Whilst I wholeheartedly support the HSE 'Myth of the Month' campaign and other similar efforts to ensure practical health and safety I despair at the image portrayed in the HSE home page with a link to the Lord Young report. In my opinion the image of children playing conkers with safety glasses only re-enforces the view some people have of over zealous health and safety 'rules'. Surely a picture of kids playing without safety glasses would have been more appropriate. Whilst 'seasoned' H & S people will get the point, many new or infrequent visitors to the site will see this as a negative impression of H & S - you only get one chance to make a first impression and this is certainly not the impression we need to make!! FH

Here's the link - http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/oct10.htm

I would tend to agree, I don't believe you do, unless you want to go into great depth about MSDs etc. I was just using that as an example - they may not need a consultant, but the business may need pointing in the right direction or they may feel that they'd rather bring someone else in to do it for them. Every single one of us would be out of a job if it was a case of pointing businesses to the ACoPs etc. then letting them get on with it (or not).

I agree with the postings - HSE is now stepping into myth-creating. As an independent consultant, if I'm approached by an office I would first suggest they try and look at this themselves - but I'm happy to help e.g. if they don't have time, but at a reduced rate in comparison with higher-hazard businesses. However, from past experience not all consultancies are the same: as a consultant with one of the large bank-backed consultancies I became aware that if salespeople were sent in ahead of our visits then they would virtually sell anything to anybody. This is one area where the idea that consultants get paid a lot for doing nothing can come true - but it's not the consultants who drive this, it's the forces of unethical business practices. It seems to me the larger the consultancy is, the more likely this is going to happen (because it's not the boss or the salesman who has to try and deliver the service that's been mis-sold). By-the-way, many of the consultants in such organisations will be on the register....so much for solving the problem of over-the-top H&S advice!

Dave, I mostly agree with you, though I think a lot of HSE guidance is good. Certainly their '20 minute' office risk assessment is a complete travesty, at least as regards the fire section. It would also take a good deal more than 20 minutes to complete, and I know that if the middle managers in our organisation were asked to complete this without strong guidance from our in-house H&S team they would be in a flat spin for fear of 'incriminating' themselves; I can only assume that many SME owners/managers would feel the same, John

Can you even rely on the ACoPs? The ACoP for COSHH actually contradicts itself. It contains the following definition of a substance hazardous to health: “(e) which, not being a substance falling within sub-paragraphs (a) to (d), because of its chemical or toxicological properties and the way it is used or is present at the workplace creates a risk to health” COSHH Regulation 2 (1) Interpretation In other words, any substance, even water might be a hazard to health under certain conditions. This is correct as water, in the form of wet work, is a common cause of irritant contact dermatitis. Para 13 of the ACoP states: Many commonly supplied substances … are listed in Part I of the Approved Supply List … However, that document should not be regarded as a complete listing of chemicals covered by COSHH as it deals only with substances subject to CHIP and even then omits many substances and all preparations. COSHH 2002, ACoP, para. 13 In other words, the list of substances with risk phrases on the safety data sheet may not be sufficiently comprehensive for a risk assessment. Yet further on the ACoP suggests that a risk assessment can be carried out based on the risk phrases on the safety data sheets! I can quote numerous examples where in doing this you would end up with an invalid risk assessment. I even have a document from HSE, intended as guidance for SMEs where they appear to indicate that natural rubber latex gloves may be used as protection against pain thinners. Anyone who knows about gloves will know that this is incorrect. True, they claim that this is a document in only intended to outline the basic approach, but how many managers in SMEs will appreciate that the information may not be correct but simply assume that HSE have got it right? Doesn't this illustrate the need for competent consultants who understand their particular aspects of health and safety and can advise appropriately? Chris

It is not for me to point-out that an honourable lord was an employer at one time.