Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

4 Pages123>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Paul Duell  
#1 Posted : 15 October 2010 10:25:06(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Paul Duell

http://www.number10.gov..../lord-young-report-55605

I'm only up to page 26 but I suggest having some aspirin ready* beofre you start to read. Looks like many or our fears have been realised, with much of his research being based on the Daily Wail, rather than on what H&S legislation actually says.

I may change my mind when I've read the rest of it, but I'm not hopeful
Jane Blunt  
#2 Posted : 15 October 2010 10:32:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Jane Blunt

I don't have time to read it all right now, but a quick glance at Appendix M, the implementation milestones, is quite reassuring.
leadbelly  
#3 Posted : 15 October 2010 10:36:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
leadbelly

Thanks for the link, Paul; I look forward (!) to reading the report when I get the chance.

LB
walker  
#4 Posted : 15 October 2010 11:03:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

Paul, thanks for that!

I've had a very quick scan

Annex K is interesting - its a letter to HSE -he has pretty much told HSE to get off the fence they have been sitting on for all these years & told them to identify minimum qualifications for H&S consultants.

This looks a bit further than the IOSH "list" & hopefully defines qualifications for ALL H&S advisors. Otherwise the poor advice trotted out from LAs (the origin of all conkers bonkers stories) will continue.
Victor Meldrew  
#5 Posted : 15 October 2010 11:26:34(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Like you Jane, only had a quick scan but much as expected and quite reassuring, especially the parts on H&S Consultants database, the need for the HSE to do more for low risk environments and school childrens issues simplified. Hopefully 'we' can eventually concentrate on the medium to high risk activities that really need 'our' expertise.......however still a bit of bedtime reading to go.
fornhelper  
#6 Posted : 15 October 2010 11:27:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
fornhelper

Walker

Can you qualify your remark that all 'all conkers bonkers stories originate from LAs' please (or is it just another dig at the public sector that seems to be the usual these days).

Re Lord Young report - had a quick scan and tend to see more positives than negatives but will take time to fully review it before making further comment - should make for an intersting debate though.

Regards
FH
pl53  
#7 Posted : 15 October 2010 11:34:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pl53

Proposals on amending RIDDOR seem interesting. Reporting after 7 days rather than 3, justified by the fact that it will fit into the "fit note" system. Can't see how that will increase compliance as he seems to be suggesting.
Terry556  
#8 Posted : 15 October 2010 11:34:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Terry556

Had a quick scan through the report, the accident reporting 7 days instead of 3 would benefit companies on their LDFRR. I will read it more in detail later,there ar esome good points
jwk  
#9 Posted : 15 October 2010 11:42:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Dangerous Dogs Act for the 21st Century.

'Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen' Albert Einstein

John
pl53  
#10 Posted : 15 October 2010 11:42:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pl53

The only result of increasing the reporting period will be a reduction in reports. It will have no effect on the number or severity of accidents.
neilrimmer  
#11 Posted : 15 October 2010 11:44:23(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
neilrimmer

well the good thing is that the report clearly has recognised that it is not legislation at fault more the interpretation of...

Basically if the daily moan (mail) gets a new whipping boy instead of H&S and businesses actually bother to read the regs rather than moaning about them then everything will be fine (think we all knew that anyway).
Murdy18657  
#12 Posted : 15 October 2010 11:52:30(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Murdy18657

It's better than I expected although mixing compensation, claims lawyers, school trips and occupational stuff together is one of the problems we have already!

Some stuff is welcome, other parts less so.

But overall not bad.
jwk  
#13 Posted : 15 October 2010 11:59:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

It's nice that there's going to be an interactive risk assessment form for charity shops (never mind that we already have our own system ta very much). Now we just need the Govt to pay for the IT kit to use it....

John
GordonP  
#14 Posted : 15 October 2010 12:10:24(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
GordonP

Maybe the important bits are all on pages 10, 13, 14, 18, 24, 41, 42 ????

As these are all missing.
MaxPayne  
#15 Posted : 15 October 2010 12:17:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
MaxPayne

At first glance it appears to be fairly positive and well balanced. I don't think any H&S professional would argue that it largely the unqualified "consultants" out there that bring the profession into disrepute.

Snow clearing guidance...I look forward to that being a future topic yet again for discussion here.
MaxPayne  
#16 Posted : 15 October 2010 12:19:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
MaxPayne

gordonp wrote:
Maybe the important bits are all on pages 10, 13, 14, 18, 24, 41, 42 ????

As these are all missing.




Well spotted gordonp; it must be a conspiracy then :-)
Ron Hunter  
#17 Posted : 15 October 2010 12:21:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

A strange brew of the bizarre and the blindingly obvious. Surely some of these "recommendations" are already in place?

Amalgamating all the Regulations into one handy set ????

A "lifetime consent" for all activities at school? Hardly an informed consent!
Heather Collins  
#18 Posted : 15 October 2010 12:24:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Heather Collins

MaxPayne wrote:
I don't think any H&S professional would argue that it largely the unqualified "consultants" out there that bring the profession into disrepute.


You'd be wrong then because I would argue that it's more due to:

1. People who have been on a one day course using "elf 'n' safety" as a convenient excuse for things they don't want to have to actually assess and manage.

2. Over-zealous enforcing officers particularly from LAs. No this is not a bash at all LA Officers some are very good, but I have direct experience of some who are truly ignorant.

3. "Jobsworth" H&S Officers who haven't made the move away from "the book says" approach and come into the 21st century yet.

More to come when I read the report properly I dare say...
neilrimmer  
#19 Posted : 15 October 2010 12:28:19(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
neilrimmer

I personally dont see the consultation on the creation of a single set of regulations coming up with much, surely they are better being specific.

Not that the regs are particularly difficult to begin with, if SMEs bothered looking at them instead of drafting a letter to the daily mail then it wouldnt have been mentioned
Whitehouse28112  
#20 Posted : 15 October 2010 12:34:49(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Whitehouse28112

Hi

It would be interesting to break down the 800,000 CLAIMS for compensation.

How many were work related?
How many RTA related? - as this seems to be Youngs thing!!!
How many actually were rejected?

Will give John LittleBrain from the Daily Trash something to bang on about for months.
jwk  
#21 Posted : 15 October 2010 12:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Like the Dangerous Dogs Act it's a response to media driven moral crisis.

1 billion people don't have enough food

China and the USA may be heading for a trade war

We use 1.5 times the sustainable capacity of the planet every year

The deficit will take 20 years to pay off

1 million people a year are killed or maimed in accidents at work

A restaurant bans toothpicks

WHY is that last point worthy of even a micro-second of media attention? That would provide a clue to unravelling the great elf'n safety debate,

John
druidware  
#22 Posted : 15 October 2010 12:35:54(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
druidware

I have emailed No.10 to see if they have a copy with ALL the pages, as the one they have a link to has the pages missing as well.

pl53  
#23 Posted : 15 October 2010 12:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pl53

I'm with Heather on this one. Most of these stories have a commonthread. Someone who is too lazy to give due consideration to a subject and uses health and safety as a way to hide their laziness / ignorance. This is compounded by those affected being unable or unwilling to challenge these issues and instead express their moral outrage to the nearest media outlet. We then get lazy journalists and minor "celebs" who see this as a way to boost their mediocre careers. Hence Richard Littlejohn, Richard Madeley, Jeremy Clarkson et al make a living out of it while sitting comfortably in their safe little offices.
redken  
#24 Posted : 15 October 2010 12:50:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
redken

It is intersting to note ,Annex L ,that HSE say that well being of workers in the office is a Hazard and that Lord Young endorses this form as a good example of what HSE can and should do!
Deecee  
#25 Posted : 15 October 2010 13:10:41(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Deecee

I also agree with Heather, I am a tech level member (Dip1) but have had run ins with those deemed to be more senior (chartered) as they had no experience in the field being discussed, as an example I have just this week has a discussion with an H&S Manager from a client company rejecting a risk Assessment that had no "rating" for power tools, despite the fact none were being used.

While I agree with the need to ensure the consultants are competent, there is much more to competence as we all know than qualifications.

I will take another longer look at the report as we all will and digest it properly.
Phil John  
#26 Posted : 15 October 2010 13:23:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Phil John

Have had a reasonable read and like it.

Look at the title:

Common Sense
Common Safety

It was only a matter of time before someone had to be brought in to sort the bureaucracy out within this section.

Very sensible approach regarding SME's low risk

About time!!!!

Question

Does anyone disagree with any areas of his recommendations? (just to get the ball rolling).

I love the section where 'Officials who ban events on health and safety grounds should put their reasons in writing'

GordonP  
#27 Posted : 15 October 2010 13:32:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
GordonP

Just got an email back from Lisa Cooper in the Lord Young Review Team at DWP,
She has assured me that the missing pages are all blank.
MEden380  
#28 Posted : 15 October 2010 13:41:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
MEden380

Can any one give an example where the emergency Services have been investigated or prosecuted when carrying out an act of heroism?
jwk  
#29 Posted : 15 October 2010 13:48:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

ffion,

For me the question isn't so much whether or not I agree with his recommendations, it's whether I think they are necessary or useful. Take his recommendations for low hazard workplaces (page 15 for the summary). First thing I take exception to is his differentiating between employers and voluntary sector organisations. My employer is a voluntary sector organisation, which employs 3,000 people. My previous voluntary sector employer employer had 7,500. His apparent failure to understand that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. Secondly, the approach he recommends to managing H&S in low risk workplaces is exactly what we do in our Charity shops, have been doing in our Charity shops for three years, and is what we developed in conjunction with HSE and the Association of Charity shops for application in teh whole sector. Not new, not 'common sense' ('The prejudices we have acquired by age eighteen' - Albert Einstein), not radical, just a straightforward application of the ACOP and guidance to MHSW.

Dangerous dogs act for the 21st Century.

I too look forward to the snow clearing guidance ('Take one shovel, shovelling for the use of. Grip firmly left hand above spadey bit right hand on handle for the guidance of. Dig.)

Laughable really.

The civil claims bit looks moderately sensible, though I too wonder what proportion of his 800,000 ever amounted to a hill of beans,

John
Ron Hunter  
#30 Posted : 15 October 2010 13:53:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

ffion:

For starters , the suggestion that the current legislative framework is an overly bureaucratic burden on SMEs and "low risk" employers and that simple guidance is lacking needs to be produced.

For starters: http://www.hse.gov.uk/business/policy.htm

and INDG259 has been around for a long, long time.

Why the HSE would "welcome" such suggestions baffles me.

There is of course the argument that, whilst all these resources exist, the SME is unaware of their existence. This is a long-standing problem of the various business start-up initiatives (mostly Government sponsored) which have never joined up with H&S requirements. (Not that the report mentions such elements of (common sense) joined-up thinking.)

I find the tone of some elements of this Report no better than some of the other publications it seeks to discredit, and in other respects to be biased and anti-European. But I'm not surprised.
jwk  
#31 Posted : 15 October 2010 14:00:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

MEden380, you're looking for evidence, that's where you're going wrong. We don't need evidence, just misperception and rock-solid self-assurance,

John
Collins34898  
#32 Posted : 15 October 2010 14:16:54(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Collins34898

I have had a read of the review document and would say that the report is reasonably balanced and will hopefully push along the changes that are now required to bring a semblance of 'risk management' back to our chosen profession. I can't be on my own (can I) when I recognise that our industry has been poorly served by some of our colleagues giving poor advice. The level of fear created by some colleagues in low risk environments has done nothing but harm to H&S Management overall.


Perhaps now practitioners around the country can get back to their role of giving balanced, well thought out risk management advice. We should continue to robustly challenge the 'compensation culture' myth that some people/businesses use to mask their lack of commitment to the ongoing protection of their employees/contractors/visitors. Similarly we (IOSH and its membership) should continue to challenge businesses or individuals that persist in blaming H&S for the cancellation of events and in particular learning opportunities for young people.


The review of the bulk of our Regulations is long overdue, the fact that many Regulatory requirements are repeated across each set surely points to the need for us to combine them into a single set of Management Regs - similar to Australia/Ireland. This cannot be beyond a country with our great H&S history and capabilities, lets get back to setting the standard and in 3-5 years time we will look back on Lord Young as the catalyst of a great H&S improvement opportunity. My first post on the forum despite being a member for 15 years
MaxPayne  
#33 Posted : 15 October 2010 14:31:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
MaxPayne

quote=Heather Collins]
MaxPayne wrote:
I don't think any H&S professional would argue that it largely the unqualified "consultants" out there that bring the profession into disrepute.


You'd be wrong then because I would argue that it's more due to:

1. People who have been on a one day course using "elf 'n' safety" as a convenient excuse for things they don't want to have to actually assess and manage.

2. Over-zealous enforcing officers particularly from LAs. No this is not a bash at all LA Officers some are very good, but I have direct experience of some who are truly ignorant.

3. "Jobsworth" H&S Officers who haven't made the move away from "the book says" approach and come into the 21st century yet.

More to come when I read the report properly I dare say...



Heather, yes totally agree and I possibly deserved your rather blunt response for posting what was a very quick comment based on a glance at the report. What I meant to say was it is the incompetent practitioners out there that have contributed to the media circus, and indeed I too know of one or two chartered members who fall into that catagory. Theoretical knowledge is weakened by the lack of practical application.
jericho  
#34 Posted : 15 October 2010 14:35:44(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
jericho

I too have only had a quick scan until I can print it off and scribble on it, but overall I am extremely pleased. We were fortunate to meet with Lord Young on day 2 of his appointment as were other colleagues representing retail, a huge sector of UK employment and it is clear that he has listened to the representations made to him. This report isn't 'new law' it's a report from which we can now lever change. Lord Young's commitment to us was that he would get back to the 'Spirit of Robens' something that most professionals should surely be pleased with. If nothing else, this will force a debate where we can get back to having a proportional response based upon our own risk profile instead of being driven by others who haven't the remotest idea nor interest in how our businesses function. Who knows, this may even force a review of the curriculum for 'Safety School' and we may get to the point were we are producing modern safety professionals not simply clones of 70's clip board carrying jobsworths who have done as much damage to us as bonkers press and poor enforcement.

OK the report may not suit everyone's taste but there will be a good many out there who will be dancing tonight. Try to see past the silly stuff that does look a bit like an attempt at good PR and get into the meat as it were.

When I worked in heavy industry you could expect a visit from HM Inspectorate once every 5 years or so. Some of our High Street Branches get 4 visits per annum. I welcome any review that helps us to push back. Large multi site organisations such as retail need to have a different enforcement model based on a strategic review of the central management systems, not to be picked off one at a time locally being seen as small local business to be pushed around. Small businesses don't generally need a risk driven approach. Check box safety can be as much as they need.

All round, encouraging. Depending on your view point. I'd give it 8/10

Chris
MarcusB  
#35 Posted : 15 October 2010 14:47:39(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
MarcusB

I'll be reading this with interest. A quick scan suggests it's not as bad as I may have expected but I'll reserve judgement for now...
Ferris38332  
#36 Posted : 15 October 2010 14:54:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Ferris38332

I have to agree in the main with Ron on this one.

Especially on the statement

‘I find the tone of some elements of this Report no better than some of the other publications it seeks to discredit, and in other respects to be biased and anti-European. But I'm not surprised.’

Lord Young puts together two statements (pg 31, 4th chapter) firstly there is no minimum standard for H&S Consultants and that the NEBOSH Certificate can be taken in ten days. Two statements put together implying all consultants have had ten days training.

Now what does poor writing, no depth and inaccurate, misleading information remind you off? To me it looks remarkably like the ‘daily moan’.

What could have been a great document has ended up being no better than the gutter media that has mainly fuelled the poor image of H&S.

And no I'm not a consultant .
barnaby  
#37 Posted : 15 October 2010 14:57:53(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Not read it yet but I quite liked this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blo...ehind_health_and_sa.html
jwk  
#38 Posted : 15 October 2010 15:00:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Jericho,

Couldn't disagree more. If you were to look at our retail operation over the last few years we have had a passer by almost killed by a falling shop sign, a plate glass window spontaneously imploding, several fractured limbs resulting from trip hazards, a manager thrown across the shop from an unearthed socket and endless puncture wounds from tagging guns, minor M&H injuries and abrasions from stuff falling from various places. On top of this we have fire escape routes leading to nowhere, bins stored on escape routes because there is no other storage, workers regularly dealing with vomit and faeces because of contaminated donations (people putting used nappies and on one occasion a dead cat in a bag and then forgetting why they had started it and filling it up with charity donations), occasional donations of WW2 ordnance (live grenades no less), furniture moving, abusive customers, robberies and so on.

At least now I know who to blame for the 'low risk' tag.

The thing about risk assessment, as opposed to a one-size fits all checklist (and we use a hybrid approach) is that it allows organisations to take appropriate, reasonably practicable actions. If you're a cash strapped charity shop chain with the eye on raising money for good works, it's a very different world to that inhabited by the Sainsbury's, the WHS's and Waitroses of this world,

John
MrsBlue  
#39 Posted : 15 October 2010 15:20:09(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Have read the report and my comments are:

Replace Adventure Activities |Licensing Authority with Code of Practice: Definitely NO. I only consider Licensed and Accredited Centres to send children to undertake adventurous training.

Contradiction (there may be others but this is glaring): Heap the blame on bad consultants and set minimum qualifications etc. Good by H&S Consultants. BUT then it says that LA H&S officials are reponsible for banning all kinds of events. As has been said in other responses there are good and bad H&S professionals across the board.

Qualifications: If I read it right the NEBOSH Certificate is on its way out as Lord Young recommends the lowest level as Tech IOSH (or equivalent I suppose) and with 2 years experience. How do you attain this.

Rich
Nikki-Napo  
#40 Posted : 15 October 2010 15:42:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Nikki-Napo

Rich777 wrote:
Qualifications: If I read it right the NEBOSH Certificate is on its way out as Lord Young recommends the lowest level as Tech IOSH (or equivalent I suppose) and with 2 years experience. How do you attain this.

Rich


I haven't read all of the report yet.

What is being proposed as a replacement for NEBOSH then?

I agree, where do you obtain the experience!
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages123>»
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.