So, the much-heralded review by Lord Young of Graffham is finally here and, given that the Tory peer has talked about it widely in the media in the last few months, it doesn’t contain any great surprises.
He confirms the establishment of an accreditation scheme for health and safety consultants, recommends restrictions on the activities of no-win, no-fee lawyers, proposes measures to simplify risk assessment for SMEs and businesses in low-risk environments, and suggests a consolidation of the “raft” of health and safety legislation into one set of “accessible” regulations.
There isn’t too much with which to find major fault – most stakeholders, apart from the TUC and many of the unions, have broadly welcomed the report – but I personally think that questions will begin to be asked, once the dust has settled and everyone has got their heads round the detail.
Common sense, for example, is trumpeted in the report and is something that many have wished to see more of in the application of health and safety rules, but what about the equally oft-expressed complaint that the problem with common sense is that it’s not all that common?
And couldn’t it be argued that there is some contradiction inherent in, on the one hand, saying that much health and safety, risk assessment, etc. is common sense but, on the other, that only competence – and evidence of such – can ensure that mistakes are not made?
On the subject of competence, and the new Occupational Safety Consultants Register, I am a little concerned that the review gives the impression – certainly to anyone who is not familiar with the health and safety profession – that, up until now, there has been very little proportionate, sensible, etc. advice provided and that, hitherto, practitioners have been operating completely without professional recognition.
This, of course, is not the case. The requirements to become a member, and especially to achieve chartered membership, of, for example, IOSH and the CIEH, are stringent and both organisations have always tried to ensure, insofar as possible, that their members uphold the professional standards expected of them. Will the new scheme really be able to do any more?
Based on his answers to questions during a press conference held immediately after this morning’s launch of the report, I also wonder just how robust some of the information on which he bases many of his recommendations is. For example, when asked to back up his claim that there are “many” health and safety consultants out there with no qualifications who are giving duff advice, he simply said: “That’s what I’ve been told.”
Similarly, when challenged on exempting the Police and fire-fighters from prosecution for undertaking an act of heroism, he had to acknowledge that such a situation hasn’t actually arisen as yet, but “it might”.
Lord Young also appeared to express a confused notion of the importance of risk-assessing on issues such as stress in the workplace, suggesting that managing the issue has nothing to do with carrying out a risk assessment but is simply about considering the health and well-being of employees.
IOSH, too, has previously questioned some of Lord Young’s views, although it worked hard with the peer from the initial announcement of his review to ensure that he had all the information he needed. As chief executive Rob Strange said earlier today, this marks a “turning point” for health and safety in the UK so it just remains to be seen where the change of direction takes us.
Tina Weadick
Editor – Safety & Health Practitioner
shpeditor@ubm.com
SHP - Safety & Health Practitioner Magazine Blog 