Rank: Forum user 
|
Keep an eye open for the Lofstedt Report, which the Department of Work and Pensions inform me is due to be published today (28 November 2011).
DJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
the news channels are already running reports about how the report has recommended the simplifying of the regulations, seems like its going to be another long day for us.
Hopefully once the regulations have been stripped down to nothing more than a passing mention they'll move on to another section of workers rights, I wonder when there will be a review into the provision of a lunch break?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Has anything been posted online yet ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
My short opinion:
Less regulations wont make work places safer, nor will they reduce the number of work related fatalities, disabling injuries or the thousands of occurances of ill health in the uk every year.
But...
*IF* it cuts down on needless beuarocracy and allows small, medium and large companies alike to focus there (stretched) resources on hazards pertinent to their operations, then this can only be a good thing.
Thats a pretty big IF though and im not a big believer in "self" regulation.
Des
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I skimmed the report and would have to say I thought the recommendations were sensible, proportionate and will do little to change the way health and safety is currently managed and enforced. Most of the recommendations, although worthwhile, will not have a serious impact on current legislation. The media will no doubt highlight the more significant and possibly controversial recommendations - but that should not detract from the fact it is a good read, at least, from my perspective as a h&s practitioner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
RayRapp wrote:I skimmed the report and would have to say I thought the recommendations were sensible, proportionate and will do little to change the way health and safety is currently managed and enforced. Most of the recommendations, although worthwhile, will not have a serious impact on current legislation. The media will no doubt highlight the more significant and possibly controversial recommendations - but that should not detract from the fact it is a good read, at least, from my perspective as a h&s practitioner. I agree I also predict the PM will be commisioning another enquiry into H&S before the end of 2012 and will continue to do so until he gets the answer he wants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
walker wrote:RayRapp wrote:I skimmed the report and would have to say I thought the recommendations were sensible, proportionate and will do little to change the way health and safety is currently managed and enforced. Most of the recommendations, although worthwhile, will not have a serious impact on current legislation. The media will no doubt highlight the more significant and possibly controversial recommendations - but that should not detract from the fact it is a good read, at least, from my perspective as a h&s practitioner. I agree I also predict the PM will be commissioning another enquiry into H&S before the end of 2012 and will continue to do so until he gets the answer he wants. Me three. (is this a record - three of us agree about a Govt report?) Few interesting points I spotted: Appointed first aiders will no longer require "approved HSE training" Pre-action protocols in civil claims not be used as "definitive lists" by insurers" HSE seems to have a LOT of review and rewriting work to do! Prof L does understand the difference between risk and hazard which made me like him straight away (remember the Young report?) Lofstedt only recommends revoking 5 sets of regulations but the Govt response still talks about "removing 50% of legislation" (see Walker's tongue in cheek comment above!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Heather Collins wrote:walker wrote:RayRapp wrote:I skimmed the report and would have to say I thought the recommendations were sensible, proportionate and will do little to change the way health and safety is currently managed and enforced. Most of the recommendations, although worthwhile, will not have a serious impact on current legislation. The media will no doubt highlight the more significant and possibly controversial recommendations - but that should not detract from the fact it is a good read, at least, from my perspective as a h&s practitioner. I agree I also predict the PM will be commissioning another enquiry into H&S before the end of 2012 and will continue to do so until he gets the answer he wants. Me three. (is this a record - three of us agree about a Govt report?) Few interesting points I spotted: Appointed first aiders will no longer require "approved HSE training" Pre-action protocols in civil claims not be used as "definitive lists" by insurers" HSE seems to have a LOT of review and rewriting work to do! Prof L does understand the difference between risk and hazard which made me like him straight away (remember the Young report?) Lofstedt only recommends revoking 5 sets of regulations but the Govt response still talks about "removing 50% of legislation" (see Walker's tongue in cheek comment above!) The last para of the Govt response- I think Walker may be right. Andy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The minister (& his master) may well struggle to understand this remark:
"During the review, the focus has been on collecting clear concrete examples and hard scientific evidence on the impact of regulations, rather than anecdotes or personal views."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Well I am extremely happy. I wrote to him complain that the WAH regs is/are without doubt the poorest written piece of legislation ever, and he has agreed to review.
He has also proposed a review of CDM, and look at red tape.
The battle goes on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Disappointed that no changes to DSE
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I also note that government is now launching a consultation on the abolition of "large numbers" of health and safety 'rules'. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15919238They claim they intend to reduce regulation by half within three years. How can that possibly be seen as a good thing? I also found this interesting: "He also says self-employed people whose work poses no risk to others should be exempt from health and safety rules altogether." So, what about protecting people from themselves? This makes it OK for the sole trader carpenter (for example) to totally ignore anything which may expose them to a risk provided they do it within the confines of their own premises? Misguided and stupid are the three words that spring to mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
flysafe wrote:Disappointed that no changes to DSE Blame R Gervais 160 Gervais R, Williamson J, Sanders V and Hopkinson J, Evaluation of the success in Great Britain of the directive on minimum health and safety requirements for work and display screen equipment, Health and Safety Research Report 628, 2008. www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr628.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
JasonMcQueen wrote:So, what about protecting people from themselves? This makes it OK for the sole trader carpenter (for example) to totally ignore anything which may expose them to a risk provided they do it within the confines of their own premises? . Just as you and me are already free to do in and on our own homes. Who protects us from ourselves?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A very poor Report prepared at great cost to the tax payer.
More and more jobs for the boys i.e. Scientific Officers, House of Lords Committees etc. whilst at the same time cutting HSE and LA inspectors.
I despair!
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I totally agree with these changes and can't wait to see what changes actually do happen. This forum reflects half the problems with current H&S Legislation when we as H&S professional's cannot even agree on the right way to interpret H&S Legislation!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Whatever the try and sweep away if it has a eu directive behind it, then it has to be kept, they can tweak our unique Uk slant on things but they still have to meet the directive (unless of course Mr. C brings us out of teh EU altogether!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
redken wrote:JasonMcQueen wrote:So, what about protecting people from themselves? This makes it OK for the sole trader carpenter (for example) to totally ignore anything which may expose them to a risk provided they do it within the confines of their own premises? . Just as you and me are already free to do in and on our own homes. Who protects us from ourselves? Whilst I appreciate the point your making, I think you have to differentiate domestic and occupational situations. Whilst there's no doubt that people are exposed to hazards in the home (and the level of accidents reflect this) I would argue that the hazards and level of risk are not proportionate to allow a direct comparison. There is a world of difference between someone using a gas oven over an arc welder. The other consideration is that whilst it may initially be confined to their own premises, what you tend to find is that trades and the like split their time between a base and customer sites. I find it very doubtful that they will adjust their behaviour when working on a clients premises which will have the affect of contractors requiring even greater scrutiny on site to ensure they're not working to their 'home' rules. I would suggest that there are grounds to reduce the level of applicable legislation when looking at such employment categories but to exempt them from everything seems a regressive step.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
makka wrote:Whatever the try and sweep away if it has a eu directive behind it, then it has to be kept, they can tweak our unique Uk slant on things but they still have to meet the directive (unless of course Mr. C brings us out of teh EU altogether!) The simple way for them to meet their claim of 'halving H&S legislation' will be to merge everything. You're not actually removing anything but it will be something for them to brag about in the next manifesto.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
John M wrote:A very poor Report prepared at great cost to the tax payer.
More and more jobs for the boys i.e. Scientific Officers, House of Lords Committees etc. whilst at the same time cutting HSE and LA inspectors.
I despair!
Jon I have had a quick read. Why do you feel the report is poor? I was pleasently surprised by how good the report seem to be at first glance - a complete contrast to the Lord Young report. Doubt whether David Cameron will like the report - given that he still thinks that children have to wear PPE when using highlighter pens. At last a report that recognises the inconsistent enforcement between local authorities who do most of the enforcement - not HSE - therefore recommending that HSE take charge to ensure common standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
#18
It would appear that the Professor was poorly advised in so far as the long titles of the current asbestos Regulations and the CDM Regulations are concerned -see Para.3, page 29, fig 2.of the Report.
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I've only read part of the report but it generally seems well balanced and proportional as a whole. But, as pointed out earlier, the Government wont like it as it doesn't give them justification to go out and change everything this claiming to have slain the dragon that is excessive H&S.
Minor tweaking, reviews and alterations doesn't quite carry the same gravitas for the electorate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
John M wrote:#18
It would appear that the Professor was poorly advised in so far as the long titles of the current asbestos Regulations and the CDM Regulations are concerned -see Para.3, page 29, fig 2.of the Report.
Jon Thats a bit embarrassing
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
JasonMcQueen wrote:redken wrote:JasonMcQueen wrote:So, what about protecting people from themselves? This makes it OK for the sole trader carpenter (for example) to totally ignore anything which may expose them to a risk provided they do it within the confines of their own premises? . Just as you and me are already free to do in and on our own homes. Who protects us from ourselves? Whilst I appreciate the point your making, I think you have to differentiate domestic and occupational situations. Whilst there's no doubt that people are exposed to hazards in the home (and the level of accidents reflect this) I would argue that the hazards and level of risk are not proportionate to allow a direct comparison. There is a world of difference between someone using a gas oven over an arc welder. The other consideration is that whilst it may initially be confined to their own premises, what you tend to find is that trades and the like split their time between a base and customer sites. I find it very doubtful that they will adjust their behaviour when working on a clients premises which will have the affect of contractors requiring even greater scrutiny on site to ensure they're not working to their 'home' rules. I would suggest that there are grounds to reduce the level of applicable legislation when looking at such employment categories but to exempt them from everything seems a regressive step. I think it is even more fundamental than that. If the self employed can work without any need to consider safety standards then they will be able to work more cheaply than other companies who have employees, and who need to comply with applicable Regs etc. An easy example would be a roofing job where a self employed chap can climb merrily around the roof without a scaffold (and no, I don't think you could argue he is putting the householder at risk - working during the day when the house is empty etc would get round that) whereas a similar job would need scaffolds etc if done by a company with an employee. Same for mechanics doing dodgy resprays - all that happens is that the smaller companies either have to cut corners to compete, or they shed employees. Part of the reason for enforcing against the self employed is not only to protect themselves, it surely must be to show that the it's a level playing field? Or perhaps not..ah the brave new world!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
JasonMcQueen wrote:John M wrote:#18
It would appear that the Professor was poorly advised in so far as the long titles of the current asbestos Regulations and the CDM Regulations are concerned -see Para.3, page 29, fig 2.of the Report.
Jon Thats a bit embarrassing No it isn't. I'm afraid it just shows that people don't read the text before looking for something to criticise. The Table on that page gives costs based on a survey carried out in 2005 - it says so in para 5 on P27. I think you'll find that's why it uses the old names of regulations. What else do you find "very poor" John M?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Only read the Executive Summary and Recommendations so far, as I'm a bit busy.
But all seems good to me. Like the fact that he says it less a problem with the regulations than it is a misinterpretation of legislation (and the fact that Regulators send out contradictory messages).
I didn't really disagree with any of the recommendations. I just hope they happen and go far enough to reduce some of the OTT stuff that happens (like PAT testing everything every year and the reams of paprwork for CDM - in fact I think CDM needs to be more limited). I also support a sole trader being exempt from H&S legislation for activities that would only affect their own health and safety.
Lets hope it actually happens. Can't see the HSE liking the tight timescales for review though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Shineon55 wrote:An easy example would be a roofing job where a self employed chap can climb merrily around the roof without a scaffold (and no, I don't think you could argue he is putting the householder at risk - working during the day when the house is empty etc would get round that) whereas a similar job would need scaffolds etc if done by a company with an employee. I don't think the exemption would apply here. If you read the Govt response to Lofstedt, the proposal for exemption is not just for those who present no risk to others, they must also be in a low-risk occupation. "The Government will ask HSE to take urgent action to draw up proposals for changing the law to remove health and safety burdens from the self employed in low-risk occupations, whose activities represent no risk to other people." Roofers need not apply!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
makka wrote:(unless of course Mr. C brings us out of teh EU altogether!) Yes please!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
The reports states - In general, there is no case for radically altering current health and safety legislation. The report even includes - A note of Caution which will confuse the PM and as such he will completly ignore. In my humble opinion the report does not address the real issue of the problem lies less with the regulations and more in the way they are interpreted and applied. Mr Flibble make a strong point about H&S professionals on the issue of interpretion of H&S Legislation. I agree. Many of the issues related to Health and Safety have been caused by so called H&S professionals and in particular staff in Local Authorities applying regulations in a completly out of context and over the top manner and using Health and Safety as an excuse for anything and everything. During the last few years the HSE have taken their eye off the ball and done nothing to curb the nonsense floated around in the name of Health and Safety. The HSE and all of us working with best of intentions in the sensible application of H&S are going to have to work hard to get H&S back on track and doing what it is supposed to do because as I see it this report is only the start of more to come and the PM's clear objective to dumb down H&S as much as he possibly can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Irwin43241 wrote:During the last few years the HSE have taken their eye off the ball and done nothing to curb the nonsense floated around in the name of Health and Safety I think that's very unfair. HSE do their best on their website and through their Press office to rebuff "elf'n'safety" nonsense. Sadly their rebuttals are never as newsworthy as the original headline grabbing stories but that's hardly HSE's fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Given the report doesn't have the outcomes and conclusions the PM and Co. were looking for, I have to wonder if these recommendations will actually be taken much further.
Nothing much of substance there, other than some minor consolidation and several recommendations for reviews.
Only "biggy" I can see is around LA enforcement issues - I can see some LA people being discomfited by the Report content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Heather Collins wrote:Irwin43241 wrote:During the last few years the HSE have taken their eye off the ball and done nothing to curb the nonsense floated around in the name of Health and Safety I think that's very unfair. HSE do their best on their website and through their Press office to rebuff "elf'n'safety" nonsense. Sadly their rebuttals are never as newsworthy as the original headline grabbing stories but that's hardly HSE's fault. I tend to agree with Irwin. HSE has spent too much time spinnning & being "fluffy". Their job is to put into place suitable regulations & then seeing them properly enforced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Heather Collins wrote:Irwin43241 wrote:During the last few years the HSE have taken their eye off the ball and done nothing to curb the nonsense floated around in the name of Health and Safety I think that's very unfair. HSE do their best on their website and through their Press office to rebuff "elf'n'safety" nonsense. Sadly their rebuttals are never as newsworthy as the original headline grabbing stories but that's hardly HSE's fault. That is the point, their rebuttals were never newsworthy. Sadly, they did not do enough. I agree they are only partly at fault. A shake up is needed at the HSE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
My personal opinion is that this is a balanced and proportionate report. I don't think there's much in it that wasn't really expected. Yes, perhaps it could have gone further; but I don't really think that would have been possible without a full review of the entire H&S legislative framework (including HASWA). This was never going to be the case however, as that fell outside of the reviews remit.
On the whole, as long as the recommendations are acted upon, broadly speaking there should be some reasonable outcomes from this. The test will be how much the Government takes notice of the report as a whole, rather than simply cherry picking what they want out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Instead of bun fighting amongst ourselves we should be celebrating a very professional and objective report. Moreover, it gives the green light for good health and safety practices to continue. We all know there is still much more to be done to win our cause which we are so passionate about - but Lofstedt has started the ball rolling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Still nothing to address the fundamental issue around civil liability claims, which is the principle of negligence itself and our fault-based system for workplace injury compensation. If you want to stop the creation of excessive and pointless documentation "just in case there's a claim", you need to radically change the basis on which claims are made.
But this is outside the scope of the Professor's brief. It was outside the scope of Robens, too.
And so the gravy train rolls on for those out there prepared to exploit the system, discrediting it to the detriment of the genuine claimant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
RayRapp wrote:Instead of bun fighting amongst ourselves we should be celebrating a very professional and objective report. Moreover, it gives the green light for good health and safety practices to continue. We all know there is still much more to be done to win our cause which we are so passionate about - but Lofstedt has started the ball rolling. The question is in which direction has the ball started rolling? I would agree that H&S has become a bit of a bun fight even slap stick. We all contribute our thoughts on this forum and some differ from others and that's the nature of forums such this. You have stated we should be celebrating a very professional and objective report. I respect your thoughts but do not necesarily agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
PM David Cameron said today:
For several years I’ve been blaming Health and Safety in this country damaging business and industry, I now realise that I was lead astray by the Daily Mail and was totally wrong in my views. I wish to sincerely apologise.
Professor Lofstedt has now written a sensible, coherent and independent report, unlike the one done by my political colleague David Young (who I now intend to sack, again) and I have now seen the error of my ways.
I now plan to find someone else to blame for all of our nation’s troubles and will never complain about the heros working in health and safety again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.