Nostalgia?

By Alan Bessell

Do you ever get those introspective moments when you reflect back and wonder if it has all been worthwhile? I’d expect many readers to be new to H&S as a career, so I thought a view from my rear window might be of interest. As the flecks of grey in my hair increase and I read some of the more crazy stories and cases, these moments seem to come ever more frequently.

As a young graduate looking for work in 1975 the HSE appealed. Variety, freedom to roam and socially worthwhile thought I. Lord Robens had just ridden to the rescue and a brand new HSWA promised so much. 33 years later, a short time as an HSE Inspector, the remaining time as a poacher – including 15 years as a consultant – how do I feel? Read on dear colleague.

The HSE was superb for the training and rapid exposure to many workplaces, big, small, simple, and complex. The paperwork, mountains of manuals and tired expressions of senior colleagues – after years of frequent house moves – were not so good. Neither was the rampant conservatism which made slightly naughty employers easy to influence but really evil ones difficult to catch. Time to move on to the other side of the fence where I found a steep learning curve for a young man not well versed in the way of the world and no longer commanding the respect a warrant card brings. Still these were sunny days, the self-regulation mantra was genuinely believed by all and with so many new colleagues to the health and safety game, networking at local level was very good.

With hindsight I can see now when the first cracks in self-regulation began to appear, as the hand of the EU crept into view. 1988 COSHH had us all collecting vast amounts of paper and struggling with the concept of risk assessment. Little did we appreciate the shoots of conflict being sown between the Brussels mob wanting a level playing field spelt out in prescriptive detail and the UK self regulation concept. 1992 brought the “six pack” and, as we now see all too clearly, reasonably practicable is almost redundant. Directives define standards for us. Each new statutory instrument slavishly seeks conformity with Europe by transcribing Directives and adds nothing to the development of genuine risk assessment. How else can we possibly justify the Display Screen Regulations? Virtually all the new Regulations would have been better as ACoPs. As for reasonably practicable, it lives only in NEBOSH syllabi (and also the National Coal Board! (See Edwards v National Coal Board (1949) All ER 743)).

The development of the so-called compensation culture is more difficult to track. When Lord Denning described a printing machine moving at inches per second as “a great pace” (Richard Thomas & Baldwins Ltd v Cummings 1955 AC 321) this seemed to me a continuation of the advance of social justice making richly due compensation for downtrodden employees ever more obtainable. However working within Local Authorities, Education and later in Government funded training, I saw what we now call risk management being replaced by risk avoidance driven by fear of liability/claims. For example “pirates” disappeared from PE and teachers did the exciting science practical by demonstration. Playground equipment was removed by the ton. Pupils were denied opportunities to learn first hand about personal risk management. Of course this prevented some broken bones, maybe even serious injuries and loss of life. But at what cost to the whole generation in later life I wonder. The banning of 16 – 18 years trainees from anything hazardous, like using chainsaws was another classic. The fears of Training Providers lead to them spurning the opportunity to train in a controlled environment and to a good standard.

The undoubted benefit to society at large of building in risk management from an early age has passed by at least a couple of generations and contributed to the lunacy of warning labelling on paper coffee cups and packets of nuts. Letting people explore their physical and mental boundaries is, in my view, an essential component of education and the price of some injuries at this stage is an investment in accident prevention for their future. For good or ill I now find myself nodding in partial agreement with comments from Jeremy Clarkson and Boris Johnson.

All is not doom and gloom though for you newbies. I take some comfort from a growing movement to arrest the so-called Nanny State with IOSH and HSE playing a constructive part. Looking across the pond, I think the prospects of change might be slim. I’m also less than confident that proposals for more legislation is likely to reassure teachers/youth leaders to venture back onto the playing fields or to lead out of school trips. Taken as a whole, there is a growing recognition of the need for greater personal responsibility and more pragmatism.

What of IOSH. The thirst to satisfy our Maslow’s needs had lead to rapid growth of the Institute of Industrial Safety Officers and Institute on Municipal Safety Officers who sensibly merged. Somewhere around 1982 I did a personnel management course and learnt how bureaucracies ensured their survival (Karl Marx or Max Weber I think?). The development of IOSH is a textbook example. Band together for mutual support, develop barriers to entry, and keep on raising them. Not that I viewed this as wrong for a professional body, far from it. The mutual support and learning derived from those days were invaluable and the people I met were full of enthusiasm. The IOSH we see now has made enormous strides forward in serving members interests as well as becoming a significant influencing lobby. However I do have a feeling that the organisation is now becoming more important than its objectives – best summed up by this definition of bureaucracy:

“Bureaucracy is the social layer of people who administer an organization, and by virtue of their social position have social interests distinct from that of the organization that they administer and the people the organization represents.”

Regretfully my recent years of service to the local Branch have only confirmed this definition. I’ve always believed respect has to be earned. Therefore if IOSH wants me to “Be proud to be a member” it will have to improve the heavy hand of HQ which combined increasing control over branches with regular examples of inefficiency. I also view with misgiving IOSH commercial activity not because these are not part of a vibrant professional body but the balance seems wrong. I read SHP. I do not need further repeated postal and e-mail marketing for courses and conferences at eye watering prices. This emphasis on commercial marketing and income generation irks further when I’m asked to donate more voluntary time e.g. peer interviews for new members. Once upon a time I’d give this time freely for the greater good – now I just feel I’m being taken advantage of. I’m sure some of my colleagues and those serving IOSH at high level will think badly of my carping. I’m happy to acknowledge my enormous gratitude for their service but I feel I’m entitled to be candid about my own views.

On a more positive note, I do approve the moves to raise the profession’s profile and become a more visible public voice to sane health and safety. There is some way to go though before IOSH ranks alongside RoSPA, CIEH or BSC in media and public recognition. A more challenging stance with Government and HSE will help. Making the President a paid full time post might also help him/her become more media visible.

I read the new HSE leaflet – 5 Steps to Risk Assessment – with a growing smile. The sample risk assessments and announcement of sensible risk assessment were also pleasing. The language was a welcome breath of sanity and not before time. The years of damage have already been done by tacit HSE approval of Health and Safety Policies carried on sack trucks and over complicated risk estimation systems. These only sidelined the importance of significant hazard identification and corresponding control measures. We still live in an era of CDM Plans which are weighed not read despite the furious back-pedalling by HSE since the first gestation of CDM. The role of Planning Supervisor (now CDMC) has a momentum of its own which will be extremely difficult to dismantle. I know it is unfair to saddle HSE with all the blame for encouraging paper heavy safety management but they have been at least complicit. I once listened with incredulity to an inspector telling me I should record assessments even with negligible risk so I could prove the thought process if needed!

So what of the future? The HSE seem to be turning slowly to embrace pragmatism and IOSH likewise. For them to succeed requires the judiciary to stop raising the organisational tests of what is required to meet the duty of care. A large part of our paper mountain is to erect a defensive barricade against marauding lawyers and claim-farmers. In addition, judges could raise the individual’s duty of care to him/herself. Without this rebalance in Common Law, I fear talk of new laws e.g. of exempting teachers/doctors from liability will only muddy the waters. An extract from a recent Dan Brown novel comes to mind. “The stairs were steep. Tourists had died here. This was not America, no safety signs, no handrails, no insurance disclaimers. This was Spain. If you were stupid enough to fall it was your own dam fault…” (Digital Fortress, p100) . While I see many bad practices in Spain, which I do not condone, I do approve their more robust requirements for individual self-reliance. In the UK, personal responsibility seems to be diluted by the pursuit of a safe place utopia, coupled to the effect of risk homeostasis.

What goes around sometimes comes around. The concept of no-fault compensation in the Pearson Report always struck me as an excellent way forward and is well worth revisiting. I thought it a brilliant idea then and even more so now. The vested interests which caused its demise in the 70’s will probably triumph again, but I would love to see no fault compensation resurface as something is needed to curb the avaricious excesses of our legal profession and recycle costs towards victims. Removing the adversarial element of compensation also nips in the bud growth of overbearing judgements against those with the deepest pockets.

And what of me? The safety profession has debated performance measures ever since inception but without ever escaping the severe handicap of not being able to measure what has not happened. I can look around the house at jobs completed, sporting trophies won, cars restored, children reared but I can’t identify in the same way tangible outcomes in my professional life. Advice given to Clients has become a bit of a roundabout. Sometimes they act on it, which is gratifying, more often progress is slow and I feel like a player in Groundhog Day. The production of documents has an undoubted commercial value e.g. to satisfy the multitude of contractor vetting requests and this may often be the primary motivation behind requests for my services. I still hope my carefully tailored risk assessments might become useful for their accident prevention potential, but am realistic enough to know this is not often the case. 30k+ miles per year is an unwanted by-product. Teaching still gives me a lift and keeps me sharp. Professional pride demands constant research and updating on those areas not routinely part of my consultancy activity. In my view this synergy is essential between being a practitioner and teacher. Full time trainers will disagree, but I can’t see how a cloistered full time trainer/lecturer existence can best serve students. Overall, I find more success and pleasure on the golf course – and a 12 handicap brings infrequent success!

So where does this leave you dear reader? If you are embarking upon H&S studies, as a new or changed direction, your youth and/or enthusiasm will carry you forward a long way. Networking with fellow students, and through local IOSH or RoSPA groups will provide a regular dose of mutual support as well as much practical assistance. With good fortune and a devotion to the Monty Python maxim “always look on the bright side of life” you may avoid the early onset of cynicism.

Back to top