Comments by Paul Jarvis

Paul Jarvis
Member - 15 posts

It is time to go back to the foundation stone of H&S legislation the Health & Safety at Work Act under which these regulations (MHSAW)were made. In the act the term,'Reasonably practicable'clarifies how far one should go. In terms of reasonableness what would be expected is that a computation be made in which the quantum of risk on the one hand is placed on one side and the sacrifice in terms of the measures needed to avert that risk on the other and if there is gross disproportion between them, with the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice then there is no need for further controls. Risk assessment is not about nor has ever been about the removal of risk or industry would not exist. A useful test is the 'Bolam test' and although this is with regard to medical negligence, the same standard can be applied to persons carrying out risk assessment. Finally it is the effective application of suitable risk controls by effective safety management that prevents accident or illhealth, not a piece of paper called a risk asssessment!

Paul Jarvis
Member - 15 posts

If 'common sense'were as common as the ctitics of this case believe, then we would not need Health & Safety at Work Legislation, however that is not the case. If someone can be injured and it is possible to prevent that injury, particularly when the cost is minimal then do we not have a duty of care to our 'neighbour'(Donaghue V Stevenson, the snail in the Ginger Beer case)? "Let him who is without sin throw the first stone", which one of us wise and wonderful safety professionals has not done something stupid?! Safe systems of work should be drawn up with idiots in mind, and this is not a new philosophy, so therefore should risk asessments and any necessary control measures.

Paul Jarvis
Member - 15 posts

The Building Regulations in Scotland are changing with a requirement in 2005 for Sprinklers Systems to be fitted to new sheltered housing and care homes. Are there any similar proposals under discussion for England and Wales?

Even if there are not, are we required to consider the fitting of sprinklers where there is a disproportionate lag time between Alarm activation and evacuation of occupants from final exit door(more than 7 minutes)? If so does this only apply to premises we own or control, or to carry out a risk assessment and make recommendations for the fitting of sprinklers at any premises where our service users live, and we provide a service for them in their own home.

Paul Jarvis
Member - 15 posts

Bridget, I believe you will find that it is every 5years as recommended by NICEIC and BS7671 for the Mains hard wiring. The periodicity of testing for portable electrical equipment will vary depending upon usage and the environment, from 3 monthly (Construction sites and chemical atmospheres) to yearly (Offices, etc.)is generally acceptable.

Paul Jarvis
Member - 15 posts

I believe that there was a recent case taken by two women against a group of shopkeepers for failure to comply with the disability discrimination Act in that they failed to provide access. The case was lost on the grounds that what they were asking was not reasonably practicable. I need some more detail if possible!

Paul Jarvis
Member - 15 posts

I agree with Martin Brewer's comments with regard to the removal of a significant amount of discrimination. I would add as someone who has worked fulltime in safety and risk management for 20 years that there are significant positive aspects of Health & Safety legislation in particular. I would refer readers to the HSE web site where there are an increasing number of examples of these financial benefits. The employers who fear legislation are those who still have little regard for the safety and health of the employees and others. A good benchmark for your own company standards is to ask the question, would you be happy if the person you love most in the world was working for an organisation applying similar if not identical standards? if not what right do you have to apply a lower standard to someone elses loved one. Technological and industrial progress should not be at the expense of employees health or safety. Without moral standards which progress at a similar rate, and where we as a society agree not to deliberately harm one another either physically or mentally then progress will inevitably fail.

Paul Jarvis
Member - 15 posts

Whilst I basically agree with the workplace being non-smoking, within my charity we have a significant problem. Our client group includes mental health and substance abuse, both alcohol and drugs.Within both of these groupings there is a very significant majority who smoke. With one grouping it is obviously difficult to introduce prohibition particularly with the new human rights legislation. However is it reasonable and/or practicable, to use the favourite H&S words, to expect addicts to give up everything at once, i think not! Therefore if we are to provide a smoke free workplace for a significant number of our employees, are the Government through it various funding arms going to provide extra funding to install special filtration units to 'scrub' the air?

If not are they prepared to accept liability for those workers who work in the mental health fields?

Paul Jarvis
Member - 15 posts

There are a number of senior personel such as judges, charity trustees, non-executive directors who are over the current retirement age. Why should workers suddenly be thrown on the srap heap just because of their age. If qualification are valued in terms of recruitment, why is experience not valued particularly when there is a skills shortage and the birth rate is falling. In addition it has been shown that older workers have more commitment and take less time through sickness.

Industry bosses should learn how to manage the older worker and utilse their knowledge and experience. Furthermore older workers can provide excellent mentors for young employees.

Paul Jarvis
Member - 15 posts

This is political correctness gone crazy! I am in agreement with Richard Hosking & Geoff Hills, this is our heritage and our history and we should be proud of it. We, as English people are who we are, and yes we have made mistakes which we are not proud of, but we are all human.To be totally correct one would have to use every derivation and be buried under a sea of paper work.

Let us concentrate on the real problems in the world, poverty, unequality, disease and and....

Paul Jarvis
Member - 15 posts

Not before time!Why should the taxpayer support bad employers? Health & Safety can and should be managed, however it requires competent managers. Management training in general is poor, but in health & Safety it is disgracefully inadequate, and a significant number of managers at senior or Board level have recieved no training. At long last it will become cheaper to manage H&S and therefore organisations will start to invest in real people management, thereby fulfilling both their legal AND moral responsibilities.

Paul Jarvis
Member - 15 posts

HSE publications should all be free, however i appreciate that this would reduce their income. The answer to this, if the government is really serious about Health & Safety is to introduce a small Health & Safety tax on turnover on all businesses, not unlike that in one of the Scandanavian countries, Sweden I believe. This resource could be used in a number of ways, the provision of free advise, more research, more inspections which are both compliance and advisory.

Paul Jarvis
Member - 15 posts

With regard to charging employees for replacement of PPE due to to negligence, the regulations clearly state that the employee has a duty to take reasonable care of their PPE. Accordingly provided that the company would charge for the replacement of other company equipment lost or broken through negligence, i see no reason why they could and should do the same for PPE. I think that a problem could arise if PPE was singled out for recharging against the employee.

Paul Jarvis
Member - 15 posts

A new piece of legislation will only work if indivduals at the highest level are held accountable for their actions, as was in the original proposals not the watered down version! A safeguard can, and should be built in of due diligence provided that this can be demonstrated by organisational systems which are actively monitored. If employees at any level are not fulfilling their legal responsibilities and this results in the loss of life they should be held accountable. The charge(s) and subsequent penalties should reflect the seriousness of the outcome. If my negligent actions result in the loss of life outside work I can be charged with manslaughter, should not the same apply inside the workplace?

Effective managers and directors have little or nothing to fear, it is only the 'Cowboys' who should be worried. Do we really want these people as decision makers? The tax payer pays for the repair of persons injured at work through the national health service, why does the 'polluter' not pay? That however is another issue but not unrelated.