There was an interesting contrast in the mail I received this morning. The Winter issue of The Voice – the newsletter of the British Cleaning Council – included a section justifying health and safety legislation and seeking to debunk claims made about health and safety measures; for example, that children had to wear goggles when playing conkers. Excessive caution by some people, it said, was sometimes reported as law. “As a rule, UK health and safety legislation is only aimed at protecting employees from workplace hazards.”
I also received the latest issue of the Institute of Directors’ quarterly publication, Big Picture, looking at the UK economy. It includes the results of a survey of over one-thousand of its members, carried out in October of last year, on the regulatory burden faced by business. When asked their preferences for the policy areas where they would most like to see regulatory improvement, 60 per cent said health and safety, which was second only to employment in the dozen areas listed.
Directors want to see a reduction in the regulatory burden imposed by health and safety legislation. How much of this derives from the actual burden of regulation and how much from a perception of a problem? Judith Hackitt, who chairs the Health and Safety Executive, says that ‘the fuss’ about health and safety makes it harder to promote health and safety.
No one doubts that it is important to ensure that people act in a safe manner. But how much of a problem is there? Has health and safety legislation been taken too far? Or is it the case that it hasn’t, but that people think that it has?
There is quite a bit of red tape surrounding Health and Safety in business (or “SHE” – Safety, Health and Environment – as it’s often now called). Form-filling and paperwork, rather than preventing people from doing things. This is probably what business leaders are talking about, and not the sort of stories that are reported in the press. As for the latter, H&S is sometimes inappropriately used as an excuse by public bodies, or some of their jobsworth employees, but other times this will have been exaggerated by (right-wing) newspapers.
The issue may well not be with the legislation but with two other things.
The first is people’s belief about what is required under legislation (whether true or not). My daughter’s school has been closed for the last two days. The letter informing parents said this was for “health and safety reasons”. Now, I don’t suppose there is anything in health and safety legislation that stops schools opening when it snows, but the school implies there is.
The second is that many organisations find themselves with a duty of care under the law. This is universally interpreted as a duty not to be blamed if something happens. The best way a school can avoid being sued if a child slips on the ice is not to open. This doesn’t mean they are caring for that child, who may have a higher chance of slipping if they spend all day out of school.
Some serious consideration needs to be given to the unintended consequences of legislating duties of care in so many areas of public life. Only the grossest derelictions of duty should be grounds for legal action. Behaving reasonably and expecting people (including children and their parents) to take responsibility for their own actions should be a sound defence. No win – no fee arrangements have of course contributed to the excessive caution exercised in the name of health and safety.
Lord Norton, please do a risk assessment on the House of Lords as any small business has to do now. You`ll see it isn`t easy and things have to be included that are common sense. How about the employee (school caretaker I believe) who fell from a set of metal steps and claimed he hadn`t been on a course to show how to correctly use them and was successful in his claim.
Here is the Health and Safety Policy of a small fencing company I work for, 217 pages long. He is a self employed person who occassionally hires casual labour for bigger jobs such as school work.
http://www.ccs-rochford.co.uk/bits/MAS.zip
Our justice system was,I thought, based on reasonable (common sense) rationale but this doesn`t seem the case now. Health and Safety is not helping as it seem`s to be putting everything in the employers lap. It seem`s nowadays you cannot ask an employee to put a plug in without sending them on a course, which cost`s the employer.
Once upon a time if you fell over a kerbstone it was because you weren`t watching what you were doing. Now it`s let`s sue the Council for negligence. No win no fee has spread from America where everyone takes everyone to Court over the slightest little thing. It is getting absurd.
Schools as mentioned above cannot afford to let children play freely and if a 4-5 year old should fall they`re frightened to give them a cuddle when they are crying for fear of legislation. Male teachers are especially open to allegations nowadays and they`re not the only ones. A young boy of about 6 ran across the road whilst I was picking my daughter up, crying, distressed and without parent. I wanted to help and comfort him, I couldn`t for fear of allegations. What sort of country have we become ?
There is too much regulation regards Health and Safety most of which is common sense. Industry is having to raise prices to cover every little thing, we all suffer. Small businesses cannot afford the necessary help for all the paperwork involved.
“As a rule, UK health and safety legislation is only aimed at protecting employees from workplace hazards.”
As I said above please do a risk assessment on the House. You`d be surprised at how many common sense things you`d have to include.
This will give you some idea.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldhandbk/hdbk24.htm
Please ensure you have the correct training to use a biro if writing by hand or that electrical equipment it upto date with testing certificates. And whatever you do please do NOT move that chair by yourself (see link below for important HSE data)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-446245/Dont-touch-office-chair-Health-Safety-demand-48-hours-notice-it.html
I agree with Julan, the law does need refinement. Defining a duty of care is a good technical start, but the interpretation is being taken too far.
We need a ‘moron in a hurry’ test.
Urban myths like this:
“Furthermore, David Godfrey, I believe that if you clear the snow outside your house and someone slips over, you are liable. Whereas if you just leave it and someone slips over, you are not liable.
I stand to be corrected, but that is the common belief of people I’ve talked to.”
Taken from comments to this article today:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6978341.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797084
Would be crushed if common sense was part of the law. The negligence bar needs to be set much higher.
I’ve also been hearing tales of event organisers berating all the ‘risk assessments’ they have to do.
The reputation of Health and Safety legislation is pretty low in all areas of society.
In an ideal world “duty of care” is a great way to describe the intent of Health and Safety, in the real world it needs to be a bit clearer.
At the moment I feel that the UK would be a happier place if we scrapped the whole lot, made no win-no fee illegal and limited damages to sensible amounts.
The liability referred to in the urban myth is also known as public liability. Owners of buildings, roads, trees, dogs etc have a duty of care to ensure the safety of the public against harm caused by whatever object they own or for which they have primary responsibility.
Thus, snow must be cleared by the owner of the land. Once responsibility is shown to have been assumed by another, liability may pass to him. In short, we all have a duty to clear the snow from our front door to the external entrance in reasonable time. If I was to clear the snow from the public footpath and an accident occurred due to the clearance, I would become liable.
In the spirit of the post, I should add that I am not a trained lawyer and the above is my opinion alone.
Stebve Hurcombe and ladytizzy: I see that the issue of legal liability in terms of clearing snow from your own property is now addressed at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8443745.stm
I think that most people have no idea what H&S rules really are. I know I don’t.
It seems to be used as a convenient excuse for pretty much anything.
I do believe that this government has done little to really improve H&S, legislation is a crude instrument where expecting some common-sense is a better way of achieving the same result.
I think what the flurry of H&S excuses we see everywhere is a symptom of a diminished amount of trust in the public sphere.
I think that a substantial part of the blame lies with the media, which has done all it can to destroy trust, and then blame the government or business or some terrible modern social problem.
H&S is a distraction, I think. From somewhere we now have alot of fear about putting a foot wrong, which means that its better to do nothing and blame the weather.
Noble Lord’s replies all seem to agree about the H+S excesses and nonsenses.
“How much of this derives from the actual burden of regulation and how much from a perception of a problem?”
And it being a purely personal perception of the H+S officer pursuing the case, who is as interested as anything in empire building for his/her own personal advancement?
Judith Hackitt, who chairs the Health and Safety Executive, says that ‘the fuss’ about health and safety makes it harder to promote health and safety.
This may not be a truism but a rather sinister remark compared with the L Norton’s rather wise one!
Two examples. Agri college now teaches tractor driving and awards course marks for doing it successfully. In the old days children just got on, at the age of eight and one or two got killed. H+S regs and courses such as that prevent those deaths.
It is also surprising how many urban kids who decide they want to go “in to” agriculture are totally inept in a way that farm children of the past never were. Today there are NO farm children in this country, so there are no such practicalities.
Second example. A traveler, employed in catering, according to the notorious film clip widely circulated some years ago, does not hesitate to pee in to the soup, saying that it is good for the customers.
H+S provides very severe and very proper penalties for such evil people. There are quite a few about in the catering trade.
That is rather more food hygiene but an example none the less.
That may not be a good example as it is food hygiene but I will leave it there as the two FH and H+S, are closely related.
http://www.kmc.ac.uk/home/First_Aid_Health_And_Safety_Food_Hygiene
Here indeed is the self same College of Agri presenting bespoke course on both subjects H+S and FH.
The new style of presentation of fee paying courses for a branch of Bournemouth Uni is interesting.
It gets worse. This article makes it sound even more complicated to clear up snow:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8443745.stm
Why do I need a lawyer to decide if I should or should not sweep my path?
In fact now I think about it may be I should do a risk assessment first…argghh
I guess back in the bad old days ignorance was bliss and you only discovered about these laws if you fell fowl of them.
Now in the modern communication age it all seems so over bearing.
Some how we need to either come to terms with that or change how we present the law.
Dara O’Briain said of the Irish, they have a sliding scale ‘Careful now’, ‘You’re pushing it’, and ‘Now you’re taking the ****’.
Only this gvt could turn us into wanting to shoot the messenger, not the message.
As many of you know, I own a small business and have a duty to know, understand, and implement truckloads of regulations including those emanating from the HSE. I don’t have an overwhelming urge to kick the HSE; they have been given a remit. However, I believe strongly that they, or the gvt, should not shirk their duty of responsibility and have a primary duty to ensure information is got to owners rather than simply putting it up on the internet in the naive belief that every owner has a) (decent) internet access and b) the time to wade through piles of stuff that may or may not be relevant to their business. Although an outsider would reasonably assume that Business Link is the broker for, er, business links, it isn’t. (A bit of a give-away is their plea to send information in.)
The burden of regulation disproportionately hits the smallest businesses mainly due to the lack of in-house teams of lawyers and specialists hired by the big boys. The costs of out-sourcing are prohibitively high for most microbusinesses, and are racked up according to the number of employees. Such costs are a by-product of when things go wrong, again a result of the meddlings of this gvt in the justice dept who seem to have been given a grant by the Lottery Commission to make buck-passing an art form.
Most business owners have at least one tale, so here’s one of mine: the local college regularly calls on us to host a spell of free student training. We insist on interviews and one of the first questions we ask is “What have you learned so far at college, and what do you think you will learn with us?” This is usually met with a stare from the student so has progress been made with the last response of “I want to know H&S policy you have.” Sad but true and, no, she was not accepted.
Lady Tizzy, Ignorance of how to do target practice with the Daily telegraph is no excuse.
Perhps you could find an old volume of HMSO H+S regs for the purpose?
Pob Lwc, as we say in Welsh
Lord Norton,
When you showed me the Lords library I very nearly asked you whether you needed training to use the stepladders!
I suppose that highlights one problem with the Palace of Westminster, which is that it’s quite easy to get divorced from reality when everyday annoyances for those outside don’t seem to apply within. Not you of course, but dare I suggest that some legislators in both Houses may not have had much experience of life “on the outside”.*
Of course a lot of it doesn’t come from the Palace any more, but rather from the Palais du petits choux. And it doesn’t stop at H&S either, as Steve H points out.
It’s very difficult to pin-point where exactly these rules are coming from, or even whether they exist at all. I’m sure a lot of it has no real legal basis, but is being done by people in an office somewhere.
Perhaps we ought to have some sort of ‘grand repeal bill’ where all legislation currently on the statute books is gone through and the question asked: Is this really necessary? The only flaw is that it wouldn’t stop the draught from the open door of the European Commission.
*I’m aware that I speak from the glass house of someone who’s not had much ‘life experience’ yet.
Well, I just moved company. As a result I had to have a HS meeting on monday. 15 people 3 hours, and 2 staff employed in the firm for this.
So what’s the cost? The cost per person is around the 500 pound mark. It’s a morning not working, and the usual mark up is 3 times salary as the cost to the company for an employer.
That’s a cost of 7,500 pounds.
HS isn’t cheap. Will it have prevented anything? I doubt it. People will still burn themselves with hot cups of tea.
Well, I just moved company. As a result I had to have a HS meeting on monday. 15 people 3 hours, and 2 staff employed in the firm for this.
So what’s the cost? The cost per person is around the 500 pound mark. It’s a morning not working, and the usual mark up is 3 times salary as the cost to the company for an employer.
That’s a cost of 7,500 pounds.
HS isn’t cheap. Will it have prevented anything? I doubt it. People will still burn themselves with hot cups of tea.
If people “burn themselves with hot cups of tea” and they are the only ones who handled it in the office, then that’s their look out. However, how many people die at work each year? How many people are injured/made sick through exposure to dangerous chemicals each year? I am willing to bet not as much as before H&S was introduced.
We shouldn’t let a few law suits over trivial matters blind us to the bigger picture. As with everything in life, it depends how it’s implemented: If done correctly it saves lives and doesn’t get in the way, if done wrong, it can be disatrous!
I think the problem is not with the legislation itself but with the interpretation. I’m doing this from my memory of the news, programs like “Law in Action”, etc, so it may be wrong:
I think the problem started a few years ago when “no win, no fee” was introduced. In the early days, such lawyers forced applicants to take out insurance so that the lawyer still got paid if they lost. That led to trivial claims in the courts and an atmosphere of fear among employers. There were also high profile tragic cases (e.g. children dying on school trips) that led to outcries about why the disaster hadn’t been prevented in the first place.
I think the problem is with society as a whole. People are less willing to take risks in general:
For example, when I was growing up, me and my brother rode to school by bike. Yes, it had risks (when I misjudged the distance of a car I once came within 1 cm of being knocked down) but we learnt to experience the world through practice.
These days the fear of crime far outweighs its true significance. An example of this is that parents now drive their children to school because there is a small risk that someone would attack them. This ignores the fact that the school run greatly increases the chance that children would get knocked down/be in an accident, adds to pollution, increases the risk of obesity, etc.
H+S legislation is only meaningful with realistic assessments of risk. On the other hand, the idea of training someone to use a step ladder may be more meaningful now as the younger generation MAY be too scared to use one without training. I hope I’m wrong there but I’m sounding old and I’m not even 40!
Being fair, I think part of it is also a lack of trust engendered by past events. Whilst people had a more realistic assessment of every day risks. However, the major concerning Government, churches, businesses, etc, shows that things were not all rosy in the past and maybe the fears and caution we see in today’s young is a reaction to that.
I think also the general attitude of Government with respect to Justice issues (doing more and more to erode the rights of people to be considered innocent until proven guilty) has led to a general feeling amongst the younger generations that it is up to the institution to prove it’s safe and well managed before the services are used rather than the old “common sense” approach.
What I’m saying is that I think the legislation, from what I understand of it, is probably fine when in the hands of those who think rationally but, in the current risk adverse culture, probably leads to fears of being sued by people who don’t recognise that crossing the road is, in itself, a risk.
Chris K, It does not seem to do the Law lords any harm not having experience on the “outside”
before practising Law!
When the 1997 batch of new members arrived in great numbers they had to take classes during the summer recess to understand what they had let themselves in for.
After about 5 years I heard one lady member express surprise, that when you are framing legislation, making law, you have to understand that, although it may only apply to one part of the population, once it is made, applies to everybody!
Fancy that!
I also have serious doubts about the levels of basic intelligence of Hon members of the other place. There are so many bluffers in the business it is hard to know.
Intellect in the HofL is much higher, but unfortunately so well used, during their previous incarnations, lives, that it has reached its ‘sell by’ date even amongst former members of the HofC, and I may not even be mixing my metaphors.
One of the more unusual aspects of doing business in China is that almost everybody is tolerant of risk because they rely on common sense which frees them from H&S trivia. Being a constitutional one party dictatorship anybody found guilty of a serious H&S crime is likely to be executed depending on the body count.
That’s how it used to be in Europe not so long ago. So the fault must lay fair and square upon the shoulders of business owners who irrationally perceive some sort execution will take place if they don’t comply. Couple this with societies suffering from a pandemic loss of common sense then its no wonder H&S reigns supreme. Fear is everything to them!
How do we encourage and develop heightened common sense in people? The problem for academics like Lord Norton is that it cannot be taught in the classroom. Common sense starts in a child’s playground, the more dangerous the play the better the pleasure derived from such play. Sport is another way of encouraging the development of common sense; however, we sold off all the sports playing fields to developers.
I wonder how many Chinese children have rubber mats underneath their swings or climbing frames. We deserve to loose out to those who are willing to carry more risk safely using only common sense. Its all far too late for us to do anything about it.
Senex
Depends on the child the measure of danger to provide enjoyment!
Francisco remarks:
“These days the fear of crime far outweighs its true significance. An example of this is that parents now drive their children to school because there is a small risk that someone would attack them”
A sick society thanks to the mass media and legislation for the masses. Isn’t all legislation for everybody? Well no.
Those functions which humans do as automata
are legislated for without exception in the sense that everybody has to “clunk click”, or not use mobiles.
If all large food business were likely to put melanine in babes’ food then China might be able to legislate first instead of afterwards.
Dried milk has its uses.
The effects of cars, or processed food on our lives, is quite a personal one really. If you are a fat oaf you only have yourself to blame, whatever consolation the GP may give, or the food fad charities.
Perhaps somebody will come along and suggest a way of making animals grow very rapidly using extract of pituitary glands, and call it “Nano-technology”.
That’ll do it!
The methods of producing Whey water powder for athletes are said to do that even now.
The situation is dire but as reversible as the gvt’s snow-related relaxation of the EU driver’s hours regulations. All very sensible but will they stop the prosecution of workers driving with a horsebox on Saturdays?
Francisco refers to the cost of insurance: it is telling that the recommended minimum amount of idemnity for Public Liability remains at £1m while Employers Liability has shot up to £5m.
To me, this indicates either that more employees are successfully claiming from their employer, over that of a member of the public successfully claiming from a neutral source, or that employees claims are far more lucrative. If the former, then the laws are not working or are not working fairly. If the latter is true then society needs to ask itself if the gvt has set capping at too high a threshold.
Bottom line, when actuaries and businesses deem that regular pay-offs by way of fines or insurances are part of the day-to-day risks of existence, then costs, either in terms of prices or job losses, go up.
Of course, such thinking is not restricted to the private sector. Indeed, the public sector with 40% of the workforce has made the situation worse given that they are a soft target for legal tussles; local councils caved in to the most risible of claims simply because it was cheaper.
I suspect that the Employer’s Liability has shot up because of more people winning cases rather than the sums. The reason I say that is because:
1) When you see adverts on TV for no win, no fee lawyers the sums they talk about don’t seem that high, and
2) The fact that lawyers are now advertising their services (I can still remember when they didn’t) for claiming against businesses is bound to influence the number of claims being made.
I suspect that we’re going to become more like America when it comes to litigation.