Health and Safety Review - 30 June 2010

Today, the Supreme Court is to give a verdict on the UK government's appeal against a ruling that British troops must be protected by the Human Rights Act. Last year, the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that the act applied to all UK troops, even on the battlefield.  It seems that those workers most at risk deserve the least protection - at least in government eyes.

In relation to the police, the UK government has appointed Lord Young of Graffham PC DL to review health and safety. The 78 year old Conservative peer, ex- secretary of State for Employment and then for Trade and Industry, recently told the Times there had been "three instances of police officers standing by watching children drown and not doing anything because of health and safety concerns.  Well, I'm sorry, that is just wrong and we are going to change it" he said.  He also said that emergency workers were "paid for doing a job that involves risk."

Good to know we're going to get a balanced examination then! I hope Lord Young gives more details of his three examples.  He wouldn't be thinking about the PCSOs in Lancashire would he? That's police community support officers - NOT - police officers.  You might remember the tragedy where two fishermen saved a little girl but lost sight of a little boy.  Two relatively young and inexperienced PCSOs arrived but didn't go into the water.  Then a real police officer turned up and recovered the little boy from the water.  Unfortunately the little lad died later in hospital. It was later determined that the PCSOs chose not to go into the water - nothing to do with Health and Safety legislation.  Maybe Lord Young has three other examples in mind - somebody might ask him?

Lord Young maybe favours a return to children up chimneys and budgies down mines.  There was a time, a long, long time ago, when police officers were treated as a special case.  There was a significant X factor built into police pay to recognise the dangers and the expectations of the job.  One of the things on the other side of the coin was that Health and Safety legislation didn't apply to the police.  The legislation does now apply, the police are no longer a special case and there is no X factor in pay despite what Lord Young believes.  If he recommends that the police be written out of the legislation or that it be curtailed for the police, will he also recommend a compensation element in pay?  I wouldn't hold my breath frankly.

I think we might all shake our heads at labels on egg boxes advising, "may contain eggs" and peanut packets stating "may contain nuts".  Warnings about coffee being hot and not to swivel the driver's seat on a mobile home when moving are all daft.  The compensation culture which has spawned all those compensation lawyers firms (or is it the other way around) creates the view that someone must always be to blame and must be sued.  These are unattractive aspects of what has become encapsulated in the catch-all phrase, "Health and Safety".

But Health and Safety law does not prevent the police doing their jobs anymore than it prevents hairdresser trainees using scissors or school sports days when it's raining. To suggest that the police needs to change its ways in relation to Health and Safety is an insult to the officers who regularly place themselves in great danger, who jump into rivers and harbours, who face criminals and deranged people with knives and guns and all of the rest of it. Police officers performing their duties protecting the public and themselves are often brave, heroic, sometimes recklessly so, and will no doubt continue to be no matter how Lord Young and his ilk try to put them off.

The Station Blog is written by neither a Federation Representative nor an employee.  The views expressed are not necessarily those of the Joint Central Committee of the Scottish Police Federation.