David Cameron has said that the “all-pervasive rules culture” is one of the most infuriating things about living in Britain.
Speaking to the Policy Exchange, he made it clear that the Conservatives will reduce the burden and impact of health and safety legislation – and that it will be done in a responsible and sober way.
In developing that approach he said the Conservatives will do two things:
- Establish clear and specific principles about when health and safety legislation is appropriate, and when it is not, so we can evaluate whether existing or future legislation is necessary.
- Propose practical changes in the law to both bring an end to the culture of excessive litigation while at the same time giving legal safeguards to those who need them most.
 Mr Cameron said: “Something has gone seriously wrong with the spirit of health and safety in the past decade. When children are made to wear goggles by their head teacher to play conkers. When trainee hairdressers are not allowed scissors in the classroom. When office workers are banned from moving a chair without supervision. When staff at a railway station don’t help a young mum carry her baby buggy because they are not insured. When village fêtes are cancelled because residents can’t face jumping through all the bureaucratic hoops.
“What began as a noble intention to protect people from harm has mutated into a stultifying blanket of bureaucracy, suspicion and fear covering the actions of millions of individuals as they go about their daily lives.”
He cited the death of Jordon Lyon in September 2007 as an example, saying the 10-year-old had “drowned in a pond, having rescued his young sister, because officers were told not to intervene as they hadn’t undertaken their ‘water rescue’ health and safety training”.
Mr Cameron insisted the biggest cause of the UK’s health and safety culture was the “perception” that “behind every accident there is someone who is personally culpable, someone who must pay”.
We see it in those adverts on television, which say that if you’ve suffered some fall or mishap you can take legal action without much cost.
“We see it in the commercialising of lawyers’ incentives to generate litigation, through the system of enhanced success fees and referral fees which has led to a growth in ‘ambulance-chasing’.”
However, Ruth Doyle, of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, denied that legislation was the problem. She blamed widespread misunderstanding of the rules and also claimed that Mr Cameron was in danger of “muddling myths, generalisations and fact”.
She said: “David Cameron is retelling some of the myths in order to highlight the issue. The politicians should query them if we are to tackle the issue.”
There had been only one case, five years ago, of a teacher at a primary school asking children to wear goggles while playing conkers, she claimed.
Cameron also announced that Lord David Young will lead an extensive review for the Party with a focus on some specific questions:
- How can we best protect what are effectively ‘Good Samaritans’? Is it possible to extend legal protection for all people acting in good faith – especially public service professionals?
- How can we help alleviate some of the health and safety oversight that currently burdens small, local and voluntary organisations? At the moment if their work benefits the local council they fall under health and safety law.
- Civil Liability Act – do we need to define civil liability for negligence in statute? At the moment there is no single Act of Parliament that ties all this work together. Lord Young will examine whether such an Act would be necessary and effective in reducing our excessive health and safety culture.
ÂÂ
Mr Cameron is obviously intelligent and so he should know the difference between criminal & civil law. None of the things that he suggests would come under H&S criminal law and I would suggest that he looks at the HSE website where they show “Myth of the Month”. The problem is that when organisations are frightened about being sued they blame health & safety. The HSE would not prosecute for any of the examples quoted by Mr. Cameron and he appears to be playing to the media who regularly make the same errors. Perhaps he should talk to the families of people who have been killed or seriously injured at work and then he may realise what health & safety is really about.
Mr David Cameron MP vs Health & Safety
Frankly Sir I am outraged at your completely misguided and condescending comments clearly and unambiguously stated in your interview.
All you have achieved is to regurgitate myths and rumours which could not be further from the truth in relation to Health & Safety legislation.
It is somewhat ironic that your speech clearly aimed incidentally at “the Conservative grass routes†ignores the fact that it was your Government that led the adoption of the revolutionary introduction of new Health & Safety Regulations in 1992 affectionately known as the “six packâ€Â
To be precise, the “six pack†is led by The Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1992 (amended 1999) which contains the primary requirement for Employers to undertake a series of Risk Assessments, from which non competent and misguided persons have so predictably misinterpreted this requirement leading to the state of confusion, rumours and myths that now exists, including the “conkers bonkers†scenario.
To suggest a review which would no doubt utilise millions of pounds of tax payers money is ridiculous and unfounded. Perhaps Sir you should conduct a review to ensure the correct interpretation and application of the very same Regulations your party introduced.
So as to ensure you are aware of the bigger picture, it should be asked why Employers are so fearful of litigation (personal injury claims) and why we now live in such a litigious society. Most people consider we follow the American model and culture which could not be further from the truth. It is a direct consequence of the abolition of legal aid here in the UK for the majority of personal injury claims and to my limited knowledge first tabled by your Party and introduced in 1998 effective year 2000 under a Labour Government.
This abolition has led to an explosion of so called Personal Injury Lawyers who occupy most of the media with an ubiquitous advertising slogan “have you had an accident at work?†& “No win No Fee†so who can blame the public for taking advantage of such a generous offer.
The true objective and general application of Health & Safety is to ensure that Employees, Contractors and the Public are not subjected to unnecessary hazards so as to avoid for example slips, trips and falls that cost the NHS millions of pounds to treat in terms of time and money.
I personally invite Mr Cameron to spend a day with my Practice to see the good and appreciated work we do. Let him talk to the Workstation users who praise our efforts to ensure they do not suffer Repetitive Strain Injuries whilst sitting at a computer for hours on end or the Employers who thank us for increasing productivity and profitability and add value to their business by way of reduced absenteeism and not forgetting the reduced insurance premiums as a consequence of the absence of claims for personal injuries.
For the record Sir, hang your baskets, play conkers and encourage your children to go on school trips, learning should be fun.
Sincerely
Mitchell Winter
Head of Practice
Winter & Company Health & Safety Consultants
City of London EC4.
http://www.health-safety.net
Tel:020 7353 4999.