HSE Chair says: “health and safety law doesn't even apply to fetes and public events where there is no work involved.” http://www.hse.gov.uk/ne...nt/paytheprice020712.htm HSE website says Your duties as an event organiser An event organiser has a duty to plan, manage and monitor the event to make sure that workers and the visiting public are not exposed to health and safety risks. Health and safety doesn't have to be complicated. Information on HSE's Health and safety made simple webpages will make it easier for you to comply with the law and manage health and safety in your organisation. http://www.hse.gov.uk/event-safety/running.htm

I think one of the problems is the perceived issue of personal prosecution and civil claims if/when things go wrong - people wanting to cover their own backsides. The sooner the better the h&s sector gets back to dealing with true employment situations the better. That was the intention of HASAWA Of course the usual ambulance chasing 'claims management' companies don't help. Just watch typical afternoon tv adverts!

I agree regarding insurance companies and claims - I often give advice that allows an organisation to meet H&S legislation reasonably only to be asked "So if I don't follow your advice and something happens am I still insured?" I'd love to respond to each occasion "I don't know, why not ask them?"

Norfolkboy states that insurers "pretty much rule" - I'm not sure what is meant by that! What must be remembered is that: - In the employment situation: there is a clear duty of care... that is basis of an allegation of negligence. That duty revolves around/is based upon a relationship between employer and employee (Master/servant test) Key elements are "tests" of safe place of work, safe plant and equipment, competent fellow employees to mention a few. These are indistinguishable from many legislative requirements! And of course some claims can encompass alleged breaches of legislation in addition to allegations of negligence. - As regards non-employment scenarios there are still some legal duties e.g. Product Safety law, Occupiers Liability Acts etc that operate in addition to simple (!) allegations of negligence. Insurers work within existing frameworks - I'm confused about the seemingly common view that insurers somehow "rule the roost". I am reminded about Churchill "... give us the tools". When an employee falls from a ladder and alleges negligence defending the claim will prove difficult if the employer is unable supply a risk assessment, evidence of training of the employee, a safe system of work that includes securing of the ladder etc etc. These are proofs of discharge of the civil duty of care as well as part of compliance with the relevant legislation. Phil

To go back to the start: Redken. The key bit of Judith Hackett statement is 'where there is no work involved'. For small local community or club events, of which she is speaking, there is no work, no pay, no employer. The HSE event guidance is for organised events where someone is 'at work'. Usually lots of people. Once work is involved, the majesty of safety law applies, which includes HASAWA s3 duties (covering the public in essence).

Hi Ken. Do tell . . As far as I knew (most) village fetes and club events do not involve 'work' in the employed sense, therefore H&S legislation does not apply. That doesn't mean civil duties don't exist, but that's not what the HSE is about.

At risk of converging threads - this is where the 'challenge panel' goes wrong, I think. The press use 'health and safety' to mean anything relating to avoidance of harm, accidents or injury to people (thereby including decisions taken to avoid risk of civil claims), but HSE uses 'health and safety' to mean very narrowly implications and consequences of HASAWA. While it grates to be speaking in defence of the Daily Mail and its ilk, 'H&S' = 'anything to do with avoidance of harm, accidents or injury' is a much more coherent (and in my opinion more appropriate) definition than 'H&S' = 'only things to which HASAWA is relevant'. This is why we get silly statements from the challenge panel saying 'prohibiting a dog from a cafe is nothing to do with health and safety, it's to do with hygiene rules'. That's just wrong - hygiene rules ARE part of health and safety, even if they are not part of HASAWA. Thus, a decision to ban a tug-of-war MAY be a health and safety decision. It's probably a wrong-headed decision, but if someone has concluded the risk of accident or injury is too great, then banning it IS a health and safety decision, just not a HASAWA decision. I don't believe whoever banned it said they'd banned it for reasons pertaining to HASAWA. By launching in with declaration that it's not required for health and safety because HASAWA doesn't apply, the HSE is guilty of a straw man argument, I believe - and such sophistry does not do H&S (by either definition) any favours, in my opinion.

Oh yes and the Fire Rescue Service with their shiny engine..

I would wager that the chair of HSE was thinking about the kind of event that Ken Slack attended when she refers to fetes and public events. Otherwise her remarks are completely pointless since you would be hard pressed to find such an event where there is no work involved at all.

Morning all, Events where there is no "work" involved do exist and I've been to them and once or twice been part of them. Sometimes people volunteer their services to support an organisation they belong to - agree this is likely to be small scale and possibly getting rarer and rarer these days (fear of litigation anyone?). But such events do exist

I have been invited to join a small committee arranging a 2013 Summer Fete in support of a charity so that somebody can "do the H&S" I will be working (although my entire fee will be donated back), the commercial stallholders will be working, the host care home's staff will be working and the organising committee will be creating (and hopefully well-managing) risks. Is the HSE now saying that if we get it very wrong and a visitor is seriously injured by our wrongdoing that we will not be prosecuted under HASAWA? Great news if true.

Duty of care yes - but in some circumstances I can think of (a Cave Rescue Team fundraiser for instance) absolutely everyone was a volunteer and no one received monies or benefits in kind - no one was at work. I'm not for one minute saying that no laws or regulations apply - merely pointing out that sometimes there will be no one at work at an event.

I agree! I really do agree ... but in the example I gave above some people were nothing to do with Cave Rescue Team at all, yet they gave up their time to help raise money for a charity that they wished to support - indeed some were not even local cavers, but friends of local cavers (who may have had a vested interest in seeing their friends "safely" rescued in the event of an incident) Definitions and legal advice are only to be relied upon should you actually need the services of lawyer - its only then that you find out what anything really means Common sense, eh! Who ever said the law had to make sense? If it did we wouldn't need lawyers (that's probably another topic)

It's good to share with you an example of sensible safety I encountered at a public event on Wednesday evening, namely a concert at the Llangollen International Music Eisteddfod in North Wales. Most of the auditorium for 4500 people consists of a large permanent tent-like structure erected on a natural gentle slope. As the interval started there was a tannoy anouncement to explain that the auditorium's rear doors (adjoined by a grassed area with notable downward slopes) were being kept closed because of the heavy rain falling at the time. As the rain continued to fall, there was a further announcement at the end of the concert to advise that the rear doors would remain shut because the grass slopes had become notably slippery and the organisers didn't want anyone to risk injuring themselves. Therefore, we should all leave by the side doors which had fixed steps with handrails. Even though the reduced number of exits meant that people took significantly longer to leave the auditorium, it seemed a sensible measure. In addition to the safety aspect, I guess that the organisers didn't want the grass area rapidly churned up into a muddy morass. This would have prevented the rear doors from being used for the other events this week, and also take a considerable time to get back to normal. Recalling last year's controversy about the AELTC's decision to temporarily ban access to the Henman Hill/Murray Mount feature at Wimbledon, I now wonder if a desire by the AELTC to protect and maintain the feature's grass was as much a factor as the safety one. Also, in view of the ongoing wet conditions affecting most of the UK (in fact the forecasters advise that today is due to be the wettest day of the year so far and likely to lead to more flooding) it's relevant to share with forum users who may be involved with or going to outdoor events the additional advice given at the end of Wednesday night's concert: As the large sports field used as a car park had become particularly wet and muddy, people were reminded to take particular care while walking over it. Also, drivers were advised to use 2nd and 3rd gear to negotiate the field otherwise their wheels would just spin and create horrible holes in the mud. However, even if that happened, the organisers had one or two tow vehicles stationed on the field to help anyone who got stuck. From what my friends and I could see while having coffee back in our vehicle (a nice way to wait for the exit queue to dissipate), it seemed that drivers heeded the advice and no towing was needed. Furthermore, from a quick look at the Eisteddfod website last night I saw that intending visitors were being advised that the capacity of the car park field had been reduced because of the rain and mud. Therefore, they should find other parking locations in Llangollen and be prepared to walk a bit further to the venue. p.s. Though there was rain and mud outside, the concert inside on Wednesday evening was excellent!