In view of some of the recent statments and policy thoughts of some government departments I have to wonder just where the DWP is going to lead the HSE. Only recently they have issued impact assessments that regard the reduction of benefits as likely to improve Health of the people concerned. DEFRA decisions have been reversed only through the pressure from Non interested parties. So will pressure from interested H&S parties produce a change of heart? H&S is unpopular it seems among the population at large, certainly a butt of jokes, so we are unlikely to get support from that quarter. We do need now to face that we may have an uphill struggle and cannot rely on a moral argument for H&S alone. So what are our arguments going to be? Bob

Bob Excellent response Chris if I say so myself. We certainly do face a challenging climate with regards to health and safety. This Government seems obsessed with blaming the country's woes on health and safety. Looking after people's health, safety and well-being is something to be proud about. Yet, I am aware of the negative perceptions of those in society - some of it is justified. Like Chris, I think that IOSH and other respected institutions should do more to illustrate poor practices in our industry. As individuals there is little we can do - collectively we can achieve much more. The problem with health and safety is it has become a rollercoaster, unchecked it has gained such a momentum that few within industry are unwilling to criticise. As professor Loftstedt alluded to, we need a much better understanding of risk, the benefits of risk taking and intervention Finally, I went to a health and safety 'stand down' day on Thursday, amongst the speakers was a gentleman named James. He had an accident at work which caused him to fall off a roof which resulted in him becoming paralysed from the waist down. He provided a very moving and utterly frank account of his wheel chair bound life since the accident - depositories and all. Moreover, he blamed no one but himself for the tragedy, but considered himself 'lucky' to be alive. James continued, that his inspiration in life was to ensure that no one else made the same mistakes as he did. I'm not ashamed to admit I did wipe away a tear or two - nor am I ashamed of my chosen profession. Ray

Other professional societies not referrred to by Chris Packham yet which have a long history of engagement in parts of OSH include The IEHF (formerly The Ergonomics Society) and The Division of Occupational Psychology within the BPS (whose members have done most of the research paid for by IOSH and available free on this website). Curiously, the CIPD is much less to the fore about occupational safety than occupational health even though some of its members control budgets administered by IOSH members. Bob's question is timely in view of the relative lack of attention by the media to most professional societies by comparison with behaviour, statements and personal affairs (in every sense) of sports performers, musicians, singers, artists and actors. In that context, the IOSH did an excellent job last year in using longstanding ECONOMIC research-based case studies to persuade Loftstedt about the value created by competent interventions in OSH. Regrettably, too often conscientious safety practitoners simply bore the hell out of their colleagues by banging on about legal compliance and simply ignoring the effects of their own sad behaviour, even when the feedback they receive from other managers is literally, 'Safety is not worth laughing at!'. From what I have observed, the principal rationale for this self-defeating behaviour appears to lie in the satisfaction they get from entering a record of their boring harrangues in their logbooks which are then ticked off as 'evidence' on their path to chartership. The IOSH is by no means alone in socialising conscientious entrants into a style of communication at work that is too ofthen sadly self-defeating. The task is perhaps particularly difficult for the IOSH because the most challenging part of the work in safety management calls for skilful interventions about human behaviour that require familiarity with research that is far more incisive and responsive than that conducted under the nomenclature of 'behavioural safety'. Some other professional societies avoid the scale of the trap through radical client-centred updating of its profesional accreditation, e.g. the CiPD now require candidates for full membership to display endorsement by their own senior management whom they have avoided boring through banging on and on and on about legal compliance, in favour of applying up-to-date research about motivation, personality and consultation, for example.

Chris I'm all for doing something, I know the problems, but not all the fixes. We certainly need buy-in from other institutions, including the HSE if any intervention is to be a success. Indeed, I have discussed this matter recently with several colleagues - but talk is cheap. We need to promote the positive elements of health and safety whilst having courage to highlight those which provide no or little tangible benefits. As Seabee states, many organisations are now seeing the benefits from a reduction in accidents and incidents. The flip-side to this is the driven nature which these organisations pursue 'zero accidents' policies. Organisations see this as a means of winning over potential clients and maintaining log-term relationships, which in itself has become part of the problem. Kieran highlights the boring regulation minded h&s practitioner. There are some like this but in the main they are the exception. The endless reams of paper-safety are perpetuated by clients and organisations, not the ordinary h&s practitioner. As for the requirements of 9001, 14001 & 18001 - I won't even go there!

quote=RayRapp]Chris I'm all for doing something, I know the problems, but not all the fixes. We certainly need buy-in from other institutions, including the HSE if any intervention is to be a success. Indeed, I have discussed this matter recently with several colleagues - but talk is cheap. We need to promote the positive elements of health and safety whilst having courage to highlight those which provide no or little tangible benefits. As Seabee states, many organisations are now seeing the benefits from a reduction in accidents and incidents. The flip-side to this is the driven nature which these organisations pursue 'zero accidents' policies. Organisations see this as a means of winning over potential clients and maintaining log-term relationships, which in itself has become part of the problem. Kieran highlights the boring regulation minded h&s practitioner. There are some like this but in the main they are the exception. The endless reams of paper-safety are perpetuated by clients and organisations, not the ordinary h&s practitioner. As for the requirements of 9001, 14001 & 18001 - I won't even go there!

Kieran Hear! hear! to your last post.Even the responses here have concentrated to a degree on the profession and other interest groups as the driver to influence policy, especially in government, when I think it clear that we have to persuade others NOT in the profession to express their voice in our favour. It was NOT the RSPB that overturned the Buzzard decision. It was others who responded on behalf of the RSPB as essentially interested outsiders. As a long time member of some 30 years I can still see the same patterns of behaviour that I witnessed at the start of my membership. We continue to influence by threat of prosecution because I fear we cannot put forward a coherent persuasive or business case for what we are doing. Even tghe HSE are poor communicators because ultimately they are enforcers. They do not need ultimately to persuade. I fear for the future and I can still see the day when the DWP push the HSE into a path returning to very different standards of H&S to those we now currently enjoy. Bob

A personal view. 14001/18001 etc. have little, in my experience, to do with the actual standards of health and safety achieved, but more are confirmation that certain organisational procedures are in place. Health and safety is about ensuring that each and every worker returns home after work in at least as good a health condition as when he or she went to work. To achieve this needs a pragmatic approach. Unfortunately most new clients come to me because they now have one or more workers with a skin problem. The initial investigation of the organisation, which may comply with all sorts of 'standards' usually has major faults in how it manages chemical safety, leading to the problem I am now trying to sort. "All sorts of standards" - except the one that really counts - making the workplace healthy and safe. I'm a simple bloke - to me that is the only standard I am interested in. Paperwork is merely a record of what has been done. It doesn't make people any safer! Chris

John The directive does permit the licensing of nest destruction and culling and this was DEFRAs intention. Legislation is not necessarily watertight. Victorian entrepreneurs were very good at working around things hence the plethora of such as Abrasive wheel legislation pre 1970 and machine guarding regulatory requirements for all sorts of machines etc. Yes there was not a word came from Europe. Governments too can find "loopholes" if they wish. Bob

John You are in a sense making my point - the recognised vested interests are seen as "they would say that" and thus potentially ignorable. The profession I believe ha to find ways of engaging others in support of their stance. The new Myth Busters Panel might be seen as a move to engage people in facing the reality of H&S rather than the myths, I am not too optimistic however. Bob

I think the HSE are poorly selected and trained. They have far too many powers and are soon to be used to raise revenue for the Govt.

There may even be a situation, quite soon, where industry will be able to legally operate at todays levels of non-compliance.....and legally charge for PPE. That'll be fun....buy a hi-viz tabard for a quid and require your employee to pay you a fiver....plus vat.

Phillips, That is broadly the way that I am thinking. It is interesting that we as a nation can deliver the Olympic construction programme on time, within budget and without any loss of life, however our current political leaders are obsessed with the burden of red tape rather than the quality of business management within the UK which must be a much greater problem. Apparently according to the Chartered Management Institute, 43% of managers in this country are rated as poor”. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/de...wsid_9723000/9723171.stm and http://www.managers.org....d-leadership-development