Lord Young and his review of health and safety law in the UK is unlikely to be of any particular use to anyone, except of course lawyers and judges, who will have all the updates to interpret and argue in court (at the tax payer’s expense no doubt), since most of our regulation now comes from European legislation (a tory idea so unlikely to change) and the government is required to implement it. Unless that is we change our relationship with Europe, but UKIP didn’t win the election.

I hear much about “Common Sense” from the government and meedeya (say it like it looks – the red tops) but unfortunately sense is actually a rare commodity in times of stress and when the thing must be done on time… common sense tells you that if you travel at 60 along the motorway you will save fuel and still get there in plenty of time, and there’s much less chance of being in a crash… yet where is this common sense when you are under pressure, late for a dental appointment or the kids are going to be late for school… If sense were so common there wouldn’t be a whole industry built up around catching people speeding and fining them, because no one would break the limit. Common sense cannot be relied upon, it relies on personal priorities and personal responsibility, both things have been eroded by decades of interfering (and therefore expensive) government.

If we do discard regulation (and therefor the regulator) then businesses are thrown to the lions of unlimited claims in the civil court since we will never be able to show that what was done was to an acceptable standard. Strict liability dictates that if someone is injured it is obvious that the health and safety regime is not adequate to prevent that injury, and therefor liability exists.

If you think the claims culture is bad just now think about what would happen if you could not prove that you had done everything reasonably practicable to prevent any injury…

I hope that Lord Youn’s review focuses instead on the abuse of the civil legal system and does something to encourage insurance companies to defend claims rather than settle so they don’t have to pay legal expences.

I also hope something is done to kurb the use of “Elf n safety” as an excuse for HR, and insurance related matters… and if something can be done to prevent public officials from over reacting to fanciful ideas of things that might be hazardous and the nanny state, I would cheer !

I wait with bated breath.

You often see signs on construction site gates specifying the ever growing list of PPE that must be worn by everyone while they are on site, and having been a technical courier (the person who turns up to fix the office photocopier / printer / computer) I can tell you first hand that they are serious about this.

I dared to walk through the gates of a building site in Glasgow one day, to deliver a new photocopier part to the offices just inside the gate when I was accosted by a brusque foreman type who insisted that I should turn back because I didn’t have a hard hat on, or hi viz, or even toe tectors…. “They don’t go well with the suit, and I’m just going there to fix the office photocopier” I explained in my normal jovial manner, pointing to the portacabins about three metres away.

“Doesn’t matter, it’s a blanket policy” I was informed by the very efficient chap.

Since I have limited time to get to get from the car, fix the photocopier (or whatever) and get back to the car I decided that rather than argue, or go back to the car where I don’t have PPE anyway and log the call as failed due to no access due to daft site rule, I would use a little obfuscation.

“Gawd look at him” I said, pointing in the direction of a mound of dirt in the distance, and while the efficient chap looked around and tried to figure out what I was on about I was off and into the office.

When I came back out he didn’t insist that I stay in the office until I was properly suited and booted, apparently the risk is only there on the way into the site.

Now I’m not getting at the man at the gate, he was doing his job, and a good job he did of it too… I’m getting at the management of the site who rather than reducing the number of people at risk from hazards by making areas safe (and therefore free from PPE requirements), they insist on specifying that everyone is at risk, all the time, and in all parts of the site, even at offices, when they are obviously not at risk at all.

Pursuing these blanket policies is in noone’s interest, it undermines real health and safety management, which has a hierarchy of control laid down in the statutiory regulations (Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999), and PPE is bottom of the list of things to do, when all else has been tried (or at least considered) and failed, then you can resort to PPE, and all the hoops you have to jump through when you resort to PPE such as training, consultation, inspection, providing storage, having spares, making sure it fits, doesn’t introduce new risks.

Now I’m a health and safety type, and the last thing I want to do is encourage people to put themselves in danger, but I would like to see employers taking it upon themselves to protect us from hazards, make accidents less likely rather than just say … oh make em wear a hard hat and be done with it.

“I say chaps, before we spend ruddy thousands of pounds a year on hard hats and safety glasses, are there people we can put in a place where they aren’t at risk, and in fact what exactly are they at risk from and can’t we do something about the thing that causes the risk… it might be cheaper than all that PPE, signs, training, and disciplining people… what what !! “