I'll bet they don't crack down on the 'no win - no fee' lawyers who, IMO, are probably the biggest cause of the 'no risk' culture that has developed.

http://www.heraldscotlan...afety-crackdown-1.987484

FH

True, it depends upon the paper. None of this is new anyway. I saw Sky News this morning and John O'Gaunt was doing the paper reviews with his opinions (for what they are worth). The general spirit of this is greatly received though. Not quite sure I appreciate the conkers bonkers idea though.

I think its a chicken and egg situation, did the review/rewrite/issue of many health and safety rules and regulations cause the risk culture or did risk culture cause the review/rewrite/issue of many health and safety rules and regulations??

Personally, i think its due to the Americanism of our country and the breakdown of the community, but thats just an opinion!!

Thanks smurf, not sure these judgements were given with much foresight, but as they say hindsight is a hell of a gift.

And another interview scheduled... this one for Communications Director Ruth Doyle with LBC 97.3fm radio at 2.05pm.

Jeni, is that because of the health & safety rules?

;-)

Don't know how often I've suggested that media attacks on H&S are not random but purely political. One thing though, the BBC version quotes Cameron trotting out the usual stale old rubbish about things which never happened. Still, I suppose I shouldn't expect politicians (except Tony Benn) to use or even understand the truth,

John

It would be best if all read the full transcript of David Canmeroon's Speech:-

http://www.conservatives...f_health_and_safety.aspx


It is in the nature of politics to take advantage of mass appeal sound-bites rather than to tackle issues with expert input and check ALL the research and facts.


The risk-averse culture to a significant extent is the result of ALL political parties adopting a partisan approach and not countering the media unitedly whenever media frenzy arises after public fatality/fatalities/serious injuries.

Even public enquires have taken into account such factors to the detriment of sensible health and safety. This results in organisations, especially those with a public frontline function not to assess and control risk to the required “so far as is reasonably practicable”, but far in excess.

There are also the victims groups, who demand “action” to be taken far in excess of what is “so far as is reasonably practicable” and generally in this day and age, unless we firstly as a society and secondly as professional body come to a consensus on what “so far as is reasonably practicable means in today world and society, primarily in the area of public safety, we are not going to have a solution overnight or even in the long term!


If one remembers and indeed refers to the Southall and Ladbroke Grove Joint Inquiry into Train Protection Systems by Professor John Uff and Lord Cullen under the heading
“Public Attitude to safety”

“………there are certain difficulties involved in seeking to take account of the public’s attitude to safety. First, the attitude of the public can only be expressed through public channels such as the news media or pressure groups. In the case of the rail industry, the recent public inquiries have also provided a platform for views expressed on behalf of particular groups of people. In assessing the weight of all such opinions, we must take into account the circumstances in which such views are given and the fact that the weight to be given to public opinion is ultimately, along with many other competing issues, a matter for the democratically elected government and Parliament…….


……..“We must also take account, in assessing the public attitude to safety, of various
bodies of research and expertise aimed specifically at gauging and applying public attitudes, for example to the priority to be given to safety-related expenditure. It has been necessary, historically, for central and local government spending departments to form judgments about such priorities……..

…….We therefore seek to assess and take into account the public attitude to safety and to weigh this appropriately, along with other relevant factors, in the recommendations that we make……..



We as Health and Safety Professionals also have to influence our employer organisations by managing risks sensibly. I am afraid that our entire training, auditing, monitoring “systems” approach as far as SME’s are concerned is cumbersome and expensive. Yes, it is best practice to have all training that is accredited/certified in some form or another, but is that really required at all times for safety training that is not safety critical. For example, if I am a competent safety practitioner and have good trainer skills, what is there to stop me from devising and delivering my own non-safety critical training ? On the contrary, it is likely to be superior as I can tailor it to my organisations requirements.

This is something for all the safety organisations to consider and come up with cost effective training solutions—as ALL safety organisations, irrespective whether it is ROSPA, BSC, IOSH, CIEH etc derive significant revenue from training (and others from Audit) activities. On the surface, it seems to be the noble thing to do, but have we properly assessed and researched the effects of the “supply chain” effect on SME’s??

In some high risk activities/areas, it may be desirable to use the “supply chain” effect to bring about a change, but what we witness is the undesirable “supply chain” effect of excessive controls for low/medium risk activates, especially for SME’s


I disagree that it is the EC legislation that is the significant culprit. On the contrary, it is the misunderstanding of:-

1) so far as is reasonably practicable

2)the role and status of the Guidance and ACoPs accompanying the regulations that appears to be the problem for those who cannot differentiate that one can deviate as long as one can demonstrate an equivalent control measure.


We also have (as is the case with other professions and activities) sections of industry that thrives on the ignorance of SME owners/managers to “scare” them into adopting over the top control measures.

If anything that requires reform, it is our public and employer liability systems framework, not health and safety legislation per-se.

Surely the no win - no fee culture is a result of the Woolf Reforms, which were abused by compensation lawyers

Perhaps, but it was the courts that allowed the compensation culture to gain a foothold.

As I see it, the problem lies with the translation of what is reasonably practicable. The employer's duty of care is to all of their staff, customers, etc whereas the injury lawyer is only interested to the extent of his or her client, one person. What it is reasonably practicable to do for one person it would frequently be execively onurus to apply to all.

Resisting the urge to post a response, but JWK's post has done the trick. Yes, it is a funny old world, or at least forum. One where if you post a thread as a 'tit bit' all and sundry respond. But ask a serious question and you hardly get any responses. Is this indicative of where we are today I wonder?

Ray (the philisophical)

Hi everyone,

We had six media appearances yesterday as a result of Cameron’s speech.

You can read about the coverage we achieved in the member news item “Cameron opens up the debate” http://www.iosh.co.uk/ne...ameron_opens_debate.aspx

Anne Smart
Media and campaigns co-ordinator

Oh yes, I forgot. Stick a label on it and Pigeon hole me with that one as well!

Obviously that bit isnt be the best!

*sigh*

Of all the things a man of power could do, he chooses to potentially address a non-issue with yet more incorrect assessments and poor judgements.

What if hanging baskets go from outside pubs? What if only teachers willing to plan an activity properly take kids on trips?

Sort out old people dying of cold. Sort out old people being abused in care homes. Sort out children dying at the hands of their parents. Sort out soldiers dying to protect oil rights. Sort out soldiers dying of IED's because their vehicles lack proper armour. Then sort out the cowboys employing people without even a cursory care of H&S. Sort out standards that should be met before entrusting H&S to someone. Sort out the things that matter - not what some people think infringes on their free will to do the mundane.

I have just worked out what happened to the old forum and discovered the new one! Hello!

For anyone who hasn't yet done so, I urge you to reads the transcript of the full speech at
http://www.conservatives...f_health_and_safety.aspx

Jay posted it above but it is worth positing it again. Reading the full transcript gives a completely different impression of what Mr Cameron said compared with the media reports. You can see what he emphasised and what he just touched on in passing. I will go further and sat that you cannot really comment on what he said unless you were there in the hall or have read the transcript. Otherwise you are commenting on what a journalist wrote, not what Mr Cameron said.

Al.

Well said

Bob

"From the first link Mr Cameron says: "The Health and Safety at Work Act would also be amended to ensure the danger of prosecution does not put teachers off from taking children for adventurous activities."

Perhaps he intends to remove schools or children from being subject to it??? Back to the good old days before the Apprentices Act, I say!"

I sincerely hope not, as former RAF SAR I attended many sorties picking up school groups where the teacher involved had exceeded his competance and had taken students out in weather that they should not have been out in at all - the weather conditions would have been a challenge to properly equipped mountain leaders. Let alone a school group wearing plastic macs, jeans and trainers.

Working for a bushcraft and survival school we run a course for some teachers a while ago and we had a I-Know-it-all on the course, when we pointed out that apart from the main issue of the safety of his students he could be prosecuted he reined his neck in and started to pay attention and (we hope) learned some skills that may prevent some of my former collegues having to recover him or his poor students.

Cameron simply has not got a clue about anything, god help this country if he and his etonian friends get elected.

Al, I have taken your advice and read the whole speach. I stand by what I said previously because although I might agree with the sentiment, I see it is ill-informed and misdirected.

I am not going to do a critique of it as to do so would run to many hundreds of words minimum.

As a whole though, I think that worse than the media perpetuating myths this proposal would aim vast amounts of political will away from the real problems faced in the UK. I cannot see reducing bureaucracy in the way described as being that beneficial to anyone other than the ill-informed.

I do think reform would be good - but how can it be done from such a skewed viewpoint?

If I was a police officer, would I really be happy to be told to rush in regardless because public safety is at risk? Not always. Hardly ever. But if I am happy to, then fine leave it as my decision. So don't remove the protection of the police officer - increase the protection against disciplinary or legal procedures.

If I was a 14 year old girl, would I really be safe to be forced into activities because the teacher knew themselves to be outside of the requirements to risk assess my activity properly? Not ever. As a child I would be amongst the most vulnerable in society - I would not want my protections erroded due to a funding issue (all it ever comes down to is well-trained resources ... activities could always take place after proper planning - if they had someone other than a maths/art/DS/physics teacher to do the planning).

The law is quite good - the interpretation by courts, insurers and untrained "officials" needs to be sorted. That is easier done by memorandum than revolt.

The proposal runs the risk of loosing the baby in the bath water.