Good afternoon.

The following amendment to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill has been tabled by Lord Blancathra (David McLean)

After Clause 95
LORD BLENCATHRA
Insert the following new Clause—

“Application of health and safety enactments to police

(1) No police and crime commissioner nor chief officer of police shall be liable for prosecution under any health and safety enactment in the performance of their duties.

(2) No police and crime commissioner nor chief officer of police shall be liable for damages or compensation for any injuries caused as a result of a breach of health and safety law in the performance of their duties, save where it is proved that the individual acted maliciously or with reckless disregard for the safety of others.

(3) Sections 1, 2 and 5 of the Police (Health and Safety) Act 1997 are repealed.

(4) Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary shall issue general guidance on health and safety matters to all police forces for every police area listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996.

(5) A breach of the guidance issued under subsection (4) by any officer of the rank of constable may result in disciplinary action but shall not result in any prosecution or civil action.

(6) A police and crime commissioner shall not be liable for prosecution nor civil action because of any breach of the guidance issued under subsection (4).”

http://www.publications....ls/062/amend/am062-b.htm


Would be interested in your views, particularly on the legality of the proposed amendment under European law.

Thanks
Clive

Since the main duty of a chief police officer is management of a large group of people it is ludicrous to suggest that they can be immune from health and safety enactments. It is another example of how the politicians just to do understand the issues in this debate.

It appears that all and sundry wish to be exempt from health and safety laws. Despite previous comments I do have some sympathy with the Police Force and its senior officers. For example, the CPS prosecution of Commissioners Condon and Stevens for the death of a police officer who fell when chasing a suspect over a roof should never have happened. Indeed, it was criticised by the judge as a waste of public money following the not guilty verdict. I also think the HSE prosecution of the Met in the De Menezies case was problematic and arguably not in the public interest.

It goes to show that 'sensible health and safety' has to practised by everyone in order to have some modicum of credibility.

We shouldn‘t expect anything else from a Government that is determined to undermine the health and safety profession, lets see if the Daily Mail or Express report this as a ‘elf and safety‘ gone mad story.

Just to clarify, the police DO NOT want to be exempt (well, maybe some Chief Constables might....).

The Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Federation and the HSE all signed up to 'Striking the Balance' which does describe the practical application of H&S to both Police and Fire.

There is widespread support for 'Striking the Balance'.

Perhaps I'm being cynical, but perhaps the Lord Young review did not come up with the right answer, and so this late amendment is being tabled before the Lords committee stage next week.

And no, there was no consultation on this!

Kate

Thanks for the Link Kate.

Ray its a shame that even we as Health and Safety Professionals can get mislead and believe the stories in the press - And I defiantly include myself in that list. You also make the same point that I did in a round about way, it was a HASWA offence so it should have been taken by an inspector authorised to do so under HASAW ie. A HSE inspector or a Local Authority EHO/Technical Officer or similar title, but it wasn't. It has been explained to me that the Crown Prosecution Service are authorised to take a criminal case under ANY legislation, but I don't know where that is written down.

Thank goodness for this site where we can discuss such issues. It was thanks to this site that I found out the National Trust had not been prosecuted for the tragic case of the child being killed by a falling tree.

I am appalled by this suggestion. This is an amendment that had be produced by an individual peer and I don’t think it has government support. I am not sure if ACPO support it. Excepting Chief officers from both Health and Safety at Work Act and the common law of negligence would I suspect contravene the European Health and Safety Framework directive which establishes the principle that employers are liable for the H&S of their employees? If the Police got away with this then others like the fire service would ask for similar exceptions and then maybe the NHS and anybody else who cannot be bothered to look after their employees’ welfare.
I hope it gets quashed.

How about:

No safety advisor nor safety manager shall be liable for prosecution under any health and safety enactment in the performance of their duties.

Just make you laugh.

.....Oh and just to add to the irony, Lord Blencathra - or David McLean as he was then - was Minster of State in the Home Office at the time the when H&S law was made applicable to the Police.

You just could not make it up!

A well balanced and proportionate response from Sir Stephenson. The police and other emergency services may have to take risks in order to do their job effectively, that is not to say they should be exempt from all health and safety legislation.

Dear All

I have taken the following quote from the article:

'The key findings of Lady Hallett’s ruling were that MI5 and the emergency services did not cause or contribute to any of the deaths on July 7 2005 and that none of the 52 victims would have survived even if emergency services had arrived sooner.'

It is undoubtedly true that things on the day could have been done better. That applies to most major disasters. Historical complaints about communications not working underground were never resolved before the bombings. This also contributed to the problems on the day. However I cannot recall another incident in the history of London Transport where suicide murderers exploded bombs on three different Tube trains and a bus at rush hour. It was the first time.

I have noted the point 'none of the 52 victims would have survived even if emergency services had arrived sooner' because it appears to me that the emergency services and NHS overall reacted effectively to the situation they faced - major casualties Underground and in a bus during the rush hour where roads were full of vehicles and streets were clogged with people. That some things failed has been well documented.

The Police have a difficult job and it is accepted that they may have to face risks many other workers do not. However it does appear that their concerns have been addressed by the HSE so may be better advised to refining their training and guidance.

Cliveq thanks for the references. The HSE recently announced that they will - after all - amend the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 so that they comply with the relevant European Directive on Asbestos. Hopefully this will halt the infringement proceedings.

It would be helpful if MPs and Lords all understood some basics about the European Constitution they signed up to.

Cheers.

Nigel

'Not so good is the H&S bashing in the comments to the article :('

Ken, whilst there were some negative comments I thought most of the responses were pretty fair and cogent. Rightly or wrongly, there is a perception by joe public that 'elf and safety has gone too far. I also think more recently there have been a series of mixed messages from various respected institutions and individuals. It is becoming increasingly difficult to see the woods from the trees.

I understand fully about the risks that the emergency services undertake, and wholeheartedly agree with not prosecuting genuine heroic cases, however some of Sir Stephensons comments smack of 'don't make me have to manage the risks'....

Evening all.

Clearly the message seems to be getting through to the Lords, as an altered Amendment has been issued:-

Insert the following new Clause—
“Application of health and safety enactments to police
(1) No police and crime commissioner nor chief officer of police shall be liable for prosecution under any health and safety enactment in the performance of their duties.
(2) No police and crime commissioner nor chief officer of police shall be liable for damages or compensation for any injuries caused as a result of a breach of health and safety law in the performance of their duties, save where it is proved that the individual acted maliciously or with reckless disregard for the safety of others.
(3) A police officer in the execution of the officer’s duty who believes that an action or actions are necessary—
(a) to prevent crime,
(b) to prevent risk to the health and welfare of others, or
(c) to save the lives of others,
shall not be prevented from taking that action or actions by the intervention of any other public official, of whatever rank, who alleges that there is a health and safety risk to the officer.
(4) It shall be an offence for any public official to obstruct a police officer in the execution of the officer’s duty when the officer has decided under subsection (3) that an action or actions are necessary.
(5) A police officer who has come to a decision under subsection (3) shall have no authority to compel others to join with the officer in the action or actions.
(6) Sections 1, 2 and 5 of the Police (Health and Safety) Act 1997 are repealed.
(7) Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary shall issue general guidance on health and safety matters to all police forces for every police area listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996 (police areas).
(8) A breach of the guidance issued under subsection (7) by any officer of the rank of constable may result in disciplinary action but shall not result in any prosecution or civil action.
(9) A police and crime commissioner shall not be liable for prosecution nor civil action because of any breach of the guidance issued under subsection (7).”

Have a close look at 3 and 4. It now looks to me that if a police H&S adviser spots that a PC is about to do something they really shouldn't, then the adviser could commit a criminal offence if they stopped them!

MB1 is right about the Public interest test. No Police officer has ever been prosecuted for putting themselves in harms way, nor would they be - for that very reason.

Sorry colleagues that should be EXEMPT (to allow or entitle somebody not to do something that others are obliged to do) and not excempt, clearly the finger is typing quicker than the brain is working this morning (caffeine fix required).

One of the more endearing aspects of management is delegation; delegation of blame onto a subordinate.
Usually onto the person injured/killed.

Refer to latest IOSH member news with headline, "Lords success for IOSH" :-

Extract:-
IOSH public affairs adviser Andrew Baldwin said: “This was a great example of IOSH identifying a potential problem, providing a solution (a well-crafted briefing to the Lords on why the clause was inadvisable) and helping achieve a good result for health and safety and operational policing.”



http://www.iosh.co.uk/ne...ds_success_for_iosh.aspx

Interesting!

Was there any consultation prior to lobbying the lords or was this gleamed from the forum?

jay,

I thank you for your detailed hyperlinks and from past readings and input involvement in past IOSH consultations I cannot recall anything regarding this particular subject either on this open forum or members forum with the exception of open forum users prior to the press release. This is in great contrast to the other lobbying and debates, such as consultants register and lord youngs report.

I haven't put this as a swipe at the organisation, just curious as to how much members involvement was utilised in this particular exercise?

The amendment is now dead in the water. Not sure why Lord Blencathra felt the need to introduce the controversial amendment in the first place, but at least he has seen good sense to withdraw it. That said, there still remains so fundamental issues with the police and health and safety laws. Yes, I agree that senior police officers need to understand and work with legislation but it goes much deeper than that. The CPS and HSE also need to understand the difficulties of applying conventional occupational h&s management within a dynamic policing environment. I have seen very little of it thus far.