In safe hands

Last month David Cameron jumped on a rather over-burdened bandwagon when he slated Britain’s health and safety laws. He pledged to “empower individuals, families and communities to take control of their lives and exercise responsibility”.

In his speech, he berated the country’s health and safety policy, describing it as an “infuriating… straitjacket on personal initiative and responsibility” and a “great knot of rules, regulations, expectations and fears that I would call the over the top health and safety culture”. Perhaps the 180 people who died at work in the UK in 2008/09, whose deaths could most likely have been avoided through proper planning, training and education, might beg to differ?

Although he acknowledged some of the benefits afforded by Britain’s health and safety law, his main focus was the limitations that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) places upon society and entrepreneurship. Clearly, his target was ‘middle England’ and his chosen ammunition – ‘health and safety gone mad’ – was the stuff of tabloid headlines, albeit briefly.

Having trotted out favourites, such as school children being made to wear goggles to play conkers and village fetes being cancelled due to inordinate amounts of ‘red tape’, he went on to point the finger at the current Labour government which he criticised for “attempt[ing] to micromanage and control people’s lives”. Among all this political rhetoric, perhaps there is a real cause for concern; that essentially good laws, designed to protect people, are being misinterpreted and spun to the popular press for the purposes of winning votes.

The HSE received one of its first public floggings in 2004, when a headmaster in Carlisle who was tired with filling in endless health and safety forms for his pupils’ field trips decided, as a ‘gesture’ to the HSE, to get his pupils to play conkers in laboratory goggles. He informed all the interested press that this was a ‘sensible’ precaution to shield the childrens’ eyes from pieces of flying conker.

It was reported in papers across the country, picked up by the BBC and propelled health and safety into the wider consciousness.

If the popular press is to be believed, the education sector is a health and safety minefield – school trips being the most frequently cited victim of the HSE’s wrath – with teachers being too afraid to take children outside the classroom. In reality, the HSE acknowledges that most teachers are careful, sensible people who take their roles very seriously and do everything within their power to protect their wards. The guidelines advise teachers to undertake risk assessments ‘appropriate’ to the activity.

Misinterpreting the legislation

Accidents still do and always will happen, absolute safety is not possible and the courts recognise this. The regulations are in place to protect people from harm and ensure that employers act responsibly. Over-cautious local councils are often responsible for spreading a sense of dread of health and safety regulations by misinterpreting the legislation. If the law is interpreted correctly and applied sensibly, none of the regulations are overly onerous or restrictive. The starting point is always simple, and the HSE website provides clear step-by-step guidelines.

The crux of all health and safety regulations is the prevention of injury by removal of risk. Where the risk cannot be removed, the situation should be evaluated and the risk managed to the lowest possible level. A common pattern runs throughout the regulations and, once one set is understood, these principles can be applied across most of the regulations.

The UK may have one of the best health and safety records in Europe, but it is clear that some employers still need assistance in developing and implementing their health and safety policy. By protecting people – both their staff and the public who may be affected by their activities – companies are actually protecting themselves. The 24.6 million work days which were lost as a result of work-related ill health in 2008/09 will have reduced productivity and, quite likely, have contributed to sizeable insurance premiums. Through adhering to legislation, businesses can help protect their productivity and keep a cap on their insurance premiums.

Both sides of this debate can point to ridiculous examples to illustrate their perspective; however, it must be recognised that the court only prosecutes where the law has been broken. The law is designed to protect people but not condone stupidity, to support the reasonable person who has acted in a reasonable manner without impinging on everyday life.

No government should seek to suddenly relax our health and safety laws. Would Cameron advocate the lifting of laws governing the wearing of seatbelts in cars or crash helmets on motorbikes despite their having massively reduced the number of deaths on our roads? Current health and safety legislation is an important deterrent to companies that would otherwise have scant regard for the safety and welfare of others. Instead of relaxing the current rules, perhaps we should seek to reinforce them with more vigorous criminal sanctions; thereby imposing personal (as against corporate) social responsibility on lackadaisical employers and directors. Wasn’t this what David Cameron was driving at – personal responsibility?