Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

3 Pages<123>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
johnha  
#41 Posted : 28 November 2011 15:26:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
johnha

Just a few thoughts.

The million self-employed people (handy round number that) doing low-risk work at home or wherever were never in the scope of health and safety enforcement but no doubt the government will claim a victory in their "liberation" from the mountain of re-tape and bureaucracy they were forced to endure.

PAT testing of low risk office electrical equipment was a scam perpetrated on employers by other employers trying to make a fast buck. If it's being stopped then good.

The report appears to be reasonable but I guess it wouldn't have suited it's sponsors for the Prof to have pointed out that we have less health and safety legislation now than 30 years ago.

Finally, I do have to wonder if the Report will go nearly far enough to appease the Government or their masters at the Daily Mail.
David Bannister  
#42 Posted : 28 November 2011 15:29:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David Bannister

Post #40 may not last too long but it gave me a good laugh.

Just finished speed-reading the report and found it to be in line with what many forum users appear to have wanted but feared we would not get. Whether the recommendations will be implemented is a political decision but they appear to be well thought out and designed to make our work be less about worrying about regs and more about safety and health. Hooray to that. The bits about civil liability v criminal law are to me getting close to the heart of what our press perceived to be the problem and I welcome the recommendations for revisiting the intent of Woolf's report.

Grabbit & Run claims companies and complicit insurers should be rightly concerned that the spotlight may well be turning from "bad H&S" to "bad application"

It's a good day for good H&S in my view.
Irwin43241  
#43 Posted : 28 November 2011 15:29:18(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

walker wrote:
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.

If Only!
KevMac  
#44 Posted : 28 November 2011 15:32:12(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
KevMac

I agree that overall it's a good report.
However, I'm not sure what impact the 'self-employed/low risk' recommendation will have (or where this has come from).
As a Consultant if I'm ever contacted by a member of this group of workers it's because they want paperwork generated to make them look bigger (rather than those who think the legislation is telling them to do it).
Generally, I'm pleased with the Report...I'm just hoping that after the Govt have finished putting their 'spin' on it, the general public and employers out there won't be left thinking H&S is no longer important.
rockybalboa  
#45 Posted : 28 November 2011 15:50:19(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
rockybalboa

walker wrote:
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.


*thumbs up at walker, awesome post. =)
shpeditor  
#46 Posted : 28 November 2011 15:50:32(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
shpeditor

Hi all,
Just to let you know that SHP has a news story on the report, including reaction and clarification of some points - you can read it here:

http://www.shponline.co....health-and-safety-regime

SHPeditor
johnha  
#47 Posted : 28 November 2011 16:00:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
johnha

Love the comment from the EEF spokesman in the SHP article - "Perhaps more thought is required before this is implemented."

Never seen a Government yet that let thinking get in the way of a political process.
NickH  
#48 Posted : 28 November 2011 16:08:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
NickH

Also initial comments from trade union representatives (and even Rob Strange) intimate that they had not read the section regarding self employed exemptions properly.

Where is that wall for me to bang my head against.
jay  
#49 Posted : 28 November 2011 16:14:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay

The so called 50% reduction can easily be done in the sector specific regulations, such as Mines, Quarries, Docks etc, which anyway did not impact the majority of businesses.

It is another matter to reduce the regulations that implement EU Directives.

I also look forward to the day the EU simplifies or even reduces the burden arising from REACH and CLP.

Some excerpt from Prof Lofstedts speech:-

........people who work at home, say website designers trying to establish a web based clothing store for children should be exempt, but, to be very clear, self-employed work in the construction sector should not be.....

......the 6 petroleum regulations could be reduced to 1 and the 40 mining regulations could be reduced to 1 or 2. At the same time HSE can work with stakeholders to ensure the duties are up to date and reflect modern workplace practices. This work will reduce the actual number of regulations by about 35%.....

.......with local authorities inspecting too many relatively low-risk workplaces. To address this issue I am therefore recommending that the Government give HSE the authority to direct all local authority health and safety inspection and enforcement activity

..........the scope for further changes to the regulatory framework in Great Britain is limited by the requirement to implement EU Directives. In particular I am recommending that the Government works more closely with the Commission and others during the planned review of occupational safety and health starting in 2013 to ensure that existing EU health and safety legislation is risk-based and evidence based......

.......... I recommending that the House of Lords be invited to set up a Select Committee on risk (or establish a sub-committee within its Science and Technology Committee) to examine this issue in more detail and consider how to engage society in a wider discussion about risk........


Heather Collins  
#50 Posted : 28 November 2011 16:27:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Heather Collins

Despite the useful explanation in the SHP article about the much touted "Challenge Panel" (which apparently will be formed from 1 Jan!) not actually being in Lofstedt's report at all, I can't even find the "challenge mechanism that allows for cases of incorrect and over-application of health and safety legislation to be addressed." that SHP mentions.

Am I just not reading the right section of the report or something? This was a major point being trumpeted by the BBC and others before the text of the report was actually published, so it was obviously in the DWP press release - so where is it in the report?
A Kurdziel  
#51 Posted : 28 November 2011 16:32:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

The report is alright but I am not convinced that it will satisfy the free market nutters who just want to get rid of 'elf and safety' so that we can compete with the likes of India and China.
Consolidating regulations is great in theory but the HSE are still trying to produce a Single Regulatory Framework for biological agents, which would have combined the bioagents bit of COSHH with the GMO(contained use regs) and the Animal Pathogen order. The HSE have been at it for 3 years I think and it has been postponed again. I know these regs are a bit obscure for most users on this forum but this exercise does show how tricky it can be to consolidate regulations. Basically do you just keep everything as it is but stick it into one document (the draft ACoP, for the single framework, was the longest I have ever seen and gave me a headache) or do you cut everything down to something basic like ‘do a simple risk assessment, in checklist form, cross your fingers and hope for the best’

shpeditor  
#52 Posted : 28 November 2011 16:42:59(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
shpeditor

Heather - On p92 of the report, it says: "[I propose] that the Government looks at introducing a challenge mechanism that allows for cases of incorrect, over-application of health and safety legislation to be addressed. This will help restore proportionality and inform the broader debate about risk."

As the only place where this deadline of 1 January, and the fact that businesses will be able to get the decisions of H&S inspectors overturned, are mentioned is actually in the press release issued by the DWP to accompany the review, we were confused and so rang the DWP press office for clarification. We asked was this 'challenge panel' mentioned in the press release the same one as mentioned on p92 and were told 'yes'. When we further asked where the deadline and mention of inspectors came from, the press officer said that this was (and I quote) "just the Government's interpretation of the recommendation". So there you have it - clear as mud! We will try to follow this up and find out more - if we do, we will let you know.
Corfield35303  
#53 Posted : 28 November 2011 16:44:03(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Corfield35303

A good report but I have concerns about the self-employed. I know of businesses that push their employees to become self-employed so they can get round employment law (a friend at a local gym had no maternity rights due to this).

How many hair places, garages, small builders and the such like will end up doing the same to get round H&S law? Needs a careful approach to avoid statements such as: "I'm not an employer, we are just three self-employed people working together on this fragile roof".....
NickH  
#54 Posted : 28 November 2011 16:56:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
NickH

Corfield35303

Everyone seems to be missing (or perhaps ignoring) paragragraph 4, page 3.

"A key question for many is whether the self-employed should be included in health and safety legislation. The UK currently goes beyond EU requirements in this regard and that of some other countries that apply legislation only to those engaged in activities that are particularly hazardous or carry a risk of injury or harm to others. It is clear that the regulations should apply in such circumstances, but I believe there is a case for exempting those self-employed whose work activities pose no potential harm to others."

Also paragraph 16 on page 39.

"There is a case for following a similar approach to other countries and exempting from health and safety law those self-employed people (i.e. those who do not
have any employees) whose workplace activities pose no potential risk of harm
to others."

There is no mention of bulk exemption of ALL self employed persons.
MEden380  
#55 Posted : 28 November 2011 17:08:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
MEden380

Having read the report this afternoon I think parts are very comprehensive, other parts remind me of sitting on the fence.
Also having looked at the comments published on the Department of Works & Pensions web site, I wonder if the people making the comments have actually read the report. they seem to be making sweeping statements about reducing / removing half the Regulations - mostly obscure ones relating to coal industry
- interesting to see it mentions fatalities to those killed whilst driving .
Garfield Esq  
#56 Posted : 28 November 2011 17:23:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Garfield Esq

Note a few comments regarding PA Testing. What piece of statute states this as a legal requirement?

I wonder what will be the impact on MCA regulated statute, some of which mirrors HSE leg...
NickH  
#57 Posted : 28 November 2011 17:24:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
NickH

I think the main problem at the moment is that a lot of people are speed reading the report, and as a result, are reading what they want to read (i.e. their interpretation of what has been written at first glance).

I think (or hope), that once people have had a chance to read the report properly and (as far as possible) impartially, that it can be discussed far more objectively. I don't think it is a magic wand, and was never naive enough to think that it would be.

However, I do believe it is a start in the right direction - if, it is used, interpreted and acted upon correctly by those in a position to implement the changes. Therein lies the crux of the matter...

I also agree that there is a degree of 'fence sitting' in the report; but, I half expected there to be more than there actually is.
NigelB  
#58 Posted : 28 November 2011 18:02:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
NigelB

Self-employed

So those self-employed workers 'whose work activities pose no potential harm to others' will be exempted from health and safety laws. How do they decide their 'work activities pose no potential harm to others'?

They could do a risk assessment ... however they will be exempt from health and safety laws requiring them to do a risk assessment!!

I suppose guessing is the 'common sense' option that David Young prefers.

How ironic that in The China Post on the 24th November 2011 it was announced that an amendment to China's Occupational Health and Safety Act is widening its scope to include 'the self-employed and all freelance workers.'

Cheers.

Nigel
pete48  
#59 Posted : 28 November 2011 18:03:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

I think nickh has a good point. I have only had time to read the exec summary.
Based solely on that I think that Lofstedt provides an overall, focused, balanced review and set of recommendations on the key areas. His constant references to proportionate risk are most welcome.
I think the political comments made so far in this thread are overly reactive. Lets wait and see, I think we may be pleasantly surprised.
On a humorous note lets not forget that it could lead to the end of RIDDOR topics on the IOSH forums, wheeeeeee!!!! :-)

p48
Garfield Esq  
#60 Posted : 28 November 2011 18:05:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Garfield Esq

quote=garfield esq]Note a few comments regarding PA Testing. What piece of statute states this as a legal requirement?

I wonder what will be the impact on MCA regulated statute, some of which mirrors HSE leg...


To clarify, re PA Testing, I was commenting on respondents, not the report. In general, the Report does not really come up with anything new. However, it may help to enlighten ignorant people to understand that its the interpretation of legislation that is the real issue. Every week I see disproportionate measures taken to comply with legislation, in some cases, businesses of significant size are not aware of the differences between Statute / ACoPs / BS / PAS / ISO and other such like HS related documentation.

What's worse is some of the bunkum you see 'HS Consultants' trying to get businesses to implement. Speaking plainly, there's to many companies trying to offload there 'duty of care' by employing HS Consultants, some of which are as unscrupulous as 3rd rate car dealers...
NigelB  
#61 Posted : 28 November 2011 18:34:02(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
NigelB

The Role of Employees by Prof Löfstedt

‘Boosting the responsibility and involvement of employees has the potential to bring about significant improvements in health and safety in the workplace.’

Excellent. This is a point many organisations have been making for many years. Prof Löfstedt even went on to quote some evidence:

‘One study found that workplaces with safety representatives and joint safety committees record up to 50 per cent fewer injuries than those with no consultation mechanism.’

Fantastic - recognition of the importance of worker involvement. Prof Löfstedt also highlighted that in the Worker Safety Adviser [2003] initiative it:

'found evidence that it could benefit both employers and employees in small businesses'

So 'significant improvements in health and safety in the workplace' could be brought about by greater worker involvement and the Professor found that Worker Safety Advisers could benefit both 'employers and employees in small businesses'.

Should some 'common sense' be applied one would assume the Professor would see this as an important area to develop, to improve health and safety standards in the future. This would be particularly relevant as it is mainly workers who are killed, maimed, injured and made ill by work.

So Worker Safety Advisers and greater worker involvement - what is it the Professor is recommending to develop these as a contributor to 'significant improvements in health and safety in the workplace'?

Professor Löfstedt states:

'I therefore have decided that this is not an option that should be pursued.'

The HSE estimate that 60% of employees are not consulted over health and safety matters that they should be. This is, of course, illegal.

This is one reason why some people do not welcome this report overall.

Some specific issues are useful but the political climate whereby the Prime Minister has stated publicly several times since December 2009 that health and safety is the ruination of the nation is more likely to prevail.

Cheers.

Nigel



cliveg  
#62 Posted : 28 November 2011 18:38:41(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
cliveg

Some interesting stuff in the report.

Recommendation - legislation is changed to give HSE the authority to direct all local authority health and safety inspection and enforcement activity, in order to ensure that it is consistent and targeted towards the
most risky workplaces.

As Ray recently higlighted, Local Authorities are not exactly proactive in H&S at the moment. Will this give the HSE the power to push them into action?
Not exactly sure on the chances of success as the headcounts are falling so fast that few L.A.s have functioning H&S teams any more.

The Government's response is clear this is unfinished business to them and the target of 50% reduction in regs says it all.
Phil43  
#63 Posted : 28 November 2011 19:47:07(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Phil43

From page 17 of the PDF

At the time of his report there were “nine main groups of statues supported by nearly 500 subordinate statutory instruments”

Statues?
pete48  
#64 Posted : 28 November 2011 19:55:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

In the interest of balance we should perhaps include the sentence that explains why the report does not pursue the use of "workplace safety advisers". Lofstedt says "However, it also has the potential to introduce an additional layer of administration and advice in the regulatory structure that promotes excessive precaution, and is also likely to have significant cost implications.
I therefore have decided that this is not an option that should be pursued."

I don't read into this that he failed to understand or appreciate the importance of consultation and communication. He implies by his comments that existing law in this area is good enough. If employers do what they should re comm/consult then the benefits to all will accrue. Therefore, no benefit in introduing anything new?

p48
pete48  
#65 Posted : 28 November 2011 20:01:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

Phil43. Is that from part 1 para 2? Page 17 on my view doesn't have anything similar. Good spot though and why reliance on spellchecker is not the same as a good proof reader, if they still exist.

Maybe they are referring to the nine pillars of wisdom:-)
p48
Phil43  
#66 Posted : 28 November 2011 20:10:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Phil43

Hi Pete,
I was referring to the number on the PDF toolbar.
Maybe we should contact the Daily Mail so they can run a column on grammar!
LOL
Al.  
#67 Posted : 28 November 2011 21:11:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Al.

I read it, then deliberated, cogitated and digested. Did the earth move as it did when Robens reported? Sadly no. The recommendations tinker at the edges. There is nothing fundamental which will make a difference. There were however several moments of insight which, if or when pursued, may move us closer to the broad, sunlit uplands.
1) He says that across Europe there is confusion between the terms hazard and risk. Much of our legislation is now founded on EU Directives - are they founded on confusion? This needs to be addressed. It goes to the heart of the matter.
2) The HSE/LA enforcement dichotomy is a problem which needs to be addressed - and he recommends that the nettle be grasped - long overdue.
3) Much of the excessive paperwork is driven by the perceived needs of insurers and he says "Steps need to be taken to ensure that the absence of a particular document is not in itself proof of non-compliance". He says this in the context of civil claims but it should apply equally to criminal law. This statement should be above the desks of every safety practitioner and on the reverse of the business cards of every HSE inspector. It should be on the cover of his report and on the wall behind Chris Grayling when he speaks to the media. The Chair of the HSE should be shouting on You Tube: "The paperwork does not matter, it is what you do to make the workplace safer which matters."

And he missed the chance to have a go at the HSE. He says that the problem is less with the regulations and more with the way that they are interpreted or misinterpreted. Regulations always have the potential for misinterpretation. It should not be a surprise if they are misinterpreted. The HSE should be ready for it and intervene as soon as there is any hint of it. Not sit on its collective hands for over a decade as it did while electrical equipment was being tested every year post EAWR 1989 and we were drowning under piles and piles of "risk assessments" post MHSWR 1993.

Overall 6/10. He would have got a 2.2. Some promise but could and should do better. And I was serious about that video from the HSE Chair. That will make a difference.


Heather Collins  
#68 Posted : 28 November 2011 22:32:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Heather Collins

shpeditor wrote:
Heather - On p92 of the report, it says: "[I propose] that the Government looks at introducing a challenge mechanism that allows for cases of incorrect, over-application of health and safety legislation to be addressed. This will help restore proportionality and inform the broader debate about risk."

As the only place where this deadline of 1 January, and the fact that businesses will be able to get the decisions of H&S inspectors overturned, are mentioned is actually in the press release issued by the DWP to accompany the review, we were confused and so rang the DWP press office for clarification. We asked was this 'challenge panel' mentioned in the press release the same one as mentioned on p92 and were told 'yes'. When we further asked where the deadline and mention of inspectors came from, the press officer said that this was (and I quote) "just the Government's interpretation of the recommendation". So there you have it - clear as mud! We will try to follow this up and find out more - if we do, we will let you know.


Thanks. As he doesn't go on to expand on this very vague proposal in the Chapter Recommendations on Page 94 and as it is nowhere to be seen in the six main recommendations, I share your surprise that the Govt seems to have picked this point out as one of the main focus issues of the DWP Press release.

Do let us know if the mud clears!
redken  
#69 Posted : 28 November 2011 22:49:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
redken

For more updates and opinions on Professor Löfstedt’s review, keep an eye out on our LinkedIn group, our Facebook page, our blog and on IOSH_tweets If you want to contact me direct, you can...

Shaun Gibbons
e-Editor, IOSH


It seems this forum is not the place to comment!
redken  
#70 Posted : 28 November 2011 22:59:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
redken

Al. wrote:

1) He says that across Europe there is confusion between the terms hazard and risk. Much of our legislation is now founded on EU Directives - are they founded on confusion? This needs to be addressed. It goes to the heart of the matter.

And he missed the chance to have a go at the HSE.


Well said. The confusion between risk and hazard is widespread so how can we have as Lofstedt wants, regulation based on risk not hazard?

The chair of HSE says "focusing enforcement on higher risk businesses". But how does she know which businesses are high risk? HSE know which are high hazard but without detailed intelligence they can not tell who poses the risk. Did they know that Buncefield was a high risk?

So in this confusion we have regulation based on hazard but in the worst of both worlds we have to go through a confusing RA process, since we say it is risk based, but we end up back at hazard.
RayRapp  
#71 Posted : 29 November 2011 00:48:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Redken, I think Professor Lofstedt did 'have a go at the HSE' and certainly has given them plenty to do in restructuring some regulations and ACOPs. Furthermore, regarding the confusion between risk, hazards and safety management 6/21 states: 'In addition there is also a need to stimulate a debate about risk in society to ensure that everyone has a much better understanding of risk and its management.' Good call.

Indeed I made a similar comment to the Lofstedt review: 'I am all for making things simple in life. However, the REAL problem is not health and safety regulations per se, but essentially socio-economic issues. Do we value peoples’ health and safety more than making a profit or causing an inconvenience? I’m not sure as a society or an industry that we fully understand the concept of voluntary and involuntary risk...when compared to MP’s expenses scandal, phone hacking, police corruption - I wonder why I am vilified by the media and government for protecting peoples’ health, safety and welfare? What a perverse society we live in.'

Ray

John M  
#72 Posted : 29 November 2011 06:56:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
John M

Quote

What's worse is some of the bunkum you see 'HS Consultants' trying to get businesses to implement. Speaking plainly, there's to many companies trying to offload there 'duty of care' by employing HS Consultants, some of which are as unscrupulous as 3rd rate car dealers...


After Lofstead we await what Chope presents in his Bill 2nd reading in January.


J
Heather Collins  
#73 Posted : 29 November 2011 09:02:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Heather Collins

Who are you quoting John? Do you have any evidence for this sweeping generalisation or is this just a Daily Mail style headline grabbing sound bite?
NigelB  
#74 Posted : 29 November 2011 09:05:47(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
NigelB

Pete48

In the interests of balance the HSE estimate that 60% of employees are not consulted over health and safety matters that they should be. This implies that a significant amount of employers - many are likely to be small - are operating illegally.

The Professor cites research indicating that worker representation + Joint Working reduced accidents on average by 50% - the research covered UK manufacturing industry.

He has nothing whatsoever to say how this potential 'significant improvement in health and safety in the workplace' could be maximised. Even a comment like 'employee consultation laws should be effectively enforced' at least would be something.

The value of worker involvement is identified, the potential benefits are highlighted as 'significant' and - business as usual - extensive law breaking is ignored. The Professor was aware of the 60% of employees not being consulted by their employer, as this was included in my submission.

Cheers.

Nigel
chris42  
#75 Posted : 29 November 2011 10:06:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Having skim read the report I feel somewhat underwhelmed by it generally. There are some good points and possibly some bad ideas as noted above. For instance, not sure about self-employed in low hazard roles being exempt (who decides?). Will this just create a lot of self-employed contractors etc?

The other thing I noticed ( or didn’t as the case may be), was this mentioned on any news report or paper at all ? Was the timed release of the report deliberately done, so that other news stories would drown it out, Like the autumn budget. BBC breakfast news today reported that some children’s cartoon “Peppa Pig” won a bafta award, but no mention of the report. What a wonderful world we live in.
chas  
#76 Posted : 29 November 2011 10:16:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chas

Chris42

Funnily enough it was reported in yesterday's DM, (that bastion of all things H&S), before the official release of the report, although it was on page 11. They implied it was a good day for business, less red tape and all that.
jay  
#77 Posted : 29 November 2011 11:12:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay

I heard the Radio 4 PM with Eddy Mair between Prof. Lofstedt and Richard Jones yesterday.

Although Prof Lofstedt himself is very clear that only low risk activities for self employed should be exempt, I personally feel that he has not realised the nightmare this will create for the enforcing authorities in differentiating between the low and higher risks. Also, he seemed to imply that the definition of self-employed should be made clearer!

Richard did highlight IOSH's concern regarding the impct on HSE for all the extra work it has to do i.e. reviewing the ACoPs, consolidating sector specific regulations, directing LA enforcement activities, etc in light of the cuts HSE has to make--The prof was very clear that resources must be provided, but there is very little in the report that highlights that HSE is heavily under-funded and under-resourced!

I am disappointed that the report did not include the effect of "supply chain" requirements of large organisations whose "certified quality and health & safety management systems" also requires "paperwork" for getting onto approved contractor lists for provision of goods & services that has a disproportionate impact on SME's and self-employed.

I very much welcome the aspect that "the original intention of the pre-action protocol standard disclosure list is clarified and restated"

His second part of the recommendation from the same theme "that regulatory provisions which impose strict liability should be reviewed by June 2013 and either qualified with ‘reasonably practicable’ where strict liability is not absolutely necessary or amended to prevent civil liability from attaching to a breach of those provisions" is the most challenging!

pete48  
#78 Posted : 29 November 2011 11:49:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

Nigel B, I agree with you about the importance of employee involvement and the lack of consistent implementation and enforcement of the law. I just think it was always unlikely that the report would specifically address the subject. The context of the report is summarised for me in these comments from the exec summary.
“I have concentrated on areas where the evidence and contributions to my review have indicated that regulations are putting undue costs on business whilst doing little to improve health and safety outcomes.”
“In general, the problem lies less with the regulations themselves and more with the way they are interpreted and applied. In some cases this is caused by inconsistent enforcement by regulators”
“The aim was to examine how the current stock of health and safety regulation, that offers necessary protection to employees and the public, could be streamlined and made more effective.”
Therefore, the imposition of a formal need for a Workplace Safety rep (WSR) was always going to fail the test at this point. The process problem I see is that if we accept that compliance is traditionally low in this area then it is easy to argue that adding another duty to appoint an WSR would not necessarily achieve anything if the level of compliance did not also change. It is also counter intuitive in a report with the brief it had.
Nonetheless the report does not identify employee involvement as a burden on business and thus it is still very much part of on-going requirements. That must be most welcome? I do see more hope of improving matters with regard to employee comm/con. That is, if the recommendations ever make it to reality,

P48
John M  
#79 Posted : 29 November 2011 14:40:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
John M

For Heather Collins.

See post #60.
Ron Hunter  
#80 Posted : 29 November 2011 23:58:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

The Government's 19 page response to the Lofstedt Report is available here:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/do...tedt-report-response.pdf

A detailed response from the Minister available on the same day as the publication of the main Report. I think you can draw your own conclusions.
David Cameron and Co. are surely clutching at straws now?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>
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.