Posted By Andy Petrie
well as it is essentially the basis for all UK H&S law, I think you have the right idea.

Posted By Mike Charleston
Gary

The law exists, warts and all - whether it is known about, or referenced in other forms of internal document.

From that perspective, there is no benefit to having legalese in any company publication - because judgements on actual performance within the law will be made by independent assessment of ALL legal requirements (by a judge, jury or whoever).

I can't accept that omitting this legally-related phrase will leave an absolute duty in its place - although there may be some readers of such documents who try to infer that until properly informed. At most, I suggest one reference to it in a prominent place near the front, then forget it!

On a related issue, it really gets up my nose when I encounter the scourge of all Principal Contractors (ie Planning Supervisors with a little understanding of H&S) who insist that Project H&S Plans must specifically state that the PC and other contractors will comply with RIDDOR '95 - as if there aren't far more copious and important pieces of legislation that still have to be followed, regardless of them being mentioned or not!

I don't think that you're losing your marbles either - just another of life's little tripping points in this grand game of H&S.

Mike

Posted By John Thompson
As the statement of intent, when signed ammounts to an agreement or acceptance of what an employer is committed to doing (some would argue it to be a contract)
I consider that, Making an unconditional statement of "I Will" thereby commits the employer to "Do" irrespective of what is reasonably practicable.
This position is also supported by my H&S colleagues.
A simple paragraph at the start of the Statement would suffice to mention reasonable practicality rather than repeating the comment at every point.

Posted By Raymond Rapp
Gary,

Do not wish to be too synical, particularly as there have been some practical and sensible comments, but..surely health and safety has not sunk to depths of convenient semantics. Good Lord, there is enough 'paper' safety already without practitioners adding to the problem.

Perhaps we can be a little more constructive and leave the 'small print' to lawyers. I believe that the concept of good health and safety practice is more than just about a phrase or am I losing my marbles!!

Ray

Posted By Nigel Hammond
In our new H&S policy statement, our first paragraph gives our mission statement - fairly typical - talks about being the best in our sector. The second paragraph says: "To be the best, we must look after our staff. Without the dedication and commitment of our staff, we would not be able to look after our service users. We are therefore committed to the active prevention of accidents and ill-health."

Isn't that more powerful than a bland statement saying "We will ensure the Health Safety and Welfare of staff, so far as is reasonably practicable".

Just another thought, the definition of 'safe' in Croners publications is an 'acceptable' level or risk - not zero risk. So if you say you will keep people safe - this should not be an absolute duty. Although, I understand that lots of people think 'safe' means zero risk.

Posted By Dave Wilson
You can always tell a 'H&S Committed' employer by the opening page of their H&S policy.

If they have practically quoted verbatum Sect 2 duties and then dated and signed it as opposed to the MD actually writing his policy statment in his own words.Tells a lot about the organisation.

If they have put the effort and time in to show real commitment and not just copy legislation or legal phraseology then this goes a long way.

Leave it out! don' do it! Leave out reference to legislation as well, why does that have to be included? 'We are going to ensure that we control all risks as best we can to protect all our people and any one else we may affect etcetc etc' is better that Reg 2.1.(a)of Man Regs says we have to do a Riisk assessment etc.

Remember this is a living document which evolves and grows and is both the employers and the employees commitment to being the best at safety not a collection of Statute quotes.

Posted By Allan St.John Holt
Now, Dave, you know that's not necessarily true! When you get to court you could well believe that you did do what was AFAIR, and the court will decide if it agrees with you!

Allan

Posted By Gary Morton
evening all,
Allan I have taken what you said on board and agree, but how many of us (particularly large multi disciplined oragnisations in my case with 14 thousand employees) can say that we surpass all legislative requirements and apply best practice in all areas?

You all know as well as I that it is increasingly difficult to keep abreast of the constantly changing legislation, acops and guidance etc and to make the statement 'I or we not only comply but currently achieve best practice in all areas'is not realistic, at present.

In making this statement I believe you are in fact putting yourself into a position were you are looking to be shot down.

For goodness I think it is time that we all got a grip and stopped this pretentious behaviour.
If you believe the statement that we will always achieve best practice is realistic, I suggest you go and carryout an audit or inspection, If you do dont find anything wrong then I apologise in advance you are in my experience the exception

I would gladly take up the challenge if anyone said to me come to my work place (which must be similar to my own and not just a one man band office etc) and I will not only show you complete compliance with health and safety law, but best practice in all areas!

I agree BEST PRACTICE is the aim for us all but lets keep it as an aim and not state absolutely that we achieve it when we know only too well we are not capable as yet. Lets keep our targets 'smart'

Gary

Posted By Steve Sedgwick
Gary says that he is writing a General Statement, that being the case then Dave’s and Raymond’s approach is correct and it should be written as the employers, or MDs statement of intent.

It should be written in a direct and positive manner without the courtroom jargon that the untrained reader can miss interpret, and in a lot of cases will choose to misinterpret.

When people read the general policy statement the reader should be left in no doubt that the MD is serious about H&S.

Sometimes these documents are written solely as a "back covering exercise", or with the intention of using it to defend claims. It doesn’t work that way.

If someone gets injured or the inspector identifies a situation with imminent risk of serious injury, then some part of the H&S organisation or arrangements failed.

"Paper is not substantial enough to be used as PPE for ones back."

Steve