Posted By Ed Carter Having just read an article regarding the stalling of the Health & Safety (Offences) Bill, at it's 2nd reading in a Tit for Tat move in Parliment. Plus talk that the Private members Bill on Directors HS duties, whilst passing the first stage will, in all probability, suffer the same fate as the Offences Bill at the 2nd stage. I feel a degree of 'Why Bother' syndrome coming over me. Although personally, I prefer the cajoling carrot to the big stick approach if at all possible, and accepting that the offences bill has been given a new date later this month (although not in time to get the Bill into Law if successful at the second attempt) I cant help thinking that such Governmental efforts, do nothing to assist us poor foot soldiers on the ground. We try to point our to our employer's that HS is being viewed far more seriously, and that this that and the other is promised in the future. only to find that the future can be usually measured in 5-10 year chunks and then what comes isn't what was promised in the first place ! rather an extremely diluted fudged compromise! Do any of my colleagues who participate in this forum feel as I do or am I turning into a bitter and twisted old man after my 20 years trying to protect my work colleagues? (If the answer is yes to the bitter, twisted bit I'm depressed enough as it is thank you very much) Lets forget our recent worries about our name titles IOSH's plans etc. because unless someone or some organisation can get who ever the Government of the day is to 'walk the walk' rather than just 'talk the talk' we can call ourself the right honourable lord high supreme commander and we still won't be getting our message across and the workplace made safer. Sorry to go on abit gang, on my salary however, I cannot afford a counsellor. Ed

Posted By Ken Taylor Perhaps there is some truth in the old saying that the trouble with democracy is that it gets into the wrong hands. For example: a year ago at a conference for persons involved in the promotion of home safety, a Government Minister expressed an interest in receiving a case for making the promotion of safety in the home a statutory duty (just like it is for road safety and for which some of us have been lobbying for 40 years) but a year later they have decided to close down the Unit that collects home accident statistics from hospitals and publishes reports on the subject. It often seems that we need a major catastrophe with public outcry or some other form of threat to the perceived political security of politicians before any major improvement in legislation takes place that will benefit health and safety.

Posted By Ken Taylor I am on record, Sean, in also supporting the 'insurance route' to health and safety improvement but this need not be at the expense of effective legislation. If we had a law that required local authorities to actually promote safety in the home rather than just one that allows them to do it if they wish, we could have people employed to do the job in the same way in which we have road safety officers, health and safety advisors, etc. The inadequacy of some British and European Standards does not disprove the case for good law. Standards are produced by committees (including representatives of the relevant manufacturers in many cases) and so we finish up with compromise standards that may also reflect various sectional or national interests. Only occasionally do we seem to be prepared to stand out against others and make our own regulations these days (eg as with foam-filled furniture) and this would, presumably, cease should further integration with the EU come about and all law and standards be subject to the lowest common denominator of contributors interests.

Posted By Sean Fraser Ken, I totally agree with your points about Standards seeking the lowest common denominator, but I feel that the same principle often applies to laws as well and this was why I was questioning the legislative route which is often seen by some (out there in the general public [read "media" as appropriate], not necessarily ourselves) as being the panacea they seek - that so often turns out not the case once it is enacted. I agree that good law makes up in many ways for a lot of the less-good laws (I hesitate to say poor), but I also question the costs that are inevitably involved. Most laws that have any significant impact (good or bad) will entail cost - to the body/ies required to comply with it, the body/ies required to enforce it or both. We already know that the HSE funding situation is leading (arguably) to a poorer service in terms of enforcement, although I think their access to information and advice is superb, expecially with current technology such as the Internet. Imposing an additional requirement on them or the LA or even the police means more cost to them and the headache of utilising diminishing resources for one more requirement - with the result that it isn't done as effectively as originally anticipated while other existing requirements suffer from a diversion of priority in the meantime. Add to this the case for raising taxes (local or national) that would actually be required to do it properly in the first place and seldom seem to follow, except indirectly and without adequate justification. Politically, I am a proponent of ring-fenced taxes, justifying exactly where proportions of taxes collected will go, but that is a separate debate altogether. Safety awareness leads, we all agree, to overall cost reduction, in the same way that good health helps our NHS by reducing demand on reactive services and thereby providing more preventive services as a result in an upward spiral - a fine ideal but difficult to manage in a truly democratic society where freedom of choice is as important as freedom of information. Which brings me onto home safety programmes - again, an laudible concept but are we not now encroaching into a more dodgy area of right to privacy? Making businesses safe is a pre-requisite that no-one can argue - if you want to do business then you need to do it safely and provide safe products/services. But could we do more than encourage people to be aware of safety and health at home and actually prescribe it? After all (and apologies to my fellow Scots - this is a recognised phrase after all) an Englishmans home is his castle. Although I recognise that the call is not to dictate safety in the home and all that entails, I feel that a legal obligation on LA's to promote safety is one where those who are already struggling to cope with funding as it is or do not see safety as their priority over, say, environment (for which there are defined targets to achieve), it will be the bare minimum again. Sometimes I think the half-hearted approach is a lot worse than no approach at all! Perhaps we should change an existing law to have businesses promote home safety - after all, they have daily contact with their employees!! This spreads the cost, can be easily demonstrated and would give a wide covereage of the working population. It isn't blanket, but it would be workable. I know of at least one Oil major that promotes home safety and has provided a checklist for interested parties to use at home. Maybe this would be a better route to promote home safety - LAs would then have to do it as a matter of course internally, and many of them are in the top 5 of employers in terms of employee numbers in any given area anyway. There are a number of agencies and bodies that promote home safety already, including local and national governments - I would need to be persuaded that a legal requirement upon the LAs would imporve what is already being done, to any significant degree. I don't disagree with your sentiments. I just query if we are geting the various balances right. Would anyone from the LAs like to express an opinion on what a legally required safety promotion campaign would consist of and whether it would be effective, i.e. how it would be measured? Or is that a topic for a separate thread?