Posted By Michael Hayward Afternoon all, Anyone else seen the article in today's Guardian - "those who walk under trees are at risk from these terrorising inspectors" www.guardian.co.uk/comme...e/story/0,,1950277,00htm Simon Jenkins is slagging off the HSC regarding a falling tree fatality. I don't know of this particular incident but he is also usual quoting the usual - banning ladders etc - any thoughts? Cheers Mick

Posted By Pete48 Mike, just another meeja event that gives people the excuse to rant about something that gets them going, getting the response and looking to be "on the ball" is the motive for the meeja. Next time it will be something like "why didn't the NT make sure their trees were safe? why did a child have to die to learn that trees blow over in a storm? Why were the public allowed to stay in danger zones?" Amazing series of comments all the same. Thank goodness for diversity and my place at the other end of the diversity scale I say. Have a good weekend

Posted By Jay Joshi There are several "inaccuracies" in Simon Jenkins article in that he has simply included the "views" of the uninformed or the ignorant. It was not an HSE decision to prosecute the police in context of the death of Mr Jean Charles de Menezes. http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2006/e06078.htm

Posted By Merv Newman Blast. I though this thread was going to be a "terrorising inspectors, how to do it" advice column. Merv

Posted By Pugwash Peter The problem is that the HSE has "form". It has been over zealous on enough occasions for it to be the prime suspect in the eyes of many members of the public whenever any risk-averse decisions are made. We should not look at this article in the same way in which we would view one in, say, the Daily Mail. This is thoughtful stuff from someone who has experienced what he feels to be poor decision making by the HSE following someone being killed by a falling tree. He notes that Bill Callaghan and even Tony Blair have recognised that we have gone too far in creating a risk averse society. He notes that both have voiced their concerns but that is all they have done - spoken. There has been no effective action to change things. A clear statement of policy from the HSC for the HSE to implement might be along the lines of - society has become too risk averse - the HSE will take a role in reversing this - a consequence will be that we will have to tolerate more risk in what we do - a consequence will be more deaths and injuries at and arising from work but that is a consequence we must accept.

Posted By Tony Brunskill It is easy to lay the blame at the door of the HSE, in my view unfairly. The media spurred on by those with an axe to grind focus on the "shockers" and ignore the sterling work the HSE does in policing H&S. Therein lies the second predicament for the HSE. They are merely a police force, there to enforce the laws made by a government who are not risk averse (Iraq) but are media averse. The HSE are a statutory authority, if they do not enforce the law they face the possibility of legal process in Judicial Review. It is often easier to enforce a ridiculous law than spend literally millions in judicial review proceedings. It is no good spouting at the HSE. Government needs to set policy that tolerates risk or we will remain on the current spiral.

Posted By Pete48 Hey guys and gals, sometimes it is estate agents or footballers wives, it used to be accountants or stockbrokers (ah Monty Python, such days). These days it is elf-un-safT. Anti-establishment positioning needs a handle, that is all this is. Whatever we do or say, however good or bad we are, it is damned if you do and damned if you don't. Stay on Message. We have to work in and with society wherever it goes. The last 20 years have seen a massive improvement in the public awareness of wider influence of H&S. Not surprisingly then that it has become a subject for the chattering classes. Society will get bored soon enough and move on to other areas of control that they want removed. Are they ever successfull in getting radical change?

Posted By John Murgatroyd Quite. But to really get the "flavour" of H&S at an English workplace the journo would have to be actually working "undercover". He/She would have to experience the actuality of a real accident....where after the first aider says "hospital", the boss says "No, he'll be ok in a minute" After 5 minutes the ambulance is called, the ambulance departs with the injured worker and the boss clocks him/her out. The blood covered metal is then cleaned (corrosion problems with blood) and work continues. The worker doesn't get paid (SSP, but then that isn't paid by the employer so ...) the employee returns after some time (a month) and then claims for negligence, which the insurers pay. I'm sure the scenario is familiar, since many H&S consultants run "courses" on how to avoid litigation.

Posted By Pugwash Ken, Thanks for making this post. It provides a very helpful perspective on matters.

Posted By J Knight Ken, Thanks for that, very helpful and informative, the sort of objective argument that's so lacking in so much of todays journalism. What's more remarkable is that you can be objective, though partisan, when you have a stake in the story and the issues it touches, whereas an uncommiteed journo rocks the rafters with their outrage. Funny that, John

Posted By Pugwash A 7 minute bit on health and safety in the House of Lords earlier in the week relating to the National Trust tree business: House of Lords Tuesday, 19 December 2006. The House met at eleven o’ clock: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack. Health and Safety Executive 11.25 am Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty’s Government: Whether they will introduce a review of the standards set by the Health and Safety Executive in view of its assessment of the risks posed by trees on National Trust land. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Health and Safety Executive has not produced any standards for managing the risks of trees falling on people. When called on to investigate, it judges what measures are reasonably practical on a case-by-case basis, taking account of guidance produced by bodies in the relevant sectors. Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, I should say that the National Trust had no part in asking me to pose this Question, although the tragic incident of an oak tree falling on and killing an eight year-old boy on New Year’s Day two years ago has not yet been resolved. But surely the point now is that the mention of involvement by health and safety is seen much more as a threat than as a promise. Whether it is children on Father Christmas’s knee or no ladders to mend churches, people simply do not know where they stand. That makes life very difficult in many cases. Specifically on the question of the countryside, surely someone who is not on the public path but is exercising his right to roam must be doing so at his own risk, otherwise the burden on landowners and farmers is intolerable. On that basis, I suggest that there should be a review of the standards set by what is now a 30 year-old Act. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot comment on the case that the noble Lord mentioned, but I can tell him that the Health and Safety Executive is in the midst of developing guidance for inspectors, which will be subject to consultation in due course. It recognises that it is not possible to eliminate risk altogether. Sometimes healthy trees fall over by accident. However, the Health and Safety Executive expects action when trees in frequently visited public areas are unstable because they are obviously damaged, dead or sick. Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, does the Minister accept that good health and safety comes from having a culture and attitude of mind towards health and safety, rather than from a series of prescriptive regulations? Does he recognise that there is a feeling in the country that the blizzard of rules and regulations is now creating a situation where people cannot see the wood for the trees? Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree that an overprescriptive approach to health and safety is wrong, but I would defend the action of the Health and Safety Executive over the past 32 years of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. As a result of the HSE’s actions, the number of fatal injuries at work has reduced by 70 per cent. Its policy is to be proportionate, to encourage people to do the right thing, but to take action against those who wilfully disobey the law. It has gone through a rigorous process of reducing regulation. It is often blamed by other public authorities for decisions that are taken often for financial reasons and not for health and safety reasons. Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, as someone whose daughter died in a country with no such organisation and where due process was not followed by public authorities, I think that the importance of the Health and Safety Executive should not be diminished by cheap and inaccurate articles such as that by Simon Jenkins. What will the Minister do to make sure that the press reports the executive’s role accurately? Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, if I knew the answer to that, I would be in a very different position. The noble Baroness is quite right: many of the stories in the media about “health and safety gone mad” turn out to be inaccurate. As I said, decisions often have had nothing whatsoever to do with the Health and Safety Executive. I pay tribute to Bill Callaghan, chair of the Health and Safety Commission. He has done a brilliant job. He started a “sensible risk” debate about a year ago to bring these matters to the attention of the public. I thought that he responded very well to the Simon Jenkins article. He was very articulate this morning on the “Today” programme in putting the balanced approach of the HSC across Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, perhaps I may add, as I shared the “Today” programme with Mr Callaghan, that I entirely share the Minister’s respect for him. Is there now any point in having a separate Health and Safety Commission and Health and Safety Executive? Would it not be much more sensible if the two were merged? Is not the present structure archaic and would it not please many in the health and safety world if it were resolved? Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord as well for his contribution this morning. The governance of the Health and Safety Executive and Health and Safety Commission has been the subject of a review by the commission. It concluded that it would be better if the executive and the commission were brought together under one governing body. I hope that there will be consultation shortly with the public and stakeholders. We will come to a decision in the light of that consultation. Baroness Byford: My Lords, further to the Minister’s last reply, which was very helpful, can he tell the House how long that process will take? I revert to my noble friend’s Question, in which he asks for,“a review of the standards set”. With the greater opening of access to the countryside through the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, which we passed back in 2000, and now the likelihood of the opening up of coastal areas, there is an enormous problem that needs to be addressed. For example, on coastal access, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution raised with me the whole question of who covers what as regards safety in future. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I would expect the consultation to be for the normal three months. Then the commission will have to consider the results and make recommendations to Ministers, but I hope that the process can be brought to a speedy conclusion. On the more general issue, I am always happy to consider whether more advice should be given. A number of best practice documents are issued by various organisations, such as the Forestry Commission and the Arboricultural Association. They tend to represent best practice, not the minimum standard required by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. That is why the Health and Safety Executive is now developing guidance for its inspectors, which will be subject to consultation. That will be in the public domain and, I hope, will bevery helpful to landowners and others who want clarification, including the general public.

Posted By Pugwash The noble lords and ladies who chipped into this short discussion are all life peers, some with good track records in politics. Despite their sometimes pompous titles, they are not your hereditary toffs. We should hope that they know what they are on about. Phillip Hunt is of course the Minister with responsibility for health and safety at work. The House of Lords does get a bad press, when it gets press coverage at all, but there is a lot of expertise there. I think it is useful to have a group of people in parliament who do not have to have one eye on the ballot box all them time. In his question, Timothy Renton suggests that he does not fully understand how HASWA and reasonable practicality works (he appears to think the detailed standards are set by the Act), but is doing this he probably speaks for many. Bill Callaghan had a go at getting the message across on the Today programme earlier in the week but I disagree the claim that "He was very articulate this morning on the “Today” programme in putting the balanced approach of the HSC across". It was a missed opportunity. He trotted out the usual stuff from the "get a life" campaign but he did not respond to Renton's question as to "how much risk is this country prepared to accept as a sensible part of society?". He suggest that one of the causes of conkers bonkers incidents was some individuals over interpreting the HSE's regulations but he then avoided John Humphrys' assertion that this over interpretation might, to some extent, be due to the fault of the HSE. (0730 on the Today archive for Tuesday 19th December of you want to hear it.)