When it comes to misconception (or just plain mischief making) by the press, the letter you reference and the views of Judith Hackett, TUs, or you or I are all entirely irrelevant. The real nonsense is contained within the text of the EDMs. There's no editorial control to be exercised on Political Party Politics or the nonsense spouted in Parliament. Remember many years ago when the Asbestos Regulations were under discussion in the lower house and one MP (John Selwyn Gummer I think) stood up with the opinion that, given that science hadn't determined a "safe" lower limit for exposure to asbestos fibres, then it must be assumed that one fibre could be deadly. Thus was the "single fibre theory" born. Oh boy - did the press have fun with that or what! Nothing changes.

I find myself agreeing with both of you on this! Technically/theoretically may be there is a risk that one fibre can kill based on extrapolating exposure and harm on a graph. However, the policies of ripping out asbestos from numerous public buildings in the 80's may have caused more exposure. Not the intended outcome I am sure but the outcome of looking at a risk in such a black and white manner. I wonder if we all have some asbestos fibres in our lungs - from millions of cars on the roads that used to have asbestos brake pads or tavelling on the London underground. It's similar to debates around radiaton where you have to appreciate there is a level of cosmic radiation we are exposed to all the time to put low level exposure risks in to context, so as a society we probably should not panic too much about extremely low levels of exposure to carcinogens. Coming back to my original post. Does anyone agree or disagree that removing the Hard Hat regulations may lead to presumptions that hard hats are not required anymore?

I agree with Jane, indeed the wearing of hard hats in a construction environment has become so ingrained in the culture that it rarely presents a problem on site.

Buzz - If HSE ensure that the information about the removal of the 'hard hat' regulations clearly includes a brief explanation that their ambit is already covered by the PPE regulations and therefore head protection will still need to be provided and used where necessary, I don't think there will be any problem. Such explanation would be complemented by the fact that, as RapRapp points out, wearing helmets in construction environments is a deeply ingrained and accepted practice. Also, as I think the proposed removal of the regulations about hard hats and tower cranes will be of little interest to the average member of the public, I suspect that the general media won't be rushing to show much interest in them either. Furthermore, if any journalists do try to generate jeopardy-mongering stories about the removal of the regulations in the face of clear explanations about reducing legislative duplication, etc., they should be challenged as being deliberately mischievous or aspiring candidates for a "wazzock of the week" award! Jane Blunt mentioned COSHH which replaced numerous sets of specific regulations. Can anyone provide information about any problems which arose through the removal of those specific regulations or indeed any other OS&H legislation? p.s. A general plea: Some forum users need to take more care to spell Judith Hackitt's surname correctly. Why? In addition to courtesy to the lady herself, it's quite possible that some forum users who keep seeing the mis-spelt version in various threads could assume that it is the correct one. Though some may regard this plea as a pedantic one, surely professionals in OS&H (and other disciplines) ought to strive for accuracy!

Scaffolders in general have the least compliance with anything (ime). The only people I've ever had to tell to put their hat on (and then to put it on properly) are scaffolders, and there's been several of them. Everyone else wears their hardhat without a second thought, I find.