Emphasising repeatedly that his review and recommendations are not about health and safety in the major-hazard occupations Lord Young said the essence of his report is simple: “Reduce bureaucracy in low-hazard occupations, and eliminate those ludicrous stories that face the average reader over breakfast every day.”
He cited offices, schools and shops as examples of what he sees as low-risk environments and lauded the HSE’s new online interactive risk assessment as a major step forward in reducing bureaucracy for those workplaces. He explained: “It takes just 15 minutes. Print it, complete it, sign it – that’s it. No need for consultants, which is something we are telling the insurance industry, especially.”
In response, David Smith said his company, Zurich Insurance, doesn’t require its policy-holders to engage outside consultants and that, done properly, risk assessment doesn’t have to be bureaucratic. “It is,” he added “an excellent tool for insurers in defending civil-liability claims.”
But he then appeared to undercut Lord Young’s enthusiasm for the 15-minute online risk assessment by warning: “We are not interested in tick-box exercises; we want a practical assessment of the risk.”
Nevertheless, Smith said the insurance industry applauds the “pragmatism and practical measures” in the peer’s report – although he confided that when the industry first learned about it, it set alarm bells ringing.
He explained: “It wasn’t that we didn’t agree that the system needed reform but that we were worried how he would succeed where others before him have failed. But having seen his report now, we think it can work.”
Gerry Forlin QC was more circumspect, however, warning that any changes to the current health and safety system must be carefully thought through. Likening Lord Young’s recommendations to the children’s game Kerplunk, in which the supports for a bunch of marbles are removed one by one until all the balls fall, Forlin said: “One of the dangers of fiddling with stuff is if you take something out, you have to ask why it was there in the first place. The UK has an excellent health and safety record, and we have to be careful and not meddle with that too much.”
Taking Lord Young’s examples of low-risk workplaces, Forlin reminded the audience: “The leading case on risk in this country was a school-playground death [R v Porter (2008)]. The decision there was that risk has to be real, not fanciful or hypothetical. It is about the consequences of the risk, should it be realised. So we have to be careful; the bereaved, the injured, and juries might not see things as ‘low-risk’ as others do.”
He also argued that the ‘fear factor’ is a powerful motivator in ensuring compliance with health and safety laws and that any lowering of the bar at this stage would be inadvisable. Said Forlin: “Unless we have certain sticks and carrots, the system won’t work. Essentially, we need to get the idea of collective board responsibility into directors’ minds – otherwise Lord Young’s proposals won’t work. The reason why our fatalities are going down is because there is that fear there.”
He continued: “In my opinion, the HSE/IoD guidance for directors is the most important document we have because it sets out everything boards need to know – especially if they find themselves in front of the courts. This is stuff we cannot take out.”
Lord Young was quick to respond by emphasising that his report is “not about rolling back health and safety – it’s about getting rid of some bureaucracy”. He also surmised that had he not been asked to do this review now, “fatalities would start to rise again because people will ignore health and safety because it has become such a joke”.
The floor was then given to the audience, to put their questions to the panellists. Lord Young, in general, answered along the lines of what he wrote in his report, offering little further insight into how some of his recommendations might be implemented in practice.
His aforementioned views on common sense were given in response to a simple request from the floor to “define it” and provoked some degree of muttering among the audience.
On the new accreditation scheme for health and safety consultants, Lord Young said: “I can’t think of any other area in which people can charge a fee for their advice without having any qualifications. My report is aiming to set a standard so that people who practise health and safety in the future can achieve a recognised standard and qualification.”
Asked if it was really necessary to have a degree-level qualification to be competent, the peer replied: “No, but if you haven’t passed a standard, how does your client know that you know what you are talking about? It is dangerous to allow consultants to practise without qualifications.”
Another member of the audience wanted to know why not all organisations with an interest in health and safety standards had been involved in setting up the accreditation scheme. Lord Young said the aim was for it to eventually come under UKAS – “paid for and supported by the industry, and independent of government” – before he passed the buck to HSE chief executive, Geoffrey Podger, who was sitting in the audience.
Said Podger: “We limited the field [of organisations involved] initially to get it started but before the New Year we will look at how to extend the scheme and improve it. There is no question of any one organisation getting preferential treatment.”
The event came to a conclusion with an intriguing hint from Lord Young on the reasoning behind his recommendation that police officers and fire-fighters be immune from prosecution under health and safety duties for putting themselves at risk by carrying out a heroic act.
Responding to a question from a fire-fighter in the audience, who wanted to know if the recommendation extended to the employing organisations as well as individuals, the peer replied: “The inquiry into the 7/7 bombings in London may have had some bearing on my recommendations in this sphere but I won’t say more than that.”
So, no detail as yet on how his proposals will be implemented, and no insight into how the subjective ‘skill’ of common sense will be assessed and determined in practice but there has been at least one concrete, positive result of Lord Young’s report: the peer revealed that his contacts at the Daily Mail and The Sun have been on to him to complain that he’s going to ruin their livelihood!
Advance your career in health and safety
Browse hundreds of jobs in health and safety, brought to you by SHP4Jobs, and take your next steps as a consultant, health and safety officer, environmental advisor, health and wellbeing manager and more.
Or, if you’re a recruiter, post jobs and use our database to discover the most qualified candidates.
David ‘I’ll sort it” Cameron is the main man behind wanting to dumb down Health and Safety. Lord Young has become abit of a joke himself when he failed to use ‘common sense’ before opening his mouth and had to resign. That say’s it all about the man. His report only furthers a negative attitude to Health and Safety. I also have to say the HSE must take alot of blame for Health and Safety becoming the butt of the press. What a response, a 20min risk assessment. Now that is a joke.
David ‘I’ll sort it’ Cameron is the real driver of the watering down of Health and Safety. Lord Young himself is abit of a joke not having not much in the way of common sense making comments leading to him having to resign. It says alot about him. The HSE is also at fault in all of this having stood by over a number of years watching as the media made fun of and joked about a serious subject. Their response of a ’20min’ risk assessment tool – now that is joke. The reforms will never happen.
This guy is’nt worth my time in writing a detailed comment, but i will say that it seems to me that this Thatcherite dinosaur wants to take us back to the 1980’s. If he suceeds, it will cost 100’s of lives every year. We must fight him & all he stands for, otherwise we will be complicit.
This article doesn’t give a lot away does it! But the one thing I did pick up is he wants all Health & Safety consultants to be qualified, but if you don’t think your premises are a high risk (which according to the MD is just about every company I’ve worked at!) you can do a 15 minute risk assesment online!
Am I missing something?
Yesterday, my partner who works as a senior care assistant was talking to me about one of the other care assts refusing to drive the van out over an icy driveway. I said well don’t you grit it? and she told me that they are not allowed to because if they missed a bit and somebody slipped on it they could be sued! SO where is this fear element helping H&S? Because of this fear element instead of minimising a risk, they have now increased the liklihood of it occuring
The only mystique has been created by those who have deliberately set out to confound and frustraite very simple and striaghtforward principals that are based on a moral obligation towards the welbeing of those we employee and others that may be affected. Common sense should never be relied upon, instead a common knowlege and understanding, leading to a common standard and approach should be the objective.
If common sense is the answer then I think we are in trouble. If you go into workplaces and identify dangerous work practices to the workers they are more often oblivious to the risks. The problem is many people lack common sense and also ability to perceive danger. A good example of this is watching people drive on a motorway or a dual carriageway. If they cannot see the apparent dangers present what hope is there when in the comparative”safety” of the workplace.
John Bartlett, you have hit the nail on the head. Many of them use a pro forma one fits all approach. One that I had to ‘clean up’ after incorporated a safety audit with a fire risk assessment all in one document. If there had been a question on the proforma regarding sources of ignition it still would not have been credible.
My fear with the HSE consultants register is that the large consultancies will have to register as a company, none competant trainees will continue giving poor advice.
I have now read the report. I think most of us are safe and we will not face criminal sanctions because the HSE/LA will only pursue for serious breaches. However, although Lord Young mentions the legal profession he failed to identify them as the main cause. The fact he started his career as a solicitor is probably not relevant but it will take more than him to reform them. It is difficult to defend civil claims unless you have endless pieces of paper evidence. Now they will win/win
I would just like to thank ‘Lord Young’ and his Tory mates for putting the cause of sensible H&S back 10 years. I agree that intelligent people should not give his review any credence whatsoever.
I have said this many times before the biggest problem is insurance companies trying to increase the money they get from premiums and it is damaging the reputation of hard working H&S professionals. The review needs to be carried out by someone who knows the everyday workings of H&S.
Lord Young says he can not think of another area in which people can charge a fee for their advise without having a qualification. I suppose he excludes politics and politicians.
I attended this session and asked Lord Young to define ‘common sense’. I found the QC’s response the most interesting and was left with the feeling that if I ever ended up in court and tried to use it as my defence the man with the wig would not be impressed at all with that being used as a defence.
What hasn’t been talked about are the large consultancies that ‘churn’ out what I call ‘sausage factory’ health and safety locking low risk clients into long term contracts and charging a fortune.
Inteliigent people shouldn’t give Lord Young’s ‘review’ or report any credence. It is not based on fact or evidence, not clearly argued, is in fact contradictory . Every time Young speaks he confuses things. In latest Sunday Times interview he rants about people being sued over snow clearing, saying they would be liable if they used boling water that then froze and then, the arch enemy of bureacracy says he’ll write guidelines on snow clearing. He is not competent under HASAWA.
The new HSE 20 min risk asessment tool for ‘low hazard’ offices is a box ticking lesson in meaningless par excellence and not a ‘risk assessment’. Like all of Lord Young’s utterances it starts with false premise- that the office is low risk, that everything is being done that could be done, that commonsense is all that’s needed- and hey presto, you are protected! Lord Young has no understanding of occupational health but that’s no excuse for intelligent professionals or HSE to follow.
Lord Young appears to have very limited knowledge if any, about safety management. Much of the OTT ‘safety’ I encounter emanates from company safety departments and PQQs – the SHEs and other empire builders.
By all means keep safety simple but do not rely of common sense or safety professionals, whether directly employed or consultants, with overinflated egos.
A word of warning – passing an exam only means capability to absorb and not necessarily understand or be competent
David Young identifies that the so called ‘compensation culture’ is a myth perpetuated by newspapers. The stakeholders in the summary of their comments agree. No action on newspapers! Quick action though: Ken Clarke announces that ‘no win, no fee’ arrangements will be abolished …. so that successful claimants can pay all their costs out of their compensation award. When Mrs Thatcher said Mr Young brings her ‘solutions not problems’ she never said how many of the solutions were the wrong ones!
Clearly Lord Young’s contacts at the Beano and Dandy (sorry the Mail and the Sun) will praise his work because it is due to their ill informed campaigns that the Government policy is being influenced. If the Government are going to waste tax payers money on reviews such as this in order to satisfy the biased media then perhaps they should look at the health & safety competence of the journalists who write these silly ill informed stories in order to try to sell their comics.
If you take away the mystique of the Mona Lisa you destroy not only the image but also the value and integrity of the painting. So it is with safety and health at work, and its regulation, Lord Young. Nothing in your review addresses how we might continue to reduce workplace accidents, fatalities and ill health, and the butchery of HSE only adds further risks to an already flawed argument. Think again, Lod Young, if indeed you have thought at all!
What a missed opportunity. Lord Young stated his HS misunderstanding from the outset and his efforts have gone down hill. He has not helped our valuable profession. He has no background to lecture HS qualified & experienced professionals. Under him UK HS record was poorer than today. His slim understanding of risk & RA and the HSE’s sample RA efforts appear dangerously mimalistic/poor/embarassing! Potentially very, very dangerous – Please reply to the HSE RA consultation – they must do better!
I find it ironic that an unqualified consultant, Lord Young, should be pontificating on Health & Safety and unqualified consultants. Perhaps he should accredit himself before spouting any further nonsense.
hear, hear i couldnt agree more, the thing he also doesnt recognise is that to gain a health and safety qualification in the first place, you have to be able to self fund, or be funded by an employer or company. if you dont have either choices like some of us who are doing their best to try and find funding to continue with our qualifications above certificate level, then how does he suppose every one who believes in H&S and wants to do their best. is he going to fund the dip or degree.
Independent third party certification is well established in other fields, and because the certification bodies use standards and are accredited by UKAS these schemes are fair open and transparent. They test the ‘output’ not the ‘input’ and have continued practical monitoring as standard. The ‘bench mark’ used in certification is standard for all and it is affordable too. Those with chartered status need also to have their practical skills assessed.
This conceived simplistic approach will, when it inevitably goes wrong, produce court judgements of “inadequate risk assessment”. There are many SMEs who consider themselves as low risk, but, when you get into the detail of their activities actually have some substantial hazards.