Rank: Super forum user 
|
At last, the scope of Professor Löfstedt’s Review into health and safety legislation with the draft terms of reference published today.
I, for one am optimistic about the outcome as it appears to be having good representation, except it would have been better if there was a "Health & Safety Organisations" representative representing all stakeholders such as IOSH, IIRSM, BOHS, CIEH, BSC, ROSPA to name a few!
The membership of the advisory panel to support the review has also been published today:-
Legislature representative (Con)-Andrew Bridgen MP
Legislature representative (Lab)-Andrew Miller MP
Legislature representative (Lib Dem)-John Thurso MP
Employer representative-John Armitt (Olympic Delivery Authority)
Employee representative-Sarah Veale (Trades Union Congress)
Small business representative-Dr Adam Marshall (British Chambers of Commerce)
The DWP press release is at:-
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2011/apr-2011/dwp042-11.shtml
The draft terms of reference:-
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/lofstedt-tor.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Report by Autumn??
That's some tight timetable or some fast tracking!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/lofstedt-tor.pdfAfternoon all, If you've not already seen it, please find attached link to the terms of reference for the Lofstedt review into Health & Safety legislation. One of the most interesting points is that Acts are not to be assessed, only regulations. As a result, it is unlikely our beloved (or not dependant on your view!) hasawa is to be butchered or bothered. Also interesting is the comparisons that will be made with other countries. Should be a nice few jollies on the cards for them, to investigate health and safety in bermuda perhaps? Sorry, cynical end of day moment.... Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Also sounds like the HSE will need to justify their insepctions with a prosecution to recover costs. Am I the only to see this as being a little worrying (reminds me of the police needing to hit quotas with speed cameras). I could be wrong however (I often am).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Robens used the terms of reference given to the committee he chaired to open up new avenues for safety at work nearly 4 decades ago.
There's no good reason to presuppose that Lofstedt may not do likewise. His book, 'Risk Management in a Post-Trust Society', Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, indicates that he not only has the ability to do so but also suggests that choosing him may well have been a much more inspired choice than meets the eye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
No doubt they will find a reason to exempt 'low risk' premises from inspection - such as the scrap yard that b******d up the M1 for days and cost the country millions....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
KieranD wrote:Robens used the terms of reference given to the committee he chaired to open up new avenues for safety at work nearly 4 decades ago.
There's no good reason to presuppose that Lofstedt may not do likewise. His book, 'Risk Management in a Post-Trust Society', Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, indicates that he not only has the ability to do so but also suggests that choosing him may well have been a much more inspired choice than meets the eye. Your comments reassure me Kieran.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I see they're still hammering on about this alleged "gold plating" of EC Directives. Not a word as yet on the fact UK has been challenged as our 2006 Control of Asbestos Regs aren't complaint! Not so much gold-plating, more an embarrassing tarnish!
Still trying to sell this misconception generally that a raft of legislation is in some way a burden for the employer when in reality all he needs to know is what to do to comply, i.e. where to find appropriate guidance. Comply with the guidance and he need never worry about law.
Law is for courts and lawyers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Yossarian
If you actually read what Lofstedt has published, you would be well advised to view it as a warning as well as reassuring. For his personal speciality lies in incisive analysis and evaluation of the quality of communicating about risks to safety and health.
As far as I'm concerned the terms of reference given to the Lofstedt Committee present an opportunity to safety professionals to present constructive analyses to both the committee and more widely, that go far beyond defending vested interests.
There have recently been many high profile reports in the media, in the UK as well as in the USA, detailing incidents of air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Our profession has a story to tell about the reasons, potential outcomes, and solutions for this serious problem. This seems like an opportune time to be able to stand up and explain the role of safety ergonomics in recognizing, evaluating, and solving this kind of problem. It's time we establish a constructive agenda for safety and health at work - one that can rise to the challenges we face -- and one that can capture and communicate the value safety professionals can bring to the world when they concentrate on relevant evidence and on creating positive working relationships.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Please excuse me for being cynical and asking what may be a "controversial question"
What do we think have been the main driver for H&S improvements over the last 20 years (i know it is a combination but i asked which is the MAIN) here are the options??? - lets look at them
First :Legislative drivers such as enshrining EU Directives into statutory instruments and the duty that holds it together like a skeleton and enshrines risk assessment of the task, training of the person, competence to undertake the work, and supervision to ensure they do what is said on the tin. Lots more is done in a lot of other organisations depending on their position on the "cultural ladder".
Second: The efforts of the HSE (sorry I think we can nearly rule this one out straight away) - an organisation that does not care generally will not be bothered about the HSE, Corporate Manslaughter prosecutions are none existent other than singular organisations with a single controlling mind.
Which really leaves the HSE looking for a role which makes a difference - IMO they are best served as a policing role which is where they bring most added value to safety frameworks.
Third: and most controversially the insurance companies and their premiums and the rise of the no win no fee, where there's blame there's a claim has (I know some people will not agree) been a major driver for change with companies with poor safety records- lots of accidents - lots of claims - lots of liability transposing into higher premiums. The need then for competent safety managers and risk managers then initiated the growth in safety management right across all industries. I personally was brought into a company that had an abysmal safety record and with investment and board input the company was going for OSHAS 18001 within 3 years and the premiums had dropped by £1.2m per annum after 5 years which more than paid for the 5 safety advisers taken on in that time.
This does not also take away number 4 the "professionalism" and the efforts of all in the safety profession,
Therefore it is more than unsurprising that in a Conservative led review by Lord Young in an atmosphere of cutting costs to business that the no win no fee and the RIDDOR regulations play a major point in their focus. - If we shut of the access to free legal advice and representation to "anyone" who is injured and lower the reporting thresholds then business can then reduce premiums and accident rates in one fell swoop.
Call me cynical but I think its all about reducing cost not about better more sensible governance!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
If they are British citizens, Oldroyd19659 and Philips 20760 and any others who profess to be 'cynical' about the work of the Lofstedt Review can exercise their democratic right to both let Lofstedt know the reasoning on which they base their opinions and ask their members of parliament to represent their views accordingly.
If they also read Lofstedt's own research, they can learn how competent he is in analysing issues of trust with a rare degree of impartiiality and incisiveness. Where appropriate, he honours professional competence; where it is lacking, he is not slow to make clear the implications, with realism as a healthy alternative to 'cynicism'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
KieranD
I would really appreciate it if you did not question my citizenship i find it more than offensive that you do so. What difference does it make what nationality I am or what my ethnic origins are - cannot i express my opinions free from analysis of race, demographics, skin colour or religious beliefs- people may have suspicions around such "intrusive" comments but I am more than willing to give people the benifit of doubt.
You really need to get a reality check if you think that any constituency members of parliment are remotely interested in any safety related regulation whatsoever, also you may note that the Acts are not part of the review so will not really affect parlimentary debate.
The comments in my post were not aimed at Loftsted but at the direction of the Conservative Government and their attitude to H&S regulation and their desire to dismantle.
I have 5 degrees two of them Masters and do not really need to be pontificated to about analysis of present day thinking or the teachings of Lofsted.
I would be interested to hear any salient contribution to the post above - for your information I am british - white and have a lineation going back to saxon times- hope this meets with your "approval"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not wishing to get embroiled in the bun throwing...I am also cynical as to the purpose and end result of this so-called review by Prof Lofstedt. For starters, there is already an assumption that health and safety is a burden by virtue of the terms of reference including '...reducing the burden of health and safety legislation.' From any perspective, let alone by an academic, this is hardly an impartial method of reviewing the impact of legislation. I'm also not sure how one is expected to review health and safety legislation without examining principal legislation ie HSWA?
What constitutes a 'burden' anyway? Paying my taxes is a burden, but one that I'm obliged to do unless I wish to face the wrath of HMRC. One interesting aspect of the terms of reference is whether there is a clear link between regulation and positive health and safety. Again, what is meant by 'positive'? The notion that employers will implement health and safety measures out of the goodness of their heart can be discounted. Hence the only driver for safety initiatives is a regulatory one - sad but true. That is WHY there is so much health and safety regulation Prof Lofstedt!
Sorry, but I think this latest review is nothing more than Lord Young revisited - if you ask the question often enough you may get the answer you are hoping for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
His co-review entitled CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS OF FISH FARMING AND FARMED FISH (in Estonia) seems to me to be poor authority for a review of this nature.
Certainly a hidden agenda here.
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.