Would be better off adopting same standards
I WAS very saddened by the recent tragedy at Grenfell Tower. It made me think about the current attitude to Health and Safety and other regulations that has grown up in this country over recent years.
Many of those advocating leaving the European Union made much of the allegedly oppressive regulations originating in Brussels (although very few examples of such regulations were given).
Surely in complicated areas such as the standards required in building materials, construction and fire regulation, we would be better off adopting the same rules across Europe, regardless of whether or not we are members of the E.U.
“Re-inventing the wheel” in each country is not efficient and by not standardising on regulations we increase the costs of businesses wanting to supply their products to the widest possible market, thus benefitting from economies of scale. My understanding is that if we had adopted the German building regulations then the cladding used on the tower could not have been used.
Whilst many of us feel frustrated that for example a builder can no longer sling up a ladder to do a sim- ple job, having to install scaffolding at greater expense, this has reduced the overall cost to society. Occasionally that ladder would slip and a life would be lost, or more probably, someone disabled for the rest of their life. The cost to that individual and society, in providing ongoing support, would far outweigh the cost of the scaffolding.
In 1974, when the Health and Safety at Work Act became law, 651 people died at work; by 2009 that figure had fallen to 144.
The reported number of nonfatal injuries has fallen from 336,722 in 1974 to 77,310 in 2016.
The change in the occupations in the work force and its increase in size will have distorted the comparison, but the Health and Safety legislation has undoubtedly provided a substantial overall benefit to society.
Unfortunately many “bureaucrats” have used “Health and Safety” as an excuse to introduce unnecessary rules and regulations not required by law, an example being a building management company that specified that only a qualified electrician could change light bulbs in order to avoid a negligence claim. This confuses a perceived (but in all probability low) risk of being sued for negligence with the requirements of health and safety legislation. It distorts the aim of the legislation, which is to ensure a proportionate approach to managing risks.
Undoubtedly there is much room for improvement in the drafting of regulations and in streamlining their administration, but overall health and safety regulations are beneficial.
John Catt Loughborough