One point in that article that is immediately worrying: "Lord Young wants to replace the huge number of risk assessment forms that teachers have to fill in before going on trips with a simple consent form for parents to sign. Schools should no longer be liable for accidents on such trips, nor for injuries suffered by children playing organised games, unless there has been "reckless disregard" for safety, the report says." What parent is going to sign a form saying the school isn't responsible for any injury to their child? Especially if a full risk assessment will no longer be required?

Personally speaking I think Lord Youngs statement is 'spot on' - my son is a school sports teacher and additionally is 'Head of Year'....before now I was unaware of the bureaucratic burden and hassle my son gets.....and incidently in his first term this year he has received two 'claims letters' from parents because their sons suffered sports injuries playing football....review and change LONG overdue

....you bet your life it was 'over the top' and are you saying that a risk assessment would have definitely stopped your nephew breaking his elbow? Generally speaking, working for two schools and a college on their 'high' risk sutuations, e.g. CDM, things have changed for quite some time and long before the 'paperwork' burden in recent years

...neither am I, just depends on the trip/activity. A procession through the town centre is one thing, on the other hand canoeing, kayaking, sking, pot holing and other similar 'out-of-school' activities are totally different and need the relevant approach, whereupon the schools and college I deal with have the relevant procedures in place and adopt accordingly

It opened my thinking some years ago when i went to an activities centre with a college to check the premises before they sent students there, which had various activities; absailing, rock climbing, canoeing caving and the most dangerous in their opinion was ....Cycling...as they had no control over the people once they got on the cycle....quite logicall really

There is a fair bit of perception that drives the debate. My daughter goes to a primary school that has a motto, "learn to live" where play and outdoor activities are an integral part. The school takes their years 4 to 6 outdoors, starting with "Camping" in year 4, a trip to Brenscombe Farm and nearby places in year 5 and much more for year 6. Due to my professional interest, I had requested a copy of their risk assessment for my daughters trip to Brenscombe Farm and nearby places in May 2010 Their Risk Assessment for the 3 day trip was of 2.5 pages with the main headings of the "control measures" required for the Journey, the accommodation, for Brenscombe Activities as the risk assessment has been carried out by centre, activities are led by centre staff only basic supervision, Corfe Castle Visit, Road Safety, Kimmeridge Bay, Swanage Railway, Moore Valley Park Visit and General do and don'ts. The supervising team did recce the locations to ensure that their controls are suitable. I had no hesitation in signing the consent form. It is only when OTT risk assessments are carried out and all risk is attempted to be eliminated that there are problems. The issues with "claims" is very little to do with health and safety legislation, more to do with the compensation claims system and large sections of the society wanting someone to blame and expect recompense, rather than accepting that you cannot eliminate all injuries in sports/playfield.

Jay, I agree that it is perceptions & largely a percieved claims culture at that, however, changes to legislation will be needed if some of the changes which have been reported are to be made. If schools are to have a duty of care which is only invoked in case of 'reckless disregard' for H&S, how will that square with duties in s3 of HASAWA? The law would have to change. I think my problem is that I have been involved in H&S for over 20 years in one way or another, and this is looking like the first serious attempt I can remember to reduce the amount of protection afforded to employees and members of the public; to date it's been a case of refining and enhancing existing protections. But introducing a term like 'reckless disregard' into H&S is to rewrite HASAWA and throw away the original principles of Robens. And for what? Because a few people have to fill some forms in? John

Since he/they are not going to direct the courts to cease all civil litigation, his review may turn out to be no more than hot air. A more likely route is to try to increase the cost of litigation by trying to end no-win-no-fee, which will increase the amount of litigation the government is involved in, mainly to the eu courts and will fail to stop civil action to recover compensation. I think it is more a case of "know your place peasants"

Hands-up all those who remember the large amounts of money from the compensation won for miners [re: Health problems from dust etc] being taken by their "legal representatives" ? [subsequently repaid] Solicitors win when they win, they win when they lose, and they win when the case is not decided. Now let me see......who is leading an enquiry into health and safety......oh yes.....a solicitor ?

Victor What Lord Young seems to be proposing is to remove the threat of litigation for “safe” activities eg taking a party of out of school premises. How does Lord Young know this is a safe activity? Has he done a risk assessment? If there is no threat of litigation then employers including schools will not do anything. My wife is a teacher and every so often she is involved in a risk assessment for an activity out of school. They sit down and say we need so many staff to look after these kids based on their assessment and the guidance from the Department for Education, and the management said “ We can’t afford to cover that many staff, come up with a lower figure!”. She then pointed to the cases of schools being prosecuted for failing to assesses risks correctly and they changed their mind. Of course people should take reasonable care of themselves, but many people are not in situations where they can control their work. Management is telling them what to do and how to do it. So management should take responsibility for its people. That’s what risk assessment is about. Or do you think that a five year old should be expect to take responsibility for their own safety?

Claire, True, the facts are important, which is why it's so essential that people who have been injured can have their day in court, and that where negligence is shown, the compensation matches the gravity of the injury. Where's the statements that the review won't prejudice the outcome for those who really have been hurt? John

I have to say, that unless a risk assessment was done, I would not be signing the consent form. The risk assessment could take significant time particularly for a high risk activity, but if done properly and control measure implemented then could drastically reduce the risk to the children. Just asking parents to sign a consent form is totally unacceptable, and if this is implemented, I will wait for when things go wrong, and see what happens. Risk assessments are essential in ensuring the safety of everyone involved. The emergency services do them, then carry out dynamic risk assessments as the activity progresses, allowing for changing circumstances, and therefore changing risks.

Victor, All the paperwork in this case consisted of one side of A4 with about 4 sections. It took me twenty minutes, and that included findng out what the DoE recommendations for escort ratios is. OTT yes, but excessively burdensome, no. Red tape is an over-rated hazard, the lack of RAs has killed far more people than their existence. Shops, well, have you any idea how easy it is to injure yourself in a shop? Do you know that Charity shops have sharps bins for example? It's because the tagging guns stab people's fingers, and if you don't have robust procedures in place there's a fair chance that you could get stabbed by a needle that's been in somebody else's finger. And as for retail and fire safety, we only need to say Co-Op and New Look. The 'burden' is strongly over-stated, the benefits ofn effective H&S are consistently under-rated. And yes, there is a strong human factor in H&S, hence the interest in behavioural safety, it still doesn't absolve the employer of their duty of care to provide suitable and sufficient information, instruction and training; the latter is especally important if we are invoking behavioural causes for accidents, John

Victor Without wanting to get dragged into a debate about a report that has not been published yet, and without wanting to question the political morals of a right wing publication's story, how many fully qualified H&S proffesionals do you know that could carry out, efficiently and to current guidlines a. Food hygeine and environmental inspection and audits b. Thorough Fire risk assessments c. All relevant H&S audits that would come with inspecting pubs and restuarants I for one would not feel comfortable carrying out all of these duties, as I simply have not had the training in all of these areas. That is not to say there are not individuals out there who are not qualified to do so because I have no doubt there will be numbers of people who are. My point is though that H&S is a vast industry and to put under one umbrella or simply expect one individual to be able to do these duties is borderline madness ,expecting that the country has this number of trained proffesionals equipped to do so is folly. Without drifting off on a tangent anymore the bottom line is that if, as the article suggests this is what the government expects to be able to do, then not just H&S is in bother but much more of society I do respect peoples opinions and I can see what you are trying to say, kind of, but to generalise in that way is going to provoke reaction, especially from those within the industry A

Victor Your earlier posts " I don't think some are getting my point; my childen are now all grown up and flown the nest so they have all completed OK, however, with my son being a school sports teacher and head of year I know NOW that has all changed, so PROBABLY I wouldn't havd a choice now but to sign a consent form for my child and/or not agree to go IF the school or organisation/body hadn't done a risk assessment for out of school activities such as gorge walking-canoeing-caving etc etc, but for a procession from A to B through the town and all the paperwork that goes with it is I believe OTT." were as clear as mud! If you had made yourself clear then maybe people would have got your point. Or maybe you didnt know yourself what point you were trying to make "Lord Young I believe has stated that the problems centre around shops, offices and schools and the 'burden' that it created - and thats what I agree with." To me it sounded as though you jumped on a thread without thinking it through and provoked reaction to which you then backtracked. As I said before I dont want to get drawn into debate on material that is not even available for our consumption just now, I would rather wait and give my opinion at that time Andy

"as you've just prooved.... but have it your way, I'm with Lord Young." Well done on your fan club!

Ok John I think as you do but probably more so, that a ' walk through town' was slightly OTT, and I'm not particularly fixated as such but associate with similar types e.g. local school stopped five-a-side football at break time after it had rained, as there wasn't a RA in place, no more school football training allowed without a parental consent form signed and that’s just two. I also appreciate the voluntary bit -we all appear to get 'roped in'. Additionally, just spoken to one of the schools I deal with and they impose their own ratios, because the school governors don't agree.....he says. So, make of that what you will. As for my point on getting there and back, I understand the duties bit, but nevertheless, children are probably safer at school and/or on activities rather than the travelling to & fro. I would imagine and believe there have been more issues with journeying than majority of others. Locally, one school has just, after years of 'lobbying' by worried/concerned parents finally got the local authority to put in a 'one way' system - of course a child had to get knocked over, (luckily no serious injuries) first. There had also been numerous 'near misses' and a few bumped buses and cars all dating back to 1986 but nothing was done to this 'high risk' situation because it wasn't the teachers/governors personal 'threat'. I don't believe a 'political platform' is being built around one OTT RA, but there are issues out 'they're' that are not IMHO, dissimilar, conkers, banning backstroke at school swimming events you know the stuff. Additionally, the Risk Assessments I see are similarly ok, what worries me are the ones that haven't been completed...... Fire, MH, WaH, COSHH, etc which I encounter regularly and are high risk and regulated. I'm not aware of a 'peddle back' but agree that journalism and 'no win no fee' solicitors need tackling. Hopefully, the report will, as original posting said "common sense will prevail". I'm not sure where you got the comment "If you feel they don't help workplace safety at all, then why do you do them? - because I never mentioned not doing workplace RAs and have been a big advocate for the need for SSOW for the last 26 years - I'm sure therefore 'we' all understand about RAs making safer working to some degree since 1992, but statistically I find by looking at the stats, until the recent downturn and higher unemployment situation, the figures have been fairly 'stagnant' in terms of fatalities, majors, LTAs over the last decade or so, mainly due in point to the Human Factors issue I previously mentioned.

Instead of thinking: "ignorant publicity-seeking media" Think: "adverse health and safety publicity by multi-national-multi-industry big business", which also happens to publish stories designed (in many cases) to to influence the way people think.

The government has launched an investigation into leaked details of Lord Youngs review. According to the Daily Telegraph, Lord Young will make 40 recommendations for changes to health and safety rules in his forthcoming health and safety review. It is believed that the full report will be launched as a major part of the Conservative Party conference next month. According to the paper, the report will recommend that emergency services workers, including police and ambulance staff, should be exempt from being sued for breaching health and safety rules when they risk their own safety to help others. It also says teachers will be freed from filling in complex risk assessment forms, which will be replaced by simple parent consent forms. It is also thought that the paperwork to meet risk assessments and health and safety regulations will be reduced for 'low risk' workplaces such as small shops and offices. Regards Tim B