Posted By martinw Who do you think put it there Peter?

Posted By Flic Taking sport as an example, the higher risk sports will almost certainly have some sort of risk assessment at club level. The Sport's national governing body will have something to say about how the sport is run. For boxing, I am sure as a parent that you want your child trained at an appropriate level so that he or she is only introduced to a risk commensurate with their current skill level? It is not too difficult to see that a beginner could be seriously injured if they were thrown into the sport without due consideration. Don't forget that in sport many of the coaches are, in fact, at work. Yes, I can see that H&S could be becoming too restrictive in these areas, but if the general principles are applied with a light touch it is beneficial. Flic

Posted By Peter F. Of course but we hope that the trainers and match makers have the skills. Footballers can no longer tackle from behind, rugby from the neck, but what will happen once we get to the point that the sports are non contact or tag like the children's game. How many would watch or be involved?

Posted By Peter F. Adam, the point is do I need someone to tell me what to do when I am not involved in ta work activity, in the sense of The health and safety at Work ect Act. which is always quoted i.e. Duty of Care. Risk assessment management of health and safety at work Regs. I am more than capable of carrying out my own risk assessment and so are children given half a chance. And Craft clubs, voluntary clubs.

Posted By Raymond Rapp Peter In principle I agree with your comments, but I do wonder how much of a societal problem h&s has become rather than say a legislative one. The problems have been perpetuated by a raft of legislation that not many really understand; insurance companies, lawyers and the regulators. For example, the recent cases involving the prosecution of the Met Police show a distinct lack of understanding of h&s principles by both the HSE and the CPS. Ye Gods, if we can't rely on those two organisations what chance does anyone else have?! Good post by the way. Ray

Posted By FAH Could we just take a moment to clarify a couple of points here folks? If it's UK we're discussing, except under S8, the HSWA places NO duties on "the public"!!! And anyway, S8 doesn't mention "the public", it cites "anyone"! However, if we're going to discuss personal liability under Civil law; that's very, very different and appears to be the primary focus of the previous posts. Quite often though, the HSWA & supporting cast of thousands [the Regs] will be brought into a Civil case as evidence of the standards that should have been applied where the Civil case involves recompense for being injured as the definable result of a work activity. The observations regarding the personal characteristics of the various parties that may participate in this process are, I believe, inappropriate and not helpful to clear thinking on this very real problem. PS - I ain't no legal bod!! Frank Hallett

Posted By William O'Donnell Peter F raises a question that I have been pondering for some time myself. So let us open up this very fundamental question further, and to start the ball rolling here, for better or worse, are my views. The HASAWA was developed at a time when the working map of Great Britain was vastly different to how it is now. Britain at this time was heavily industrialised with thriving coal, engineering, ship building, manufacturing etc sectors employing hundreds of thousands of people. The principles and aims of the Act were clear, and long overdue, and the value of protecting peoples health and safety at work was accepted as a basic requirement of any civilised country. At this time many H&S Practitioners, and Enforcement Officers, had served some type of 'apprenticeship' in one of these industries and were able to relate directly with what was involved in the day to day work. Even those with no industrial background, if you will excuse the over simplification, found it was relatively easy to identify real hazards in work with Heavy power presses or toiling two miles underground. However over time through a combination of market forces, new technologies, political will and a host of other forces this working map has changed beyond all recognition to be replaced with out of town shopping estates, call centres, fast food outlets and numerous other 'service industry' employers. Many H&S Practitioners and Enforcement Officers now have little or no 'work life experience' and their application of H&S is purely theoretical. The most obvious example of this is the literal translation of "and others who may be affected by your undertakings" leading to enormous resources being spent on uneven paving slabs, playing conkers in the playground, banning hanging baskets, signs that tell benches will get wet in the rain, mountains have slip hazards, Hot Coffee is hot, bags of peanuts may contain nuts, etc. etc. etc. In response organisations such as the HSE and IOSH declare publicly that they are in favour of 'sensible' risk management. The reality being that the HSE will only offer the most obscure advice to anyone seeking their help and I have had experience of one FIOSH who when asked to complete a risk assessment for a refuse collection round started with ten pages on how to carry out the daily vehicle checks. I ask you TEN pages before the vehicle had even gotten out of the Depot. I have recently attending a meeting were a two hour discussion was carried out into the safest type of toilet roll holder to install in the offices lavatories. And now we come to the Lawyers. Changes to the Law, brought about with the best attentions of making our civil courts more accessible to ordinary people, have been exploited to the maximum by the legal profession (strange that most of the Ministers who brought about these changes are ex-lawyers?). I have read on other threads the debate about if there is or is not a 'compensation culture' in this Country. However for me the argument is flawed as it is based on those claims that go to court, whereas the big problem is that many cases are settled out of court because it is just too expensive to defend yourself against these claims. So, rant over, where do we go from here. My suggestions: 1. Major review of the H&S Legislation to clarify what is and what is not Occupation H&S.The aim was to reduce work related injuries and ill health. How does applying H&S to every aspect of our lives, in and out of work, achieve this very worth while objective? 2. Major review of the role of the Enforcement Authorities. I do not want to take away their power to punish those who deserve it, but this should not be their main weapon. How about set a basic standard (like HSG65) and auditing companies to this standard. Those that pass can apply to the Government for tax breaks/concessions giving them an immediate payback for providing acceptable H&S standards. They would be periodically audited to ensure that they maintain this. Fail the Audit, lose the tax breaks/concessions. The tax breaks/concessions could be founded by the money being saved by the Benefits system and NHS which is currently spent on work related ill health and injuries. 3. Organisations like IOSH to move away from rewarding academic accomplishments and give higher recognition to vocational awards. If you can not apply your knowledge in a practical way, then you are not a Practitioner no matter how many letters you have after your name. 4. Review the present system of 'no win no fee' claims which encourage unscrupulous lawyers from pursuing spurious claims. Perhaps if the Lawyers were liable for costs of failed claims, rather than having the client take out insurance to cover their fees, they would not be so quick to chase every passing ambulance. Well I think that I have said enough to upset most readers of the Forum, although that is not my attention. Rather lets open this whole subject up and decide, as dedicated practitioners, what diection we want to see H&S taking in the future.

Posted By Robert Randall I think the original question was “How did health and safety at work get so badly confused with public safety and other activities not related to work?” Part of the answer must surely be that the HSE, aware that they could not possibly enforce the raft of legislation without a significant increase in financial resources, was encouraged by Central Government to fudge the issue. We had the whole business of the HSE becoming enablers rather than enforcers and of them encouraging the idea that anybody can do health and safety if they just have the right information. This attitude has encouraged businesses to designate all sorts of individuals with no training and very little knowledge as “health and safety officers”. This general lack of expertise has led to significant category mistakes and these have spilled over, first into local government and then into all sorts of other organisations. We now have the situation where all sorts of things unconnected to work activities from voluntary sporting activities to ridiculous “risk notices” in public places are ascribed to ‘elf an’ safety. If the HSE had been properly funded by Government to carry out its main function of enforcement we would have seen more business and local government turning to safety professionals for advice. Similarly if the HSE had grasped the nettle properly and had insisted that health and safety professionals be licensed we would not have had the situation that we now have. I suspect that this all comes down to finance at the end of the day. The regulatory impact assessment for a properly funded HSE and licensed health and safety management would not have been politically acceptable. The blame must also lie partly with lazy journalists who don’t allow the truth to get in the way of a good story. I personally don’t ascribe blame to lawyers because they must be able to prove their case and the standard of proof is significant. No judge is going to find in favour of a pursuer (plaintiff) whose case is flimsy and obviously constructed with an eye to damages.

Posted By Colin Reeves William You certainly have NOT upset me! Well said that man! -- Colin

Posted By martinw Who was that masked man? Really good post William.

Posted By John Richards No Win No Fee services came into effect in 1998 when Legal Aid was abandoned and was replaced by the Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA). Not to mention the threat of international court/s for unfair restrictions on trade. How much more one-sided do you want it to be ? You make a total mess of the H&S aspect of any job, and expect people to live with pain/injury/unemployment ? The "automatic unfair dismissal" is now the way of the dodo (except it now goes the long-winded way around...) The government has reduced the H&S staffing levels so that an inspection every 27 years is now about average. You still moan about "lawyers". It isn't the lawyers that get hurt, its the employees/citizens (whatever). Bite the bullet, just say what you seem to mean (to me): "don't let anyone sue anyone for anything to do with health or injury" It's not solicitors you're moaning about is it, it's the ordinary person claiming compensation you're moaning about. Ever considered a change of career ? Undertaker ? You'll never lack for "clients"

Posted By Karen Newman I don't usually bother posting on this site these days but felt compelled to respond to this because some of the postings are wrong on this. A big reason why the H&SAW Act was implemented was as a result of the Abervan disaster in which a school was engulfed in a slag heap, killing lots of NON EMPLOYEES. It was felt (Robens Report) that the existing legislation was too narrow in focus - only dealing with employees in a narrow range of employment - factories, offices, shops and railway premises and did not protect members of the public at all. So we ended up with the HASAW Act, there is nothing wrong with this legislation, but there are lots of factors which have lead us to the current problems we have - HSE for not being clear enough and gold plating everything, insurers for making over the top requirements, our own profession and last but not least the public for the demands they make - on public bodies in particular.

Posted By John Richards And let us not forget, a lot of claims are not CFA. They are via the injured parties union or via their personal insurance (house etc) (and vehicle insurance) Presumably these will also not be allowed under any new "be-a-man-and-put-up-with-it" laws.

Posted By Phil Rose I would like to think that HASAWA isn't very often brought into civil cases, as S47 of the Act does not for the most part confer any rights to civil action. Karen, I think you may be referring to Franks post about 'the public'. Yes the employer has duties TO the public (as you say Aberfan was probably one of the driving factors behind the S3 duties) but as Frank says HASWA doesn't place any duties ON the public, except as he also says with the possible exception of S8, which is something that I hadn't previously though of myself. I wonder if there has ever been an S8 case against someone who was essentially a member of the public i.e. not at work?

Posted By Kenneth Patrick In the HSC publication "Thirty years on and Looking forward " the HSC view is that: The new regime(HASAWA) was designed to deliver a proportionate, targeted and risk BASED approach. "MHSW encapsulated HSC's long held commitment to a risk BASED approach to improving H&S; In praising their own historical performance they say that "the risk BASED approach is firmly embedded in the regulatory framework". My view is that our current problems with elf n safety are due to a lack of a risk BASED approach. Risk Assessment is now too often, identify a hazard ,speculate on a theoretical risk and jump straight to a ban on H&S grounds. The HSE are fighting back to try and regain the risk BASED approach but I am not sure if all of their foot soldiers and ours are on message. PS this report also notes that including "those affected by work activities" under the regulatory umbrella for the first time provoked widespread astonishment in the mid 70's. Ken

Posted By Peter F. I agree with the principles of Health and safety at work, what I meant was has spilled over into restricting/or preventing what we do out of work i.e. leisure time and activities.

Posted By Tabs Peter, no it hasn't. For all the odd reports of poor attribution of commercial decisions being blamed on H&S, I cannot name many activities that are no longer enjoyed somewhere - albeit a little safer and with a little more planning and resources. Using the principles of the HSAW74 to look at my hobby has led to better risk assessments and some written policies - these are tools borrowed from "work" but are just as useful and have real influence on safety as any other system. The alternative? Nothing written (I hope you would still apply some risk assessment -as per your first post) - all this means is that the next set of people have to do the same, and the next, so no-one learns from anyone else's experience. Sadly experience proves that in general people are not great at doing this informally. So, when some teenagers go canoeing in Lyme Bay, we have hope that they are led by someone who knows the difference between the open sea and a swimming pool; that knows the difference between a capsize in a controlled environment and an emergency; or we can ask people to do this before they take the club subs this month. If the outcomes are fewer deaths, fewer injuries, why not borrow the thought of H&S from the workplace? I don't think that is over-reaching at all. Now all we have to do is help people apply it proportionately.

Posted By gerry d Good thread this. Well put William, No.3 is particularly pertinent. John J has the correct attitude to all this. If we take a step back, is it not the case that we live in times where information can be reported/ shared/ sexed up even, in an instant? I believe everything is over analysed and over reported anyway. Bad things do happen, there are nasty people out there, there many unscrupulous people waiting for fast buck. Lets just put things in perspective and get on with whatever it is we do. On this day in history the Americans placed their flag on the moon, if it was a British mission we would have put up a sign saying `caution uneven ground` (c. Mock the Week, can`t remember who said it)

Posted By martinw Yeah but the Americans were at work. If it was a private jolly from some billionaire there would be different conversations. I agree that there should be some controls over situations when you are within leisure time where the risks are greater than normal, such as kids going to the swimming pool - you expect a lifeguard to be present. However, not when you are at a school sporting event such as martial arts. The teachers or instructors may be at work and they can be minded for their own responsibilities, but that should not be piled onto limitations on what can take place within a sporting contest, within reason. Headguards in boxing I agree with. In rugby they should be optional. Certainly not when playing chess. Don't forget RIDDOR and that just because a young person may be injured during an organised sporting activity, that injury itself is not likely to be reportable unless certain situations apply.

Posted By martinw Good. Should have never got in front of a judge in the first place. Did the person not think that the floor would be slippy when covered in paint, and therefore running around would cause risk of slipping? Again: good.