I agree in various degrees with what has been said on this post. Overall, I think we're not too bad, however.......

For me the greatest frustration is the risk assessment process, people's (mis)understanding of it and to be honest, some of the conflicting advice from the HSE on the matter.

The Regs require us to record our 'significant' findings, which is fine, but then particularly sigh-worthy, you have HSE advice on having to make a record of risk assessment in a low-risk office environment, but then conversely 'classrooms are generally low risk so will not require risk assessment'.

Argh.

Originally Posted by: Scotty C

I agree in various degrees with what has been said on this post. Overall, I think we're not too bad, however.......

For me the greatest frustration is the risk assessment process, people's (mis)understanding of it and to be honest, some of the conflicting advice from the HSE on the matter.

The Regs require us to record our 'significant' findings, which is fine, but then particularly sigh-worthy, you have HSE advice on having to make a record of risk assessment in a low-risk office environment, but then conversely 'classrooms are generally low risk so will not require risk assessment'.

Argh.

HSE: what do they know!

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

Relying on “common sense” is not really answer for most H&S safety issues.

And there lies one of the main problems. I used to work in a Process R&D lab in a chemical factory. We had a PhD chemist who is probably one of the cleverest people I've ever met but he had absolutely no common sense whatsoever. He was constantly being pulled up about his actions, as he seemed totally unaware of the hazards associated with sulphuric acid and the likes.

We need to remember that even the cleverest people don't always know how to do things safely.

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

Significant numbers of people think that H&S has gone too far: so what legislation would you like repealing or modifying? Remember although some legislation can seem onerous, if we get rid of it might leave a gaping hole in our management of Health and Safety.  Relying on “common sense” is not really answer for most H&S safety issues.

I didn't really have an issue with legislation. What finally made me think enough is enough and walk away from general health and safety was all the crazy over the top stuff which inept H&S Officers/Managers came up with, often to cover their own lack of ability to do the job properly; the utter nonsense insurance companies came up with in the guise of protecting their own interests and pushed out to their clients; and it has to be said, some of the utter numpties in the HSE - I'd swear the HSE is full of either lovely helpful well-informed and well-intentioned people, or people who you know couldn't put their trousers on the right way around without help from another adult. Nothing in between those two groups. (What do I mean by numpties in the HSE? I was once doing a training seminar on audiology in occupational health for about 20 HSE and LA inspectors. Basic stuff. After it two of them came up to me and said 'can you just explain the difference in the 80 and 85dB thing again?'. These were people who were already out enforcing it! Or a client who was threatened with prosecution by their local inspector who told them, and I'm not making a word of this up, that under the DSE Regs they couldn't have the same desks used for paperwork as for computers and if someone needed to do paperwork with their job as well as use a computer then they needed two desks!) I like this thread, it's like free therapy.

In cyber space everyone can read (and in the main empathise with) your scream

This has been an interesting read, if only to see the diversity of comments and people's experiences.

The HSE often use the phrase 'Significant Risk' (or similar) when referring to the requirement for risk assessments.

For example "You do not need to include insignificant risks. You do not need to include risks from everyday life unless your work activities increase the risk.", which can be found on their website in the Risk Assessment FAQ section.

But the simple fact is, that's not what the Law says in the Managment Regs. The wording there is "Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of..... the risks to the health and safety".... etc, etc.

So while the Lawyers are reading the Management Regs, we can never reduce the bureaucracy of the backside covering mentality. Because we have a situation where, if any form on minor injury occurs in a workplace, the first reaction is, 'Well there clearly wasn't a suitable and sufficient assessment' because it has happened....

We need to break the cycle, and removing the ACOP (L21)  for the Management Regs was a backward step; because the website information  and publications such as INDG449, Health and Safety Made Simple do not have the same status as an ACOP.

L21, at para 13a stated: "The risk assessment should identify the risks arising from or in connection with work. The level of detail in a risk assessment should be proportionate to the risk. Once the risks are assessed and taken into account, insignificant risks can usually be ignored, as can risks arising from routine activities associated with life in general, unless the work activity compounds or significantly alters those risks. The level of risk arising from the work activity should determine the degree of sophistication of the risk assessment."

 I've yet to find that statement in the cyberspace soup of the information now available (someone please point it out if you know where it is). It wasn't much, but at least it was an ACOP so had some legal status.

 However, it still required the employer to assess the risks, in order to decide they were/are 'insignificant'.

 Catch 22?

I agree with Route66 – it has been an interesting read, and significantly I think, we’re all broadly in agreement that something isn’t quite right.  Whether or not we think health and safety has gone too far, the general consensus of opinion seems to be that often it’s “sweating the small stuff” where the problem lies (ie it’s not necessarily health and safety that’s gone too far, it’s what we’re being asked to do by others who see the nth degree as “compliance”) !

In addition to the well-meaning (if misguided) brigade already referred to by various posters, I think the HSE (particularly so since FFI was introduced) and insurers (who have a lot to do with driving H&S) have much to answer for, as it seems like every t has to be crossed and every i dotted before anything is deemed “suitable and sufficient” these days.  You wouldn’t believe some of the arguments I’ve had over matters so trivial that they could safely (and legally) be left well alone, but which others insist “need to be looked at”….

Insurers obviously want every base covered – it’s in their interests after all.  However, often this means going way beyond what the Law actually requires (but hey, there’s no choice if you want your cover to continue!)

On the other hand there’s the HSE.  Once upon a time I actually used to welcome a visit from the HSE inspector (yes, I know I’m sad and need to get out more !).  However, it used to be “another pair of eyes” being cast over my management of H&S, and if things were found that didn’t quite fit the bill, we’d sit down over a cup of tea at the end of the visit and talk them through.  I was always confident that we’d have nothing to fear from an HSE visit so long as we were honest and open. 

Today however, the very first thing that happens when an inspector arrives is that they sit you down and warn you about FFI and that any “material breaches” found will result in invoices charged at £129 per hour until concluded – and that’s IF further action isn’t deemed necessary !  I always feel on the back foot now (almost guilty until proven innocent) and you sometimes get the impression that the inspector is happy to stay for as long as it takes until such time as they discover something they can charge you for.

Perhaps I’m just becoming an old and grumpy cynic…..  :-)

People forget the Health and Safety is an aspect of management. Many organisations are rubbish at it. Typically the manager is the guy who is best at the job- good in the lab make him a lab manager, she good on the shop floor make them her  an operational manager. Magically they are supposed to acquire all of the attributes of good manager. Some do alright some don’t. They tend to focus on the stuff they are familiar with and deliver obvious results. H&S gets side-lined until someone tells them to do something about which is when we get over- reactions – staff need to wear hi-viz in case they are run over by the tea trolley ( that is sarcasm!)