IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Bill to curb ‘elf and safety’ culture announced
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi all, It will be interesting to see how this one play's out! Thoughts? http://www.shponline.co....d-by-ministry-of-justice "Take the responsible employer who puts in place proper training for staff, who has sensible safety procedures, and tries to do the right thing," Mr Grayling said. "And then someone injures themselves doing something stupid or something that no reasonable person would ever have expected to be a risk. "Common sense says that the law should not simply penalise the employer for what has gone wrong." - See more at: http://www.shponline.co....ice#sthash.6GT2qvVg.dpuf
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
This is either a complete waste of parliamentary time as currently the law does not penalise sensible employers or it is opening a can of worms (depending on how the courts see it) Conceivably it could be used by unscrupulous employers to hide behind the idea that the action that they employee was forced to carry out was “an act of heroism for the benefit of society”. So we might all end up being heroes (preferably dead ones)!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yet another misguided attempt to change the principles of common law. The test of reasonable is still there however so the courts will still have to look at case law. What on earth has the proposition set out of an employer doing what he thought was reasonable got to do with acts of "heroism" etc????
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill (SARAH) is what it is called. The motivation behind it is that some ministers believe that an obsession with ‘Elf and safety’ is preventing acts of heroism by employees who are actively discouraged by their employer from performing said acts since the employers are frightened of being sued if these acts go wrong. What the government is proposing is that if someone carried out an act of ‘heroism’ (an odd term) then the employer cannot be held liable for the consequences if it all goes wrong. It sounds mad to me.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
With under a year until the next General Election, don't get too excited. Expect more populist nonsense from all sides of the House.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
David Bannister wrote:With under a year until the next General Election, don't get too excited. Expect more populist nonsense from all sides of the House. That's my view too. This is not about what appears in the statute book, it's about what appears in the Daily Mail.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
http://www.thirdsector.c...rs-liability-negligence/Having read this article I can only assume that it is intended to help kind acts that go tits up. I'm not sure how I would feel if someone close to me was killed/badly hurt at a charity event, because of some serious negligence. On the other hand, it might stop somebody suing, after receiving a broken rib during CPR? I think there must be more important things to be addressed right now?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
AK - as mad as SARAH in the Tea Party across the pond?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
achrn wrote:David Bannister wrote:With under a year until the next General Election, don't get too excited. Expect more populist nonsense from all sides of the House. That's my view too. This is not about what appears in the statute book, it's about what appears in the Daily Mail. Couldnt agree more
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
David Bannister wrote:With under a year until the next General Election, don't get too excited. Expect more populist nonsense from all sides of the House. Agree! It’s just grandstanding. Assuming the words quoted in TSP are accurate, you have to feel sorry for the judges etc when your boss does not appear to understand the difference between civil and criminal law.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
achrn wrote:David Bannister wrote:With under a year until the next General Election, don't get too excited. Expect more populist nonsense from all sides of the House. That's my view too. This is not about what appears in the statute book, it's about what appears in the Daily Mail. My thoughts too! (this forum should have a like button it would be a lot easier!)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Another load of political spin & nonsense from this current bunch of incompetents!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
I suppose as Govts are heavily influenced by big business it is no surprise.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Laws to tackle things that aren't happening. Nobody has eve been sued for administering first aid in this country. It may have happened in the USA, but our tabloid journalists would do well to remember that we are not, as yet, part of that particular union.
Where is the evidence that this law is needed? No wonder people have little respect for politicians (and there is ample evidence for that),
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Is Mr. Grayling not confusing two separate issues in these statements.
Members of the public are not going to getting sued under "elf & safety" laws for undertaking well intention acts of heroism in emergency situations, even if they go wrong. (unless they do happen to be at work at the time)
And..... Does the law as it currently stands not take in to account acts of unbelievable stupidity by employees via Contributory negligence.
And employers are protected to a certain extent from the above acts though the defence of foreseeability.
????
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sneaking in legislation under the radar; something this gov, and its immediate predecessor, are good at. Saying one thing, and using it to do something completely different. Health and safety has become the ¨cover¨ story to use, legislatively speaking. And even more so, when you look at how much legislation has come into English law via the EU route (and how much of EU initiated legislation is ¨passed down¨ from international organisations). And you have to consider that the vast amount of EU initiated legislation (directives et-el) are way out of the realm of alteration by individual member states (even more so when the EU changes to the ´Lisbon system´ of Qualified Majority Voting in November). HoT Air, courtesy of HMG.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I cannot see why we are blaming EU directives etc for issues that are primarily to do with UK. It is entirely up to CPS to ultimately decide whether a prosecution is in public interest or not, although HSE will have its input in context of potential breaches of Health & Safety legislation.
Do we really want our emergency response services to go "gung-ho" as heroes, but suffer fatalities? Also, when rescue has not been affected for bureaucratic reasons--e.g. when the rescue team does not have the "perfect gear" specified in a risk assessment, those in control, in rare cases may have been excessively risk averse--that is more to do with the management structure, fear of reprisals and relationship between Management & Unions than the EU.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Some of all this is because we are increasingly being 'led' by people, in government and senior management, who have never had a recognisable job. The nearest many of the them have come to work is a spot of light fagging for the senior prefects. Some of them, it is true, have come through the armed forces, but how many MPs have ever set foot in a bakery (except to buy bread), a care home, a building site or horror of horrors, an actual factory?
Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I genuinely believe they really have not a clue about how work works for most people, and part of their incomprehension of the value of industrial safety stems from the fact that their health and lives have never been put at risk from incompetence or for profit.
When the welfare state was born, and even when HASAWA was passed, there were still people in parliament, in the higher levels of industry and in the media who knew what working could be like if it wasn't properly managed. The current lot haven't a clue, in my opinion,
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
jwk wrote:Some of all this is because we are increasingly being 'led' by people, in government and senior management, who have never had a recognisable job. The nearest many of the them have come to work is a spot of light fagging for the senior prefects. Some of them, it is true, have come through the armed forces, but how many MPs have ever set foot in a bakery (except to buy bread), a care home, a building site or horror of horrors, an actual factory?
Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I genuinely believe they really have not a clue about how work works for most people, and part of their incomprehension of the value of industrial safety stems from the fact that their health and lives have never been put at risk from incompetence or for profit.
When the welfare state was born, and even when HASAWA was passed, there were still people in parliament, in the higher levels of industry and in the media who knew what working could be like if it wasn't properly managed. The current lot haven't a clue, in my opinion,
John I wish we had an 'I totally agree button'
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The truth is outside this forum health and safety is often seen as too onerous and prescriptive. Hence Chris Grayling is just trying to get the populist vote and I dare say with some success. Never mind addressing real issues like the economy, Europe, immigration...let's go for the soft option.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Did I blame the EU? No. I mentioned that the gov is UNABLE to revoke EU-derived legislation. When the Working Time Directive was transposed into UK law, via the transport of the HSAWA, the gov negotiated the opt-out which we currently have. It will expire eventually, then no opt-out (try negotiating another under QMV). Quite a few other directives etc are now UK law, which the gov can not do much in the way of altering, and nothing in the way of revoking. https://osha.europa.eu/e...ectives/directives-intro
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yes, the EU Directives have to be transposed into GB legislation. However, even if there were no EU directives, it is likely that we in GB would have had some form of "legislation" to cover most of the topics currently covered by the EU Health & Safety Directives. I accept that ours would have been less prescriptive.
However, most of the issues that we hear about is more to do with SME's and dutyholders NOT understanding the concept of proportionality and SFAIRP etc and being "conned" by some in the Health & Safety supply industry rather than the EU transposed directives per se.
Despite what is reported/said for political expediency & sound-bites, the GB regulators have much more respect and influence in the EU than is actually reported in mass media.
We trade within EU with the advantages that the free movement of goods etc provides & globally with other regional blocs and bilaterally --I very much doubt that this can be ignored. It makes sense to ratify and implement international treaties, agreements, conventions etc. Specifically, a significant part of health and safety legislation can be "linked/traced " to ILO Conventions that provides for minimum standards globally
Taking the example of COSHH, when first implemented in 1989, it was the first time that the formal concept of "risk assessing" the activities where the chemicals were used BEFORE exposing employees was introduced--I feel that it "improved" upon what existed prior to it!
Even the Robens Report and HASAWA envisaged that there will not only be some more supplementary legislation and "codes of practice" , but opportunity will be taken to revoke all the other very prescriptive specific industry Acts and regulations.
The loss of industry & jobs in UK/EU is not primarily/only due to EU legislation, but the short-sightedness of national governments who mostly look forward and plan for election cycles of 4-5 years and of Senior Managment of Entrerprises who do not invest profits during the good years in modernising plant & equipment ( and in R & D) to increase efficiency and innovate. May of the issues we face require more long term solutions that our advesarial nature of politics does not facilitate.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Spot on Jay..........as usual.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Jay, couldn't agree more. Very few people in this country have much of a clue about how the EU works. One of my friends was a lobbyist for a telecoms company, and she states that when the UK government wanted to pass a telecoms bill which they knew would prove unpalatable domestically, they instead persuaded the council of ministers to introduce it through the EU. They could then blame 'Europe' sure in the knowledge that this would let them off the hook,
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
@ Jay Posted: 06 June 2014 10:03:23
Exactly. The situation is made worse by politicians who must know they cannot remove whole rafts of legislation, and a national press that is not "fit for purpose". Although in both cases I feel that it is not ignorance but deliberate obtuseness that fits with their purpose.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Quote "And then someone injures themselves doing something stupid"
Who decides what counts as stupid ?
Some may say putting your hand into the moving parts of an unguarded machine would be stupid. Therefore no need for guarding? They may not consider that someone may do it purely because something distracted them at the wrong moment, just when they were moving their hands.
Can't wait to see the test for stupidity, and as it's Friday perhaps the politicians should demonstrate the test first :o)
Chris
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Heroism Bill is really blame-the-worker ‘gobbledygook’
A new law the government says will protect ‘good Samaritans and community heroes’ could be just another ‘sinister’ attack on workers suffering occupational injuries and diseases, the TUC has warned. Announcing the planned law, which is due to take effect next year and which the government says is necessary “to tackle the growth of compensation culture”, justice secretary Chris Grayling said: “I don’t want us to be a society where people feel that they can’t do the right thing for fear of breaking regulations or becoming liable if something goes wrong. I don’t want us to be a society where a responsible employer gets the blame for someone doing something stupid. I want a society where common sense is the order of the day, and I believe this measure will help us get there.” But TUC head of safety Hugh Robertson, commenting on the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill (SARAH) which was included in the Queen’s Speech on 4 June, countered: “Of course this is complete gobbledygook. There is not a shred of evidence that there is a problem. The police, fire and ambulance unions have worked closely with their employers and the HSE to develop guidance which ensures that health and safety protection is compatible with emergency situations, which is why the government changed its mind about exempting the police from the Health and Safety at Work Act (the one mention of health and safety in the Coalition agreement). There are no cases of anyone being prosecuted for trying to save someone in an emergency situation.” He warned: “There is however the possibility that this Bill will have a much more sinister application, which is shifting the blame to workers when they are injured, with employers claiming the worker was acting ‘irresponsibly’. If that is the case, this is not a Heroism Bill, it is a Blame Bill.”
Copyright material presented in TUC e-bulletins is owned by the TUC, unless otherwise stated.
Recipients are permitted to print and download extracts for their own personal or union use, provided the source and TUC's copyright is acknowledged.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
The headline of the above IOSH press release says "IOSH supports 'Good Samaritan's' law". Perhaps "IOSH would support the good samaritan's law if there was any evidence to support it's need" would have been a better title - but not as catchy though.
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Bill to curb ‘elf and safety’ culture announced
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.