Health and safety – Ladder register

I work in an office with c. 50 people in my building.  I understand that we are required by health and safety rule or regulation to maintain a ladder register to record where our – 4 step – ladder is around the building.  How unbelievably ridiculous!  This has to go.

Why is this idea important?

I work in an office with c. 50 people in my building.  I understand that we are required by health and safety rule or regulation to maintain a ladder register to record where our – 4 step – ladder is around the building.  How unbelievably ridiculous!  This has to go.

A checklist of all the ‘red tape’ that remains?

I run a Community Centre (and have done for 2 years now) and am still finding new things that I'm 'required' to do.  Whether or not they're red tape or not is one discussion, but the feeling that there's always potentially more out there looming over me is a burden!  Today for example I found out that the council requires us to map our entire water supply system to prove that we've mitigated against the risk of Legionnaires disease.  My other recent favourite was to discover that my signs 'caution water hot' were insufficient, as I was required to have a picture with the message. Requirement to prove annual checks of first aid kits, annual PAT testing of all electrical equipment, PRS licencing, risk assessments for fire, asbestos, corperate governance are all others that have sneaked up on me.  As scary as one enormous list of everything that you need to do for a building that is open to the public might be, it would be a very useful, and ultimatly reasssuring and time saving device.

Why is this idea important?

I run a Community Centre (and have done for 2 years now) and am still finding new things that I'm 'required' to do.  Whether or not they're red tape or not is one discussion, but the feeling that there's always potentially more out there looming over me is a burden!  Today for example I found out that the council requires us to map our entire water supply system to prove that we've mitigated against the risk of Legionnaires disease.  My other recent favourite was to discover that my signs 'caution water hot' were insufficient, as I was required to have a picture with the message. Requirement to prove annual checks of first aid kits, annual PAT testing of all electrical equipment, PRS licencing, risk assessments for fire, asbestos, corperate governance are all others that have sneaked up on me.  As scary as one enormous list of everything that you need to do for a building that is open to the public might be, it would be a very useful, and ultimatly reasssuring and time saving device.

Freedom of movement

Get rid of all the guard railing and the regs. and narrow safty audit contexts that result in significant restiction of the basic right that is the freedom of movement. Reintroduce common sense, follow best practise and safe millions if not billions of pounds between now and the next election. Imagine Places without guard railings!

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of all the guard railing and the regs. and narrow safty audit contexts that result in significant restiction of the basic right that is the freedom of movement. Reintroduce common sense, follow best practise and safe millions if not billions of pounds between now and the next election. Imagine Places without guard railings!

DIY – Relax Constraints

If I want to put in or alter gas instalations at home or on my boat I am preveted from doing so either by direct prohibition or by prohibition on retailers supplying the equipment. If I want to instal or alter a mains electrical circuit in my kitchen or bathroom I must get my local authority or a professional electrician to check it at my expence.

These are both safety issues and I do not want to underplay the importance of safety. However in drawing up the recent regulations there was consultation with trade and safety organisations but no balancing representation of DIY interests because they do not exist. To a great extent, therefore, these regulations represent a restrictive practice.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

If I want to put in or alter gas instalations at home or on my boat I am preveted from doing so either by direct prohibition or by prohibition on retailers supplying the equipment. If I want to instal or alter a mains electrical circuit in my kitchen or bathroom I must get my local authority or a professional electrician to check it at my expence.

These are both safety issues and I do not want to underplay the importance of safety. However in drawing up the recent regulations there was consultation with trade and safety organisations but no balancing representation of DIY interests because they do not exist. To a great extent, therefore, these regulations represent a restrictive practice.

 

 

repeal non life threatening health and safety laws

If the State tries too hard to protect us from minor incidents we will be unprepared for major incidents when they occur.This applies particularly to children;

Quite simply the health and safety authorities should be forbidden to interfere with any activity unless a there is reasonable expectation that there is a risk of death or serious injury likely to occur.

Children will then be free to play "conkers" and take part in"egg and spoon races" and adult functions will be able to take place without restrictions from hordes of officials.

Why is this idea important?

If the State tries too hard to protect us from minor incidents we will be unprepared for major incidents when they occur.This applies particularly to children;

Quite simply the health and safety authorities should be forbidden to interfere with any activity unless a there is reasonable expectation that there is a risk of death or serious injury likely to occur.

Children will then be free to play "conkers" and take part in"egg and spoon races" and adult functions will be able to take place without restrictions from hordes of officials.

Health and Safety Legislation needs a dose of reality lessons…

I have watched in amazement the explosion in growth of the Health and Safety legislation, which has become a massive, self perpetuating industry that is damaging and castrating the youth of our country while adversely affecting everybody.

The fundamental problem with the plethora of Health and Safety legislation is one of essentially and ultimately flawed philosophy or ideology. Because it is based on the fallacious premise that you can eliminate All risks entirely and make everything totally safe.

Our planet and indeed the entire universe itself is when you come right down to it by its very nature are inherently dangerous and unstable. Every single living organism on our earth today is here because it learned to understand, cope with, manage and minimise the risks successfully and consequently survive both individually and as a species.

Please note: the small but subtle difference I propose.

  • Healthy and Safety should be concerning teaching people about assessing, evaluating, controlling, managing, and minimising risks.
  • The Health and Safety Industry (for that is precisely what it has become) is entirely and unrealistically about eliminating All risks entirely from any and all activities.

 

The precept that you can abrogate all responsibility for your own Health and Safety to some third party completely within a controlled environment briefly is both foolish and dangerous. That sense of security is always going to be predicated on a fallacy, for the truth is after you have done everything totally correctly there is always going to be the unforeseen failure in any system that can and will lead to injury or death.

However, the real danger is becoming habituated to trusting the Health and Safety legislative so that you simply fail to recognise the dangers for yourself in the real world and as a consequence you are ultimately simply unprepared to cope when left to your own devices in any real emergency. You simply have no idea how to act correctly, or know how to make the informed and educated decisions necessary which will immediately impact on your own and others survival.

The point I am trying to make, is that you can teach young people to survive only by putting them in challenging situations which seem dangerous, but dangers though real are managed and controlled, so the risks encountered are absolutely minimal.

The idea is hardly new or revolutionary in either theory or practice as that is precisely what an inoculation is. A weakened form of a virus is deliberately introduced so the body can learn to recognise the danger in the future and produce antibodies.

The point is you try getting that concept over to the Health and Safety industry and they will reject the idea completely, most of the time I suspect to justify and sustain their own positions and continued employment security.

 

But that is why government exists. For it is government legislation that created the Health and Safety legislation that founded and gave rise to this huge exponentially vast growth industry.

Why is this idea important?

I have watched in amazement the explosion in growth of the Health and Safety legislation, which has become a massive, self perpetuating industry that is damaging and castrating the youth of our country while adversely affecting everybody.

The fundamental problem with the plethora of Health and Safety legislation is one of essentially and ultimately flawed philosophy or ideology. Because it is based on the fallacious premise that you can eliminate All risks entirely and make everything totally safe.

Our planet and indeed the entire universe itself is when you come right down to it by its very nature are inherently dangerous and unstable. Every single living organism on our earth today is here because it learned to understand, cope with, manage and minimise the risks successfully and consequently survive both individually and as a species.

Please note: the small but subtle difference I propose.

  • Healthy and Safety should be concerning teaching people about assessing, evaluating, controlling, managing, and minimising risks.
  • The Health and Safety Industry (for that is precisely what it has become) is entirely and unrealistically about eliminating All risks entirely from any and all activities.

 

The precept that you can abrogate all responsibility for your own Health and Safety to some third party completely within a controlled environment briefly is both foolish and dangerous. That sense of security is always going to be predicated on a fallacy, for the truth is after you have done everything totally correctly there is always going to be the unforeseen failure in any system that can and will lead to injury or death.

However, the real danger is becoming habituated to trusting the Health and Safety legislative so that you simply fail to recognise the dangers for yourself in the real world and as a consequence you are ultimately simply unprepared to cope when left to your own devices in any real emergency. You simply have no idea how to act correctly, or know how to make the informed and educated decisions necessary which will immediately impact on your own and others survival.

The point I am trying to make, is that you can teach young people to survive only by putting them in challenging situations which seem dangerous, but dangers though real are managed and controlled, so the risks encountered are absolutely minimal.

The idea is hardly new or revolutionary in either theory or practice as that is precisely what an inoculation is. A weakened form of a virus is deliberately introduced so the body can learn to recognise the danger in the future and produce antibodies.

The point is you try getting that concept over to the Health and Safety industry and they will reject the idea completely, most of the time I suspect to justify and sustain their own positions and continued employment security.

 

But that is why government exists. For it is government legislation that created the Health and Safety legislation that founded and gave rise to this huge exponentially vast growth industry.

Health & Safety Executive

My idea is to abolish the Health & Safety Executive.

I was walking home today, and a man had fallen out of his wheelchair. He was perfectly OK, but needed the help of a few passers by, to help him back into his chair, that was it…

The incident occurred outside of a public sector building, and one of the employees came out and effectively said that we should all stop helping, and wait for the medical emergency services to be called, so that they could get the guy back in his chair. "We should all think about the 'health and safety' aspects she said.

The guy was fine. He knew exactly what he wanted. He gave us all instructions on how best to move him, and to get him back in his chair. He just wanted to be back in his chair. 

This, of course, is a true tale, but a metaphor, for the 'sickness' that the concept of 'health and safety' has imposed upon society.

It has removed personal responsibility in favour of form filling and box ticking, so that no one needs to think for themselves. 

As someone that has had there own company, and has employed people, I know how ridiculous the whole Health & Safety thing is. It is bureaucracy for bureaucracies sake – with a group of people trying to construct a system in which they truly believe all others should operate.

You want innovation ? You want lean mean businesses at the forefront of technology ? You want growth, jobs, a revitalised economy ? A revitalised society ?

Get rid of the stupidity that is the Health and Safety Executive, and invest just a fraction of the money saved by teaching, at secondary school, secular, ethical and morality classes. It's not difficult !

The real argument, of course, supporting the Health & Safety Executive, is protection against litigation.

That is the real issue I guess…..

As a collective entity, the 'Law', has nothing other than the law itself to keep it in check. It's the biggest conflict of interest that exists….

Just a thought.

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to abolish the Health & Safety Executive.

I was walking home today, and a man had fallen out of his wheelchair. He was perfectly OK, but needed the help of a few passers by, to help him back into his chair, that was it…

The incident occurred outside of a public sector building, and one of the employees came out and effectively said that we should all stop helping, and wait for the medical emergency services to be called, so that they could get the guy back in his chair. "We should all think about the 'health and safety' aspects she said.

The guy was fine. He knew exactly what he wanted. He gave us all instructions on how best to move him, and to get him back in his chair. He just wanted to be back in his chair. 

This, of course, is a true tale, but a metaphor, for the 'sickness' that the concept of 'health and safety' has imposed upon society.

It has removed personal responsibility in favour of form filling and box ticking, so that no one needs to think for themselves. 

As someone that has had there own company, and has employed people, I know how ridiculous the whole Health & Safety thing is. It is bureaucracy for bureaucracies sake – with a group of people trying to construct a system in which they truly believe all others should operate.

You want innovation ? You want lean mean businesses at the forefront of technology ? You want growth, jobs, a revitalised economy ? A revitalised society ?

Get rid of the stupidity that is the Health and Safety Executive, and invest just a fraction of the money saved by teaching, at secondary school, secular, ethical and morality classes. It's not difficult !

The real argument, of course, supporting the Health & Safety Executive, is protection against litigation.

That is the real issue I guess…..

As a collective entity, the 'Law', has nothing other than the law itself to keep it in check. It's the biggest conflict of interest that exists….

Just a thought.

Force the HSE to take a more common sense approach

As an engineer in the construction industry, I recognise the value of health and safety and the huge contribution the HSE has made to improving our safety record, but surely the time has now come to stop looking for risks that aren't really there.

 

A classic example of HSE micromanagement is the outlawing of step ladders on site. This is not because step ladders are necessarily unsafe but because the HSE is insistent on a method statement on how to use a step ladder and most contractors don't have the time or staff levels to provide repeated paperwork for the numerous items like this.

 

Another example is manual lifting. At a company I worked for, they had to produce a method statement on how to lift and carry a box of photocopier paper.

Why is this idea important?

As an engineer in the construction industry, I recognise the value of health and safety and the huge contribution the HSE has made to improving our safety record, but surely the time has now come to stop looking for risks that aren't really there.

 

A classic example of HSE micromanagement is the outlawing of step ladders on site. This is not because step ladders are necessarily unsafe but because the HSE is insistent on a method statement on how to use a step ladder and most contractors don't have the time or staff levels to provide repeated paperwork for the numerous items like this.

 

Another example is manual lifting. At a company I worked for, they had to produce a method statement on how to lift and carry a box of photocopier paper.

Health and Safety laws – radical amendments needed

Safety is a state of mind, not a set of box-ticking procedures.  The various existing ‘health and safety’ laws need to be radically amended.  Currently they are concerned primarily with establishing ‘paper trails’ so that blame can be established rather than safety achieved.  They have become a paradise for lawyers, officious bureaucrats, egregious insurance companies, and the organizers of all manner of fatuous (and expensive) ‘training courses’.  They have also actively encouraged the growth of the pernicious ‘compensation culture’.   

Two suggestions: 

‘Duty of care’ – wherever this phrase occurs it should be qualified in such a way as to ensure that it cannot be taken as reducing the obligation of individuals to be responsible for themselves. 

‘Risk assessments’ – Even the HSE’s advice on these is flawed, being based on the subjective assessment of what *might* happen.  It is a matter of basic physics that almost anything *might* happen, a proper risk assessment should properly quantify the risk for comparison with other risks so that a rational judgement can be made.  e.g. a council banned window boxes because they *might* fall off and injure people.  The correct procedure would have been to determine nationally the number of window boxes above say 6ft, how many have fallen off, and how many have seriously injured or killed someone.  Without these data, a *rational* risk assessment *cannot* be made and any State/Local Government intervention should have no statutory force, but be confined to advice.

An objective assessment of the legislation might be revealing – e.g. how many were seriously injured/killed in particular industries before and after the legislation, (with due allowances for routine improvements in machinery, procedures etc,) and how many people have suffered ill-health or death due to over-weaning application of the legislation – failed businesses, needless loss of efficiency, stress-related illness etc.

Why is this idea important?

Safety is a state of mind, not a set of box-ticking procedures.  The various existing ‘health and safety’ laws need to be radically amended.  Currently they are concerned primarily with establishing ‘paper trails’ so that blame can be established rather than safety achieved.  They have become a paradise for lawyers, officious bureaucrats, egregious insurance companies, and the organizers of all manner of fatuous (and expensive) ‘training courses’.  They have also actively encouraged the growth of the pernicious ‘compensation culture’.   

Two suggestions: 

‘Duty of care’ – wherever this phrase occurs it should be qualified in such a way as to ensure that it cannot be taken as reducing the obligation of individuals to be responsible for themselves. 

‘Risk assessments’ – Even the HSE’s advice on these is flawed, being based on the subjective assessment of what *might* happen.  It is a matter of basic physics that almost anything *might* happen, a proper risk assessment should properly quantify the risk for comparison with other risks so that a rational judgement can be made.  e.g. a council banned window boxes because they *might* fall off and injure people.  The correct procedure would have been to determine nationally the number of window boxes above say 6ft, how many have fallen off, and how many have seriously injured or killed someone.  Without these data, a *rational* risk assessment *cannot* be made and any State/Local Government intervention should have no statutory force, but be confined to advice.

An objective assessment of the legislation might be revealing – e.g. how many were seriously injured/killed in particular industries before and after the legislation, (with due allowances for routine improvements in machinery, procedures etc,) and how many people have suffered ill-health or death due to over-weaning application of the legislation – failed businesses, needless loss of efficiency, stress-related illness etc.

Reduce the remit of the GLA

The Gangmasters Licencing Authority needs to be disbanded or it's remit greatly reduced to decrease the impact on small business. It could mean that small businesses I use can't tender for contracts (and potential lose money and go out of business) and larger firms are at an advantage being able to absorb the cost of a licence up front. The licence duplicates much of the regulation under health and safety and employment law.

Why is this idea important?

The Gangmasters Licencing Authority needs to be disbanded or it's remit greatly reduced to decrease the impact on small business. It could mean that small businesses I use can't tender for contracts (and potential lose money and go out of business) and larger firms are at an advantage being able to absorb the cost of a licence up front. The licence duplicates much of the regulation under health and safety and employment law.

form filling for schools & brownies

My children are at primary school and we are forever having to sign  pieces of paper to give permission for lots of things. E.G Going to local swimming pool for lessions in school time

I totally trust the school to do whatever is required and feel I do not need to give permission all the time.

 

A similar thing happens at Brownies. If for example the kids are going out to play in the park instead of all meeting at the church hall, a permission form needs to be signed.

Why is this idea important?

My children are at primary school and we are forever having to sign  pieces of paper to give permission for lots of things. E.G Going to local swimming pool for lessions in school time

I totally trust the school to do whatever is required and feel I do not need to give permission all the time.

 

A similar thing happens at Brownies. If for example the kids are going out to play in the park instead of all meeting at the church hall, a permission form needs to be signed.

Cutting the regulation of small businesses

I have spent the last year seeking to create some income to pay for the maintenance etc of the large historic house I live in. In doing so I have been faced with interminable regulation of one kind or another from the local council and the fire service out of all proportion to any perceived risks or effect upon the surrounding community. In this process I have had to:

  • apply for 3 sets of planning permission simply involving change of use, leading to a requirement from the highways department for me to spend thousands of pounds on modifications to my drive for ludicrous reasons.
  • obtain a personal licence (the one you need to run a pub or nightclub) simply to hold a small number of weddings on the premises.
  • obtain a premises licence.
  • be subjected to a fire department audit which required me again to spend thousands of pounds on precautions for a fire risk that is negligable.
  • be inspected by the environmental health services simply because we provide breakfasts to a few B & B guests.

I could go on but suffice it to say that I have been met with a set of officials with the right to interfere with just about everything one does and require expenditure that is out of all relation to the risks involved. One of the byproducts is that we have decided we will not employ anyone under any circumstances. If one does the level of regulation is now laughable – having to send them on courses to climb ladders, lift boxes and other such nonsense. Anybody working here now has to be self employed.

I should add that my career has been in govt and corporate life where I have managed large numbers of people and have a good appreciation of what is really required.

There is a great need to strip out this unnecessary regulation and I eagerly look forward to staffing cuts in the local govt sector which will mean that there simply are not all these people with time on their hands and no appreciation of the realities of running a business.

Why is this idea important?

I have spent the last year seeking to create some income to pay for the maintenance etc of the large historic house I live in. In doing so I have been faced with interminable regulation of one kind or another from the local council and the fire service out of all proportion to any perceived risks or effect upon the surrounding community. In this process I have had to:

  • apply for 3 sets of planning permission simply involving change of use, leading to a requirement from the highways department for me to spend thousands of pounds on modifications to my drive for ludicrous reasons.
  • obtain a personal licence (the one you need to run a pub or nightclub) simply to hold a small number of weddings on the premises.
  • obtain a premises licence.
  • be subjected to a fire department audit which required me again to spend thousands of pounds on precautions for a fire risk that is negligable.
  • be inspected by the environmental health services simply because we provide breakfasts to a few B & B guests.

I could go on but suffice it to say that I have been met with a set of officials with the right to interfere with just about everything one does and require expenditure that is out of all relation to the risks involved. One of the byproducts is that we have decided we will not employ anyone under any circumstances. If one does the level of regulation is now laughable – having to send them on courses to climb ladders, lift boxes and other such nonsense. Anybody working here now has to be self employed.

I should add that my career has been in govt and corporate life where I have managed large numbers of people and have a good appreciation of what is really required.

There is a great need to strip out this unnecessary regulation and I eagerly look forward to staffing cuts in the local govt sector which will mean that there simply are not all these people with time on their hands and no appreciation of the realities of running a business.

Scrap REACH regulations

The REACH regulations which are currently being implemented are placing a huge administrative and financial burden on numerous companies.

There will be little positive impact of these regulations once they are in full force and will overridingly be detrimental to the competitiveness of EU based companies in the EU and global markets. 

Why is this idea important?

The REACH regulations which are currently being implemented are placing a huge administrative and financial burden on numerous companies.

There will be little positive impact of these regulations once they are in full force and will overridingly be detrimental to the competitiveness of EU based companies in the EU and global markets. 

Health & Safety

Repeal this oppressive law and throw out the compensation culture.  Let's have just plain accidents, no one's fault, these things happen!  Bring back common sense, life has risks!

Why is this idea important?

Repeal this oppressive law and throw out the compensation culture.  Let's have just plain accidents, no one's fault, these things happen!  Bring back common sense, life has risks!

Remove solicitors’ right to ‘no-win-no-fee’ deals

Many pieces of legislation, I am thinking particularly of health & safety  are perfectly reasonable and if that accident happened to you, you would be very aggrieved. 


 

Why is this idea important?

Many pieces of legislation, I am thinking particularly of health & safety  are perfectly reasonable and if that accident happened to you, you would be very aggrieved. 


 

Health and safety issues affecting nurseries.

My child has mild autism and is a visual learner. Staff were allowed to take photos of her doing activities , without  other children being in the photo. At home we would look at the photos and name the objects and the teachers thus helping her speech difficulties. Unfortunately last year there was a nursery worker involved in paedophilia and the nursery did not allow any futher pictures presumably to avoid adverse criticism of the parents.

She is also a fussy eater and dislikes sandwiches but likes pasta and rice. We can no longer bring the items she likes in for fear that the staff may overheat  the food in the microwave and burn our daughter's mouth. We have struggled with various alternatives which are not so healthy or to liking. She cannot have peanuts or even boiled egg in case another child has or develops an allergy.

While these are not laws made in Westminster, I feel the government could give more guidance, even run a campaign to ease the effect of nisperceptions of health and safety law.

Why is this idea important?

My child has mild autism and is a visual learner. Staff were allowed to take photos of her doing activities , without  other children being in the photo. At home we would look at the photos and name the objects and the teachers thus helping her speech difficulties. Unfortunately last year there was a nursery worker involved in paedophilia and the nursery did not allow any futher pictures presumably to avoid adverse criticism of the parents.

She is also a fussy eater and dislikes sandwiches but likes pasta and rice. We can no longer bring the items she likes in for fear that the staff may overheat  the food in the microwave and burn our daughter's mouth. We have struggled with various alternatives which are not so healthy or to liking. She cannot have peanuts or even boiled egg in case another child has or develops an allergy.

While these are not laws made in Westminster, I feel the government could give more guidance, even run a campaign to ease the effect of nisperceptions of health and safety law.

Make Health and Safety Compliance Easier – The Fast Solution

What a small business wants to do is comply as quickly and as easily as possible with H&S so we can get on with building a business and earning a living. 

It will probably take years to actually remove H&S laws, many of which are well meaning and individually a reasonable person would not object to (although some must go!). What is needed is a fast solution that removes all the duplicate effort in H&S and risk assessment etc. often by people with no formal training and ensures you have done everything that you are required to do by law.

The Solution

  • Categorise businesses into groups that have similar H&S needs i.e. hairdressing salons, dentists, offices etc.
  • Provide best practice risk assessments for each type of business designed by experts (I know each location is different but you can have a section for everything that is non standard)
  • Standard posters and leaflets for each business group detailing best practice so that staff do not have to relearn when changing jobs in the same industry. They are also more likely to comply with official, high quality information.
  • H&S Compliance Check List for each business group with legal protection for the business if this has been actioned. 
  • If there were residual issues with liability from a Compliance Check List then have an insurance fund that covered anyone that had complied
  • Businesses in each group can then receive all relevant updates for their industry immediately (ideally by email)

So many small businesses have really simple requirements but spend a disproportional part of their time on H&S compared to larger businesses. If the system can be improved, even if it is only for some of the low risk businesses, it would be a massive help.

Why is this idea important?

What a small business wants to do is comply as quickly and as easily as possible with H&S so we can get on with building a business and earning a living. 

It will probably take years to actually remove H&S laws, many of which are well meaning and individually a reasonable person would not object to (although some must go!). What is needed is a fast solution that removes all the duplicate effort in H&S and risk assessment etc. often by people with no formal training and ensures you have done everything that you are required to do by law.

The Solution

  • Categorise businesses into groups that have similar H&S needs i.e. hairdressing salons, dentists, offices etc.
  • Provide best practice risk assessments for each type of business designed by experts (I know each location is different but you can have a section for everything that is non standard)
  • Standard posters and leaflets for each business group detailing best practice so that staff do not have to relearn when changing jobs in the same industry. They are also more likely to comply with official, high quality information.
  • H&S Compliance Check List for each business group with legal protection for the business if this has been actioned. 
  • If there were residual issues with liability from a Compliance Check List then have an insurance fund that covered anyone that had complied
  • Businesses in each group can then receive all relevant updates for their industry immediately (ideally by email)

So many small businesses have really simple requirements but spend a disproportional part of their time on H&S compared to larger businesses. If the system can be improved, even if it is only for some of the low risk businesses, it would be a massive help.

Gas Safety?

I am a self employed Gas Safe Registered domestic Gas Engineer. A responsible jobs were work has to be done correctly and to a high standard or people’s lives may be put at risk. I fully understand the requirement for domestic gas engineers to be monitored for safety and compliance with the gas regulations. The present method of ensuring that gas engineers are current is to re-examine the engineer every 5 years (in other words re-qualify the engineer). I renewed my qualification in April 2009 at a cost of £1000 and a week off work. No exemptions are made for the fact that I am a practising qualified gas engineer with years of experience. The requalification process starts at the basic level, it is assumed that the engineer knows nothing. It’s as if you walk through the collage door your memory has be wiped. Why? Why can’t the system be changed so that my present skills and knowledge are brought up to current day standards instead of assuming I know nothing and having to go through the whole qualifying process from basic level? The present method of re-qualifying gas engineers is nothing more than a money making system for the collages/examination authorities. The cost of the process is of course passed on the the customer. Do MP’s require re-training every 5 years? No of course not, being brought up to date, yes, so why can’t tradesmen be treated the same?

Why is this idea important?

I am a self employed Gas Safe Registered domestic Gas Engineer. A responsible jobs were work has to be done correctly and to a high standard or people’s lives may be put at risk. I fully understand the requirement for domestic gas engineers to be monitored for safety and compliance with the gas regulations. The present method of ensuring that gas engineers are current is to re-examine the engineer every 5 years (in other words re-qualify the engineer). I renewed my qualification in April 2009 at a cost of £1000 and a week off work. No exemptions are made for the fact that I am a practising qualified gas engineer with years of experience. The requalification process starts at the basic level, it is assumed that the engineer knows nothing. It’s as if you walk through the collage door your memory has be wiped. Why? Why can’t the system be changed so that my present skills and knowledge are brought up to current day standards instead of assuming I know nothing and having to go through the whole qualifying process from basic level? The present method of re-qualifying gas engineers is nothing more than a money making system for the collages/examination authorities. The cost of the process is of course passed on the the customer. Do MP’s require re-training every 5 years? No of course not, being brought up to date, yes, so why can’t tradesmen be treated the same?

Tree Preservation Orders-restoring natural justice

 

Town & Country Planning Act 1990 – sections 197 -214 as amended

The Planning & Compensation Act 1991 (Section 23)

Forestry Act 1967 (as amended)

The Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999

 

Tree Preservation Orders (TPO)

A Council can impose a TPO on privately owned trees  without the consent of their owners.  Such an Order  prevents the owners from doing anything whatsoever to the trees without the express permission of the Council.   The owners are warned   they will remain responsible for the trees and any damage  they may cause.  In short, the Council say, the owners still have a ‘duty of care’ and should the trees cause damage or continue to be a nuisance  they  will be held liable.

 

This is contrary to natural justice.   Why should   owners be held responsible for something that the Council has prevented them from remedying?  Surely the Council should accept responsibility and liability?

 

Example 

We own an ever green Lucombe oak.   A large part of its canopy is over  a Pre school  playground.  The school,  on health and safety grounds, wanted the tree removed because of the dangers it was posing to its infants aged 3 – 5  years.   Their reasons being that it drops small branches, dead leaves (all year round  being an ever green)  small acorns and birds excrement into their  playground.  As owners of the tree we made the application but the Council refused  its removal and made it the subject of  a TPO.   Even the  Council’s Arboricultural  Officer,  having objected to its removal,  agreed  about its danger and nuisance  describing it as causing   “inconvenience all year round  due to leaf cast ,  branch shedding,  bird excrement and causing anxiety to residents in periods of adverse weather conditions”   

 

Why is this idea important?

 

Town & Country Planning Act 1990 – sections 197 -214 as amended

The Planning & Compensation Act 1991 (Section 23)

Forestry Act 1967 (as amended)

The Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999

 

Tree Preservation Orders (TPO)

A Council can impose a TPO on privately owned trees  without the consent of their owners.  Such an Order  prevents the owners from doing anything whatsoever to the trees without the express permission of the Council.   The owners are warned   they will remain responsible for the trees and any damage  they may cause.  In short, the Council say, the owners still have a ‘duty of care’ and should the trees cause damage or continue to be a nuisance  they  will be held liable.

 

This is contrary to natural justice.   Why should   owners be held responsible for something that the Council has prevented them from remedying?  Surely the Council should accept responsibility and liability?

 

Example 

We own an ever green Lucombe oak.   A large part of its canopy is over  a Pre school  playground.  The school,  on health and safety grounds, wanted the tree removed because of the dangers it was posing to its infants aged 3 – 5  years.   Their reasons being that it drops small branches, dead leaves (all year round  being an ever green)  small acorns and birds excrement into their  playground.  As owners of the tree we made the application but the Council refused  its removal and made it the subject of  a TPO.   Even the  Council’s Arboricultural  Officer,  having objected to its removal,  agreed  about its danger and nuisance  describing it as causing   “inconvenience all year round  due to leaf cast ,  branch shedding,  bird excrement and causing anxiety to residents in periods of adverse weather conditions”   

 

Get rid of the Health and Safety executive

Over the past 10 years health and safety has crept into everyones daily life via the back door. It is crippling for business and an infringement of civil liberties. There are too many laws governing health and safety in the workplace. As a small business struggling to survive health and safety legislation is crippling. A whole industry has sprung up around elf and safety with a rule or regulation for everything we do. Its unpopular and gives power to little men with clip boards. Whilst it may of started with good intentions it has now esculated into a farce.

Why is this idea important?

Over the past 10 years health and safety has crept into everyones daily life via the back door. It is crippling for business and an infringement of civil liberties. There are too many laws governing health and safety in the workplace. As a small business struggling to survive health and safety legislation is crippling. A whole industry has sprung up around elf and safety with a rule or regulation for everything we do. Its unpopular and gives power to little men with clip boards. Whilst it may of started with good intentions it has now esculated into a farce.

H & S Regulations

H & S Policy (Law) has gone over the top.  A large amount of the law is merely common sense.  The current regulations impose extremely costly and time consuming elements upon very small businesses which such enterprise simply cannot afford.   I do believe that some of these regulations are way, way 'over the top' and subsequently have a severely adverse affect on small business (I am talking about businesses with under 10 employees).

Why is this idea important?

H & S Policy (Law) has gone over the top.  A large amount of the law is merely common sense.  The current regulations impose extremely costly and time consuming elements upon very small businesses which such enterprise simply cannot afford.   I do believe that some of these regulations are way, way 'over the top' and subsequently have a severely adverse affect on small business (I am talking about businesses with under 10 employees).

Tired of being scared

I'm tired of being scared to go for a drive in case of a speed camera catching me doing 35 in a 30 limit,downhill,with no adjoining roads,no schools,no elderly people….in fact,an open road where you have to brake to keep under 30 for at least 500 yards,tired of being scared to pick up the next door neighbour's 5 year old who's just fallen off her bike,tired of hearing that my son has been suspended from his work by health & safety for jumping into a fork-lift to move it 2 yards to allow a delivery van into place….in fact,tired of legislation stopping us from being who we are.We are always going to make mistakes,have an accident……that's what makes us human.No amount of legislation or culture change will stop it happening.The attempt to make it so is just making life miserable for everyone.

Please give us our lives back,trust us…..the vast majority of us know what's right and wrong.If this horrible state syndrome of "we know what's best for you……it must be right,mustn't it?" can disappear,we'll start to think for ourselves again…., and there are many who might be surprised at how well we can look after ourselves.And…. for a lot less cost!

Why is this idea important?

I'm tired of being scared to go for a drive in case of a speed camera catching me doing 35 in a 30 limit,downhill,with no adjoining roads,no schools,no elderly people….in fact,an open road where you have to brake to keep under 30 for at least 500 yards,tired of being scared to pick up the next door neighbour's 5 year old who's just fallen off her bike,tired of hearing that my son has been suspended from his work by health & safety for jumping into a fork-lift to move it 2 yards to allow a delivery van into place….in fact,tired of legislation stopping us from being who we are.We are always going to make mistakes,have an accident……that's what makes us human.No amount of legislation or culture change will stop it happening.The attempt to make it so is just making life miserable for everyone.

Please give us our lives back,trust us…..the vast majority of us know what's right and wrong.If this horrible state syndrome of "we know what's best for you……it must be right,mustn't it?" can disappear,we'll start to think for ourselves again…., and there are many who might be surprised at how well we can look after ourselves.And…. for a lot less cost!

Health and Safety at Work Act

Scrap the act as it stands and re-draft it to make it less ridiculous. At the same time make it illegal for lawyers firms to advertise for  'accident victims' so they can obtain, as they say, 'compensation' for them.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the act as it stands and re-draft it to make it less ridiculous. At the same time make it illegal for lawyers firms to advertise for  'accident victims' so they can obtain, as they say, 'compensation' for them.

Cut down Health & Safety Regulations – Cemeteries and graveyards

Local Councils (for Cemeteries) and Churches (for graveyards) are required to conduct an regular "test" on every gravestone in their cemetery or graveyard. (I think it is annually).

The test involves pulling and pushing the stone to ensure it will not topple.  If it is found to be slightly loose, it is then pulled over completely and laid flat.

The purpose of this test is to ensure that no-one gets hurt by a falling gravestone and that the authorities can't be sued.

Why is this idea important?

Local Councils (for Cemeteries) and Churches (for graveyards) are required to conduct an regular "test" on every gravestone in their cemetery or graveyard. (I think it is annually).

The test involves pulling and pushing the stone to ensure it will not topple.  If it is found to be slightly loose, it is then pulled over completely and laid flat.

The purpose of this test is to ensure that no-one gets hurt by a falling gravestone and that the authorities can't be sued.