Brian Prout, takes a moment to reflect on the progress that has been made in health &
safety in recent years and considers what impact Lord Young's review into health &
safety might have
Irecently decided to catch up oBrian Prout, takes a moment to reflect on the progress that has been made in health &
safety in recent years and considers what impact Lord Young's review into health &
safety might have
Irecently decided to catch up on the
news online with a nice cup of tea and
a jaffa cake.
Firstly, the Health and Safety Executive in
Scotland had announced that the number
of people killed in workplace accidents had
once again fallen. Between 1 April 2009 and
31 March 2010, 23 workers were killed at
work in Scotland.
Although this figure is still wholly
unacceptable, it nonetheless represents
further, positive progress, and is a reduction
of 3 from 26 in the previous year.
The corresponding UK-wide figure was a
record low of 151.
As a health and safety professional,
specialising in training and consultancy
work, I took a few seconds out to award
myself an extra jaffa cake by way of congratulations for the tiny
little contribution that I might have played in this improvement.
Next, I "Googled" health and safety, only to be met with the
same tired old parodies on health and safety in some parts of the
general media, which I feel does our industry so much harm.
The particular one I stumbled upon concerned a local fete,
where apparently the egg and spoon race could only be carried
out by competitors if they walked the course, as opposed to
running, due to recent rainfall making the ground slippy. This
decision had been made, apparently, on the grounds of health
and safety, as it "breached regulations". Nothing more was
discussed on this legal concept and no specific regulations were
mentioned.
I felt a cold shiver up my spine. As a trainer and consultant, I
usually pride myself on keeping bang up-to-date on changes in
health and safety. The new "Egg and Spoon Race (Rain)
Regulations" must have passed me by.
I rather suspect that the true reason for the decision was,
among other things, the fear of litigation, and absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with health and safety.
There are, of course, dozens of other examples.
This fear is largely unfounded. The old phrase, "a little
knowledge is a dangerous thing" has never been more apt.
There is a requirement to protect people "so far as is
reasonably practicable", and this has either been lost in the mists
of time, is misunderstood, or people simply aren't aware of it. It
equates, of course, to a balance of risk against cost. If the risk is
minimal, so should the cost in dealing with the risk. There is
nothing new there. In the common law field of negligence, the
similar concept of "reasonable" care can be traced back to the
case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company in 1856!
It's time to get rid of the reputation of health and safety as
being some big evil monster, there to prevent this and to restrict
that. In fact, health and safety legislation bans
very little.
In Scotland, we have had our fair share of
high profile occupational disasters, sadly,
including Piper Alpha in 1988 and the ICL
Plastics explosion in Maryhill, Glasgow, in
2004. Health and safety is there to enable
people to work in a safe manner, and to
prevent shocking accidents such as these.
We mustn't allow ourselves to become an
overly risk averse society. We need exposure
to risk. Children need exposure to risk to
prepare them for future life. I know a
disproportionate number of health and safety
professionals who enjoy skiing, white water
rafting, mountain climbing and other
pastimes that some may consider "high risk".
I suspect that some may even let their kids
enter the egg and spoon race on sports day.
Done safely and with the correct controls, any activity can be
carried out safely.
It remains to be seen what impact Lord Young's review of the
health and safety system will bring. Many people will see parallels
to the last major review, by Lord Robens in 1972, which made
sweeping and wholesale changes over a period of time and gave
rise to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
We must ensure we don't throw the baby out with the bath
water. In the late 60's/early 70's, review was necessary due to the
number of disasters, such as Aberfan, as well as the huge range of
complex, piecemeal and rigid legislation, together with a general
apathy amongst the population.
While it can be argued with justification that the employment
demographics have changed drastically in that time, nonetheless
the facts speak for themselves. In the UK in 1974, 651 workers
died as a result of workplace injury. That's exactly 500 more
people than died in the past year. All other statistics, including
non-fatal accidents and occupational health, also show massive
improvements since 1974.
As health and safety professionals, although we should
acknowledge that there is much still to be done, we should be
justifiably proud of the improvements and continue the
education process.
We should also salute the efforts of the Health and Safety
Executive, Institution of Occupational Safety and Health and
others who continue to promote the excellent work of our
industry and convey the correct message to the public at large.
Brian Prout is a consultant for Aviva Risk Management Solutions
as well as a tutor and examiner of IOSH and NEBOSH courses.
Brian will be at Health & Safety '10 Scotland on Stand 64.
