Snowball made the hard hitting comments during his speech at the British Safety Council’s annual conference on Wednesday this week, in which he discussed changes to the regulatory landscape, and jokingly referred to the HSE’s ‘Stalinist five year plan’.
Section 3 of the act places general duties on employers and the self-employed to conduct their undertakings in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons other than themselves or their employees are not exposed to risks to their health or safety.
Lord Robens of Woldingham’s report on the matter of health and safety for the government in 1972 laid the foundation for much of the HSAW Act and subsequent legislation.
According to Snowball, Robens would have been ‘interested to see the ways in which health and safety has infiltrated all ways of life’.
He said: “He would be turning in his grave if he saw the ways it was being interpreted. There has been a tsunami of Section 3 issues, and there is endless scope in which it is interpreted.
He described the HSAW Act as a ‘political football’, and that regulation at the heart of government was a ‘fascinating topic’.
On regulation, he said: “We can now do the easy stuff, like high-vis, well.
“We are now in a place where we can expect good performance, but that issues like the gig economy were changing the relationship between employer and employee.”
Speaking about the EU nation states and their interpretation of the Act, Snowball said they ‘love it’ but referred to how labour inspections was an important part of their regulatory landscape – and this could be important in the UK for health and wellbeing issues.
He said: “Would it be that some of the problems we need to solve (around stress and health) require taking a more holistic view, including health and safety issues.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
If Robens would have been turning in his grave at least please give some explanation as to why you state this. Thanks.
In my view Section 3 is robust enough. With the example given ‘re gig economy the question should have been posed as to why enforcement are not keeping pace?
I agree an example would be good, as we all know it’s diwn to interpretation when someone is injured.
The H.S.A.W was one of the finest piece of legislation to hit the statute books. Defining duties of employers and employees. All involved in the workplace. I call this a partnership. All working together to make health and safety a team effort. This is slowly being erroded by the EEC and English Courts. A step backwards
Perhaps that’s what he had in mind (Robens) with regards ALARP a more Holistic approach?
Until the Regulator pushes for consultation for the same approach to those absent as a result of work induced illness as it presently does for Injuries, UK plc will not evolve quickly enough to protect those most vulnerable at work. The RIDDOR Regs must be changed to stipilate that anyone unable to return to work as a result of work related injury ‘or Illness’ for over 7 days should be notifiable… Karl Simons, Thames Water Head of H&S
I like others cannot fathom what David Snowball is alluding to in his comments. The article is too short to give any meaningful insight. Could we not have a more robust article?
PersonallyI don’t think anything is wrong with s3 HSWA, Lord Robens may raise an eyebrow to plethora of regulations and guidance which supports the principles set out in the Act. However, it is the HSE and to a lesser extent the EU who have contributed to the overly prescriptive and complex situation where it is now difficult to see the woods from trees.
More content needed and / or a broader discussion. I’m concerned about the approach to apprentices and trainees and the application ( sometimes over application) of responsibilities in regard to non-employees from the educators point of view and learners on placements from the employers point of view
This piece was presumably written to engender controversy.
What is the evidence for there being a tsunami of section 3 issues? as far as the regulatory landscape goes inspections should be a cornerstone of any regulatory mechanism shouldn’t they?
A bit vague!
I would concur with Mr Snowball that this element presents us with a ‘fascinating’ topic… in terms of Section 3 of the Act, would suggest that possibly this was born out of conscience. Prior to this specific appointment Lord Robens was the head of the NCB. Echoes of the phrase “…They were like moles being asked the habits of birds…” should therefore resonate – not least as the anniversary is only a few days away. Lord Robens new only too well the catastrophic consequence of corporate scale ineptitude. At least one would like to think so, however, those lessons surrounding such events that litter history from Aberfan to Deep Water Horizon serve to remind that we should endevour as moles to open our eyes to actively seek out the habits of birds.