Very recently I had trouble with the daytime running lights on my car. Combination of a blown fuse and a blown bulb. I happened to be consulting the owner’s manual to get an idea on how to access to the headlamp assembly. It was pretty simple, removing a rubber cover, twisting out the old bulb and replacing with a new one. What astounded me was the stance of the manufacturer. Firstly, the manual stated (and I quote) “changing the vehicle bulbs requires considerable technical skill”. It suggested you have the car dealer do this if you “didn’t feel confident” (a statement which seems designed to create doubt in your mind).

The reality is that changing a bulb is (and was) child’s play. It is simple and straightforward. If this is the definition of “considerable technical skill” I would think only a handful of people on the planet would even be allowed to drive the car. I am hoping this is purely the usual risk aversion or liability reduction and not some cynical attempt to refer everything to the dealer for financial gain.

The owners manual has similar warnings about removing and recharging the vehicle battery (actually suggesting you should take the battery to the dealer to have them recharge it for you!). All of this, in my mind, is simple car maintenance and not something for which dealers should even be considered unless it happens to be convenient. I mean, it is not as if spare bulbs and battery chargers are hard to come by. Some countries even legally require the driver to carry a spare bulb kit with them in the car.

This attitude of fearing to do anything that is vaguely ‘technical’ in case it goes wrong is difficult to understand. Such people are prey to ‘experts’ who may well not even give the care and attention that the owner would. There is a very healthy sub-culture of men and women doing their own vehicle maintenance. A thriving industry of vehicle repair manuals (e.g. ‘Haynes’) and replacement parts testifies to this. This is especially so with motorcycles, where there are far fewer dealers and repair shops so owners sometimes have little choice but to tackle repairs themselves. There is also very much a culture of modifying and upgrading (and a ready supply of aftermarket parts and installation advice to support this). But this is character building and rewarding. Yes, you can get it wrong, but with a decent workshop manual and tools, you get there in the end. Supremely, it builds confidence and this then changes your perception of risk. In some respects, it gets put back in perspective.

For example, it is very easy, and understandable to be apprehensive or even horrified that anyone should change their own brake pads. I mean, it’s safety critical isn’t it? It would be reckless to tackle it yourself surely? But actually, once you have done it, you realise how easy it is to do (OK, a workshop manual, a torque wrench and some copper grease are really doing most of the work…). There are simple steps to check that the brakes work too, before you set off. But one might also argue that changing a wheel is also safety critical – you might forget to tighten all the wheel nuts; the car might collapse on you whilst changing the wheel. But most people would have a very different view of that – it’s a simple job to do, the alternative is we are stranded with a flat tyre, so we are prepared to accept the risk.

I am not saying that expert mechanics are not worth their weight in gold – a good one certainly is. If you know one, stick with them. I’m just saying that the practise of falsely labelling something as requiring exceptional skill (when it plainly doesn’t) undermines a person’s ability to grow, develop and get confidence through trying something new. I’m not suggesting that people should be reckless either but rather have a bit more back bone and appreciation of what they are capable of. It’s a thin line between being overconfident and knowing your own limitations. But better that than scared to change a lightbulb.

Playing to the Gallery?

Is it me, or are the radical reforms to health and safety proving to be all smoke and mirrors?

Way back in June 2010, when the coalition was newly formed, David Cameron appointed Lord Young of Graffham to conduct a review of health and safety law and practice. The Young report was published later that year. It was wide-ranging, though whether it was fully comprehensive and evidence-based is a matter of opinion.

Lord Young was very clear in focusing his attention on the issue of the compensation culture, stating that fear of litigation (and the associated costs) was a major driver in many risk-averse decisions taken by business, schools and other organisations. He also stated that much of the fear was caused by a perception that litigation is easy and that a claimant will always win.

“…I believe that a ‘compensation culture’ driven by litigation is at the heart of the problems that so beset health and safety today.”

Foreword to the Young report

Lord Young wasn’t telling those in power anything that they didn’t know already. A report by the Better Regulation Task Force (an independent government advisory group) called Better Routes to Redress said much the same thing in 2004:

“It is this perception that causes the real problem: the fear of litigation impacts on behaviour and imposes burdens on organisations trying to handle claims. The judicial process is very good at sorting the wheat from the chaff, but all claims must still be assessed in the early stages. Redress for a genuine claimant is hampered by the spurious claims arising from the perception of a compensation culture. The compensation culture is a myth; but the cost of this belief is very real.”

Foreword to Better Routes to Redress

Following on from Lord Young’s report came the Löfstedt report, with a far narrower remit; health and safety regulation and Approved Codes of Practice. This report was far more evidence-based and made a series of practical recommendations. Whether you believe that all of the recommendations are completely justified and sound is, again, a matter of opinion.

Professor Löfstedt was of the view that there are no major problems with the legislative framework as it stands:

“I have concluded that, in general, there is no case for radically altering current health and safety legislation. The regulations place responsibilities primarily on those who create the risks, recognising that they are best placed to decide how to control them and allowing them to do so in a proportionate manner. There is a view across the board that the existing regulatory requirements are broadly right, and that regulation has a role to play in preventing injury and ill health in the workplace. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that proportionate risk management can make good business sense.”

Foreword to the Löfstedt Report

Many of his recommendations will take significant work (mostly by or involving the HSE) to implement. Professor Löfstedt was at pains to point out that resources would be an issue if his demanding deadlines were to be met.

But even when all of the Löfstedt recommendations have been implemented there will be little change for most businesses, organisations or the men and women working in them. Many of the regulatory changes involve consolidating or revoking out-of-date or sector specific regulations. The exemption for the self-employed will make little or no practical difference to most self-employed workers (who don’t bother anyway). In short, I can’t see that it will make much difference for most of us.

Because Löfstedt’s focus was on the regulations, many of the recommendations do little or nothing to address the cultural problems that were identified by the Young and BRTF reports.

Maybe I’m getting cynical in my old age, but I can’t help but think that the Löfstedt report (however well prepared) is simply an example of politicians playing to the gallery. Health and safety law will always be there in some way, shape or form and organisations just have to accept this fact. Just like tax, accounts, consumer protection, employment law, etc.

But if you Google (other search engines are available) “David Cameron and health and safety” you might get the impression that the Prime Minister is abolishing the lot:

“I don’t think there is any one single way you can cut back the health and safety monster…You have got to look at the quantity of rules, and we are cutting them back. You have got to look at the way they are enforced, and we are making sure that is more reasonable.”

Guardian online, 5^th January 2012

“So one of the Coalition’s New Year resolutions is this: kill off the health and safety culture for good. I want 2012 to go down in history not just as Olympics year or Diamond Jubilee year, but the year we banished a lot of this pointless time-wasting from the economy and British life once and for all.”

London Evening Standard, 5^th January 2012

Perhaps the PM has recognised that kicking health and safety is popular. Perhaps he is discovering that tackling the compensation culture, with the well-heeled self-interest groups that this might inconvenience, is difficult. Perhaps he has discovered that chucking a shed-load of work at the HSE (who can’t say no) is an easier option.

For the HSE themselves, there appears to be a huge job to do following Löfstedt. But most of that work is doable. Indeed some of the things recommended were already there but perhaps not as clearly signposted as they might have been. For example, I can’t be the only person to have noticed that the HSE are attempting to raise the profile of their myth-buster webpages. Anyone who visits the HSE website will know that the myth-busters have been there for years.

My worry is not that the HSE have a difficult task ahead of them, or that they might have to change or revoke some regulations. My worry is that the PM fails to show true leadership and a clear vision in tackling the key issue identified by Lord Young and others. He may instead continue to deliver mixed messages and perpetuate the very myths and nonsense that have got us here in the first place.

For example, it’s a shame he hadn’t looked at the myth-buster site before he went off on one of his anti-health and safety rants:

“Talk of health and safety can too often sound farcical or marginal. People think of children being given goggles to play conkers, or trainee hairdressers being banned from using scissors.”

London Evening Standard, 5^th January 2012

Judith Hackitt’s eyes must have rolled skywards at that one.

My message to the PM is pretty simple: stop playing to the gallery. Give a more truthful view of the reports that your advisors have given you. Start talking about the real successes of health and safety regulation in the UK over the years. We have arguably the best health and safety standards in Europe and many nations around the world envy those standards and seek to replicate them.

In your foreword to Lord Young’s report you state:

“A damaging compensation culture has arisen, as if people can absolve themselves from any personal responsibility for their own actions, with the spectre of lawyers only too willing to pounce with a claim for damages on the slightest pretext.”

Until you tackle the perception that this is the case, nothing will change.

You may have noticed some recent news about the shock students going to University face. Some clever people at Cambridge Assessment have done a bit of research. I know what you’re thinking, that might just mean they asked a few people on the bus, which technically is still research, even if it isn’t that representative. But, it did take them 18 months, so give them some credit.

The basic theme is that some pre-university courses can be far too modularised and exam focussed. What this means is that people learn a topic, take the exam and then forget it, moving on to the next one. Dare I say, it was not like that in my day in 1872. Queen Victoria was still on the throne and teaching had to be far more integrated because the exams were not modularised to the same extent. Of course education was widely available to all in those days (except the poor, those without a large mansion in the countryside and people who disagreed with the government). So, at least 50 people a year received education.
I have some sympathy with just teaching to the exam. On the surface, it seems entirely reasonable. I mean why learn what you don’t need and why retain it for longer than you have to? If the exam doesn’t test understanding much either, why bother even understanding it?

As it happens, there are many good reasons why. A singular focus on an exam, combined with limited time and our innate desire to avoid pain, can lead to only ‘learning what you need for the exam’. Whilst learning frequently involves exams (or some other assessment) it’s as well to remember that the exam is not an end in itself. The purpose of learning is to improve or acquire new skills, understanding etc in order to do stuff (like earn a living, create something, self actualise or just survive the next round of redundancies). Fundamentally we learn in order to change (for the better). Learning stuff is not just about memorising (though it will involve that). If you just memorise a whole load of unconnected stuff without understanding how it fits together, it gets rather confused and foggy and it may lead us to the dark side. The mind seems to like to at least partially organise and rationalise stuff and will make up whatever seems reasonable if we are missing key bits (like a conscience).

This can lead to people who are not very good at analysis, problem solving and thinking things through when they meet new situations on their own. That’s because they haven’t been taught underlying principles of how things work and nor can they apply those transferable problem solving skills (because they haven’t practised them). They are instead often just cramming information into their heads to get the exam out the way. But as I said, I have a lot of sympathy with students who are up against time pressure and the demands of, well, a demanding, job.

It is no surprise that Cambridge Assessment therefore recommend some changes that mean things like incorporating into teaching and exam system more critical thinking, exploration, independent study and reading round the subject.

My experience when teaching is that some students frequently ask ‘do I need this for the exam?’. Whilst this is understandable, we need to think more widely than the exam. Doing activities which develop understanding can be exacting; they may also go beyond the specific information content you need for an exam question. However, it will help you recognise the scenario described in the exam question for what it is and also help you understand, analyse and solve problems in real life (well, as real as a safety professional is ever likely to see).

Having been abducted by aliens for several weeks I now find myself writing from Bahrain, an island in the Arabian gulf. I’ve been delivering a 2 day emergency planning workshop with a colleague at the ASSE conference (don’t ask), followed by 3 days of exhibitionism. For those of you that don’t know, ASSE is the American equivalent of IOSH. Both say they are the largest such organisations in the world which probably means that they’re of similar size or they use different criteria (like combined mass/volume of members vs numbers). All I know is that there are certain bodily functions that are ill advised in a gas-tight suite.

In Chapter 7, Lofty really gets going. And who can blame him? He’s kept his self-restraint for 6 whole chapters.

As I mentioned in earlier blogs, a real problem for many businesses is keeping up with the ever increasing amount and apparent complexity of legislation. It’s sometimes not what it says but more finding out it exists and where to find it. There have been many calls for consolidation but there are numerous options – everything together vs reduced number of thematic regulations and everything in between . I recognise that consolidation can sometimes end up making things even more tortuous, with nested conditional ‘if….then’ clauses. Consolidation in the human digestive system can lead to constipation and preoccupation with stools. One should never be frightened of stools…

Lofstedt helpfully distinguishes 3 broad categories of regulations which sit under the health and safety at work Act. These are easily recognisable as management, hazard-specific and activity/process-specific. The distinction between the latter two is somewhat arbitrary given that a hazard is usually construed as anything (object, activity etc) with the potential to cause harm. But that said, there’s clearly overarching management things (which speak in woollier management terminology) and specific stuff (sector/hazard/risk). Management regulations apply to all businesses whereas the rest may not.

Even if the ultimate consolidated regulations are better the process itself is yet another change. So, the benefits need to be clearly communicated. The main point here is clarity (oh, and lower compliance costs for business would be nice). Explosives, Mining, genetically modified organisms (that’s highly paid footballers to you and me) are just a few of those that have already been identified. Some (like specific construction head protection regulations) are seen as simply duplicating the requirements of other regs (like PPE), so should just be removed.

Clearly the scale of such a task to figure out what can actually be removed and formulate the legislation clearly but without reducing protection, will be detailed and tedious. In the current economic climate, it might just be put on the too difficult pile. Perhaps we should just put all our resources into stopping time.

Chapter 6 of the Lofstedt report is all about better engagement with the EU. In view of the UK’s latest brushes with EU leaders over the common currency and financial regulation, this may not work. I know technically the UK has quite a say in the running of the EU but in reality, its workings rely on co-operation, alliances, ‘give and take’, long lunches and a large expense account.

Now why is Lofstedt advocating peace and love and all that? Well, as many have pointed out, much of UK legislation originates from the EU. This is true of every member state too. That means that there is not that much room for the UK unilaterally modifying it. Yes, there is often some scope (more so with directives), but not much in terms of substance. It is therefore better to make it fit for purpose from the start. In real terms, that will always be a difficult one – because the application is EU wide, so there will always be some compromise (and perhaps quite divergent ideas about how best to do something).

We live in separatist times. Centralisation has given way to the desire for local government, even with its increased costs. But there is no doubt that EU membership has its benefits too. Not least, the harmonisation and removal of barriers to trade – two of the main purposes of the EU’s existence.

It is noted that EU legislation can be somewhat prescriptive. This is not all bad because of the greater clarity it can give to those who have little time to interpret its meaning. It is also noted that some EU legislation has questionable benefits compared to its implementation costs. Financial considerations are not usually the only considerations, otherwise we’d probably never put anyone in prison (and there’s another argument in itself). But what comes in for a sound beating is something that should never have been brought in in the first place – those eye and eyesight tests that employers have to pay for for ‘regular’ computer users. These are generally regarded as an unjustifiable burden. Similar costs far outweighing benefits arguments can be made for legislation on artificial optical radiation (which had zero impact because the risks and controls were well known and already implemented).

But the point is that we can’t change these so easily. Instead, the process for evaluating the costs and benefits (i.e. impact assessments) should be more robust at EU level. It should be risk and evidence -based. Now there’s a thought.

Professor Lofstedt now turns to the regulations themselves. The focus of attention is those regulations that everyone has already suspected are dodgy and knows shouldn’t really be there. They add little, if anything. Some of these were brought in for a particular issue that no-one can quite remember and, quite honestly, now look a little embarrassing. Well, intentioned, but lame. You know the sort, like requiring someone to tell you that they are a terrorist and if they don’t (and they are), then they’ve lied and that’s a serious offence (yeah, right, like they care). It only ever acts as an inconvenience for the law abiding and those that aren’t law-abiding, don’t often get caught.

The requirement to notify HSE if you have a Conventional Tower Crane, is one such case (not the small plastic remote control toy ones – it’s the real ones we want). I assume by painting it in psychedelic colours, you could get away with not having to register it (because it then could be argued that it is “unconventional”?). Even though they only came in around 2010 (amended in the same year) Lofty thinks that they should now go. And he’s probably right.

A similar point is made with the first aid regulations. Specifically, HSE approval of training for first aiders. I agree, this seems a little anomalous. OK, set standards and give guidance but treat it like most other safety and health training, insist that it is suitable, sufficient, appropriate and effective. Indeed, training ‘approvals’ for many qualifications are routinely and adequately controlled via awarding bodies. HSE is acting a bit like an awarding body here.

When it comes to Construction, the CDM regulations seem to have been instrumental in adding to the burden of paperwork and generating a myriad of training accreditation and competency schemes. This can be disproportionately burdensome for smaller projects. Not least the vast number of passport-type schemes that sprang up overnight. I wouldn’t mind but these passports don’t even get you into another country – well, maybe, Narnia.

Other regulations are also considered. My favourite is the portable appliance testing racket. Although there is some quite good HSE guidance on recommended testing frequencies for portable appliances, many companies still get told that they have to do everything annually. Yet another classic is the over zealous interpretation of work at height regulation – which some have interpreted as meaning that ladders are banned. Loftstedt’s answer to all of this is for the HSE to review the legislation ad guidance. Maybe, but if the guidance is already very good, it’s more the message isn’t getting through. The voice of the charlatan is louder.

On other matters, the HSE is commended for its sterling work on helping businesses understand how to interpret the law (especially ‘reasonably practicable’) but obviously more needs to be done. No doubt, this has all been added to HSE’s wish list to Father Christmas. But have they been naughty or have they been nice?

Chapter 4 of Lofty’s report takes a look at the scope of UK regulations. In particular it’s interested to see whether that proportionate, risk-based approach is applied. One might argue that bigger, riskier businesses should have to do more to satisfy the law. There are also economies of scale, whereby larger businesses are resourced to do things that smaller businesses find much more difficult (or at least proportionately more costly). But the fact is that often even small businesses do engage in high risk activities. The professor argues logically that the regulations should remain risk-based (and not company size based), but smaller businesses should be given more support and help in complying.

The point is also made that there can be disagreement over what ‘low risk’ business really means – ill health is often ignored in such an assessment of a business sector. Nonetheless, disquiet at the disproportionate effort for small, low risk businesses has resulted in the European Commission looking again at whether formal, written risk assessment is really necessary in this case. This might be a good thing, if we can decide what sort of businesses are in scope. On the other hand, the simple on-line, checklist assessment tools that HSE have now produced for small businesses might obviate the need for this exemption.

Lofty tackles the issue of the self-employed. It appears that some would have self-employed people exempted from everything. But, to my mind, that makes no sense. Instead, really, just like any other businesses, it should depend on the risk of what they do. They of course need more help with understanding their obligations and with compliance. The report recommends that the self-employed are only made exempt if they undertake low risk activities (no potential risk of harm to others). I’m not so sure that they will be so easy to decide, unless there is some specific list of prescribed activities. I wish you luck with that one, unless you happen to have a government lobbyist in your employ.

The report also discusses the application of safety legislation to schools and emergency services. Many of these issues are already being tackled as a result of recommendations from Dave Young, for example. Even though Lord Young was later sacked (or did he resign?) for inappropriate comments about the recession, he is still fondly remembered. Speaking your mind seems to carry huge risk, causing immense political fallout, personal damage and offence. I recommend it being included in the next raft of safety legislation from Brussels, regardless of whether you are self-employed or not.

Yesterday, I happened to be in the Stoke-on-Trent area, hoping to cut across the A50 to pass by Loughborough on my way back down South. The A50 was unfortunately closed, the radio lady said, due to a diesel fuel spill. The ‘road ahead closed’ signs confirmed this but offered little advice as to an alternative. I occasionally use a Sat Nav but this insisted that I keep returning to the blocked route in some voyeuristic tendency.

The point is, accidents are costly. The costs go way beyond the immediate accident and can be difficult to predict or estimate with any certainty (yes, there are models for this sort of thing on a macroscopic scale, but the impact on each individual is more variable). In my case, it was easy to see the effects spread out like tendrils as people searched for alternative routes, causing severe delays elsewhere.

Lofty reminds us, in chapter 3 that regulations also have a cost. In negative terms, this is often referred to as a burden on business – all the time and effort spent in even trying to understand what is required, let alone misinterpreting it and even over-complying with; for example, ridiculously detailed quantified risk assessments for obvious risks with obvious, established, simple solutions. There have been attempts to estimate this financially and it is always a large figure; in boy-racer terms, it’s at least several hundred Bugatti Veyrons or several billion beer tokens. It seems too, that most of the costs are associated with a small number of demanding regulations (isn’t this always the case?); echoes of the Pareto principal. These regulations seem obsessively bureaucratic and administrative.

Overall though, the cost of accidents can dwarf the cost of compliance with related regulation. In other words, compliance with regulation avoids those accidents. Now, of course, not all regulation is effective or has a proven ‘protective link’. Indeed it is quite difficult to prove such a link categorically. Nonetheless, there is a “generally accepted” (that means no-one knows for sure) negative correlation between them i.e. that regulation reduces accidents or at least it is a significant factor. Clearly there are many factors at play, including the insurance industry and changes within our industrial profile over the years. The reduced accident rate also negatively correlates with the increased interest in bungee jumping and cosmetic surgery, demonstrating that only beautiful people should take risks.

Complying with regulations designed to avoid said accidents then means that you may not be entirely convinced that such accidents would ever have happened anyway (remember there is a certain underlying randomness about accidents – a few seconds earlier and it might have been a near miss that you might not even have noticed).

Prof Loftstedt again reminds us that one of the main problems in practice is misapplication (over-compliance). This is the ‘bonkers conkers’ movement, where over-restrictive rules have been created and health and safety blamed. The real reasons may not even be health and safety-related, but health and safety is conveniently hated and ridiculed already, so a little more will not hurt.

We’ll look at some of these in the next blog.

In Chapter 2 of the Loftstedt report (see previous blogs), Lofty sets out his guiding principles for the review. Since he’s a professor and, unlike politicians, has a reputation to think of, he’s unashamedly abandoned to an evidence-based approach. Not all decisions need to be justified by verifiable evidence – what I decide to have for lunch is based more on whim (well, actually, on what happens to be in the cupboard). Neither is evidence the whole of decision making. Some judgement, consideration of socio-economic factors as well as any number of reasonable assumptions will also be needed.

Note that in science (or even social science) open mindedness is also important. Evidence is gathered to aid decision making rather than being gathered to support a decision that has already been made. This does not preclude the adoption of hypotheses (tentative ideas of the way things appear) – but the evidence is gathered in order to illuminate (refute or confirm). This can be a stranger to politics where sweeping statements are frequently made as if they are fact. Taxation inevitably follows.

Loftstedt duly gathered written and verbal evidence from stakeholders (this has no connection with vampires or carnivores). This is always a tricky one. You are more likely to get responses from people who have strong feelings (in this case, usually against legislation) so there is always the possibility of bias and therefore an incorrect picture of what things are really like. That said, even the biased can have a point to make. Lofty was careful to get a balanced view – at least access a wide range of stakeholder types. Importantly, he also made a handful of site visits to ‘witness the impact of regulation first hand’ and made sure that his examples were real, rather than anecdotal.

Loftstedt also reinforces his ‘guiding principle’ that regulation should be risk based (i.e. proportionate to the risk) rather than hazard based. In the modern post-Robens regulatory world, this may seem strange to have to say this – much modern regulation is risk based. But, there has been debate, especially where risk cannot be well characterised or quantified, leading to a precautionary approach based more on the intrinsic hazard. Even safety people can focus obsessively on hazards instead of risks, even when they are well characterised. In reality the risk is what counts and is what makes the hazard understandable. The identification of hazards is just a stepping stone to assessment of the risk. Indeed, in describing hazards we often also describe the risk (or at least the potential consequences) to make its relevance more obvious.

An important aspect here is holistic risk – one of the eight principles in the schedule to the management of health and safety at work regs. In focussing on a specific hazard, we can end up skewing our efforts and actions around it and ignoring the bigger picture. This again, is the law of unintended consequences. Loftstedt points out there is often a trade off here – looking at the bigger picture can sometimes afford the opportunity to lower the overall risk. Looking at risks in isolation, implementing greater measures to control a specific risk without any consideration for its wider effects, may end up driving up the overall risk. Loftstedt uses the example of actions taken after a fatal train crash whereby a seemingly reasonable temporary measure of train speed restrictions caused delays which drove commuters to their cars instead (which carries a higher risk of fatal accident).

In other words, whilst Loftstedt does not exactly say it this way, this is the critical point that risks interact. You cannot just look at each risk (or even hazard) in isolation – you modify other related risks in treating it. This is especially true when it comes to human behaviour, when sometimes the choices we make are subject to many subtle factors.

I note as well that Loftstedt is not opposed to burdens on business per se. Rather he is opposed to burdens that have little or no health and safety benefit, in terms of proportionately reducing risk. Business needs regulation but it has to count – benefiting society. I have decided that I quite like that viewpoint.

As promised, I will be looking at some of the Loftstedt report in more detail over a series of blogs. I write this one from Dubai (as the ‘Hood’ famously said in an episode of Thunderbirds – ‘no-one can stop me now, already I have shaken off the police’, shortly before he careered off an unfinished bridge into a lake).

History is a wonderful thing – or so the History teachers tell us. Loftstedt begins his report in Chapter 1 by reminding us all about how things used to be. Before the 1974 health and safety at work act, things were complex, prescriptive and overly fixated on the workplace fixtures and fittings. Things had moved on and there was more a need to look at systems, management and human interactions. The problem with humanity is that we never really see the whole picture. There is some value in looking back and trying to fudge what we see into categories and genres but these are artificial constructs that were certainly not apparent to the people at the time. No doubt in 40 years time, our successors will be looking back and saying ‘what were they thinking of’.

The world is complicated and there are lots of influences pulling politicians and legislators in different directions. There are also many different views of how to proceed. Loftstedt points out that events such as Piper Alpha fire/explosion in 1988 initiated additional regulatory controls that had previously not been envisaged. The need to notify HSE about tower cranes is another example – this isn’t a ‘train spotter thing’. As a result, simple frameworks rapidly become more complex and piecemeal. Hence the need for regular reviews and consolidations. Businesses have become fed up with the increased regulation which they think is getting in the way of them doing anything. I must admit, even as a health and safety person, it is difficult to keep track of everything. Sometimes, it’s not that requirements are onerous, it’s just where to find everything and especially being sure you’ve taken account of all the amendments that might be out there. Some websites take care of this for you but they are not always fully up to date.

Businesses are well aware for the need for health and safety regulation. They don’t generally want to throw it all away. Non-one wants a return to the death rates of bygone ages.

I like the fact that Lofty recognises the ‘law of unintended consequences’. This is a well known concept. When we try to change things we can introduce new risks. Some of these are opportunities but some are threats. We don’t always think things through. He therefore urges caution. Next time, we’ll light the blue touch paper….