I suspect the key word here is 'perception' - we all know that compensation claims havent increased significantly recently, and that the goal setting approach to legislation is broadly succesful. However the perception in much of the media, and amongst many regular people, of H&S is not good. Will anything change for 99% of practitioners? We do important work that our organisations usually appreciate, could it be that this review might serve to seperate the 'elf n safety' headlines beloved of the mail and express, and the valuable work that we do? Of course having a 'review' implies something is wrong in the first place and arguably the legislation available is sound, it may be that the intended target is not legislation, but the 'culture' surrounding civil claims. This might even be a good move for us...? Or, feasibly, the review may be nothing more than Political window dressing pandering to the whim of media and public perception. Interesting to see how it goes.......

The professional response is here: http://www.iosh.co.uk/Co...%20Exchange%20report.pdf See also p32 of June issue SHP.

I agree partly with both views aired above. None of us should be scared of external scrutiny if we know our business and are 'competent' to interpret, advise and enforce regulations appropriately. However, I am more worried about the government appointing Lord Young to investigate “ridiculous health and safety laws” he said this morning on BBC – “When was the last time you saw an accident in an office, and they are subject to 1000’s of regulations.” Here is a man who is obviously totally out of touch - a fervent ex Thatcherite. I just hope that IOSH, The HSE and other interested professional bodies have the guts to stand up and discount his ridiculous statements very quickly. He only needs to look at the available stats to see lower risk industries etc are still suffering workplace accidents and ill health. If accident stats are lower in offices it is because of some form of regulation not in spite of them, otherwise many employers would do nothing and they would be much higher. As to his comments that "anyone could become a consultant without any qualifications whatsoever" this probably indicates that the first thing he needs to do is get up to speed and meet with IOSH, BSC, HSE etc and get a real handle on how things have vastly improved over the recent years on professional competent advice. Ultimately it will be about how people interpet and apply the regulations and that is where the enforcing authorities do need to be consistant and apply 'common sense'. Remember what is behind this, it is ultimately about cutting costs and we will all be affected in way or another.

I listened to part of the interview, and Lord Young needs to get out into the real world a bit. The question I ask is - what does Lord Young know or understand about Health and Safety? I just hope that he involves IOSH in the review, otherwise it will be a total waste of time. Barry

Totally agree with clairel and jane - this external review is just what is called for.....whether there is a compensation culture or just a perception of and/or media hype.....I personally see evidence of both. Hopefully, and I'm sure 'they' will involve IOSH and probably RoSPA/BSC and other stakeholders, this will make a positive change to the mindset in that of risk perception and the subsequent management of risk

And you can comment on the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10304770.stm

Oh that'll be a fair and unbiased and reasoned discussion then!! lol ;-)

Health & safety needs Good Sense not Common Sense - successive Governments have eroded all common sense from the vast majority of people with the Nanny state society they have instigated. We Safety Professionals need to take a pragmatic view of our current legislation and make it workable. There are a lot of guilty professionals out there who seem to think "why write a sentance when a page of gobbledigook with suffice". Lets not forget most of new safety legislation comes via the EU Mandarins in Brussels and the UK is the only country that seems to enforce them. Remember who took us in to Europe. We should welcome a full review of current legislation provided it is carried out by a competent team not an individual who snears at us and tells IOSH they should petition for authority to police the profession. Whilst we have a good record of safety in this country we still kill, maim and make people ill in the work place, we are not perfect by any means. We have an enabling act that allows regulations to be introduced to cover all types of work place, we have the RRFSO that has replaced and repealed several other pieces of legislation, we are not over burdening small businesses, we make them accoutable for their actions and the safety of their work force, their most inportant asset. Don't we do this job to ensure people go home safe and well at the end of each day - as I said previously there are those of us who are guilty of making things too complicated.

Our good friend the Daily Mail has managed to make it headline news on it's website http://www.dailymail.co....-safety-regulations.html Never saw that one coming - knowing how much they support the work we do (NOT!!!)

A review of safety legislation, REACH anyone....?!!!!

I also have to agree with Claire on this one. Having been a Safely Professional for over 30 years before I retired it is very evident that there is now a claims culture. These days, due to the No Fees arrangements, the insures do not seem prepared to fight cases as they used to and simply roll over if they think the costs of litigation are likely to exceed any potential claims. So many cases which should be defended never end up in court. I know of a number of cases which were settled out of court that had they gone to court would almost certainly been dismissed. Don’t get me wrong I am not saying that if someone is injured due to negligence they should not receive compensation. John

Just a couple of thoughts here about all this lot -- If a health and safety professional must be "competent" to operate effectively and within the legislational requirements - what competence must a Health and Safety law reviwer have, and in what areas ? Maybe Lord Young has the answer to this one to!!. Personally I think all is a lost cause from day one if the datum point is assumed as being that all the elf 'n safety rubbish has any actual relevance to existing legislation, which the BBC and the press seem to think is the case. It is time the insurance industry were dragged out from under their cloak of self protection and profiteering at the cost of their clients and forced to make sensible and realistic decisions. This is where changes to the law are needed as the elf n' safety culture they generate act against the true spirit of UK legislation.

Please quote particular examples of post 1992 health and safety legislation that is nonsense. Most, if not all of post 1992 legislations makes it explicit what is implicit in HASAWA. ACoPs are not regulations and one is free to achieve compliance by other means. It appears that that many do not understand the status of HSE ACoPs and Guidance in out health and Safety system. Regarding ACOPs, it was Robens that had envisaged it, so we should not pick and choose from Robens, the only difference being that he expected industry to publish the ACOPs and guidance. Last, but not least, the ACOP material is not HSE's own, but in consultation with Employers Organisations, TU's, Expert Organisations etc. Short of leaving the European Union, a member state has no choice, but to transpose EU Directives into national Legislation and I am afraid that we simply cannot use HASAWA for that. I am afraid that unless we change our entire legal system (not only for health and safety regulation) , it is most unlikely that the text of any legislation will be in simple, easy to understand English. It is easy to blame under a common heading "health and safety legislation" for a set of complex legal matters that include civil law and the right to recompense, our existing legal/court procedures for civil claims and loss and risk cover from insurers and risk aversion due to a small number of high profile public/school safety accidents. Unfortunately, the same politicians when in opposition demand robust and more "controls" rather than advocating a calm and a measured response. Last, but not least, there is the entire Health and Safety industry profiting from overselling, whether it is Information, Training, PPE, etc etc. and a proportion of it is done by scaremongering! It is my view that a reasonably good SME "manager"/"proprietor" having low/simple risks should be in a position to use the simple, easy to read HSE guidance on the Business Link website and be able to comply with the bulk of health and safety legislation that applies to them. Refer to http://www.businesslink....layer?topicId=1073858799 The issue is not whether there is simple to use information etc for SME's, but why are they so much dependent upon "others" when they could acheive a lot themselves.

I agree Paul. We should accentuate the positive instead of falling victim to the awful tabloid press. H&S is not alone. Science suffers the same ignorent blend of scare stories and sweeping conclusions in the largely scientifically illiterate press - as Ben Goldacre's book, 'Bad Science' lucidely explains. I dare say it's the same problem for many fields and professions. I do think the idea of review could be helpful - but not if it starts out biased, biggoted and ill-informed. I see a problem with this thread in that people state opinions in a way that comes across as fact. For example, either we have an excessive compensation culture or we don't. TUC and ROSPA say we don't. How robust their research is, I don't know. The trouble is it is difficult to find the time to 'research' other people's research. At the same time, I don't see the value in individuals getting on their soap box about increases in compensation culture when it is purely based on their limited anacdotal evidence and is tainted by TV adverstising. These sorts of forum debates are self gratifying but largely based on opinions - rather than proper research. Rather like the tabloids!

It is going to be interesting to see how the ambulance chasers and claim cheats are going to be reined back. I have been involved with claims handling for 15 years and the principle that the we applied was that if someone is injured at work then he/ she deserves some fair compensation after taking into consideration the person’s contribution to the accident. Settlements can be made very quickly where both sides are honest, but in my experience a large portion of claimants lie to cover up their contribution, or exaggerate their injury or capability to get back to fitness. I have even found that the injuries have been done elsewhere than work, on more than one occassion The claim culture is driven by the legal profession because they do not take any financial risk. The claimants sometimes have to pay for an insurance against loosing. I have many experiences where after a large amount of legal work and investigation has been done on both sides and the claimant and his solicitor have withdrawn on the agreement that each side agrees to stand its own costs. This smacks of "The Old Boys Network" ie both solicitors get paid. The claimant Solicitor is paid through claimant’s insurance policy, the defendants pay for their solicitor. At the end of the day this causes problems for genuine, honest claimants. It also takes vauble HS resource away from important accident prevention activities. It is time for a review Steve

Jay wrote: Please quote particular examples of post 1992 health and safety legislation that is nonsense. Most, if not all of post 1992 legislations makes it explicit what is implicit in HASAWA. Unfortunately not true Jay. Most regulation has expanded the original Act with a wealth of overwhelming detail which is confusing, overlapping and inconsistent. If you want an example, what about Reg 6(5) of the 1998 Gas Safety Regulations? "no-one shall search for a gas leak with a lighted match" Do we actually need a LAW to tell people not to do this??? If you were stupid enough to do this, do you think you'd even know there was a law?.... It's no good just pretending all this legislation is really necessary and of value. My manager and I used to joke that the only thing you didn't find in HSE guidance notes was any actual guidance which was specific enough to be useful. This has changed slightly but not a lot. Try and work out from the recent guidance on persons sleeping rough in waste bins and see how much actually tells waste handlers what they are supposed to do! Is that 6 pages to say "be careful when you pick up waste bins" and adding in requirements for written risk assessments which can do little more than say the same? As far as ACOP's are concerned, they too are filled with civil service doublespeak, and I actually think many could be challenged as being "Ultra Vires" - beyond their remit. They are meant to interpret the law, but often stray into matters beyond the specific legal provisions. Not only are they largely useless to employers seeking definition, they are equally useless to regulators seeing to prosecute. Oh yes - there's plenty to go at if you want to make things simpler......

"but in my experience a large portion of claimants lie to cover up their contribution" Which works both ways. Having been warned, then bullied and then an attempt at bribery to avoid having an accident put down in the "accident book" I tend to know that it works both ways. The reality of, at least, industrial courts is that half of the cases never make it to court. Many people who do have a case never proceed because it is too costly (no legal aid) As far as the compensation culture goes.....it doesn't. Not in this country. Many of the awards that are made are in four-figures. I won an industrial court case, in the face of blatant lies by the other side....but since I had kept records and documents and I was represented by my TU I won, quite easily. I'm quite sure that the people looking into H&S and the [not] compensation culture will be truly partial and grossly biased. I can see the writing on the wall. Fortunately, many are now part of the EU legislation.

As Jay says most of what recent regulations require is simply explicit comment on what is implicit in the 1974 Act. Unfortunately, it was Thatcher Governments that started the trend to assume that any EC Directive needed to be implemented via Regulations. The European Court of Justice has decided that the principle of "reasonable practicability" is consistent with EU legislative requirements. A search of this site will give you the link to the final judgment Hence, we COULD do away with most of our current regulations EXCEPT where they require more than is reasonably practicable - HSWA requires that new legislation does not dilute requirements - without looking it up, I think it is Section 1(2) - hence e.g. the wording of Regulation 17 or the Workplace Regs. BUT if we are going to have a "bonfire of regulations" this is going to be VERY resource intensitive as regards HSE, Government/Parliament and stakeholders, working out exactly what we can revoke (perhaps backed up with ACOPs/Guidance) with 100s of pages of Consultative Documents. Way back in 1988, I listened to the then Chair of the HSC with horror explaining to a conference that from 1.1.89 it was going to be compulsory for construction workers to wear hard hats - he didn't even add that this would not apply where there was no reasonably foreseeable risk - I wondered why I had drafted a prosecution report against both employer and main contractor under Sections 2 and 4 of the 1974 Act after an accident in which the defence position that the injured party was not exposed to risk for more than 4 minutes per day was NOT disputed by the prosecution. Guilty verdicts against both in case that went to trial in 1988. A year or so later, I was bewildered to learn that apparently until COSHH there was no duty to assess the risks associated with exposure to hazardous substances. So how did employers etc demonstrate that they had controlled exposure so far as reasonably practicable as required by HSWA if they had not done a risk assessment? In 1991, HSE issued a directive to its Inspectors to enforce the COSHH and Noise Regulations. Was one of the final triggers to my decision to resign from the Executive. I had been inspecting mostly large metal manufacturing and engineering factories for the previous year - what did HSE think that I had been starting off virtually EVERY visit for over 12 months? Two weeks before I left we had the Minister for lunch - he explained that the training we got from HSE meant that we were valuable in outside industry - similar to accountants in the Inland Revenue - but we would apply this outside the Civil Service - so Tory philosoply? - we'll invest in the training on behalf of big business who can then poach our resources (including to defend against regulatory action - I've done plenty of this - when you've written plenty of prosecution reports it's quite easy to see the weaknesses in similar) BUT we could have done without COSHH 1988, Noise at Work Regulations 1989 (and subsequent ever more complex reiterations). BUT I doubt that the current Government has the intent to resource what would be required to have its desired bonfire whilst NOT reducing required standards. (I had similar doubts under the previous administration's BERR review, but my doubts are just somewhat greater!) Bumped into two former colleagues today, who advise that briefing paper suggests that HSE should steer clear of (presumably low risk????) areas such as local authorities and NHS....mmmm.....so my excellent Glasgow City Council refuse collectors are not in a high risk business, ditto staff at the Western's A&E? Oh, and stress is, apparently, definitely off limits - HSE web site would indicate this to be in the offing for some considerable time. Urrrrrr, Sorry, HSE, but do your own stats not indicate that we lose about five times as many working days from ill health that is caused by or exacerbated by work (with a very large proportion attributed to stress) than from accidents at work? We practitioners are going to have to get used to an HSE that is being ever more emasculated. Of course, we've been here before......We had the Heseltine deregulation unit......Nothing much in occupational H&S changed. Extremely difficult to do anything about "reasonable practicability" without massively intervening in judgments in civil litigation that extend across the Globe, not only to the Commonwealth (e.g. Australia) but also beyond (e.g. US) which of course predate the 1974 Act by decades. So, basically Cameron's comments can be summed up as Either - Complete rhetoric before and since the election Or - Complete failure to be adequately briefed before or since the election as to the issues, not least having regard to IOSH's briefing to Lord Youg prior to IOSH Conference and his grilling there. ...and for any of you who think that I am just anti-Tory.... 1. Yes in my very first chance to vote I voted for alll four Liberal candidates in deepest Surrey (they all lost!) 2. In advance of my postal vote in Birmingham 1979, the response to a letter that I wrote to my sitting Tory MP was at best rude (I confess that she could have worked out from my questions that there were not many chances that I would have voted for her) 3. We just don't do this in Scotland. 1 Tory before the election, one just since. Of all the Labout MPs in Scotland all but one (including in my marginal constitutiency) INCREASED their majority......which is why there is talk of more powers being devolved to Holyrood - I can't see any logical reason why these should not include H&S. Regards, Peter Regards, Peter

Dave Daniel Your comment about the Gas regs - Believe it or not the use of a lighted match to find a gas leak was common practice in the days of town gas - alighted match would be run along pipes and around joints to see if there was a leak

Buzz Beware of statistics, damned lies...I read a few years ago that 9 out of 10 (injury) claims are settled out of court and therefore I'm not sure the statistics quoted would include these. If not, the stats would not identify whether during the last five years claims have increased, which is, I suggest, the crux of the issue. Interesting figures nonetheless.