Mark Some regulations have exemptions for the armed forces, but not the emergency services. Lord Young does not appear to understand that there are protocols in place between HSE and various emergency services. HSWA was amended in 1997 to specifically ensure that police officers were afforded protection. P

aagh, buttons! and we should also remember that making statements is one way to flush out opinions, views and counter arguments to a range of matters; not necessarily an indication of ones own views or understanding. p48

I've not read the statement yet, so perhaps it is difficult to comment properly, but what also needs to be taken into account is the context. Simply stating a 'one liner' so to speak can open things up for all kinds of misinterpretation. Also, everyone knows that the 'fourth estate' never let the facts get in the way of a good story. So, what could have been said as part of a wider comment could easily have been edited/ manipulated to create whatever spin the journo in question decided into the article. To be fair to Lord Young. Yes, so far he has made a few faux pas (sp?), but once this review getsunder way properly, there wil be all sorts of consultants and aides to bring his perspective back a notch.

Trying not to show political bias one way or the other, here... Surely by exempting emergency services (for example) will create more rules and regulations as they will need some form of guidance. More guidance will invariably lead to more poor interpretation. Poor interpretation lies behind most if not all the bad decisions made in the name of health and safety. Why can't the focus be on guiding people to better interpret the existing acts and their regulations? Inaction lies behind the use of 'elf 'n safety' as a get out for some people. All jobs, disciplines, professions, vocations, etc. have hazards and the risk arising from them. It is how they are managed and controlled that needs reviewing not the legislation that governs them. I believe there was a case in Perth a few years ago where fire fighter(s) were killed in attempting to rescue a trapped colleague in a silo. They succumbed to the same fate as the first guy because they chose to follow their instinct. Sadly the outcome resulted in further loss of life. I for one don't believe a review/ exemption will save lives, on the contrary it could take more lives. Whilst it is sad that 'inaction' by emergency services has happened I think this so called 'expert' needs to look behind the circumstances and examine how the people involved arrived at their decision. I doubt very much an 'elf 'n safety' rulebook was produced as reason not to act. The preservation of other lives is a much more plausible reason.

I'm waiting with bated breath to see how this ends. At some point, he's going to have to publish a report which lists which regulations he wants to see scrapped. "The one that says electrical equipment has to be tested every five years...oh, it doesn't exist... The one that says hotels mustn't give out toothpicks...oh, it doesn't exist... The one that says actors in pantomime can't throw sweets...oh, apparently that doesn't exist either..." While much of H&S law does need to be reviewed, and certainly the problem of poor interpretation needs to be addressed, I can't see how Young is going to come out of this without a substantial amount of egg on his face, given some of the things he's been quoted as saying.

Am a little uneasy about this sudden review of the H&S law that has been in place since 1974 under its current form and overall has worked very well. There have been additional pieces of specific legislation added over the years and overall work very well. Now the Gocvernment wants to undo some of this because it makes it easier for industry to work. Brings back the thought of cutting the progress that has been made over the years because it reduces the profit the company can make not that it is better. I think the whole thing is risky and being done for one thing, not to improve safety at work but to reduce the work and possible cost to business. Hope you all work for a progressive company else look out for reduced safety.

I cant see the harm in reviewing and updating/consolodating legislation. It could actually be beneficial.

Whether this review is good or bad depends on the motive behind it. From Lord Young's rhetoric I have the feeling that this report will have nothing to do with improving the legislation, but more to do with saving businesses money at the expense of the workforce, I've seen the money men in the company rubbing their hands with glee in the hope H & S legislation will be watered down. His comment about the emergency services gives me the impression that he thinks anyone injured or killed carrying out this essential service or any other work is just collateral damage. The present legislation has made Britain one of the safest countries to work in, now it looks like Lord Young is going to throw this progress away.