Remove Red Tape

Higher risk workplaces

These regulations aim to protect those working in industries such as construction, waste and recycling and certain areas of manufacturing, as they may be at higher risk of accidents.

You can find all 15 regulations that relate to higher risk workplaces here [opens in new window].

You can find all the regulations that relate to Higher risk workplaces below to the left.

Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:

• Should we scrap them altogether?
• Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
• Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
• Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
• Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
• Should they be left as they are?

163 comments on “Higher risk workplaces”

1. Lawrence Waterman on July 4, 2011 at 8:45 am said:

   The structure of H&S Regulations for the construction sector is generally working satisafctorily with little bureaucracy in proportion to the risks and the history of high levels of fatalities and serious injuries. There are two points I wish to make:
   1. In general the process of simplifying/clarifying in both Regulations and associated Guidance should continue – for those who wish to perform well and protect the workforce (and their projects from the disruption caused by serious incidents) this is always a helpful exercise. This simplification can be done without radically changing, and thus risking, the overall architecture of Regulations which have definitely contributed to accident rates in the industry reducing dramatically since 1975. The caveat, however, is for those who do not have a prior commitment to operate well and legally, it is essential that enforcement activity is maintained.

   2. The CDM Regulations require the industry to manage projects in a particular way, and given the previous record this is not unreasonable. However, what was Planning Supervision and is now CDM Coordination has been specified in an inappropriate way – it would be far better for this to be defined as a FUNCTION and not a ROLE and for guidance tio be developed to make it much clearer that such a function could be properly discharged by a competent designer (architect, engineer, etc.) rather than the assumption that a separate functionary has to be appointed within each project. The separation in organisation of many CDM-Cs from design teams actually operates against the interests of coordination, whereas good coordination could be seen as an appropriate part of the design function itself. Encouraging designers to take on this role as part of their normal working could also lead to a greater commitment from designers towards healthy and safe by design. This is at least worth considering as a cost-saving simplification.

   Above all, I wish to reinforce that in the attempt to cut red tape we should be very careful that we do not water down a regulatory regime which is daily saving lives and reducing injuries and ill health. My experience of major projects is that good health and safety contributes to completion on time and on budget, health and safety in construction is a sensible investment rather than a red tape on-cost.

   Reply ↓
   • Peter Walker on July 4, 2011 at 10:11 am said:

     I do not agree wit Mr Watermans comment made in his opening line: “The structure of H&S Regulations for the construction sector is generally working satisafctorily with little bureaucracy”.
     There is a ‘significant’ amount of bureaucracy placed on the SMEs in the construction industry and most of it is caused by the ‘risk transfer’ that is taking place by the Principal Contractors.
     1) there are too many different prequalification schemes.
     2) there is overzealous use of specific types of skills cards.
     3) There is little recognition of existing H&S training and Passport schemex.
     The whole industry will be improved if more mutual recognition was given to the health and safety training and systems already in place by SMEs. The current practice is to dictate a ‘gold plated’ standard with little or no exemptions.
   • Terry Pike on July 5, 2011 at 8:05 pm said:

     I broadly agree with Lawrence’s first point.
     Architects and engineers are able to take the CDM-C role and sometimes do, although in my experienct they don’t tend to do the job particularly well as they didn’t particularly do the old planning supervisor role well. I believe that any CDM-C should have practical construction experience rather than just architectural or engineering theoretical experience. Generally the relationship between the PC and designers tends to be adversarial in any case (PC looking for extras & designers looking for savings). So a competent independant safety orientated referee acting entirely for the client is good thing.

     I believe Peter is also mostly correct but the problem is with poor interpretation rather than the regulations. Clients and contractors should not be allowed to discount qualifications without having to justify the discriminiation legally and not on a policy decision.
   • Bob on July 15, 2011 at 11:38 am said:

     I agree with Lawrence’s 2nd point in that CDMshould clearly define the role of the CDM as a function and not as a role. To many CDMCs are detached from the project and appointed to late. They end up producing largely generic wads of paper that no one reads to justify their fee and with the aim of discharging their legal duty. The “function” would be better served by a competentent designer.

     However I strongly agree with Terry in that the CDM C needs to understand construction and safety in construction in order to be effective, especiacally on large and/or complicated projects..
2. James Ritchie on July 4, 2011 at 8:17 am said:

   With regard to the CDM Regulations 2007and the specific questions I would add the following comments:
   Should we scrap them altogether? – I think not. The benefits that have been achieved by the introduction of these regs more than outweigh the faults. Construction projects where CDM is taken seriously are achieving considerably business benefits in terms of meeting costs, quality and time demands far better than the old days of poorly organised and unsafe sites.
   Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way? – That would be wonderful but unfortunately it is only a pipe-dream. As long as clients and others want to do things as cheaply as possible and cut corners then safety and health will be compromised.
   Could they be simplified? – Probably yes. Problems exist mainly with smaller projects ( the big boys are generally doing it right). Removing the complications of Notification and the under-implementation of the EU Directive could be achieved by simplifying the CDM Regs to include all projects.
   Can we reduce Bureacracy through better implementation? – Lets start with a better pre-qualification process. SSIP goes some way in this direction but PAS 91 needs some serious amending to get the questions right regarding CDM. Another isse is the enforcement of site H&S. The HSE is desperately under resourced in this area of construction and greater emphasis on the client undertaking checks on site safety would mean contractors would need to smarten up their act on site. This would need no bureaucracy to implement, just better use of the CDMC to check site practices on behalf of the client (not currently a CDMC duty but could easily be done by many of them). This would also make their enforcement less burdensome for the HSE.
   Should they be left as they are? – Not if the government want to avoid being penalised by the EU for failing to implement the EU Directive properly.

   Reply ↓
   • John Holden on July 4, 2011 at 10:22 am said:

     One of the aims of CDM was to reduce bureacrasy. Most H&S bureacrasy derives from two sources, fear of the no win no fee industry and micro management by ill advised clients. To be clear no one should seak to deny recompence to the injured and a strong and well informed client , working in partnership with the contractor can be hugely beneficial, but before we consider modifying CDM 2007, shouldn’t we see what happens when it is fully implemented? Perhaps the question that we should be asking is, what are the barriers to full implementation and how could the clear and forward thinking philosophy espoused within the CDM 2007 ACOP be incorporated into general legislation and promoted to the rest of UKPC.
3. Keith Corbett on July 4, 2011 at 7:03 am said:

   Then construction and design management regulations CDM 2007 are very ambigious and too open to interpretation.This set of regulations replaced the construction welfare regulations 1992
   However the previous regs had much more information on how to comply ,Instead the current regs use words like ensure competency on a regular basis ,which in itself is a contentious issue when trying to define competency.
   Again this is typical of a set of regulalions that are open to interpretation.Also more clear information needs to be published on the role and responsibilities of subcontractors escpecially when sub letting work. Basically the regulations are too generic.

   Reply ↓
   • Red Tape Challenger on July 4, 2011 at 8:43 am said:

     Thank you for your comments. I think you make a really useful point but for clarification are you suggesting that the regulations need to be more specific or that industry needs more/better guidance?
4. Russell McGowan on July 3, 2011 at 8:27 pm said:

   Regulations should basically be left as they are.

   Reply ↓
5. Terry Pike on July 3, 2011 at 11:18 am said:

   I think the governement should think again about removing, combining or revising any of the Health and safety regulations. Major alteration of the regs, dumbing down of H & S law (and the need to comply) and the reduction in enforcement will increase the numbers of people killed or injured while at work.

   There seems to be an opinion fostered by the popular media and stories (often false) which makes out health and safety law as a kill joy at best or an interference with business making a profit or operating efficiently. This opinion appears to blame the legislation for all the “bonkers conkers” situations rather than the people who manage and interpret health and safety within an organisation. Sometimes these people are risk avers, trying to justify their position or just not competent / trained. The law is not the problem it’s the disproportionate interpretation that’s the problem.

   The management of health and safety in the workplace is much easier in practice than much of the other legislation imposed on employers (PAYE and VAT to name 2). The problem with H & S legislation is either it’s miss or over interpretation or the lack of knowedge often brought about by disinterest in applying it correctly and above all proportionately.

   All the health and safety regulations require that workers and managers are trained and competent to carry out their jobs. One of the biggest let downs I see within companies, as a safety advisor, is the lack of training and knowledge at management and director level. Often the most basic means of keeping workers and others safe is not understood or for that matter given any real consideration.

   As a motorist who has the potential to kill or injure numerous people, I had to train and pass a test which evaluates my skill and (importantly) my attitude. I believe health and safety training should be a prerequisite for any person wishing to be a company director or the person competent to manage H & S in the workplace. The training should of course be proportionate to the role.

   So I would urge the government to do the following:-

   Keep the legislation as it is and not bring in mass changes which will only confuse people and be open to missinterpretation about the importance of workplace health and safety.

   Continue to examine heath and safety legislation and allow it to evolve gradually over time and only make alterations which will lead to better health and safety arrangements for workers and public alike.

   Enforce the regulations preportionatly and evenly throughout industry so that all companies are on a level playing field and companies that don’t operate safely lose any advantage.

   Insist on proper training for people administering H & S in the workplace.

   Finally and most importantly foster a good safety culture throughout industry so that companies see that working safely has more advantages than disadvantages.

   Reply ↓
6. tim richardson on July 2, 2011 at 3:40 pm said:

   CDM is good but the lack of any necessity for the CDMC to go to site once the project has started makes it fragmented.

   Reply ↓
   • Stephen Hall on July 4, 2011 at 1:51 pm said:

     Your correct in what your saying, the CDMC’s role has gone on a bit of a wonkey one. For some reason we think its acceptable to allow CDMC’s to run multiple sites and ac more as a site auditor which is not what the regualtions have intended. Done properly the CDMC role would be pivitol in all large projects, the reality is there almost pointless
   • Terry Pike on July 7, 2011 at 6:09 pm said:

     I agree Tim and Stephen. I act as a CDM-C and safety advisor and always include visits through the contract period in the price structure. I think the regs should include statutory visits by the CDM-C and perhaps give them the power enforce to a certain extent if there is a serious H & S breach or even just to formally advise the client on the PCs health and safety performance.
   • Bob on July 15, 2011 at 11:51 am said:

     I dis agree with some of the above comments. The aim of the CDM regulations was never that the CDMC act as site safety auditor and neither should it be. In my experiance many CDM C consultancys would like to monitor / audit site simply to get a bigger fee.

     The role of the CDM C does need looking at as they are often ignored, ineffective and I think the “function” could be better served by other duty holders providing that those duty holders are competent.
7. stephen Hall on July 2, 2011 at 2:29 pm said:

   I I worked inthe construction indusrty all of my life, I have suffered illness and the posibility of neing crippled due to bad working practices in the industry. As such this put me on the path of EHS as a profession. When the new CDM regualtions came out i thought, finaly something decent to work with, [text deleted]. I am yet to visit a site where the desinges bare any responisiblities for their designs and i have works n some very prestegus designs yet you take a pair of steps on site and your shot at.
   [text deleted] helth and safety shold be standardised to have a certain criteria before you can have health and safety in your job title that way they can at least have some degree of copetancy to use.
   [text deleted ]I visit sites now and i have to ware gloves, hat, high viz, boots (not riggers) and glases, to complete a site walk, i then have to sit a 3 hour induction for the site only to see the foreman 5 mins later without his PPE.
   I belive as safety profestionals we sould have the ability to turn up on any of our work site un anounced and audit it providing we have the correct CSCS card to prove we are competant to do so, a 5 min induction can be given to the EHS profestionals to cover the basics and then let them feed back anything they find from the site. Otherwise whats the point in having a specfic CSCS card we may as well all have the same.
   Its not the regulations thats the issue its the companies [text deleted] at best rew riting them wont change anything do lets look at a praticle way to control the risk within construction and set up a safgety advisors comitee for constrcution with all safety advisors allowed to participate. IOSH have a forum but not many people attend mabee we can make this a web cast or live meeting or something and start getting the industry to work together rather than this bizare teir system we have adopted.

   Reply ↓
8. Richard Howl on July 2, 2011 at 10:35 am said:

   Contractors in general get so tied up in the paper-go-round ticking boxes and creating masses of files that the obvious gets missed more and more. Because of this, workers and contractors on sites have to put up or shut up operating in unsafe conditions that have failed to be identified by the main contractor and reported through a near miss system ends up with the contractor/ worker being treated aggressively and in many cases excluded from further work on that site. The paper go round safety systems get enforced in general by administrator types who have a shallow knowledge of real safety issues and it is their arrogance that will kill or mame people. Let’s get back to real safety by preventing rather than punishing.

   Reply ↓
9. Gareth Pritchard on July 2, 2011 at 10:12 am said:

   The Construction (Head Protection) Regulations shoud be scrapped as they are effectively covered by the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations. The CDM 2007 Regulations are an example of how H&S legislation can be developed positively to be more pragmatic and proportionate – this needs keeping – but also needs reinforcing, particularly with some (regrettably some of these are public authorities) clients.

   Reply ↓
10. Roy Nightingale on July 1, 2011 at 11:08 pm said:

    One needs to be very careful when proposing to change H&S legislation. The analogy is that if a car is being driven dangerously, no one would condone changing the car rather than the driver.

    In almost all cases, the problem is with the lack of relevant competencies held by those who attempt to interpret the legislation for employers. The Lord Young report recognised this and proposed what became the OSHCR; however, few in industry have heard of the register and many ill equipped advisors continue to operate outside of it. Additionally, the register does not address the company H&S advisor (ie the employee).

    Before starting to change the various H&S laws, all efforts should be streamed into employers obtaining a competent interpretation of those laws that exist (CDM is one in question) irrespective of the role of the advisor in question. Only when we have established a system of competent interpretation, will it be appropriate to fine-tune the law itself.

    Reply ↓
11. Keith Laws on July 1, 2011 at 4:00 pm said:

    The Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2007 are makiing so called Management Consultant Companies a lot of money whilst they ceate a buracratic nightmare for Principal Contractors who are supposed to be managing Health & Safety under the regulations.

    Reply ↓
    • Terry Pike on July 3, 2011 at 10:14 pm said:

      I worked as a site manager and then contracts manager in construction for many years and the CDM regs are not at all burdensome. The only extra paperwork created for a notifiable project is the construction phase plan which I used to produce for projects even if they weren’t notifiable because it’s a good planning tool. The CDM regs also gives the PC the tools to “hit back” at designers and architects who produce designs which are unsafe to erect or specify materials which are unsafe to handle. The regs state that all parties must be competent which includes the PC being competent to manage health and safety. I only used a safety consultancy to undertake safety audits and inspections because it’s useful to get a second expert opinion. The CDM-C is appointed by the client and is a good source of advice and feedback that the PC is operating safely.
12. R R Ball on July 1, 2011 at 3:53 pm said:

    Government should consider the implications of de-criminalising health & safety, i.e. so that breaches of the law become a civil as opposed to a criminal offence. The burden of proof in a civil case is less than in a criminal case. At the same time the reverse burden of proof could be abolished so that one is innocent until proved guilty. One could expect that the excessive and over-zealous application of health and safety regulations would be reduced if there is no danger of being labelled a criminal with all that this implies.

    Reply ↓
    • Bernard Carey on July 2, 2011 at 12:14 pm said:

      So RR Ball believes that H&S breaches should be civil rather than criminal?
      What a brilliant suggestion, let’s have incompetent employers have no risk of imprisonment!!
      Let’s have workers seriously injured or poisoned without the employer at risk of imprisonment!
      What a barking mad suggestion!
      Criminality has nothing to do with over-zealous application, that is all due to under-qualified advisors, and local authority jobsworths (amongst others) who use H&S as an excuse for their own laziness.
    • David Brown on July 12, 2011 at 3:33 pm said:

      With regards RR Balls comments, if you decriminalise health and safety legislation, who would “enforce it”? If you left it entirely to the civil courts, presumably you wouldn’t need either the HSE or local authority h&s inspectors?

      If you are seriously suggesting that self-regulation would work across all industry sectors, I suggest you have a look at the HSE website and their press releases for their recent prosecutions…try to find a case that HSE have taken recently where you think that they were over zealous, as I can’t find many! The vast majority relate to employees being killed at work in situations that were both foreseeable and easily preventable.

      If an employer “killing” someone at work is not a criminal offence, I don’t know what would be? If local authority h&s inspectors are “over zealous”, how come over 90% of their prosecutions are successful in the courts? This suggests that they aren’t taking enough prosecutions, not taking too many.

      Enforcement is seen as a dirty word, but it is a necessary “evil”. Regulators, including HSE, do not prosecute defenceless companies at the drop of a hat, but neither do they have the time or resources to baby-sit employers that are putting their employees at risk. The fact that both HSE’s and local authority budgets are being significantly reduced means that HSE will have even less time to help businesses to comply, and is actually likely to increase the level of enforcement, rather than reduce it.

      At the end of the day, if you comply with the law, you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
13. Marko on July 1, 2011 at 2:27 pm said:

    Im still mystified how much CDM is in place for construction and yet there seems to be none for others. I recently was made redundant as an architectural technician and found temporary work as a ‘drivers mate’ for a beer company. The ‘safe’ way to remove large barrels of beer from the lorry was to stand next to the lorry and pull the 50kg keg towards you. Kegs were then thrown down into cellars…yet working at height in construction is so exhaustative

    Reply ↓
14. Phill Firmin on July 1, 2011 at 1:37 pm said:

    As a seasoned health and safety professional with a construction public/private sector background, I feel any legislation applicable to high risk workplaces should be based on a more prescriptive/process approach (e.g. previous construction regulations). In most cases we are dealing with the same common safety themes, which can be easily understood with visual aides (e.g. scaffolding/WAH, excavations etc). Even then, new technology could be covered by manufacturers instructions for safe use, until items or systems become more generic.
    In order to maintain standards, the Construction Industry Council, for example are surely competent and able to be enpowered to implement and monitor the guidance for all to follow. Companies can be registered and refer to the CIC if and when changes are required to be considered. The same kind of approach could be applied to other high risk industries, with the Councils reporting to the HSE on matters of concern (e.g. further legislation or change).

    Reply ↓
15. Steve James on July 1, 2011 at 1:35 pm said:

    Can anyone explain why is agriculture not classified as high risk workplace?

    Reply ↓
16. Colin Swinnerton on July 1, 2011 at 1:27 pm said:

    I am a CDM Co-ordinator(CDM-C) as required by the CDM Regulations 2007. I think that the early appointment of CDM-C legally appended to a Planning Permission would ensure that clients building is designed with H &S in mind
    enabling safe & easy maintenance after completion.

    Reply ↓
    • tony putsman on July 1, 2011 at 4:02 pm said:

      I agree that the early appointment of a skilled cdm co-ordinator would have a positive effect on construction performance, but is currently the exception rather than the rule.
      A lack of understanding by all cdm duty-holders means that appointment of a cdm-c is often late , competence is not checked adequately and the role is seen as little more than a paper shuffling exercise.Making the appointment a requirement for Planning might help if there was more education of clients and their professional advisers.
    • Terry Pike on July 3, 2011 at 9:11 am said:

      I agree Colin. I am also a CDM-C and often find a client has the design in place, appointed a PC (often not entirely competent), then they realise the job is notifiable and appoint a CDM-C the role is then almost impotent. I feel the law shold go further and perhaps place a significant surcharge on clients who don’t appoint.
    • cameron miller on July 5, 2011 at 10:54 am said:

      I agree that a means of ensuring early appointment of the CDM Co-ordinator is needed (whether attached to the Planning process or otherwise).
      All too often, I am appointed as CDM Co-ordinator at such a late stage that the client loses the benefits I might otherwise bring to the project.
17. John Anderson on July 1, 2011 at 1:27 pm said:

    I believe the legal drafters of Acts and Regulation have enacted health and safety legislation over indulgently in regard to the real purpose of health and safety regulation and appear to have introduced legislation that is excessive and overly complex in nature, (the Six-Pack for example was enacted with indecent haste when enacted and not allowing those to whom it applied to come to grips with the planning and implementation of the regulations). The flow of regulations that followed this initial surge, emanating from European Directives, soon began to expand unchecked and failed to be enacted in the desired sense of approximation, to which these individual sets of legislation were designed to operate and to regulate effectively and to be applied in practice. This situation has now led to H&S legislation in the UK to where we were with the Factories Act.

    After attempts of earlier years to rid industry of the incomprehensible dictat of the FA, where multiple Acts and regulations were introduced in a confusing and uncoordinated pattern; written in a Dickensian vocabulary we now turned a full circle with rapidly introduced regulations that are often ignored by those to whom they apply and are difficult to enforce. The W&H and the Confined Space regulations are two such examples.

    All of the regulations so far enacted are too long; complex, over prescriptive and archaically written. Most of these regulations could well be converted into a short and informative ACoP style format that are more favourable to be read and understood without ‘loosing the plot’ at the interpretation page. All regulations demand time, effort and the allocation of scarce resources by employers if they are to be reasonably implemented. Numerous regulations require reams of information to be prepared formally and which take considerable time to compile and complete with records maintained on file for many years (CoSHH) (DSE) (MH) being a few examples of over prescription for low risk organisations.

    Like the redundant FA the new regulations now form a trail that employers and the self-employed are legally bound to comply with making the management of H&S, especially smaller businesses, a legal compliance nightmare. This has led to further complications for SME’s by the requirement for such businesses to conform to standard set by non-governmental and unregulated competence assessment companies. These companies operating as self-acclaimed assessors of SME competence are adding to the legal burden by requiring further documentation to be completed and attach high fees for SME’s to remain on an unregulated preferred tenderer data-base.

    As for the regulations that have been included for review and comment from the website my general comments are as follows regarding which of the regulations I consider as being obsolete or require further review to improve readability and simplification with a view to remaining relevant in the ever changing workplace.

    Agriculture (Metrication) Regulations 1981. Revoke fully.

    Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act 1956 (Repeals and Modifications) Regulations 1975 – Revoke fully.

    Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) (Amendment) Regulations 1990. Revoke fully.

    Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) Regulations 1974. Revoke and revert to guidance.

    Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.

    Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989. Revoke fully.

    Diving at Work Regulations 1997. Review for ACoP status.

    Docks Regulations 1988. Revoke and include with W(HS&W) regs.

    Docks, Shipbuilding etc (Metrication) Regulations 1983. Revoke fully.

    Freight Containers (Safety Convention) Regulations 1984. Revoke fully.

    Health and Safety (Agriculture) (Miscellaneous Repeals and Modifications) Regulations 1976. Revert to guidance status.

    Health and Safety (Foundries etc) (Metrication) Regulations 1981. Revoke fully.

    Loading and Unloading of Fishing Vessels Regulations 1988. Revoke and include with W(HS&W) regs.

    Non-ferrous Metals (Melting and Founding) Regulations 1962. Revoke and revert to simplified ACoP and guidance.

    Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations 2010. Revert to simple statutory notification. E.g as CDM F10 notification.

    Prevention of Accidents to Children in Agriculture Regulations 1998. Revoke fully.

    Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing Regulations 1960. Revoke fully.

    Work in Compressed Air Regulations 1996. Revert to ACoP.

    Reply ↓
18. Bob Newbigging on July 1, 2011 at 12:11 pm said:

    Training to increase awareness of core legislation for all levels of experience. School visits is the place to start and the place to spark interest in future professionals.

    Reply ↓
19. Nigel Hammond on July 1, 2011 at 9:59 am said:

    How are you defining ‘high risk’ industries? I work in social care. That’s not on your list. Every year, a number of people receiving support die from results of mistakes and negligence. For example, asphyxiation in bedrails, falls from hoists, scalding in baths, falls from windows. What about hospitals! If you are going to categorise risk you need to show your method.

    Reply ↓
20. J.L.Crowder on July 1, 2011 at 9:20 am said:

    We as British citizens believe our Health & Safety regulations and their implementation to be the best in the world but the reality is that we fall way behind other developed countries. The problem lies not in the desire to achieve such a result but in the implementation.
    We have laws that control the way we behave when using the roads, speed, carefulness, etc and are required to pass a competancy test. In the construction industry as an example, there is little enforcement of regulations such a Work at Height and Manual Handling. Why? Well I believe the Government is concerned not to alienate the industry and the chiefs that operate in it. Can you imagine the cost to a replacement window or scaffolding company if it complied with such regulations. The way the HSE operate is to have a hit on a particular subject, going around a few select organisations and making an example of them, no doubt hoping others will follow with compliance This country suffers considerable costs to the employers of such workpeople from loss of time at work through injury and cost to the NHS for doctor and hospitalisation activity.
    Additionally these regulations in particular the Work at Height Regs were set up to reduce the significant instances of falls from height and resultant fatalities. Considering one sector of this industry, the Replacement of Windows, we still see workers using ladders to not only lift materials to height but also as a work platform ignoring the three point contact rule.
    Why should this be so when so much has been said about the regs since its implementation in 2004?
    The truth I believe is that most peole operating in this and similar sectors are self employed. Yes they drive around in corporate vans, wear the uniform and are provided with the jobs by their so called ‘EMPLOYER’. But when it comes to H&S issues the organisation providing the work does not want to know. Therefore these guys benefits financially from Self Employed status but to their disadvantage from a personal safety standpoint, they being left to their own devices with regard to work regulations. This fits well with both sides until something untoward happens. When talking to such tradesmen they show little concern for such regulation, often bragging about how many accidents they had survived, falls from height, back injuries, serious lacerations etc. They never get reported and often because they are so motivated by money they carry on working not taking any recuperation.
    When you consider such trades in the USA, Canada and Australia you will find the majority are employed and their employer has to take care of them otherwise serious fines are issued by organisations such as Worksafe.The regulations themselves are fine, the HSE a professionally run and structured organisation but it has to operate with its hands tied behind its back. The Government should close the loophole on self employed working for people whose mainc stream of work comes from one organisation and encourage those employers to do the right thing!
    This has been talked about for a long time but nothing has been done. Perhaps we should wait for the litigation tide and significantly increased insurance premiums to do the work for us???

    Reply ↓
    • James Taylor on July 1, 2011 at 2:04 pm said:

      There is an argument that some people that work in ‘high risk employment’ are attracted to that particular profession because of the element of risk involved. Not everyone is attracted to a low risk environment..
      Health & Safety leglisation should not be the exclusive view of the older generation, who have become more risk averse.
      .
    • Bernard Carey on July 2, 2011 at 12:22 pm said:

      I cannot believe that JL Crowder has any experience of the USA working environment. Having lived there for 3 years, I can assure everyone that worker safety is very low on the list for US employers and government alike. You only have to look at the way George W Bush revoked their equivalent of the manual handling Regs as soon as he came to office, because he was in the pocket of the employers and they decided they would rather injure workers and sack them, than take care of them. On a like for like comparison, US worker deaths are at about 10x the numbers of UK workers.