I don't have time to read it all right now, but a quick glance at Appendix M, the implementation milestones, is quite reassuring.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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 :-)

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...

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.

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.

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!

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'

Can any one give an example where the emergency Services have been investigated or prosecuted when carrying out an act of heroism?

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.

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

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

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 .

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

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!