'The truth behind health and safety hysteria in the media'
Strange thing. When Tory peer in Britain "we have a Compensation Culture" (his capital letters).
However, in [685KB PDF], he says the opposite: "The problem of the compensation culture prevalent in society today is, however, one of perception rather than reality."
Another strange thing. As Lord Young was briefing reporters and sitting on TV-studio sofas a fortnight ago, most of the resultant stories were about the "crazy" impact of health and safety laws on our lives.
Ìý
³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ News was among numerous media organisations that mentioned the classic stories of schoolchildren forced to wear goggles to play conkers and the banning of a traditional Gloucestershire cheese-rolling competition because of mad safety rules.
But, in an annex to his report today, Lord Young writes that "again and again 'health and safety' is blamed for a variety of decisions, few of which actually have any basis in health and safety legislation at all."
At the back of today's document one can read his "attempt to set the record straight and demonstrate that health and safety legislation already places far more emphasis on common sense than is generally perceived".
I wonder how many press stories will headline that thought.
The report points readers to the Health and Safety Executive's "successful " which reveals that neither the conker-playing nor the cheese-rolling stories have anything to do with barmy "'elf n' safety" laws.
Again and again in his report today, Lord Young points an accusing finger, not at legislation, but at the media.
"Britain's 'compensation culture' is fuelled by media stories about individuals receiving large compensation payouts for personal injury claims," he says. While the number of such claims has "increased slowly" the public believes that the number has "risen significantly".
Today's report says that the "broad consensus among stakeholders was that they did not believe there was a growing compensation culture in the UK".
The media is also blamed for "one of the great misconceptions" that people can be sued "for the consequences of any voluntary acts".
"During winter 2009/10, advice was given on television and radio to householders not to clear the snow in front of their properties in case any passer by would fall and then sue. This is another manifestation of the fear of litigation. In fact there is no liability in the normal way, and the Lord Chief Justice himself is reported as saying that he had never come across a case where someone was sued in these circumstances."
It becomes clear reading today's report that the problem is not health and safety legislation but organisations holding mistaken attitudes based on dodgy press stories. "On the back of media stories about large compensation payouts, there is a growing fear among business owners of being sued for breaches of health and safety rules," Lord Young says.
He talks of "an overcautious attitude" based on "public perception". The title of this post is the title of one of the annexes to the report.
There is another aspect to the development of health and safety legislation in this country which the report exposes - a culture of blame and the demand for "something to be done".
In March 1993, four teenagers attending an activity centre drowned in Lyme Bay off the south coast of England while kayaking. The tragedy led to a campaign for such centres to be subject to statutory regulation rather than being self-regulated.
The parents of the teenagers lobbied Parliament and, , "were aided by a national press almost universally in support of their aims".
The HSE quotes an article from the Daily Mirror stating that:"Thousands of children are facing appalling physical dangers because of the Government's refusal to bring in laws controlling holiday activity centres."
The Conservative government initially resisted attempts to pass a law but, in the end, the pressure grew so great that in June 1995, "The Activity Centres (Young Persons Safety) Act 1995" demanded that all such organisations had a safety licence from the state.
Ìý
Today, Lord Young proposes tearing up the licences and returning to a code of practice. His view is this:
"The running costs of the scheme are around £750,000 and the cost of a licence is £715. This seems to me to be a disincentive to new entrants to the adventure activity market, especially to small companies."
I suspect little coverage will be given to this aspect of his report and, of course, it remains to be seen whether the coalition government will accept his recommendations - although expectations are that it will.
This small aspect of the report illustrates a paradox in public attitudes, driven by the media (of which, of course, I am part).
Journalists delight in castigating the madness of "health and safety" legislation when it is, often, their own scare stories which are to blame. At the same time, when something goes wrong, they demand government action to reduce risk - creating the very legislation that they can then criticise.
Strange thing.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.