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.

If Only!

*thumbs up at walker, awesome post. =)

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.

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........

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’

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".....

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 .

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.

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

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

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?

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

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.

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, 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

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?

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.

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!

For Heather Collins.

See post #60.