In my second outing on Dave Young’s report, we delve into just a few of his health and safety observations and recommendations.

Dave notes that H&S has become a bit of a joke. This wouldn’t be too bad if H&S advisers were in the business of making people laugh. Principally it’s the disproportionate application of H&S to low risk businesses that’s at issue. Good stuff that works pretty well in high hazard industries is being applied like a sledgehammer to businesses that really have very low risks (like offices, shops and schools). He blames the EU for this – the Framework Directive in particular.

The framework directive is rather like a misapplied girdle. Girdles (or whatever the masculine equivalent is called) are designed to hold things in; they mould fat into a rigid board approximating to a six pack (which curiously, is the name given to the raft of legislation which accompanied the framework directive when it first appeared). Thin people have no need of them, but they may still be forced to wear them because people think they need to feel the suffering just as much as them. They may wear them voluntarily as slaves to fashion or because they just want to fit in. Sometimes, it’s because of a lack of alternative. The severity and robustness of the old fashioned, one size fits all girdle, gives a sense of thoroughness and security. Nothing is likely to escape. On occasions when I have visited night clubs I have frequently seen several types of girdle – Oh, yes, what was I talking about – let’s get back to the point.

There also seems to have developed a move to eliminate risk entirely, which is neither possible nor desirable. Dave, quite charitably in my opinion, seems to think that mostly, it’s unqualified, poorly trained consultants that try to move their clients to do this. But, I think it’s more widespread than that. In my view, H&S people on the whole (including employees who act as H&S advisers) are often taught to view risk as negative and to be eliminated as far as possible (rather than as far as reasonably practicable). In a business context, risk can be positive or negative. Businesses have to take calculated risks everyday in order to survive and exploit new markets – they have to Manage Risk.

Dave is pretty supportive of the HSE but, and I think he’s right, small businesses are still left quite unsure about what to do and so may be at the mercy of external “expertise”. They are especially unsure as to whether they’ve done enough to meet legal standards and what constitutes a “suitable and sufficient” risk assessment. So, they call in the consultants, who may end up gold-plating the requirements. The truth is, these low risk businesses could do much of this for themselves because it’s all pretty obvious stuff. It’s just that it’s all a bit foggy and uncertain out there and everyone’s trying to sue the backsides off them (see my last post).

The HSE have stepped up to the challenge and already produced a tool for a “20 minute risk assessment”, with more things to follow. This should give the sort of confidence and certainty that has been lacking. This should also start to see the demise of H&S consultant intervention in small, low risk businesses, and enable them to spend more time watching daytime TV. The existing dependency is unnecessary, unnatural and quite disturbing (rather like a grown man wearing a girdle, in fact).

I get the sense that Dave has had a shed load of complaints about local authority officials. These are the ones who end up banning events on “H&S grounds”, without justification and with no appeal. He wants to change this so that the public has some comeback. Officials should have to give reasons and those reasons can be challenged and even compensation given if events are banned without proper justification. I don’t think he goes far enough. The originators of the really serious howlers should have to sit through an episode of X-factor or Big Brother, so they can experience the full weight of frustration and extreme limits of time wasting.

So, I think Dave is on to a winner here – kick out the consultants, simplify risk assessment, throw off your girdles, blame the EU and make local officials put things in writing. There’s more to come next week.

Recently I’ve been reading Lord Young’s report common sense, common safety. As you probably know (unless you’ve been hiding in a bunker), it advocates an approach to health and safety that is proportionate; it also discusses the related apparent compensation culture.

The various authorities and organisations which you might think would have been in the firing line have been falling over themselves to express that they “warmly welcome” the report. I thought this might be civil service code for the exact opposite, in a scramble to align with the wielder of power in a “McCarthy witch hunt” environment. But, when I read the report, I find it’s surprisingly accessible (written in the first person), sensible, measured (for the most part) and sometimes delightfully passionate, borne out of frustration. It’s actually quite supportive of some existing systems (like the way high hazard industries are controlled) and recognises that there are some good people out there championing the cause of health and safety.

I’m aiming to talk about different aspects of the report in the next few blogs. For this, one, I’m starting with the compensation culture. I’ll keep it as simple as possible, but not too simple, just like Albert Einstein advised.

Lord Young (let’s call him Dave, in keeping with his more accessible style) recognises that, largely, the compensation culture is more one of perception rather than fact. But, we live in a world of celebrity, where people are famous for being famous, without any substance whatsoever; perception, right or wrong, changes behaviour. In the case of health and safety, it has caused a good deal of damage to the fabric of society already and, if left unchecked, will cause further damage.

Dave points out the problem of unforeseen consequences of well intentioned legislation. This is the same sort of thing we now have with an under funded, overburdened university system that, last year, was unable to find places for 200,000 students. This, apparently, can all be traced back to the days of John Major. This social engineering has raised expectations that everyone will go to university but the places and funding are simply not there.

Similarly the compensation culture can be traced back to legislative changes. In short, we saw the rise of claims management companies, personal injury lawyers and the ability to advertise and offer financial incentives to refer claims. Their aggressive “no win, no fee” advertising created the perception and expectation of “no financial risk” litigation and that everything is actionable, however trivial. This in turn has created a fear of litigation and a blame culture, leading to risk aversion by businesses. This invariably leads to disproportionate responses to try to eliminate even trivial risks.

Dave makes a number of quite simple (but actually quite difficult in practice) suggestions to try to combat this issue. These amount to changes in insurance, advertising rules, claims procedures and the fee structure. He would seek to simplify and cap costs by extending the new Road Traffic Accident Personal Injury scheme. He also wants to make very clear that people should not be sued for well-intentioned “good Samaritan” actions (unless obviously negligent – these actions have succeeded in the US but none have been brought so far in the UK, despite the perception). This is not only sensible but a moral imperative – we do not want a society to stand idly by watching someone die because they fear they might do something wrong (and so face legal action) in the rescue attempt.

So far, so good Dave..

I pick up again on a subject I blogged about a while ago, as it’s become topical again.

I don’t know when it was in human history that we decided about fairness or equality but we now hold it as a right, even if it means being unfair. The party conference season is happening as I write and the Government has been talking about Big Society but cannot quite articulate what this means (I assume, obesity?). Suffering together, yet unequally, seems to be the message that’s getting across. The row over the child benefit cut is a case in point. Whether you are for or against it, you cannot help but be taken aback by the way it will be applied so, well, unfairly and the lack of political will to actually make it fair; it is apparently so far outside the usual means-tested flotilla of taxation and benefits that it is just not possible to apply the cut fairly….

The cut won’t be based on family income but on the income of any one of the parents, so you’ll get what the politicians call “anomalies” (that’s code for ‘can’t be bothered to sort it out’, ‘get over it’ or ‘it doesn’t affect me so I don’t really care’). One could argue that it only affects a few million people but if you’re one of them, you have a different perspective. But to be truthful, I am not surprised. Life is unfair.

I turn now to Education, where they use the terms fairness and equality in many contexts. One of those happens to be in terms of access to learning (both starting and during). That is, that people should not be disadvantaged. Sometimes, bizarrely and ironically, this has meant “positively discriminating” (an oxymoron if ever there was one) which, in my opinion, is never right because it sacrifices fairness to others. It’s just discrimination and social engineering by a different name.

It’s a bit like the law of nuisance, where the judge has to weigh up the rights of the individual against the rights of their neighbours. You just have to put up with a certain amount of discomfort because we don’t all live alone in the middle of the countryside, miles from anybody else; nor do we have limitless resources. So, it’s a moving feast, depending on context, culture and time.

Reasonable accommodation though is a different matter – use of language (stereotyping), adjustments for disabilities and so on. Teachers and trainers do much of this on the fly (often called ‘differentiation’ within a lesson, where the different needs and abilities of different students are taken into account). It’s no big deal at all. In fairness, equal opportunities can sometimes be a challenge, especially if you think about it too much.

These days not only do you have to do it, you have to be seen to be doing it, demonstrating it. We have the ubiquitous Equality and diversity policy which sets out in vague terms (lest we forget) something to the effect that somebody, somewhere will do something and, at the very least, we’ll obey the law. We even have various forms of monitoring, the interpretation of which can be contested (the choices people make). Is this just all too much? Doubtless, equality, diversity and inclusion have been issues in some quarters, but where is the sense of proportion? It’s all just so unfair…