the HASAWA 74 to the HASAWA 2019- Do we need to change this legislation fundamentally? What’s the point?
• replace risk assessments with task analysis and in doing so abolish the need for the majority of Regulations- how is task analysist different from risk assessment? Would you do one for each task? Is that each time the task is done or a generic one for all similar tasks? What about COSHH and other specific regulations?    

What is 'task analysis' other than risk assessment by another name.

How does/do a company know if they are doing the right thing without recognised high quality guidance? Call it ACOPS, Standards or what you will. Suggesting each employer/industrial type to set their own standards is roughtly what we have now in terms of agreeing (but not always adopting in practice) e.g. Responsible Care in the chemical industry.

Has Mr Hammond or the chair of the Conservative Party contributed to this thread? We know where they are trying to take the country ... a disaster.

Ianbell2

Let us not be political as both Labour and Conservative govts have headed down the deregulation path.  As for Mr Redwood I am afraid he was not far up the queue when sensible brains were handed out.  The general approach in Goal setting legislation was to get away from tick box type following of legislation, as others also point out on this thread.  One also found that it brought many employers up to speed with their duties as the role of directors and legal minds of a company came to realise their vulnerability to prosecution.  The EU moved us to a position of increased specificity and this brought us back to a very tick box culture.