Stephen Carr, who heads up Bromley Council in south-east London, was visiting the Pavilion leisure centre last weeek, which is being redeveloped in a £5 million project by Higgins Construction. According to reports in local papers, Mr Carr said he informed the site manager he wouldn’t be wearing a hat and that the manager could refuse him entry if he had concerns. The visit went ahead.
Mr Carr denied it was “a vanity thing”, saying he “just doesn’t do hats”. He continued: “I think people should have a choice whether they should wear them or not, and I was making my choice.”
SHP contacted Bromley Council, pointing out that, last year, almost 11,000 people were injured at work because they were hit by a moving, flying or falling object from a building or structure, and that the number of fatalities in the construction industry has increased this year, but we were told nobody was available to comment.
Higgins Construction finally responded to our request for a comment (NOTE: this was received and incorporated into this story after the first 83 readers comments below – up to and including Lyndon36 – were posted). The company said: “The safety of our supply chain and others who may be affected by our undertakings is of paramount importance. This unfortunate situation was caused by this particular individual applying peer pressure to our site manager and insisting that he would not wear a hard hat.
“Our site manager at the time decided not to upset the client, and he therefore carried out correct company procedure by carrying out a full risk assessment. The councillor and the rest of the clientèle team were escorted by the site manager at all times and walked a safe zone where there were no overhead /underfoot hazards, and at no time did they enter any work areas.
“It is extremely disappointing that an individual with such a standing in the community acted in this manner, as he should be leading by example. This incident has been dealt with internally and our minimum PPE requirement has been reiterated to the appropriate personnel within the business.”
SHP would be very interested in hearing readers’ thoughts on this story – was Mr Carr right to “exercise his choice”? Should the site manager have refused him entry? What sort of message does this action give to workers about wearing PPE, and to the public in general about health and safety?
Also, click here to see south-east London paper the News Shopper’s mock-ups of Mr Carr in a variety of fetching head-gear!
The man should have been denied access to the job site and the rest of the group allowed to tour with a leader supplied by the construction company.
I’ve been there and done that on a job site in India when the country manager showed up in sandals and refused to wear safety glasses.
He tried to have me fired. Lucky for me my US based boss supported me.
I wish to offer an alternative opinion. If all hazards that required the wearing of a hard hat were removed or avoided for the purpose of the visit then why should Mr Carr have had to worn one for his visit? Blanket enforcement for the wearing of PPE across a whole site to protect where the hazard is limited to a single area is not appropriate, something also endorsed by the HSE.
Sensible health and safety.
What a sad picture this paints, not only of the attitude of Mr Carr- wholly inappropriate for a civic leader- but also of the willingness of Higgins Construction to waive their site safety requirements just to satisfy the vanity of one man (it certainly DOES appear to be vanity given Mr Carr states he “just doesn’t do hats”- how facile)
Unfortunately this news shows how lightly many in senior positions still treat health & safety. Shame on Higgins Construction for being weak in this instance.
Perhaps Mr Carr could also exercise his civil liberties and jettison the wearing of a seat belt, he may also elect to have a drink or take drugs before he sets off to work. After all, its all about free will, legality and common sense should never be allowed to prevail.
Whilst Cllr Carr may wish to take a cavalier attitude to his own life he should remember that he is representing the council and respect the decision of the contractor to implement relevant safety precautions bourne out of necessary risk assessment and duties under legislation. According to the taxpayers alliance Cllr Carr was one of many leaders recently told to be more transparent. He certainly seems to have paid heed as his views on health & safety are certainly transparent!!!
The fact is that the likelihood of this man being injured is probably minimal, but Higgins should not have allowed him on site for such a pitiful excuse. In my former life as a plasterer if I had used the same excuse I would have been shown the door…
One rule for one, one for another. It make our job as safety professionals almost untenable
As a Safety professional how do I enforce basic safety standards on a construction site when a senior Council official decides to just ignore safety rules and get away with it!!
I find this Council Leader’s attitude unbelievable and hope he does NOT get re-elected at the next election.
In summary Mr Carr does not in this case have a right to “exercise his choice” re the wearing of a safety helmet and the site manager should have stood his ground and said “No Hard Hat – No Entry”.
This is the first paragraph on Higgins Construction’s website Health & Safety page.
‘No one understands the importance of health and safety more than Higgins. As London and the South East’s leading name in community construction, health & safety is our top priority. This applies not only to our project teams but the people in the communities affected by our work’. HC’s senior management should always support Site Managers to make the right decision and they should have expelled Mr Carr from site
Yes, but it’s plonkers like Mr Carr who contribute to making a joke of the serious business of H&sS
No Hard Hat no access. Simples!
On one of the sites I work on, a Managing Director came for a site visit with his entourage of ‘lesser’ directors. All had been told in plenty of time, the PPE to be worn, (Safety Boots & midsole protection – NOT safety shoes!); one of the directors came to site wearing – yep! -safety shoes! – He was refused access! The MD backed that call too!
I would have loved to have heard the conversation with the MD in the car when the directors were on thier way home!
This HS violation was not acceptable as the person intentially ignored the rules and are eligible for punishment. There is NO CHOICE to wear hard hats or not, and MUST WEAR HARD HATS even if the queen visit the site. HSE Rules are for person’s safety.
Rules for some and rules for others. If there has been a publicised and admitted breach of h&s law why hasn’t the HSE acted on it? and why hasn’t the council disciplined Mr Carr. Or is this another case of councillors and other local government officials deciding what laws they choose to obey and getting away with it?
Reference the Councillor from Bromley who refused to wear the hard hat.
As a local councillor and a person involved with H&S, I would remind him of the maxim,
if you want to get a head get a hat.
I think he and the safety manager will not get a head in the future!
We have seen a lot in the press recently on individuals that choose to flount the rules because they seem inconvenient to them. Whether a child who loots, or someone who chooses to ignore standing orders as they “don’t do hats”, that sort of person has no place at the head of a governmental structure.
If he HAD received a head injury on site, I wonder if volenti non fit injuria would apply in his case?
Disgusting behaviour, would this council leader exercise his choice if asked to take his shoes off when going into a relatives house…..probably not. How is this man supposed to get the commitment of his employees to wear safety gear and follow safe systems of work when his attitude is ‘well i’ll wear it if I want to’. If he thinks this is about advocating ‘sensible health and safety’ then i think this person needs to have a good hard think of what message his actions have sent out!!!
Whilst I agree that we should have choice and base these decisions on risk!, Those who manage the risk have a duty to protect. Maybe there was little activity and therefore a reduced risk (Not newsworthy?)
As a leader of a Council surely Mr Carr understands the impacts his acts or ommissions will have on his audience. The damage he may have caused by exercising his perceived “Choice”. I am glad that the Leader of the Council I work for always considers the impact of his actions responsibly
The Principal Contractor (PC) is responsible for site safety; the PC is appointed by the Client, in this case Bromley Council, who should be aassured of the PC’s competence in managing a site in a proper manner. Regardless of who is visiting, the PC should enforce the site rules which have been drawn up to facilitate this task.
Anyone not complying with the minimum PPE requirements on visiting the site is normally refused entrance. This should be without exception. NO HARD HAT NO VISIT.
Mr Carr, as a Client representative, should be aware of his responsibilities and set an example.
Higgins Site Manager, as a Principal Contractor representative, should have refused Mr Carr entry to the site in order to fulfill their duty holder responsibilities and also to protect the Client’s interests.
The Client should be reminded of their responsibilities and that site rules apply to everyone.
Please correct me if I am mistaken ! but construction is classed as a HIGH RISK industry is it not? and I am sure that the Principal Contractors Safe Systems Of Work reflect that risk.
So why does this individual think that it does not apply to him ? I would suggest that the HSE “Invite” him for a chat to inform him of the error of his ways, before the rest of the industry follow his disgusting example, as we all know where that would lead us to.
Mike….genius…!
I am, quite frankly apalled that the councillor concerned was allowed to enter a ‘hard hat’ site where other workers are instructed that they cannot enter without wearing one! What sort of message does that convey? No wonder we have a problem with employees failing to take health and safety seriously- even when it is their own!
Could it be that politicians do not believe the law does not apply to them?
It does show a particular brand of arrogance that this man can disregard something that may interfere with his hair or tope.
I would question if there are any other things he does not do like; life jackets’, hi viz jackets, motor cycle helmets, eye protection.
Let’s face it, he appears to be just a silly man in a possition of high responsibility, and we put him there.
Leader ??
I am sure Mr Carr would be the first to condem if the contractor was prosecuted and / or Bromley council were up in lights for a Serious injury or fatality caused by not wearing a hard hat.
” As a leader never ask another to do anything you are not willing or able to do yourself”
I hope Mr Carr is willing to stand by his choice and empower every member of council staff and every copntractor they employ to exercise their choice ?
Good luck Mr Carr !
It is a matter of Leadership and leading by example. The leader of the council has a moral duty to set an example to others, as does the site manager. Regardless of the finer points of legislation and statutory duty, if the site rules are that hard hats must be worn then this applies to everyone, employees and visitors alike. The relevant risk assessments will support the site rule.
If society is prepared to punish those involved in the recent riots with tough sentences for handling stolen goods, then society should be knocking at Mr Carr’s door and demonstrating that every lack of adherence to legislation will be punished
I have been involved in many accidents a number on motorcycles and my life has been saved by my crash helmet, however I still argue that it should be my choice whether I wear this or any other protective clothing. The plastic hats used on building sites are pathetic efforts when compared with motorcycle helmets and match there cost but it would be better if more comfortable units were available. To wear protective clothing when necessary is fine but not everywhere, in a field or new office – no.
I must take exception to the comment by Mr Hogarth about “falling objects”
I was involved in an incident where a flexible hose pipe laying on the floor became pressurised and “sprang UP” striking the IP on the head causing a severe injury. Without head protection we would have had a fatality to investigate so PLEASE PLEASE hard hats at all times – no exceptions – on construction sites.
HEY….where is the Council HSE Manager or site HSE man…..I would have issued a STOP WORK…and got everyone off of site….he wouldn’t like that would he..
Tolerance of a known health and safety breach is unacceptable by both the PC and the council, given that Mr Carr is the head of the council, his dismisive attitude to safety is extremely counter productive and as a directing influence his attitdude should be deemed intolerable by all reasonable thinking people.
I wonder what the HSE would deem as corroborating circumstance(s) in event of a fatality or serious injury as a consequence of both parties active involvement in this scenario?
In reality these situations occur far to often where individuals, in this case the site manager felt powerless to impose what was required. Everyone has to remember that H&S works in synergy with other aspects of the business and should not be compromised by people who are there to set a standard This individual should be disciplined in line with their HR processes as he clearly is in breach of his H&S responsibilities contained within the policy.
The 89Regs have been evoked – as I understand it the PPE Regs now apply instead, so no change really
Stephen Carr is wrong for a number of reasons.
He should be an example to people on the site including young apprentices and people entering the business who need to understand the importance of H & S
In similar way to seat belts the reason for wearing a hard hats has been well demonstrated, and he shouldn’t ignore this.
Finally he could have been hit on the head while on the site and this could have impacted on others causing them harm.
Finally someone who can think on his own, and is willing to take consequences for his own actions. If I should hate going to work everyday because of all the safety gear I have to wear I’d rather face the danger involved with not wearing it. If we pay attention to our surroundings and make our decisions accordingly, we could avoid all the red tape and increase our work place efficiency substantially.
Stephen Carr demonstrated that he is not fit to lead.
I would hope that the HSE take up this matter and blitz Bromley Council who judging from the leader lacks a safety culture/ethos. Ditto Higgins sites.
He may have thought he was exercising his rights and this tantrum possibly generated more publicity for the Pavilion centre but this action set a bad example to staff, operatives and public.
When we have Councillors that believe they are special, what hope is there for the rest of us. Whilst I believe the site Manager should have refused him entry, I also believe the councillor should be held accountable for his actions. This idiot would also be saying if he had been hit with something,” its my choice to sue the company for negligence.”
If there was an award for donkey of the month, Mr Stephen Carr, Head of Bromly Council come on UP !!
If the rules are such that Hard Hats must be worn and he refused to comply then he should have been denied access. He is setting a very bad example in our overall objective of reducing serious accidents on such sites.
Come on we all thought it for a moment! be honest! Not necessarily anything dropping on his head (although he was probably dropped on his head once!) just walk into a scaffold pole or a protruding bit of masonary! he’d soon learn! Seriously though these rules are national, people may not necessarily like to wear them, but they do, why should he be different – and isn’t it a offence under the HSWA to ignore safety arrangements?
VICARIOUS LIABILITY? (FOOLS!!!!)
As a H&S professional of some 18 years I must admit that this story stopped me dead in my tracks.. How someone in such a high profile public position could show such flagrant disregard for construction site rules for the sake of vanity it quite simply beyond belief. As for the construction company they should have known better! Health and safety rules – either site rules or legal requirements are there for a purpose and MUST be followed by everybody irrespective of who they may be. Disgraceful!
Was he also wearing flip flops – my money is on yes !!!
The wearing of hard hats is governed by the risk assessment however some/most construction sites have a blanket policy on the wearing of hard hats. No Hat No Job ?
As Mr Carr gave the manager an option to refuse entry to him I would have taken that option and see what he said then?
No Hat No Visit!
How interesting that it was Bromley Council who put together and promoted the health and safety in constructio distance learning package at no small expense to us all. Having seen the above article this smacks of hypocrisy.
It is totally disgraceful that a public servant in a senior position should be so irresponsible and happy to be seen to be so.
Having worked in Industry and having had responsibility for a number of construction projects these are inherantly dangerous places to be–he should be dismissed from his grossly overpaid position with the Council immediately
Views of a 61 year old engineer!!!
Mr Carr is typical of the current trend of so called well informed people who believe they have “the right” to flout rules and regulations anywhere not just regarding H&S. The site manager should have refused him entry to the project and the HSE should now look at why the viist was allowed to go ahead. What woud have been Higgins Construction’s Insurance response if Mr Carr was injured during the visit, I feel pretty sure of the answer to that.
The site manager should have had the guts to refuse entry. What ever happened to “No PPE, no entry, no job”?
The council leader now thinks he can do whatever he likes, what kind of message does that send out to the council direct labour?
Somebody should point out to the individual that we do not have the choice of whether we pay Council Tax to pay his wages, therefore like any good practice or compliance of safety, he does not have a choice to wear the appropriate PPE. I believe the Site Manager should have refused him admission and allowed the publicity aspect show that this individulal elected by the public, was not fit to be on the voting slip. Does he treat his own Council Policies and manifesto in the same way.
Local Authorities are tasked by the HSE to be ‘exemplary’ to the wider business community in undertaking and enforcing health and safety. What message is being sent to that community and the employees of the Council when a person such as this fails in his duty to abide by the law? He is a disgrace and should be expelled for bringing the Council into disrepute.
Unacceptable behaviour from anyone but from the leader of a council who has HSE inspectors under his control is criminal. He put a building contractor in a very difficult situation and obviously they are concerned about their relationship with Bromley Council and any future work from them so will not comment.
Bromley HSE should be speaking to Mr Carr and warning him that any future behaviour like this will not be tolerated. Fine him like any contractor would be for this breach of H&S.
If the site rules say that a hard hat be worn then the councillor should have been stopped. One must question the understanding of safety requirements amongst the site management and the culture of the company. In organisations I worked for not even the Chairman would be able to break the rules without being pulled up operatives who would be backed by their managers. As for the councillor I can only re-iterate an old saying – Anyone who doesn’t wear a hard hat hasn’t got a brain to protect.
This incident goes to show the way health and safety is regarded in the UK.
The site manager should have refused this man entry to the site and pointed out that to him that has a duty to abide by the regulations, not make “his choice”. This sets a poor example to the workers and should not have been allowed to happen.
The site manager, contractor and developer should have enforced the rules rather than break them,
I wonder if Stephen Carr would have done lawyers if he had been hurt.