Not often that I jump to the defence of the HSE.

The HSE statement is "There are no specific legal requirements on either of these matters, so it would have been preferable to point out that it is company policy rather than the catch-all "health and safety"".

What's wrong with that?

Rodger Ker

I repeat, the HSE are correct.

If the requirement was a company standard requirement, then that is what should have been stated to the individual.

They should not have used the general "elf and safety" catch-all

Rodger Ker

They are correct to say there is no statutory requirement. Their insistence that whenever anyone attributes anything to health and safety then it's bogus unless there is explicit statute on teh topic is sophistry of the very worst order. Something can be because of health and safety without it being because of explicit statutory requirement.

As it happens, this is not (in my view) the most egregious such example to come out of the panel, that would be where they said hygiene requirements are nothing to do with health and safety. However, they are wrong to imply that if it isn't in statute it shouldn't be attributed to health and safety.

The suggestion that whenever anyone makes any comment about any H&S matter it should be backed up with a fully detailed cross-referenced audit trail to demonstrate whether this derives from mandatory statute or company policy is utter rubbish. In this case, whoever did the 'telling off' was acting correctly, and it was a requirement deriving from health and safety.

The panel are completely wrong to say "it would have been preferable to point out that it is company policy". That implies that all this stuff about 'watch out for your workmates' and 'challenge dangerous behaviour' needs to be "challenge dangerous behaviour unless it's dangerous behaviour explicitly categorised as such only in company policy and not explicitly in statute, in which case you should keep your mouth shut otherwise you'll be ridiculed". Good luck explaining that in a toolbox talk. Do you really want a workforce that challenge dangerous behaviour only if they are completely certain it's explicitly illegal in statute?

This WAS a health and safety requirement. It's utterly wrong to say you shouldn't call something a health and safety requirement if it's merely a company health and safety requirement.

(It may be a silly health and safety requirement - I happen to think it is - but that's not what the panel decision says.)

Have to say I disagree with the universal use of handrail policy, although in some workplaces I can see a real need. BUT I totally agree with the non use of mobiles while traversing stairs. I have had a couple of nasty falls on stairs to investigate where the IP was using the phone while on the stairs. One happened in front of me and the comment by the IP was " I will have to go Mum I am in a bit of bother"

I do have to say though it would be nice nowadays to climb stairs at all:-)

The reason I object to this is that as several correspondents have pointed out the HSE has now decided that unless it is a specific requirement of H&S legislation, it’s not H&S!
Whoever writes this guff does not seem to appreciate that the basic requirement for H&S in this country as established by law is that employers make a risk assessment and establish controls and that these controls become part of the business policies and procedures ie they are thus H&S requirements. Like several people I was of the opinion that making employees hold the handrail in a office building was a misuse of H&S time and effort but I have just looked at our accident stats for the last year and seen that we have had 5 incidents (some near misses) all reported as having taking place on one set of stairs (all the other stairs seem to be ok) and we are now looking at a compulsory handrail policy and a reminder to staff not to use their mobile and other gizmos when they use these stairs. When we decide to do this, it will be a H&S policy and to be really pedantic anybody not complying with it will be in breach of reg 7 of Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 ( not that we be saying that but that is what the law says)
( I can only guess why there are this many incidents on these stairs; it might have something to do with the fact that they lead to the directors’ offices!)

I first came across a Hold Handrail Requirement over 30 years ago when I was being taken around a Du Pont site.

They had evidence that since its introduction the number of slips, including near misses, on stairs had been significantly reduced.

It may not be written down in H & S law but it is certainly a sensible H & S requirement.

safetyamateur

I think you are clearly the best person to write to them and share your post (fantastic it is) - it may make them see the light and move on to more worthwhile causes.

What about a panel being set up to learn the lessons from serious incidents and share the findings with the people who really matter?

A

Love this thread :o)

Belatedly can I just note that 'LARGE' staircase suggests to me a WIDE staircase, so a phone users strolling down the middle of the staircase can't reach a handrail.....?


8o)

Except if it is part of the company’s culture, which is why I mentioned my problem stairs being the one leading up to the boardroom etc. All of the great and good in my organisation have a Blackberry and spend a lot of ‘keeping in touch’ . It’s not compulsory but they like to feel that they are part of the gang so they spend a lot of time looking at their gizmos not looking where they are going. I have a theory( more of a hypothesis) that as they ascend the staircase they all look at their Blackberry’s and then fall down the stairs. Using the Blackberry is part of the culture and it is down to management to change this culture.

Posting #13 by safetyamateur is one of the best I've read on this forum for a long time. It prompted me to look at the webpages about the panel to find out whether aspiring observers of the grand ceremony need to book in advance or can just turn up and hope that seats are available. As yet I've not managed to find any information about this aspect, but promise to share it on the forum if and when I succeed!! :-)

On a tangential note I'm both amused and saddened by what seems to be an increasing proportion of smartphone owners who can't resist looking at the screens of their phones while walking in public whether along pavements or station platforms, etc. I've sometimes seen them collide with lamp posts or, even more amusingly, other people doing the same thing! Sometimes I've uttered a loud "beep beep" to such *people if they walk towards me and remain oblivious of my presence. This invariably prompts them to look up and change course. In addition, they either look sheepish and say "oh sorry", usually in a pathetic tone of voice, or just glare at me for having had the temerity to be in their way! Though my audible warnings perhaps constitute an infringement of their assumed human right to walk about while besotted with their smartphones, I just wish such people would also learn that human rights need to be balanced against human responsibilities!

p.s. The asterisk after "beep beep" above denotes a range of strong adjectives I wanted to use for errant smartphone users. However, it seemed prudent to omit some so as to avoid breaching forum rules while others might be deemed unfair to morons, cretins and imbeciles!

I find it more concerning that the HSE advise everyone that they MUST replace their H&S Law Poster by April 2014 but that they've been out of stock for the past 3 weeks and still another week or so until they have any available. Who could have predicted that there would be higher than usual demand as a result? Unbelievable.

Actually 'MUST display the poster' is a myth in itself.

On the HSE lawposter webpage, in the next paragraph, it says:



Do you think we could persuade HSE to add this to the Myth List? :o)

JohnW

Seems quite a few employers have " hold the handrail" policies, how many have "wear sensible shoe" policies while the handrail will help you when you fall, the sensible shoes would reduce the likelihood of a fall in the first place

Well said, Pete

LB

Correct

The HSE may be amalgamating with HMRC soon.

Thank you for your email to the Myth Busters Challenge Panel,highlighting this discussion on the IOSH forum and, I am sorry if you were disappointed with the decision of the panel on this occasion.

The aim of the panel is to challenge common misconceptions around health and safety and to discourage people from using it as a catch-all excuse. To date over 270 cases have been considered. Each case is reviewed on an individual basis and an opinion offered based on the overall facts as they are presented to the panel. The Panel opinions are not intended to replace or act as a substitute for guidance published elsewhere on HSEs website.

Under it's Terms of Reference
(http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/myth-busting/terms-of-reference.htm) the panel will offer its opinion on whether the advice was correct and, importantly, proportionate in terms of its interpretation of the
requirements of health and safety legislation not solely on whether the law applies. Where 'health and safety' has been used as a blanket reason for a particular course of action but there is no health and safety legislation applicable the panel will state that. However, they will also acknowledge where there are wider issues involved which mean the decision may be correct or where a clearer explanation would have been helpful. In this case the panel do acknowledge that slips and trips are a common cause of injuries at work and that using a mobile phone on the stairs may not be very sensible. However, they reiterate the point that rather than simply stating 'health and safety' giving a
proper explanation for a company policy is preferable.

I hope you find this information helpful