Warning over dangers of 'elf 'n' safety' coverage

John

I write small.

Barry

Barry,
Only 2 pages of risk assessment to make a cup of tea?
You should read the method statement, BS6008.

John

I agree with the point that health and safety regulations are positive and have given us all loads of protection over the years. I also think that there a failure to interpret the legislation properly.
A shopmobility group was holding an AGM. The members of the shopmobility group, most of the volunteers and some of the staff members are all disabled people who have a physical impairment. Several of them are wheelchair users. At the AGM, disabled people were not allowed to use the accessible toilet that was available within the unit, because 'we don't have any staff trained to pick people up if they fell off the toilet.' I think that this is utterly ridiculous. Or maybe I'm just not very well trained.

Hi,

Just a couple of things I wanted to point out here, as I work as a Health and Safety Facility Manager for a well known Floor Care brand.

"Health and safety law is probably the only law in the land whereby you are guilty first and have to prove your innocence, rather than innocent until proven guilty" - wrong. Employment law and I also believe Financial Law works on the 'laws of probability' rather than normal law (ie Innocent until proven guilty).

"(i.e. 'a duty of care' that can mean absolutely anything)" - Duty of care means you must do. But the description of the information is where the detail is. Ie Employers must take 'reasonable measures'. Look at the law and regulation guidance. If unsure give the HSE a ring. They are only too willing to help.

"H&S professionals are not recognised for the good things they do by way of accident prevention, but everyone's an expert when something goes wrong & love to make mountains of molehills; particularly the tabloids who only add ore fuel to the fire" - Spot on. The vast majority of Health and Safety professionals work trireless to balance the benefits of good Health and Safety practice against the needs of the business. What doesnt help is poor media coverage, lack of understanding and the claim culture which is driven not by lawyers, or insuarnce companies, but mostly be people wanting a quick buck, in todays 'must have it now' society.

"The reported decisions to ban conkers etc. are entirely due to a lack of understanding and competence of the persons responsible for making the assessments and implementing the necessary control measures. They don't know how to do it, so they come up with an overkill solution. These people are clearly in the wrong job" - The 'Ban Cookers' story was actually a hoax, but is now so prepretarted into urban myth even the media still use it!

"Without H & S legislation we would still have children sweeping chimneys & sweat shope would be the norm in Britain. The media Rob Strange refers to feed on trivialising the law of this land rather than supporting it, but if you were to look inside their newspaper printing industry, you would find quite robust safety systems for their employees. Its about time newspapers supported the very legislation that seeks to keep their employees safe, well & delivering their profit" - Spot on, but there are a minority of 'H&S Professionals' who dont do themselves any favours, and then get portrayed like Rail Enthusiasts, Groundhopping Football Fans, as a sub element or geeky section of society. And I porud to stay I a member of both those excellent hobbies.

Overall Health and Safety is a great thing. I got involved in Health and Safety becuase the company I worked hadnt a clue about how to deal with dust and solvents I was working with. I used to go home feeling high as a kite. I then realised what was causing it. That was twenty years ago. That workplace put in equipment such as fume cupboards, dust extraction, and you know what, ans this the real story of H&S, actual improved productivity. Because if you have a safe workpalce ans safe systems actually you find things are much easier to do and achieve, not the other way round. Its just that to many of us are set in our ways, dont like change, or quite simply cant be arsed.

Hello

You should try risk assessing making a cup of tea, it runs to about two pages.

Barry

I take great interest in what other peoples thoughts are re h&s but I never consider mine to be worthy. I am however becoming increasingly frustrated, annoyed, sometimes dispondant about my chosen profession etc etc about the perception and value of h&s, that I am at bursting point.

There are some great comments on here about risk assessment and concentrating on the significant and ignoring the trivial, I joined a company that had risk assessments for using a kettle and toaster in the canteen.

My point however is about the claim culture which adds to the bad press that h&s gets. I watched a programme a few weeks ago about scams and claims which I thought was very good. A woman voluntarily entered a parents race, fell over during the race and hurt herself, put a claim in against the school, the school concerned about rising insurance premiums, bad press etc band parents races. In my opinion quite rightly, schools under pressure to meet financial targets etc.

Anyway, maths is not my strong point but I came up with this equation;

Parent, employee, member of public etc trips over + claim submitted to school, employer, council etc = Increase insurance premiums, council tax, bad press, not meeting targets etc = school, employer, council etc having to eliminate risk or put in control measures = h&s gone mad!!, you couldn't make it up!! etc

Yes, the ambulance chasers don't help, however; An employee, in their time with the company the comapny has been flexible and supportive through difficulties in their personal life. The employee slips over and hurts their elbow, has time off, puts a claim in. Insurance company concerned about the number of claims being submitted. The employer gets tough, enforces wearing of non slip footwear, employee's cleaning up after themselves etc. Employee's complain = h&s gone mad, you couldn't make it up etc.

Employee's, general public must understand that they are largely fuelling the h&s in our schools, workplace, parks etc

Good job there's not Spelling and Grammar legislation :-s sorry! ~ hangs head in shame ~

I done a informal talk on PAT testing and how to carry out user checks.

My first question was "Are there any Elves here today?" which led to me saying "Good, because I know nothing about the ways of Elves, Goblins and the like, but I do understand about Human Safety, specifically Electrical Safety, so were not talking about Elfin Safety today".

I am trying to push away from the idea that Health and Safety is one thing, "We'll deal with the Safety aspects, then I'll tell you about the danger to Health, which I hope you'll never NEED to know"

I have to agree with all the comments made they have bearing and relevance, particularly Martin's. Health and safety is one of the main contributors for the a blame culture we live in and compensation is the number one way of making money, its big business for lawyers and the plaintiff.

Although the media do play on silly elf n safety decisions that doesn't make it their fault if it gives headline news, only the other week I read a story about a diner's request for a toothpick in steak restaurant but staff refused because of 'health and safety' risks! Perhaps there is a too easy use of the term 'health and safety' but the facts is this is a humorous story and another notch for the media to impress upon the nanny state we live. This stuff gets people talking so its not really their fault however, to compensate perhaps they should look to balance their stories with news of when good health and safety practice has been paramount in accident prevention. Having said that, in the US they brought out an 'Only Good News' newspaper but it only lasted 6 months because nobody bought it.

Martin

Excellent post H&S seems to seek a reasonable path through the minefield and I have never thought that the HSE have sought a 100% risk free environment (not achievable) however the no win no fee laywers have distorted the field.
Slip on a grape in the shop then sue, will probably mean no more grapes in the shops and so on.

Barry

Well what an interesting range of comments, mostly very ageeable. In my case i am poacher turned gamekeeper. Brickie into Safety consultant. what a jump that is. Practical health and safety to assist those in control, thats the answer, as for the press and media, well they like a story it sells. The content is irrelevent, the headlines are all that matter. My motto is simple just like Health and safety its the people that make it hard
colin

Just want to add my support, Martin. You said it all, and much more eloquently than I could.

This issue really does wind me up! My opinions are as follows.

The real underlying problem is "liability avoidance", in particular the desire to avoid a liability that the law places on a third party because of the utter stupidity of the first and/or second parties.

Let's see it from the employer's persective:

* If a staff Xmas party results in death arising from a fire on an Xmas tree, then there are millions of excuses to pin the blame onto the employer, and not the employees who explicitly and implicitly accepted the undocumented risk. Vicarious liability under employment law is twisted specifically to make the employee the blameless victim in as many circumstances as possible.

* Were the fairy lights PAT tested? No? That's the employer's fault then. Sorry, did you say a rogue bulb started the fire? Doesn't matter. No PAT test, no excuse. Even if the PAT is optional for this applicance, you still CHOSE not to do it. Sounds like you are complacent, which makes it even more the employer's fault then.

* Was the tree certified to have a reasonable resistance to fire? No? Well, do you treat other office furniture in the same cavalier way? No? Well, is there such an exemption for temporary office furniture, like an Xmas tree? No? That's the employer's fault then.

* Does your company have a policy banning Xmas trees? No? Then it was reasonably forseeable that your Christian employees would want an Xmas tree and so thus you have been negligent. That's the employer's fault, then.

* Were the fire exits clear? Yes? Did the fire marshals do their job? Oh, one was on holiday and the relief marshal was off sick that day? Ah well, that's the employer's fault then. Sorry, did you say that the sole deceased was a have-a-go conscientious employee who attempted the absent marshals' jobs? Oh right. So you didn't try to stop him then? No? Well, that makes it even more the employer's fault, then.

* Did you check your fire extinguishers? Yes? Where is your tick-box schedule to prove that you checked your fire extinguishers? Burnt? You kept it behind the temporary Xmas tree? Then you can't prove that you checked them, so let's infer that you just didn't bother (hey, you can't disprove it!!). Guilty of negligence until proven innocent, that's the employer's fault then. And, far from being a mitigating circumstance, you've just made the scale of negligence far, far greater.

And so on. Never mind the good bits - fire exits clear, working alarms, fire doors all shut, evacuation rehersed regularly, no doors propped open etc. All disregarded, taken for granted. Faults make for promotion prospects of investigators and lawyers and money for "victims" and more lawyers. So guess what they are going to focus on?

Insurers handle any claims arising, so have evolved to have a check-list of things that are NOT covered. Most insured take the reasonable view that, if the insurer won't cover the risk, then they won't permit the risk to happen anywhere near them. So there remains a tendancy for the insureds to be over-zealous and seek absolute-zero-risk beyond the core of their operations.

Public sector bodies see it a lot worse, because chunks of their operations are uninsurable. Local authorities are substantially self-insured, so any negligence that leads to a golden boot compensation claim will be painted as a scanaldous waste of taxpayers' money. This is also "liability avoidance" combined with "negative press avoidance". Hence why healthy trees are uprooted from adopted pavements because of the "reasonably foreseeable" trip hazard to little old ladies. Falls may kill them, but if they survive, you can bet they appoint a lawyer for a juicy, fat compensation claim.

The point above all of this is that "liability avoidance" mentality fundamentally undermines any culture of proper health & safety. Why? Because the absence of ticked boxed means no proof of proper conduct. Yet a death is circumstantial evidence of a fault. Something went wrong. Proper procedures might have avoided it. But there's no evidence of procedure being followed (no boxes have been ticked). So, in the absence of any causal evidence, let's just assume that the lack of boxes means a cavalier attitude to health & safety. Guilty as charged.

The rational response to this situation is to pour resources into pre-documenting excuses instead of managing the risks that could potentially give rise to death/injury. There is simply no point pouring resouces into managing risks, unless there is a contemporary and real-time evidence creation process that can convince a court of reasonable conduct at all times. A formal "feint its", if you like.

Liability avoidance has its place. For example, an auditor cannot reasonably be held liable for a dodgy decision of its client's management. But no other matters pervert "duty of care" so torturously so as to draw up a claim under "'elf n sayftee". The only viable defence are ticked boxes, whether or not accompanied by a decent risk management process.

That's where we are with H&S. A lot of good, but even more bad. The apportionment of accountability, blame and redress is the problem. Until that is fixed, we shall continue on the same course(s) as we have been for decades. It won't get better on its own.

Total agree.

I think all H&S people need to think how we get the message over.

I think too many of us wollow in the triviality of H&S. We need a balanced position and also point out who the bad guys really are. No win - no fee lawyers, over zealous insurance companies,bad management practice, and people after a quick buck.

Read Nick Davies excellent publication, "Flat Earth News" and you will get an insight into the role the media has to play in the bonkers conkers stories.
Their influence in this matter is not helpful.
However I would suggest that a lot of these over reactions are not due to simply ignorance or lack of training but are driven by fear (real or imagined) of civil claims. This is being driven by the profusion of no-win, no-fee litigators rather than by H&S professionals.
The public are being encouraged (and do) claim for every slight they have suffered rather than accepting that sometimes accidents happen. THIS is the real force behind the 'Elf & Safety problem.
Recent Channel 4 documentary shed some interesting light on this field.

Without H & S legislation we would still have children sweeping chimneys & sweat shope would be the norm in Britain. The media Rob Strange refers to feed on trivialising the law of this land rather than supporting it, but if you were to look inside their newspaper printing industry, you would find quite robust safety systems for their employees. Its about time newspapers supported the very legislation that seeks to keep their employees safe, well & delivering their profit.

I must be the odd one out here becouse I have to disagree with Julian here. I do think the media are to blame for the main issue of this story

The bottom line is that the media need to sell newspapers to survive and, as has been shown time and time again, mis represent the truth in order to make a good story.

Yes the legislation can be vague, but isnt all legislation?

The fact that there maybe in-experienced and or untrained people attempting to interpret the law is contributory but here I have to agree with Peter, poor management committment in ensuring that they are getting "competent" support is the problem.

In my experience there are many people in this country who consider very word they read in the papers as being the truth, whether this be that Elvis is alive and well and living on the moon or as is this case Health & Safety is the reason for banning everything from xmas lights to ice cream.

I would suggest that its now time the media took some sort of responsibilty themselves for what they print per se not just on "elf and safety"

I agree with many of Julian's sentiments, however I do not consider H&S law & legislation to be too ambiguous. The points that Rob Strange have put forward are valid.

We operate a system of "self regulation" in this country by way of risk assessment. Everything begins and ends with risk assessment, and the outcome of the risk asessment process is that risks are identified and dealt with proportionately as long as the assessor and the downstream planners are competent. This is the key - competence at the necessary levels.

The reported decisions to ban conkers etc. are entirely due to a lack of understanding and competence of the persons responsible for making the assessments and implementing the necessary control measures. They don't know how to do it, so they come up with an overkill solution. These people are clearly in the wrong job.

This is not the fault of the legislation as legislation has to be broad reaching enough to cover every situation and circumstance (the legislation tells you what you can't do. There are so many possible scenarios that it can't possibly tell you how you should manage every given situation, it would be never ending and more ambiguous). It is then up to the team management to ensure that their personnel have sufficient knowledge and/or advice in their specialist area to be able to manage the situation safely and sensibly. That means good health and safety advice at the right levels.

The right person for the job with the right training.

Too many businesses still see health and safety as a side issue and delegate its implementation to people at the wrong levels or with the wrong skills/ inadequate training. This leads to misunderstandings and misrepresentation of the rules and therefore ridiculous control measures and derision, which is then aimed at the global H&S culture instead of the (only occasional) poor H&S management.

As in all cases, it's the minority that give the majority a bad name.

Good post Julian,
Unfortunately the vast majority are unaware of the benefits of a robust H&S culture, preferring only to 'take the Mick' (am I allowed to say that?) when some half baked idea is mis-reported in the press.
H&S professionals are not recognised for the good things they do by way of accident prevention, but everyone's an expert when something goes wrong & love to make mountains of molehills; particularly the tabloids who only add more fuel to the fire.

I don't think its the media that is really at fault by the way it portrays health and safety, after all there has to be a source before it becomes a story.

I believe its the ambiguous legislation (i.e. 'a duty of care' that can mean absolutely anything) that's the problem. Its very difficult for people when given responsibility for health and safety and how they interpret H&S law with what they must do to prevent accidents or injuries to anyone in and around their premises, not forgetting the 'near misses' that also have to be reported.

You could add some people given this duty are not competent enough, there is no descriptive legislation for training so lack of knowledge makes some people scared because of threats of manslaughter charges if they miss something and some are just over zealous and remove every risk there is or might be. This is when decisions are made to ban conkers, or a circus clown cant wear oversize shoes as they might fall, Sir Ranulph Fiennes is not allowed to light a primus stove on film without supervision and lets not forget we were also advised by insurers that its better not to clear ice and snow from your property.

Health and safety law is probably the only law in the land whereby you are guilty first and have to prove your innocence, rather than innocent until proven guilty. Every thing you do is down to your own risk assessment, hence you have to prove you did everything you could to prevent the accident. In this current litigation society this leaves you very little chance of getting it right. HSE advertising 'Shattered Lives' to prevent slip trips or falls is usually followed by an ambulance chasing lawyers advert saying if you've had an accident at work its someone else's fault!

So we are going to be stuck with it, the media will always play on it particularly when a silly ruling has been made by someone trying to ensure they get it right. It cant be changed now just as HSE inspectors will not give you definitive advice on actual safe working practice because they then could be accountable when it goes wrong.