isho lofstedt survey

7/28/2019 ISHO Lofstedt Survey

1/31

Lfstedt review of healthand safety legislationThe results of a survey of IOSH members views

July 2011


2/31

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form (includingphotocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic or photographic means and whether or nottransiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) without written permission of IOSH,the copyright owner. Applications for written permission to reproduce any part of this publicationshould be addressed to the publisher. All web addresses are current at the time of going to press. Thepublisher takes no responsibility for subsequent changes.

Warning: The doing of an unauthorised act in relation to a copyright work may result in both a civilclaim for damages and criminal prosecution.

IOSH 2011

Published by IOSHThe GrangeHighfield DriveWigstonLeicestershireLE18 1NNUK

t +44 (0)116 257 3100f +44 (0)116 257 3101www.iosh.co.uk


3/31

Contents

List of tables and figures 4Executive summary 5

Results 1: about the respondents 7Results 2: evidence for the review 10References 29Acknowledgments 29

Appendix A: Text of the email sent to all UK IOSH members introducing the survey 30


4/31

4 Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views

Lists of tables and figures

Tables1 Number of respondents 7

2 Respondents role 73 Respondents IOSH membership category 84 Size of respondents organisation, by number of employees 85 Respondents employment sector 85a Other responses to employment sector question 96 Health and safety regulations and ACoPs that should not be changed 107 Respondents who cited the Work at Height Regulations, by sector 128 Respondents who cited the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations,

by sector 129 Respondents who cited the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations,

by sector 1310 Responses involving the six-pack regulations 1311 Respondents who did not cite regulations or ACoPs that need to be simplified 1412 Regulations and ACoPs that need to be simplified 14

13 Respondents who did not cite specific regulations or ACoPs to be merged 1514 Regulations and ACoPs that could be merged 1615 Respondents who did not cite specific regulations or ACoPs that could be abolished 1716 Regulations or ACoPs that could be abolished without any negative effect

on individuals health and safety 1817 Respondents who did not cite specific regulations or ACoPs that create

additional burdens for business 1918 Regulations or ACoPs that place significant burdens on business with

little positive impact 1919 Respondents views of reasonably practicable 2020 Respondents views on unreasonable outcomes, inappropriate litigation

and compensation 2121 Respondents comments on outcomes, litigation and compensation 21

22 Areas discussed in relation to unreasonable outcomes, or to inappropriatelitigation and compensation 2323 Respondents views on EU approaches 2424 Approach and regulating for risks in EU countries 2425 EU countries cited with reference to their approach to and regulation of

particular risks and hazards 2526 Respondents views of gold plating in UK legislation 2627 EU Directives and legislation that respondents feel have been gold plated 2728 Respondents views on responsibility and the law 2729 Changes to the law suggested by respondents 2830 Types of other comments provided 2831 Other comments 29

Figures

1 Other roles specified 72 Comments on overall approach 24


5/31

Executive summary

BackgroundAs part of the Governments plans to reform Britains health and safety system, the Department for

Work and Pensions (DWP) Minister for Employment, the Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP, commissionedan independent review of health and safety legislation. This independent review of health and safetylegislation is to be undertaken by a panel of cross-party politicians, employer and employeerepresentatives, chaired by Professor Ragnar Lfstedt.1 The call for evidence for the review opened on20 May 2011 and closed on 29 July 2011. The review is due to make recommendations to Ministersby the end of October 2011.2

Aims of the reviewThe review will consider the opportunities for reducing the burden of health and safety legislation onUK businesses while maintaining the progress made in improving health and safety outcomes. Inparticular, it will consider the scope for combining, simplifying or reducing approximately 200statutory instruments owned by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and primarily enforced byHSE and local authorities. The review will also look at the associated Approved Codes of Practice(ACoPs) which provide advice, with special legal status, on compliance with health and safety law.

This report presents the results of a survey of IOSH members in the UK that requested member viewsand evidence to support the IOSH response to the Lfstedt review.

MethodIn order to obtain IOSH members views and evidence to support the IOSH response to the Lfstedtreview, an online survey was developed by the Policy and Technical team. The survey was designed tocollect quantitative demographic information about the respondents and qualitative responses to thequestions set by the Lfstedt review.

The survey was designed and produced using Snap survey software and was published and uploadedto the internet. A link to the online survey was sent by email to 33,236 UK members of IOSH onTuesday 31 May 2011 (see Appendix A). Participation reminders were placed in the IOSH onlinebulletin Connecton 6 and 14 June 2011 and the survey closed for comments on Friday 24 June

2011. There were 228 responses to the survey.

The response to the review questions was very high, with the 11 questions from 6 to 16 gaining anaverage response of 82 per cent. This level of response provided a wide range of data and, as thesequestions were all open-ended, allowed respondents to supply a large amount of information inresponse to the question. The text supplied by respondents was coded in order to quantify the dataand more easily recognise the themes and issues described. The same code was used across questions6 to 11, which all deal with areas of legislation and Approved Codes of Practice (ACoPs). Questions12 to 16 were individually coded according to their more varied subject matter.

Results summaryOf the 228 respondents to the survey, a large proportion were Chartered and Graduate Members ofIOSH. This group was over-represented in relation to the overall membership profile. The views of arange of grades as well as non-practitioner IOSH members were also received. Given the modest

response rate and non-representative nature of the respondent group, caution must be exercised ininterpreting the findings. While they are interesting and provide a useful sample of membership views,they are individual views and not necessarily those of IOSH.

In answer to the review questions, members cited 40 regulations and ACoPs they felt had significantlyimproved health and safety and should not be changed. The top four were:

the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (as amended) the Work at Height Regulations 2005 the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

The top four cited as the best candidates for simplification were:

Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views 5


6/31

the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended) the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

The most commonly suggested mergers were:

the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 with the Lifting Operations andLifting Equipment Regulations 1998

the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 with the Manual HandlingOperations Regulations 1992

the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended) (COSHH) withall other biochemical-related regulations

the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 with the Health and Safety(Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996

the Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989 with either the Construction (Design andManagement) Regulations 2007 or the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992.

Twenty-one different regulations and ACoPs were suggested for abolition, most by single respondents,

with only the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 proposed by morethan 10 people. The primary reason for citing these regulations as candidates for abolition was that itwas felt that they have not kept pace with advances in technology.

Most respondents didnt think there were regulations that had added a significant burden on businesswhile having a limited impact on health and safety. The majority of respondents supported theconcept of reasonably practicable, calling it vital or essential, though a minority thought it causeduncertainty. Over 13 per cent thought compensation was driving inappropriate legislation, not theregulation or ACoPs themselves.

The majority felt there was no evidence of gold plating of transposed law, with small numbersthinking there had been instances of under-transposition. Some felt that insurers could leadorganisations to apply gold plating to legislative requirements.

Approximately 40 per cent felt that the way health and safety law places responsibility on riskcreators was currently appropriate, but there were suggested changes, including:

directors to have legally explicit duties employees duties to be strengthened stronger enforcement.

General suggestions included:

tackling the so-called compensation culture a broad set of regulations with sector-specific ACoPs improved risk education by incorporating health and safety into the curriculum.



7/31

Results 1: about the respondents

Q1 Please provide your IOSH membership numberThere were a total of 228 respondents to the survey. All supplied some form of data for this question.

Of the data supplied, 222 respondents submitted a number and 6 respondents supplied commentssuch as dont know or a mobile phone number. As time constraints did not allow for cross-checkingeach number supplied against the IOSH membership database to verify that they are IOSHmembership numbers, data from all 228 respondents is included in this report.


Table 1

Number of

respondents

Options Number % of respondents

Number of respondents 228 100

Q2 Which option best describes your role?

Table 2

Respondents role

Figure 1

Other roles

specified

Options Number of respondents % of respondents

Health and safety professional (in-house) 118 51.8

Health and safety consultant 52 22.8

Both of the above 21 9.2

Other 29 12.7

Operational manager 8 3.5

Total 228 100.0

Q2a If other, please specifyForty-three respondents supplied data for this question, although only 37 respondents had selected

other at question 2; therefore 6 respondents answered both questions. These respondents areexcluded from the analysis of responses to this question to avoid double counting. Of the remaining37 respondents, 8 provided answers that repeat the options in question 2 and these have beenincorporated into Table 2 above. The remaining 29 respondents supplied other role information.This information is presented in Figure 1. Of the other roles specified, the two largest groups of 8respondents (27.5 per cent) either work in or are undertaking teaching, training or education or areemployed in the area of enforcement.


8/31

Q3 What is your membership category?All 228 respondents supplied data for this question. Over 63 per cent of respondents (n = 144) werein the highest IOSH membership grades of Chartered Fellow and Chartered Member.


Table 3

Respondents IOSHmembership

category


Chartered Fellow 24 10.5

Chartered Member 120 52.6

Graduate Member 50 22.0

Technician Member 21 9.2

Affiliate Member 13 5.7

Other 0 0.0

Total 228 100.0

Q4 How many people are employed by your organisation or the organisation you dowork for?

Table 4

Size of

respondents

organisation, by

number of

employees


> 10,000 employees 33 14.5

1,00110,000 employees 54 23.7

2501,000 employees 49 21.5

50249 employees 36 15.8

< 50 employees 35 15.4

Not applicable 21 9.1

Total 228 100.0

Q5 Which option best describes the sector (or main sector) you work in?

Table 5

Respondents

employment sector

Options Number of respondents

Other 36

Construction 34

Public services 34

Education 23

Manufacturing 23

Facilities management 11

Transport, storage and distribution 11

Chemicals and pharmaceutical 10

Healthcare and social work 9

Extraction and utilities 9

Defence 8

Railway 6


9/31

Q5a If other, please specify36 respondents selected the other option and went on to specify details of their sector. Of these:

6 were discounted as they had already selected a sector at Q5 19 of the 36 respondents described a sector already listed at Q5 and were added to table 5 17 respondents described a sector not listed at Q5. The data they provided is presented in Table

5a.

Table 5

continued


Options Number of respondents

Leisure and hospitality 6

Emergency services 5

Agriculture, forestry and fishing 4

Food and drink 4

Finance and other business activities 3

Mining, quarrying and energy supply 3

Retail and wholesale 3

Engineering 3

Communications and media 1

Environment, waste and recycling 1

Nuclear 0

Table 5a

Other responses

to employmentsector question


All sectors 9 53.0

Maintenance and service sector 5 29.4

Sciences 2 11.8

Legal 1 5.8

Total 17 100.0


10/31

Results 2: evidence for the review

IntroductionRespondents were asked to describe examples of cases where they had direct knowledge and to

include any evidence they had to support their answers to the specific review consultation questions.The responses to the following 11 questions were all open-ended text and have been coded andanalysed to provide quantitative and qualitative data. A summary of these data provides an overviewof the direction of respondents comments and highlights responses where information about practicalexperience has been illustrated or described. It should be noted that a number of pieces of legislationcited by respondents were additional to those listed in the call for evidence.

Q6 Are there any particular health and safety regulations (or ACoPs) that havesignificantly improved health and safety and should not be changed?A total of 205 of the survey respondents (90 per cent) provided comments for question 6. Of these,54 (26 per cent) provided general comments but did not cite specific regulations or ACoPs.

The remaining 151 respondents (73 per cent) mentioned specific regulations or ACoPs they felt had,in their experience, significantly improved health and safety. The most cited regulations were the

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (as amended), which were mentionedby 80 of these respondents. Of these 80 respondents, 41 work as in-house safety professionals andhold Chartered membership of IOSH. Comments on these regulations highlight the importance of therisk assessment process. For example:

Risk assessment is a commonly used term now, although much-maligned, and these regulationsserve to emphasise that health and safety needs to be integrated into our whole way of working.The need to think up front about what you're doing and the need to consider the impact of whatyou are doing in the wider context is very much part of this process, and is now embodied in theprinciples of risk assessment.


Table 6

Health and safety

regulations andACoPs that should

not be changed

TitleNumber of

respondents

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (as amended) 80

Work at Height Regulations 2005 42

Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 38

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 38

Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended) 35

Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 31

Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 25

Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 24

Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 21

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 21

Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 19

Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 15

Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 14

Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 12

Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 10

Confined Spaces Regulations 1997 10


11/31

The second most cited regulations were the Work at Height Regulations 2005, mentioned by 42respondents (28 per cent). Analysis of these respondents by sector shows that these regulations areused across a variety of sectors and are most cited by respondents who work in the public services,construction and education sectors (Table 7).

The third most cited regulations were the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007and the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, both of which were mentioned by38 (25 per cent) of respondents to this question. Tables 8 and 9 show that both these regulations arecited by respondents across a wide range of employment sectors.

Table 6

continued


TitleNumber of

respondents

Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 8

Legionnaires disease. The control of legionella bacteria in water systems. Approved

Code of Practice and guidance (L8) 8

Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 7

Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 7

Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 7

Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 7

Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 6

Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (as amended) 5

Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 5

Control of lead at work. Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002 Approved Codeof Practice and guidance (L132)

3

Driving at work: managing work-related road safety (INDG382) 3

Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 2005 3

Working Time Regulations 1998 (as amended) 3

Control of Artificial Optical Radiation at Work Regulations 2010 3

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 2

Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000 2

Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations 2010 1

Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008 1

Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restrictionof Chemicals (REACH)

1

Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 1

Quarries Regulations 1999 1

Rider operated lift trucks (L117) 1

Health and Safety Information for Employees Regulations 1989 (as amended) 1

Docks Regulations 1988 1


12/31


Table 7

Respondents who

cited the Work at

Height

Regulations, by

sector

Sector Number of respondents

Public services 8

Construction 6

Education 6

Manufacturing 3







Railway 1

Leisure and hospitality 1

Mining, quarrying and energy supply 1

Communications and media 1

Consultant (all sectors) 1

Total 42

Table 8

Respondents who

cited theConstruction

(Design and

Management)

Regulations, by

sector


Construction 11

Public services 5

Manufacturing 3




Extraction or utilities 2

Education 1


Defence 1



Agriculture, forestry and fishing 1

Food and drink 1


Total 38


13/31

Respondents were positive about the so-called six-pack regulations, but analysis shows that there isa wide disparity between the most and least popular of these (Table 10).


Table 9

Respondents who

cited the Provision

and Use of Work

Equipment

Regulations, by

sector


Public services 8

Construction 4

Education 4


Manufacturing 3







Defence 1

Railway 1

Food and drink 1

Retail and wholesale 1

Total 38

Table 10

Responses

involving the six-

pack regulations

TitleNumber of

respondents







Overall respondents find the regulations they use and experience in their work are useful and are notsupportive of change to these. Many respondents referenced the Approved Codes of Practice (ACoPs)alongside the regulations and stated that they found these helpful, but there was concern that theymay be considered too technical by non-practitioners. For example:

All ACoPs are still very hard to understand for the SMEs and need to be written in clear Englishso [they are] easily understandable.

Q7 Are there any particular health and safety regulations (or ACoPs) which need tobe simplified?208 respondents (91 per cent) provided data for question 7. 102 of these respondents (49 per cent)

replied either yes, no or provided general comments but did not cite specific regulations (Table 11).


14/31

The remaining 106 respondents cited regulations or ACoPs which they felt need to be simplified.Twenty-eight mentioned the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH); 21mentioned the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM); and 18 mentioned theHealth and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations (DSE) (see Table 12).


Table 11

Respondents who

did not cite

regulations or

ACoPs that need

to be simplified

Type of comment Number of respondents

Yes 11

No 57

General or miscellaneous comments 34

Total 102

Table 12

Regulations and

ACoPs that need

to be simplified

TitleNumber of

respondents














6




Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 4




European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods byRoad

3

Legionnaires' disease. The control of legionella bacteria in water systems. ApprovedCode of Practice and guidance (L8)

2


15/31

The ACoPs for both CDM and COSHH are considered to be over complicated and difficult for thenon-specialist, and respondents feel this is largely due to the language used to present them.Respondents would like to see the information in these ACoPs presented in more accessible languageto aid non-specialist understanding. For example:

Most of the standards appear to use many words when a few will do. Perhaps making thestandards or legislation easier to understand for the lay person and removing the need fortranslation by a professional?

COSHH, as it is a very technical area, the better it is explained in laymans terms, the easier the

effective use of chemicals will be understood.

Respondents who mentioned simplifying the DSE regulations and the related guidance said that thiswould enable them to be updated to reflect the many technological changes that have occurred sincethe regulations were first introduced. Comments supplied include: Risk assessment in general DSEregulations in particular technology has moved on and Needs an update due to technologicaldevelopments.

Q8 Are there any particular health and safety regulations (or ACoPs) which it wouldbe helpful to merge together and why?A total of 180 respondents (79 per cent) provided data for question 8. Of these 91 (50.5 per cent)replied no to the question or provided general comments but did not cite specific regulations thatcould be merged together (Table 13).

Table 12

continued


TitleNumber of

respondents

Control of lead at work. Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002 Approved Codeof Practice and guidance (L132)

2


Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002 2






Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1998 1


Table 13Respondents who

did not cite specific

regulations or

ACoPs that need

to be merged


No 59


Total 91

The remaining 89 respondents (49.5 per cent) suggested a range of legislation that it might bepossible to merge, as presented in Table 14. The most frequently suggested legislation or ACoPs thatcould be merged together were:

the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 with the Lifting Operations andLifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (20 respondents)


16/31

the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 with the Manual HandlingOperations Regulations 1992 (11 respondents), or both of these to be merged with the Workplace(Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (4 respondents)

the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 with the Health and Safety(Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 and the Offshore Installations (Safety

Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989* (9 respondents) the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended) to incorporateany or all of the following chemical-related areas: asbestos (5 respondents) lead (4 respondents) genetically modified organisms (2 respondents) the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations (DSEAR) (6 respondents) the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations (CHIP) (4

respondents) the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations (COMAH) (1 respondent) the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals Regulations

(REACH) (4 respondents) the Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989 to be merged with either the Construction

(Design and Management) Regulations (4 respondents) or the Personal Protective Equipment at

Work Regulations 1992 (3 respondents).


Table 14

Regulations and

ACoPs that could

be merged

TitleNumber of

respondents











Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 9








Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989 5

Control of lead at work. Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002 Approved Code ofPractice and guidance (L132)

4

* Some respondents referred simply to safety rep regulations, which we have assumed includes those for the offshore

sector.


17/31

Q9 Are there any particular health and safety regulations or ACoPs that could beabolished without any negative effect on the health and safety of individuals?A total of 180 respondents (79 per cent) provided data for question 9. Of these over half (56.6 percent) said they did not think there were any health and safety regulations or ACoPs that could beabolished. Only 3 (1.6 per cent) respondents generally agreed that there were regulations or ACoPsthat could be abolished but did not name these. A further 36 respondents (20 per cent) suppliedgeneral comments that did not name regulations or ACoPs (Table 15).

Table 14

continued


TitleNumber of

respondents


Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009 4




3


Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 (as amended) 3


Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 2

Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations 2010 1

Legionnaires' disease. The control of legionella bacteria in water systems. ApprovedCode of Practice and guidance (L8)

1

Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 1





Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 1

Table 15

Respondents who

did not cite specificregulations or

ACoPs that could

be abolished


Yes 3

No 103


Total 142

The remaining 38 respondents (21 per cent) named specific regulations or ACoPs they thought couldbe abolished without negative effect. The most-cited regulation was the Health and Safety (DisplayScreen Equipment) Regulations. The reasons for this are the same as described in response to question7 ie the regulations have not kept pace with technological changes (Table 16).


18/31

Overall, the majority of respondents to this question did not see the need to abolish regulations orACoPs at all and just replied no. Other respondents supplied general comments which expressedsome of the reasons for the negative response to this question including:

abolishing a number of regulations or ACoPs, interpretation could be harder (respondent 2)

Regulations/ACoPs should only be abolished if advances in technology or management systemsmake them redundant

When you look at the list of topics covered by regulations they can all be justified, as ill healthand injury statistics highlight

I strongly feel that some improvements are only a result of regulation and enforcement.

Q10 Are there any particular health and safety regulations that have createdsignificant additional burdens on business but that have had limited impact onhealth or safety?A total of 183 respondents (80 per cent) supplied data for this question. Of these 62 per centanswered either yes, no or supplied general comments around the issue (Table 17). The majority ofthese respondents did not feel that any health and safety regulations represented a burden to business.The remaining 70 respondents (38 per cent) supplied the titles of regulations they consider to have

added significant additional burdens on business (Table 18).


Table 16

Regulations and

ACoPs that could

be abolished

without any

negative effect on

individuals healthand safety

TitleNumber of

respondents





Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989 2







1




Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1998 1

Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 1

Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations 2007 1

Compressed Acetylene (Importation) Regulations 1978 1

Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act 1922 (Exemptions) Regulations 1980 1

Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act 1922 (Repeals and Modifications) Regulations1974

1


19/31

Thirty-nine respondents supplied general comments and these highlighted some significant areas inrelation to burdens on business. The key theme of these comments is that in their experience, themain problem is not regulation itself, but the poor interpretation of it by business organisations. Forexample:

Usually it is the corporate interpretation of them that is unrealistic There are instances where interpretation and subjectivity result in variations in implementation.

In my opinion it is not the regulations themselves that are an issue but the occasional over-zealousapplication of them that is the problem.

it is generally the interpretation (misinterpretation) of the legislation that has added the

burden. Examples would be producing written RAMS for tasks where there is no significant risk,and some of the H&S questionnaires produced to demonstrate competence in the CDM Regs addlittle value.


Table 17

Respondents who

did not cite specific

regulations or

ACoPs that create

additional burdens

for business


Yes 5

No 69


Total 113

Table 18

Regulations and

ACoPs that place

significant burdens

on business with

little positive

impact

TitleNumber of

respondents






5

















20/31

I think that poor interpretation of the Management Regs has caused some employers to over-complicate their H&S systems by producing complex risk assessments, with unrealistic outcomes,for low risk activities.

This lack of understanding has contributed to accidents. A respondent cites the following in relation

to manual handling:

Manual handling regulations many employers could make simple improvements throughrelevant training but they don't understand that this is so. If it is less than 25 kg being lifted, it isno risk in their eyes. We had a serious injury where a girl of 17 years was asked to lift a pot ofhot soup weighing less than 7 kg above shoulder height; according to figure 23 in the ACoP, thisrequired assessment.

Seventy respondents cited specific regulations in response to this question. The most cited regulationswere once again the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations. Where given, reasonsfor choosing this regulation vary and include the cost of eye tests and the amount of paperwork theassessment generates, but interpretation and perception are also issues, leading one respondent tostate:

Over the top interpretation has caused a financial burden to companies that I know, due tofeeling obligated [to change] office layouts to overcome perceived ergonomic risks.

Q11 To what extent does the concept of reasonably practicable help manage theburden of health and safety regulation?A total of 215 respondents (94 per cent) supplied data for this question (see Table 19). Of these, 52per cent (n = 112) supported the concept of reasonably practicable and provided a range of positivecomments on it. Some described it as vital, essential or absolutely necessary and felt that it givesemployers a proportionate and pragmatic approach that provides them with flexibility. A smallergroup of respondents (n = 14) felt that although the concept is helpful, it is not always wellunderstood or interpreted. The Health and Safety Executive has worked to mitigate this problem withsome success, leading a respondent to state:

The concept and practical implications of ALARP has certainly become clearer over time, withhelpful guidance having emerged from the regulatory authorities.

Twenty-four respondents felt ambivalent about the concept of reasonably practicable, as it cansometimes be subjective and does not produce a definitive solution that is applicable to all situations.A respondent illustrates this perspective, stating:

It can help with providing flexibility to solutions but can also hinder when managers or directorswant a black and white answer to a question. By applying reasonably practicable to everythingmeans you can end up with many different answers to the same question because of peoplesdifferent perceptions of risk.


Types of commentNumber of

respondents

% of

respondents

It is very helpful positive comments 112 52.0

It is quite helpful positive but qualified 14 6.6

It is sometimes helpful positive and negative points 24 11.1

It is not very helpful negative but qualified comments 37 17.1

It is very unhelpful negative comments 14 6.6

General or miscellaneous comments 14 6.6

Total 215 100.0

Table 19

Respondents

views ofreasonably

practicable


21/31

In total there were 51 negative comments about the concept from respondents who felt it was eithernot very helpful or very unhelpful. These respondents feel it is a subjective grey area that is open tointerpretation and can confuse non-specialists. Respondents also felt that it created uncertainty foremployers as it is too vague and as such is meaningless to them. These respondents feel moredefinition of the concept is needed and would like to see more guidance on this.

Q12 Are there any examples where health and safety regulations have led tounreasonable outcomes, or to inappropriate litigation and compensation?A total of 185 respondents (81 per cent) supplied data for this question. Of these, 157 (85 per cent)replied yes, no, dont know, no comment or supplied general comments about the questionareas. Eighty-one respondents opted to say no dont know or no comment (see Table 20). Of theremaining 76 respondents, 46 supplied comments and 30 said yes. Nineteen of the yes group alsosupplied comments and a total of 13 respondents from both groups supplied examples from theirknowledge or experience of where they feel health and safety regulations have led to unreasonableoutcomes, inappropriate litigation and compensation (Table 21).


Table 20

Respondents

views on

unreasonableoutcomes,

inappropriate

litigation and

compensation


Yes 30

No 67

Dont know 11


No comment 3

Total 113

Table 21

Respondents

comments on

outcomes,litigation and

compensation

Comment supplied

My experiences in industry have shown that many organisations do leave themselves open to litigation andcompensation by having inadequate controls in place, from pre-employment through induction and ongoingtraining of employees. In particular, lack of compliance monitoring to a reasonable extent is not anuncommon finding through H&S audit processes carried out on contractors on behalf of clients.

Yes: Biocidal Products vs. COSHH: I know of a case where an organisation had failed to register under theBPD a natural ingredient which replaced formaldehyde in an embalming fluid. So the whole product wasbanned and the organisation was faced with a choice of having to go back to using formaldehyde-basedsolution or attempt to register at a cost of about 80K. The former choice is directly contrary to the hierarchyof control measures in COSHH. BPD also resulted in the removal of Hycolin as a disinfectant. There are alsosometimes conflicts e.g. Home Office vs. HSE re animal housing. Example: to keep animals clean andprotected from humans you need positive pressure in a housing room and to minimise likelihood of infectionor sensitisation you need negative pressure. The holding of ATCSA Schedule 5 substances has resulted insome huge security requirements for someone holding a few mg of something like BOTOX.

Yes: where a worker had used an uneven surfaced car park for years and then one day tripped over and

sued the company. All steps had been taken to make the car park as safe as possible (all reasonablepracticableness). The litigation which was lost by the company resulted in thousands of having to bespent on asphalting the car park. This incident was the first in 3 years and approx 120 vehicles used the carpark on a daily basis.

Yes. We had a claim where a member of staff injured his back whilst lifting a reasonable weight incorrectly.He had been trained by the company but records were not kept and the insurance paid out because therewas no proof that the training had taken place. The law seems to be framed in such a way that it was lesscostly to pay the compensation than the cost of taking it to court. This, of course ignores the innocence ofthe organisation and does not give the company the chance to clear its name which, under certaincircumstances, can be very important to the public image of that organisation. The need to write warninghazard signs on the obvious such as tea and coffee cups and hot water taps. These are every day items andpeople are aware of the hazards involved.


22/31

Table 21

continued


Comment supplied

Management of health and safety and health, safety and welfare. I have been dealing with a claim where aindividual slipped over, the spillage had just been reported and was in the process of having a cleaner get toit. But they still won the case.

CDM is often over-managed by extensive paperwork despite warnings not to do so.

I do feel that the case of an RAF civilian typist receiving well over 450k in compensation for RSIis obscene compared to the reported 8k an active serviceman or woman would get for losing their wholearm in combat. These figures may not be quite accurate but the principle is wrong. I definitely feel angeredevery time those claims direct-type adverts come on. This is where the stupid stories of conkers beingbanned and similar cases come from people are so scared of being sued they feel they have to go toextremes to protect the company against a claim. This means that instead of being able to apply commonsense and reasonably practicable, people don't look at the magnitude of risk they just blanket ban things.

We suffered a litigious incident where a claim was brought successfully which I believe was unfair. A youngwoman was descending some external chequer plate steps in rainy conditions. The steps had previouslytreated with a slip resistant material but this had worn from the tops of the ellipse pattern on the chequerplate in places. The woman was wearing flip flops, had her phone in one hand (in use) and her handbag inthe other and was not using the hand rail. She slipped but did not suffer any serious injury. I would arguethat there was sufficient slip resistance in the design of the steps and the remaining coating which had beenapplied to reduce the risk of persons slipping who were paying adequate attention to their own H&S underwet weather conditions on an open staircase. How far does a duty of care need to go? Especially whenclaimants can bring a claim three years after the event when records and employees at the time no longerare available. The EHO from the local authority (spuriously reported under RIDDOR) suggested that we alsopost warning signs advising persons to use the hand rail under rainy conditions. In other cases we havesuccessfully defended claims of people slipping on spilled liquids and food in open areas of an indoorshopping centre but we have had to resort to CCTV footage, confirmation from BICSc that a 15-minutecleaning rota is sufficient for the type of floor surface and the average footfall and a measurement of slipresistance on the floor material itself to determine it is fit for purpose.

Yes, an abuse by an individual trying to pursue compensation for a manual handling injury that had nothappened.

The Health and Safety (Enforcing Authorities) Regulations specify the split in enforcement responsibilitiesbetween HSE and local authorities (LAs). The Regulations have been virtually unchanged for many years.They have resulted in the situation referred to as the twin peaks effect. The higher risk businesses in the LAsector are proactively inspected and the lower risk HSE businesses are not, even though some may employhigher risk activities. However, it is recognised that what may, for example, be appropriate in an IslandCouncil may not be feasible in a large city or vice versa, and any consideration of the so called 'twin peaks'effect needs to take this into account. Reallocation of premises from the HSE sector to the LA sector wouldhave to be accompanied by a commensurate transfer of resources to local authorities. An alternative to thisapproach would be supporting those local authorities who wish to volunteer to take on additionalresponsibilities and have the capacity to do so There are well tested mechanisms in place for doing this suchas sector specific joint HSE/LA projects, joint warranting etc.

Yes, there is too much legislation most of which overlaps. The judgment by the European Court of Justice inthe case of European Commission vs United Kingdom (Case C-127/05) www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2007/C12705.html indicates that most of the regulations (initially made by

a previous Conservative administration) made in Great Britain and Northern Ireland to implement successiveEC health and safety directives have been unnecessary. The judgment upheld the principle of reasonablepracticability. It follows that Directives could be implemented by providing ACoPs and/or guidance tosupport the key duties in the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The plethora of health and safetylegislation makes it difficult for duty holders to understand the full range of requirements less legislationwould be likely to result in better compliance and thence fewer accidents and occupational ill health.


23/31

The mixed nature of this question, covering the three areas of unreasonable outcomes,inappropriate litigation and compensation provides a more varied response than for previousquestions. The question is very leading, linking compensation with the terms unreasonable and

inappropriate, and does not provide a definition of what is meant by either of these terms. Thispoint is noted by a respondent who notes:

This question is far too wide. What is an unreasonable outcome? The outcome can largely dependon the approach taken by individual businesses. Inappropriate litigation and compensation are notthe result of regulations but of the civil process; whatever regulations you have in place civilaction can still take place.

Where respondents have supplied general comments around the areas addressed in the question, somethemes can be distinguished. The most cited area is that of compensation and the debates around theexistence or otherwise of a compensation culture. 31 respondents feel that compensation is drivinginappropriate litigation resulting in unreasonable outcomes, not the regulations or ACoPsthemselves. Other issues mentioned include:

the role of insurers who are seen as fostering the over-complication of the risk assessment processwhich creates unnecessary bureaucracy

the application and enforcement of section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 inrelation to employee responsibility

the representation and reporting of health and safety by the media e.g. fuelling negativeperceptions (see Table 22).

Table 21

continued


Comment supplied

Arguably some decisions related to tree safety management see www.treeworks.co.uk/downloads/publications/TOWARDS_REASONABLE_TREE_RISK_DECISION_MAKING_NF_060907.pdf. Gangmasters LicensingAct: I know of one case where GLA threatened a forestry consultant with prosecution. Having maderecommendations for forestry work to be carried out, the client asked if he knew of a contractor who would

do the work. The consultant mentioned a contractor as a courtesy. He did not receive a fee for this. GLAthreatened prosecution, although I do not know if the case came to court.

There used to be a depth level which required measures for support in excavations. This was removed andreplaced with a term very open to interpretation. I have been witness to a safety person demanding a300mm hole to have support because his interpretation differed from all others. There was no safety risk buta lot of time and effort was required, including cost. Also there should be one prequalification scheme inconstruction CDM has tried to help this area but a more robust approach is needed.

Total: 13 comments

Area discussed Number of respondents

Compensation culture 31

Unreasonable outcomes 22

Role of insurers 14

Inappropriate litigation 11

Employee responsibility 9

Media representation 5

Table 22

Areas discussed in

relation to

unreasonable

outcomes, or to

inappropriate

litigation andcompensation


24/31

Figure 2Comments on

overall approach

Q13. Are there any lessons that can be learned from the way other EU countrieshave approached the regulation of health and safety, in terms of (a) their overallapproach and (b) regulating for particular risks or hazards?A total of 176 respondents (77 per cent) supplied a response to this question. Of these, 82 per cent(n = 144) did not supply information on lessons that could be learnt from other EU countries (see

Table 23). The largest group of these respondents felt that the UK was leading the way in Europeand was an exemplar to other EU countries. As such it did not have lessons to learn about health andsafety from other EU countries. The general perception of this group is that EU standards are loweror do not exist.


Table 23

Respondents

views on EU

approaches


respondents% of

respondents

Yes, the UK can learn from other EU countries 4 3

No, the UK has nothing to learn from other EU countries 59 41

Dont know 53 37

General or miscellaneous comments 28 19

Total 144 100

The remaining 32 respondents (18 per cent) provided comments on their experience of the overallapproach and/or the regulation of particular risks or hazards in the EU (see Table 24).

Table 24

Approach and

regulating for risks

in EU countries

EU countries lessons learnt Number of respondents

Overall approach 31

Regulating for particular risks or hazards 9

In terms of overall approach, it is important to bear in mind that regulatory regimes and societalconcerns differ across the EU states, a point acknowledged by a respondent who states:

Comparisons with other EU countries can be drawn from trailing measures such as accidentfrequency rates. Clearly, all EU countries are covered by the EU Directives. How these areimplemented varies widely from one country to another, and cannot be viewed in isolation fromthe wider societal attitudes that are prevalent in the member states.

The comments provided on this area are generalised, based on individual perception and provide nodetails of when the experiences described occurred. This makes it difficult to draw direct comparisonwith the UK regime for the purposes of learning lessons. Comments on overall approach aresummarised in Figure 2.

Overall approach

The UK takes the legislation seriously, when the rest of Europe appears to take a morecasual approach to implementation and enforcement

A far more relaxed approach to risk Legislation in Europe is regarded as advisory Enforcement in many countries seems to be light More onus on the employee to work safely Use of roving safety representatives Prescriptive legislation in the EU encourages employers to do the minimum Fewer pieces of legislation but in simpler language and they cover more areas

Prevention of harm approach to legislation, revision of all acts and regulations accordingly Directives transposed directly into law


25/31

Respondents who commented on their experiences working in particular EU states and theapproaches they found, provided both positive and negative feedback. Their comments on the 11countries referenced are presented in Table 25.


Country Comment supplied

Belgium My own travels in Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and Italy have always providedample examples of unsafe working practices and places of work.

Denmark A few years ago the EU Health and Safety Commission undertook a performancecomparison between the member states based on fatal accident rates. The UK, Denmarkand Sweden were the best performers with no statistical differences between the three.However, having worked closely with the Danes, and to a lesser extent the Swedes, it isclear that these two countries put much less effort than ourselves, and therefore incur lesscosts, but achieve broadly the same results.

France France [has] a greater focus on health, which this country will need to look at more closelyif we are to protect an ageing working population.

... the French ignore all the rules the EC has introduced.

Yes the French have a far more relaxed approach to risk, we have become risk adverse,stifling many activities.

... legislation in France and much of Europe is regarded as advisory.

Risk assessments and method statements are woefully inadequate... The attitudeexpressed by many suppliers is insurance is better than prevention.

There could be something learned from France. They take the Directives as written andtranspose them straight into law.

Germany The Germans are just starting to understand what hazards are and how to conduct risksassessments. In German in one clients premises we have wet air conditioning units (withdrip trays) placed above 450 volt electrical panels. Our EU operations are often followingUK procedures as there are no standards.

Risk assessments and method statements are woefully inadequate.

Hungary I recently looked into Hungarian legislation as part of a construction project. Thelegislation was very similar to ours, but much of it was listed within one document. A onestop shop in effect in order to determine legal duty. This would greatly help smallerbusiness without the resource of a health and safety professional to understand their basiclegal obligations without having to trawl through rafts of regulations.

IrelandI have experience of working in Belgium, Spain and Ireland and I believe that theirapproach is less 'policemen-like and puts more onus on the employee to work safely.

... during the late nineties the Irish were introducing their noise legislation. They carriedout site visits and issued on the spot fines for breaches, within a very short period everybuilding site in Ireland was compliant! Simple but effective!

Ireland seems to have taken a better approach to the structure of implementing the sixpack.

One example is the Irish Chemicals Act which covers much of UK COSHH but in a lesscumbersome way. Conversely there are parts of the Irish H&S system which areburdensome compared to UK!

I believe the Republic of Ireland has a better system whereby you identify hazards andrisks first and then put in place your policy and procedures to manage those risks.

Ireland tends simply to replicate the wording of EU Directives in its own regulationswhereas the UK adopts a more tailored and considered approach.

More prescriptive advice would have greater effect, eg the HSA approach to agriculture:www.iosh.co.uk/groups/rural_industries_group/group_articles/health_and_safety_regulation_i.aspx

Table 25

EU countries citedwith reference to

their approach to

and regulation of

particular risks and

hazards


26/31

Q14 Can you provide evidence that the requirements of EU Directives have or havenot been unnecessarily enhanced (gold plated) when incorporated into UK healthand safety regulation?A total of 154 respondents (68 per cent) provided data for this question. Overall, the majority of therespondents (63 per cent) could not provide evidence of gold plating and did not think this had happenedin relation to UK health and safety legislation (see Table 26). Only 10 per cent of those answering thisquestion gave examples they felt were of gold plating, and 5 per cent gave examples of the reverse.

Table 25

continued


Country Comment supplied

Luxembourg Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal have appalling workplace injury statistics for the size ofthe working populations.

I am currently working in Luxembourg, France and Germany. Risk assessments and

method statements are woefully inadequate.

Netherlands The Netherlands have fewer pieces of legislation but they are in a simpler language andcover more things in the one act. Our HASAW Act is very technical and non-professionalshave difficulty understanding it the Working Conditions Act in the Netherlands coversmany pieces of legislation and is written in an easier language.

They have higher accident rates and fatalities. Dutch have a confusing legislative way, butsatisfactory to the Dutch freedom and way of life

Scandinavia Some are very good at looking after their workforce and implementing legislation(Scandinavia springs to mind)

Spain From what I have seen in Spain particularly they just seem to pay lip service to the regs.

Sweden Yes, the way Sweden using the trade union safety representatives (roving reps) is anexcellent use of resources.

Table 26

Respondentsviews of gold

plating in UK

legislation

Types of comment Number of respondents

Yes 2

No 97

Not sure/no comment 12


Total 138

Seven respondents commented that the reverse had been the case and the UK has failed to fullyimplement EU requirements in the case of the following Directives:

Directive 90/394/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to

carcinogens at work and extending it to mutagens (4 respondents) Directive 89/391, the OSH Framework Directive, in relation to the Management of Health and

Safety at Work Regulations Temporary or Mobile Construction Sites (TMCS) Directive (92/57/EEC), in relation to the

Construction (Design and Management) Regulations Directive 2002/14/EC on establishing a general framework for informing and consulting

employees in the European Community.

Five respondents reported the view that it is the interpretation of legislation by insurers that hasresulted in some organisations gold plating requirements. An example of this view is:

As a health & safety practitioner who has carried out inspection, enforcement guidance andadvice roles I do not believe the regulations are gold plated. Indeed they tend to be simple to

follow. The gold plating tends to come from the organisations interpreting them, such asinsurance companies and legal firms.


27/31

A further 41 respondents were not sure, supplied general comments or simply said yes. These lattertwo groups did not supply evidence.

The remaining 16 respondents provided the titles of 9 Directives or pieces of legislation which theyfelt had been gold plated. Of these the Working Time Regulations 1998 (as amended) and the Work

at Height Regulations 2005 were the most cited (see Table 27).


Table 27

EU Directives and

legislation that

respondents feel

have been gold

plated

TitleNumber of

respondents



Six-pack Regulations 2

Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 (as amended) 2

Physical Agents (Noise) Directive 1



1


Manufacture and Storage of Explosives and the Health and Safety (EnforcingAuthority) (Amendment and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2007

1

Q15 Does health and safety law suitably place responsibility in an appropriate wayon those that create risk? If not what changes would be required?

A total of 198 respondents (87 per cent) supplied data in response to this question. Of these, 93respondents (47 per cent) felt that health and safety law suitably and appropriately placesresponsibility on those that create risk. Twenty-eight respondents (14 per cent) provided generalcomments or did not know (see Table 28).

Table 28

Respondents

views on

responsibility and

the law


respondents% of

respondents

Yes 93 47

No 77 39

Dont know 4 2

General or miscellaneous comments 24 12

Total 198 100

Seventy-seven respondents (39 per cent) said no to this question and of these 64 went on to suggestareas where changes could be adopted (see Table 29).

Sixty-four respondents (32 per cent of respondents to this question) suggested one or more areaswhere they felt changes to health and safety law would result in a more suitable and appropriateallocation of responsibility to those that create risk. The largest group of respondents (n = 29) feltthat there should be greater management responsibility, especially within senior management, moreclarity in the area of directors duties and that these duties should be a legal requirement. (table 29)

Twenty-six respondents highlighted the area of employee duties and felt that this was an area wherestrengthening legal responsibilities and enforcing them could result in a more equitable distribution ofresponsibilities.


28/31

Fifteen respondents felt that health and safety law suffered from lack of enforcement and that thisresults in the failure to allocate responsibility for risk in a suitable and appropriate manner. Theserespondents would like to see much stronger enforcement of existing law, but note that this wouldhave resource implications for the regulator. For example:

Criticism is sometimes levelled at enforcing authorities on few prosecutions of individuals despite

the legal power to do so. This is often due to resource issues rather than any other reason.

Overall, the majority of respondents to this question felt health and safety law works effectively toallocate responsibility to those that create the risks. Many respondents cite section 37 of the Healthand Safety at Work etc Act 1974 as being effective, but a large group feel that health and safety lawmight benefit from improvement by making directors duties a legal requirement, strengtheningemployee duties and implementing stronger enforcement.

Q16 Do you have any other comments on the Lfstedt review of health and safetylegislation?A total of 173 respondents (76 per cent) provided other comments in response to this question. Ofthese, 120 comments fell into the categories of no, general or miscellaneous, positive or negative.The general comments reiterated points made in relation to other questions. The positive

commentators felt the review would be helpful and could offer a positive contribution to the healthand safety debate, whereas negative commentators felt the review was unnecessary and costly (seeTable 30).


Table 29

Changes to the

law suggested by

respondents

Area Number of respondents

Directors duties 29

Employees duties 26

Stronger enforcement 15

Subcontractors 3


Targeted enforcement 2

Table 30

Types of other

comments

provided


respondentsExamples

No 67

Positive comments 19 I think its timely and hope that it will be balanced and sensible

Negative comments 7 Seems unnecessary

General or miscellaneouscomments

27It is not the law that is the issue; it is how it is interpreted bysolicitors and insurance companies that is the real problem

Total 120

Fifty-six respondents provided thoughts on the review, which ranged from suggesting areas for thereview to examine to concerns about the adverse consequences the review may have on health andsafety, discussion of the role of the Health and Safety Executive and scepticism, given the scale of thereview, that it can be completed within the timescales stated (see Table 31).


29/31

The comments provided by the 29 respondents who suggested a direction the review might take,covered the areas of goals and legislation. Areas suggested for the review include:

Goals ensure regulatory effectiveness, not dilution, to keep standards high encourage the positive representation of health and safety and correct misconceptions listen to all stakeholders equally

tackle the claims culture.

Legislation a broad set of regulations with sector-specific ACoPs a review of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 a standard format for regulations improved guidance in plain English a review of the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 ensure more robust enforcement improve risk education by incorporating health and safety into the curriculum.

References

1 Department for work and Pensions (2011) The Lfstedt review: An independent review ofhealth and safety legislation terms of reference. www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/lofstedt-tor.pdf.Accessed on 31 May 2011.

2 Department for work and Pensions (2011) The Lfstedt review: An independent review ofhealth and safety legislation call for evidence. www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/lofstedt-call-for-evidence.pdf. Accessed on 31 May 2011.

Acknowledgments

IOSH would like to thank all those who took their time to participate in this survey for their valuableinput.

Report prepared by Murray Clark, IOSH Research and Technical Officer, 1 August 2011.


Table 31

Other commentsOther comments received on the Lfstedt review Number of respondents

Areas for the review 29

Adverse consequences 26

Health and Safety Executive 15

Timescale 3

Total 56


30/31

Appendix A: Text of the email sent to all UK IOSHmembers introducing the survey

Dear Member,The much talked-about review of health and safety regulation recommended by Lord Young lastOctober has now been launched by the DWP, led by Professor Ragnar Lfstedt, and we need yourhelp to compile an IOSH submission of evidence, please.

You can assist us by sharing your experience and evidence in answer to the review questions via ouron-line survey, which is accessible at www.safesurveys.info/snap/mc/b/_lofstedt_review.htm. Dontworry if you cant answer all the questions, just answer those you can and submit your response to usby 24 June 2011.

Please remember that this is a call for evidence, so we need to provide hard facts, backed by evidencewherever possible, as well as the specifics of any suggested improvements. Im sure youll agree thatits important the health and safety profession makes its voice heard in this review and I hope you areable to contribute.

Thank you for your support.

Richard JonesHead of Policy and Public Affairs



31/31

IOSHThe Grange

Highfield DriveWigstonLeicestershireLE18 1NNUK

t +44 (0)116 257 3100f +44 (0)116 257 3101www.iosh.co.uk

IOSH is the Chartered body for health and safetyprofessionals. With more than 39,500 members

in 85 countries, were the worlds largestprofessional health and safety organisation.

We set standards, and support, develop andconnect our members with resources, guidance,events and training. Were the voice of theprofession, and campaign on issues that affectmillions of working people.

IOSH was founded in 1945 and is a registeredcharity with international NGO status.

Institution of Occupational Safety and HealthFounded 1945Incorporated by Royal Charter 2003Registered charity 1096790 A

C/112

38/MC/010811/PDF

isho lofstedt survey

Documents