I started working as a middle manager in the late 90's and during this time health and safety was viewed by some CEO's, that I worked for, as a cottage industry brought about by consultants and health and safety specialists out to make money from compliance averse businesses and an ever increasing "compo culture". While this belief contains elements of truth it flies in the face of a rounded understanding of robust regulatory practice. It is true to say that a little knowledge of health and safety is a dangerous thing - organisations need the full picture to make informed decisions.
The health and safety industry primarily exists to protect large groups of people who do not have the capability to protect themselves from large corporations or affluent borough councils.
The "compo culture" which the UK imported from America has done much to damage the reputation of regulatory health and safety. The fundamental concept of health and safety as insurance against compensation claims is back to front and out of date when the real principle is to protect life.
In the 70's the Health and Safety at Work Act was the foundation stone for today's health and safety industry and it was a really good thing; we went from the 60's when thousands of people died in industry and construction each year to figures today in the hundreds. Of course, this is still too many but the direction of travel is right.
As a consequence of Brexit, the Health and Safety Executive could find itself, once more, with a regulatory rather than advisory function in the absence of directives from Brussels. In the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire there is also growing pressure for re-regulation from leaders in health and safety in the UK. Maybe this will lead to the growth of cottage industries in compliance and standards and new accreditation schemes growing on a regional basis? At the end of the day the only sensible answer to the question "Does health and safety matter?" is, once again: "Of course - it helps to save people's lives".
Comments