June 14, 2010Lord Young of Graffham has been officially appointed as advisor to the prime minister on health and safety law and practice.
The 78-year-old peer will undertake a Whitehall-wide review of the operation of health and safety laws and the growth of the “compensation culture”.
Lord Young was originally tasked by David Cameron at the end of last year to carry out a review of what the now-prime minister calls the UK’s “over-the-top health and safety culture”.
He gave a rather controversial speech at this year’s IOSH Conference in Glasgow, where he told delegates health and safety is viewed “at best, as an object of ridicule and, at worst, a bureaucratic nightmare”.
The former Secretary of State for both employment and trade and industry under Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s is expected to report to David Cameron either just before the summer recess, or immediately after.
Commenting on the appointment, the prime minister said: “I’m very pleased that Lord Young has agreed to lead this important review. The rise of the compensation culture over the last ten years is a real concern, as is the way health and safety rules are sometimes applied.
“We need a sensible new approach that makes clear these laws are intended to protect people, not overwhelm businesses with red tape. I look forward to receiving Lord Young’s recommendations on how we can best achieve that.”
Lord Young himself added: “Health and safety regulation is essential in many industries but may well have been applied too generally and have become an unnecessary burden on firms, but also community organisations and public services.
“I hope my review will reintroduce an element of common sense and focus the regulation where it is most needed. We need a system that is proportionate and not bureaucratic.”
Safety minister Chris Grayling welcomed the appointment, saying: “It is important that we review health and safety regulation so that while people are protected at work there isn’t a burden on business, and people can still use their common sense without fearing they are breaking the law.”
His view was not shared by the TUC, who slammed the review “an attempt to undermine the already limited protection that workers have by focusing on the needs of business”.
Said general secretary, Brendan Barber: “Businesses are responsible for a working culture that injures a quarter of a million workers every year, and makes a further half a million employees ill. The review should be investigating this instead.€ﾨ€ﾨ“
Rather than focusing solely on the ‘needs of business’, the Government should protect workers by increasing inspections and enforcement action against employers who put their staff at risk by ignoring existing laws, as well as introducing a legal duty on directors to protect their workers.”
The union body also expressed surprise at the Government’s focus on the so-called compensation culture. Barber pointed out: “As successive reports show, there is no such thing, and claims have been falling over the past ten years.”
The Prospect union, which represents HSE staff, said it was important not to confuse petty bureaucracy with vital regulation designed to save lives. It added: “We hope this review will go some way to clarifying the differences between the two and debunk the myth of the ‘burden’ of health and safety that masks the wider picture. We agree that measures aimed at preventing death and injury at work run the risk of being undermined by authorities, including insurance companies, through inappropriate legal interpretation, excessive application over minor issues, or too much red tape because of a disproportionate fear of liability.”
IOSH, which has had detailed discussions with Lord Young as part of his review, welcomed the focus on educating people about what’s really required. Said policy and technical director, Richard Jones: “We welcome any debate that helps to dispel the negative myth that health and safety is all about banning things. The health and safety profession is in the business of protecting people from serious harm, not about trivia or burdening businesses with bureaucratic red tape.
“We need legislation to protect workers, and it’s important to remember that health and safety laws do a great job in helping prevent injury and illness at work. It’s the wider public-safety issues, involving leisure activities and children, where people seem to make up their own rules and we get all the crazy stories.’’
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The right approach to health and safety saves lives – in 2008/9 we saw a 22% decrease in the number of people who die at work compared to the previous five years’ average figures.
We believe that it is misinterpretation of health and safety guidance that causes problems and we welcome a review to ensure sensible and proper execution. We’d be concerned if workplaces like offices had their guidance reduced. Our research has shown that 45% of office incidents requiring a first aider were serious enough to involve resuscitation compared to 21% of incidents on a building site, which is traditionally seen as more high risk.
Good health and safety management is part of effective management. All workplaces need to put measures in place to protect their staff and customers, as we know that trained first aiders are the difference between a life lost and a life saved.
Sue Killen, CEO of St John Ambulance
Is it wise to give this task to a 78 year old man – not being ageist here but i dont think that he will have been on many construction sites in the last few years and may well be a little out of touch.
At times it would appear that a little bit of knowledge is dangerous when it comes to health and safety where people have implemented over the top control measures for simple tasks and activities such as the bonkers conkers issue some while ago.
A simple answer to all of this would be a minimum level of competence for the Health & Safety Professional whatever their job title may be (safety officer/advisor/mamanger etc,etc).
What I find worrying is the implication that H&S regulation should only apply to those areas of work where ‘common sense’ suggests that it is needed. So H&S law will only apply to, chemical plants, nuclear power stations, factories with lots of machinery. It will be lifted from offices, small workshops and other small enterprises where common sense says accidents and ill health never happen. This is of course rubbish-accidents and ill health happens in all sorts of workplaces and they are not always obvious. The worst injure I ever came across occurred in a document store when an employee fell over a carelessly left file.
This review worries me. I suspect it will make our job- applying sensible Health and Safety advice to solve real problems more difficult. Business will see this as an excuse to dispense with our services altogether.
Are the tories going to take us out of Europe ?
Since increasingly our regulation is either provided by or directed by the EU the changes the UK government are going to make to regulation will be minimal.
I see we’ve been asked (the public) which laws we would like to see changed and repealed. I hope everyone here is going to take part in that and have a say rather than just moaning about the result like the tabloid readers.
Let’s not confuse Common sense with a sensible approach the two are different.
It is very evident that the people that keep calling for common sense do not actual understand who’s or what it is.
In terms of a sensible approach it clearly lies in the interpretation of the Law to which competent H&S people clearly understand.
I’m not sure about the motives of this, I agree with the fear of liability and claims, and that it needs to be looked at, but the focus seems to be on reducing compensation claims and not on promoting good health & safety.
We all know that many activities have been cancelled because of this fear, and it would be great if common sense was used by organisers, instead of the good old ‘elf n safety’ excuse – but I’m not sure how you convince people to use this common sense.
Then like ‘Beano’ says above, you get the other side of the coin when ‘Common’ sense and H&S awareness goes out of the window – as I get repeated to me by various colleagues at work ‘This H&S is not going to get products through the door any quicker is it!’ Personally I think that It would be nice if I had a bit of support from the powers that be and enforcement agencies, to be able to use this Health & Safety common sense I will watching this with interest
I’ve just had a very infuriating conversation with a colleague, who is a team leader, about why we need to put up ‘Hot water’ signs in the toilets – ‘Its obvious that hot water is coming out of taps’ he said ‘Its common Sense!’ the discussion followed a debate about why a new employee needs ladder training to use a step-ladder. I explained that we have taken precautions to prevent an accident, if somebody scalded themselves or this new person lent too far on the top of her ladder and fell. He said well its common-sense if they do its their fault, why sue the company? This from someone who has just had a hernia op, possibly bought on by incorrect lifting through impatience instead of using the plethera of hoists and lifting aids we have scattered around the company!
So I was thinking about this ‘common sense’ everybody has, plus the additional training to enhance it, and peoples attitudes in general…..and the general perception of a 78 year old man of todays generation…..as I said in an earlier posting, I will watch with interest!!!
We need to consider the “employed” H&S advisor as well as consultants, the “bonkers conkers” messages normally originates from within public sector or large organisations from employed staff, normally using H&S as an excuse or because of the lack of knowledge / skill or even courage to make a correct judgement. Yes, courage, consultancy is all about making the right decision and sometimes this needs to go against the clients wishes or historical activity.
However we do desperately need to regulate who can call themselves a consultant, Architects, Solicitors and Accountants all do this successfully, we do need to be mindful of the effect on non chartered advisors who are competent (as most are) but I can see no option other than to make chartered status mandatory for consultants.
It can be argued that the trade unions and no-win-no fee solicitors have played a role in promoting members and clients to claim against their employers for all accidents.
The problem is not legislation but rather it’s application by persons who do not understand (or use the emotive reaction to manage a fear of litigation etc.)
I have today received an e-mail from the Highways Agency (Government Office) with the subject title “SAFETY ALERT”
On opening it it stated “Don’t forget if your project is over £300k you will need a Site Waste Management Plan” (enough said!)
Perhaps the words “Health & Safety” should only permissable to licenced professionals with the punishment of miss-use being revoking of licence!
(After all I cannot call myself an Independant Financial Advisor or give advice without similar arrangements!)
I trust Lord Young and IOSH will work closely together on this
Frankly Mr Cameron was right in many of his comments in his speech, in many circles Health and Safety is the butt of many jokes and derision, this is because many people who carry out risk assessments are simply not equiped to do them and make poor decisions as a result. These are seized on by the media who cannot do anything but criticise because that sells papers. I remember recent coverage of isues I have dealt with as an enforcement officer where easily preventable deaths occurred as a result of a businesses not following guidance. Despite the deaths all the media wanted to say was this was “elf n safety gone mad” because that did not require them to actually understand anything and they could trot out the same cliche.
We as a nation need to address this before all reasonable measures that businesses take every day become “elf n safety gone mad” and we undermine all that has been achieved.
People that give safety advice should be well qualified and understand the field they work in. This should be a legal requirement. Businesses are already required by law to appoint a competent person but in many cases, this happens to be someone with little grounding in health and safety, very often they over react to minimal risks and ignore serious ones.
If the review of Health and Safety law does one thing it should change the Management Regs to require advice to be available from a person with a specific qualifications who is able to put risks in context.
As for the media, we can always rely on them to publish the same old tired cliche.
I find that as a health and safety Manager, that there is no place in our working regulations for common sense, and why is that? we are dictated in every way to tell us what we will wear on site and that this is compulsary, and we must follow what we are told by people who work in offices and have no idea what it is like in the real world of construction work. All personnel have the relevant qualifications, experience and are not allowed to use any of those things on site.Why?
I was listening to Lord Young’s comments on how he was going to approach his review on health & safety. He made a comment that ANYONE could be a health & safety consultant as “no training is required”.
If Lord Young has attempted to read The Management of Health & Safety At Work Regulations, Regulation 7 it clearly states that a person or persons shall be regarded as competent when they have sufficient training, experience or knowledge and other qualities to enable them to assist in undertaking the measures required.
Having spent 26 years in health & safety with a wide expanse of knowledge and qualifications, as many other consultants, this comment is unjustified.
I agree that in some areas health & safety has been used as a scape-goat to introduce unnecessary rules and regulations. An example of this is the conkering issue, gravestones being propped with stakes and signage and the no win no fee sharks.
Overall, I feel strongly especially in the construction industry that many lives have been saved and injuries prevented through the introduction of the CDM Regulations.
If Lord Young minimises the “over the top” health & safety elements without reducing the impact of necessary legislation and work practice he will have done a good job.
It will be interesting to read the outcome.
“The former Secretary of State for both employment and trade and industry under Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s is expected to report to David Cameron either just before the summer recess, or immediately after.”
That should really fill us with confidence about the outcome of the report!
Can IOSH please get off the fence on this issue? To have a headline “Cameron fulfulls pledge” is slightly worrying, the words used by Cameron and Young such as “common sense, burden, unneccesaey and applied too generally” to me can mean only one thing. We should be highlighting our concerns at the real figures of fatalities and injuries in the UK and the worrying prospect of the conservatives cuts to legislation.
As someone who spends his day working in the Health and Safety world I am somewhat appalled at our Prime Minister showing a complete lack of knowledge and understanding when he claims there as been a rise in the “compensation culture” over the last 10 years he quite clearly needs to do his homework before making such statements. As with other area’s in our modern society we have the laws to control risk taking by companies, however we do not police it sufficienly enough (lack of inspectors)and when companies are taken to court the punishment very rarely fits the crime. We need to concentrate on promoting good health and safety culture’s and less on compensation culture’s
The insurance industry has driven much of the absurdly risk avers response to even the most mundane tasks. You only have to get a visit from one of their mind numbing ‘Risk Auditors’ to understand the whole exercise is not about the moral imperative but the financial one; helped in no small part by vexatious claims and the way the courts deal favourably with such claims. Unfortunately, this is all fed by the rank incompetence of a significant element of managers who are tasked with responsibility for H&S and who have no concept of a proportionate response to risk. So, who will his Lordship kick in the nuts, his pals in the City, his chums at the Inns of Court or the Deputy Head of your local comprehensive…..!
Lord Young’s (78 and going strong – just like the Young Mr. Grace) starting point should be revisiting the initiative of his former leader (Lady Thatcher) who unleashed the legal profession leading to the ‘no-win no-fee’ and to the wilful misapplication of the use of Civil Rules Procedure (aka The Woolf report) to see if they need reforming. This could assist in reducing the so-called paper-trail and associated costs.
We as safety professionals (define!) have in many instances been the authors of our own demise. Fools and other charlatans, many of them chartered members of IOSH – introduce ‘safety rules’ so remote from reality
and the concept of risk assessment and then incorporate their jobsworth and obstructive pre-conditions into contract law.
Perceived credibility must be returned to the discipline of safety management. To achieve this:
• IOSH and other interested organisations must regain control of their membership;
• Employers must question and challenge the guidance given them by their safety specialists;
• Safety specialist, as part of their competency criteria must spend time ‘on the shop floor’, where they might, just might, learn about work methods, people and their expectations
Massimo Verdi
There is no doubt that Health and Safety has done a grest job in protecting workers. Children need to play adults need to live there is risk in all our lives, isnt that what makes us what and who we are. So lets hope the review realises that we do need regulation but it needs to be proportionate to the risks involved. Lets also ensure that those who practice Health and Safety have to be educated and regulated themselves in order to achieve a common sence approach with common goals.
Well, they are going to have the review, lets hope that it concentrates on making sure that the Health and Safety regulations are correctly used in the right context, and stops the age old use of health and Safety as an excuse for not doing something, I for one am sick of hearing “we can’t do that becouse of Health and Safety” (I also take great satifaction in then questioning what particular Heath and Safety regulation they are refering to)
Health and Safety is important, To that end I think that it may also be time at the end of this review for Health and Safety profesionals to speak out and make ourselves heard aginst the jobsworths and fools that will still be useing Heath and Safety as an excuse, it is the only way to drive the message home to the press and population.
It would also help if the HSE took more time to deal firmly with the press when stupid stories are published.
The last paragraph sumarises it quite well I think.
Increasing enforcement visits will only seek to reinforce the image of heavy handed burdensome red tape, and we have to consider that a good proportion of the enforcement visits are performed by ‘green’ graduates who have not experienced the real world and can be more focussed on the light bulb in the ladies loo than they are on the guarding and control system on a power press.
There are many areas of our profession that can be improved and they include the laws and regulations themselves, enforcement competence, H&S professional competence, interpretation of law by employers, insurance demands and the manipulation of legal loopholes by ambitious lawyers ‘finding in favour’ based on some tiny technicality.
These are my issues, if some are addressed then we are heading in the right direction.
Seems like a point winning excercise to me. The compensation burden on business (if of course there is one!) should not take priority over the safety of workers. Common sense approach agreed. Trust the conservtives, No, . sounds like Lord youngs real motive is maintaining the general publics often mis guided view on Safety, in the hope of winning future votes, rather than improving communictions and educating the public in the principles of H&S
Steve Paul – I do hope the TUC respond. They are the major representatives of the people most at risk of dying, being maimed and suffering occupational diseases at work – the workers. The HSE have stated many times – trade union organised workplaces are safer than non-union. Their expertise in reducing accidents should be welcome.
When quoting about causes of accidents perhaps the source of the research showing it is ‘worker stupidity that is the major cause could be quoted. All the research I have read generally indicates that most workplace accidents can be attributed to a failure of managerial control. ie 80-90%
There is no compensation culture at work. Not only have Employer Liability claims gone down in the last ten years. In the last 5 years the chance of a successful claim has dropped from 77% to 55%. How on earth can this be described as ‘litigation madness’.
The report published for the Tories – with a forward by David Young – backing their review is one of the worst documents of its kind I have ever read. Sloppy writing, factually wrong on several key issues, mixing civil cases with criminal law; misleading use of quotes, and liberally using the Daily Mail as a significant information source it was shredded in a review by IOSH whose report of the errors was nearly as long as the original report!!
I too welcome the review: it will give professionals the opportunity to put their success on show and it will show you all what a politically motivated review based on Daily Mail lobbying is actually all about. Bring it on!!
Cheers.
Nigel
The basis of good Health and Safety is adequate training of employers and employees. My company is already in secondary schools starting the training BEFORE students go out on Work Experience or in fact leave for the workiing world. We are even providiing them with Nationally recognised qualifications. As safety practitioners we should all be promoting at least basic safety training.
What I cant understand is why IOSH always seem to think that they are the “be all and end all” of health and safety. There are plenty of other professional bodies in the safety field out there. Rospa, British Safety Council, IIRSM to name but three. Frankly I wouldnt touch IOSH with the proverbial barge pole. I used to be a member but all I saw at my local branch was a group of pompous old men who were bored with life.
What we need in Health and Safety is new, young blood who can take the culture forward and into the 21st century without all this pompous red tape.
So Lord Young wants to ‘reintroduce an element of common sense’ into Health and Safety. Can anyone tell me the difference between ‘common sense’ and ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’?
I fear the worst from this Lord Young,if he is the same Lord Young,Trade & Industry minister under Thatcher.That Lord Young,when his car was blocked by a traffice jam in London,was advised by his aid to use the Underground,he subsequently asked him to go ahead and book the buffet car !!!
So what chance for practical,even sensible H&S?
Regards,Paul
Why do we need a review of the regulations when the majority of the time it is how the regulations are interpreted by the likes of insurance companies and jobsworths? Surely we would be better off spending appropriate time and effort in educating people to understand the regulations. If organisations of all sizes whether public or private consulted their Health & Safety Professionals at the start of any new process, procedure or project they would find that they would run faster with less hinderance rather than trying to ‘bolt on’ safety at the end.
Having sat through Lord Young’s speech at the IOSH Conference I am not convinced the findings of this review will be positive. The Conservatives seem more interested in helping to highlight the negative image health and safety gets in the media rather than helping to change this perception. Focusing on common sense is one thing but the real focus should be on increasing inspections and enforcements, just as the TUC has suggested.
well done David for carrying out a sensible review of the H&S laws in this country, not before time, maybe we could be taken out of the whole european quango too but that is another story.
Possibly the wrong man to carry oiut the review aged 78yrs? hell these things can drag on ….and who knows if he will last the project
to brendan barber and all the other dinasaurs i say shut up. doesnt he realise that a lot of these injuries are sustained due to the stupidity of his members and members of other out dated unions.
well done and congratulations to David Cameron
As a haeth and safety professional working in construction, demolition sector, I am staggered by the comment that health and safety is a burden on business.
Surely people are Company’s most important contributor to their success and prevention of injury and/or ill health can only improve Company performance and results.
This does not take into account the moral rersponsibility for Company personnel and any others who may be affected by your activities.
Are Lord Young and Chris Grayling in the real world of industry? They should be targetting the individuals who provide totally unwieldy systems to address the requirementsw of legislation – generally due to their need to obviate the still existing (despite comments to the contrary) claim ‘culture’.