Health, and safety

I have been co-writing a script which is now going into production. You know how I roll well enough by now, so I won’t name or describe the project. But I will tell you this: while writing the script, my co-writer and I enthusiastically set one scene in a park lake, and I mean in it. Two characters are in a rowing boat, and one of them has to walk through the shallow water to the shore. This is fine when it’s just words on a MacBook screen, but becomes an “issue” when the words have to be turned into action in front of a camera. We discovered – and we should have guessed – that filming in a lake is a Health & Safety nightmare.

Apparently, even in a shallow pond, once you put an actor into it up to their knees, tests have to be made on the water for specific diseases that may be present, inoculations are required, and a safety boat and a diver must be present. It’s not a problem. We changed the location of the scene. Not really a nightmare at all. But it made me think about the way that the concepts of health and safety have taken on negative connotations since being joined by ampersand in holy non-departmental matrimony. If, for instance, you glance at the Daily Mail, you will see Health & Safety constantly cited as a folk devil for our times; proof that the “nanny state” is out to ruin our lives with its focus on maintaining the rights of employees to work in safety, and without endangering their health. (Richard Littlejohn, the famous wit, likes to write it out as “Elf’n’Safety”, and although I’m not entirely sure why, you get his drift: the very idea is comical to him.)

The Healthy & Safety At Work Act was enshrined as long ago as 1974. It’s not a new concept. It’s not “New Labour”. The Health & Safety Executive, merged with the Health & Safety Commission, is responsible for “the encouragement, regulation and enforcement of workplace health, safety and welfare.” Some might say that its reach extends too far, and into farce, so that the simple act of going about one’s work is often a minefield of regulation and administration. But there is common sense at its heart.

In today’s Guardian, journalist David Conn has written a long and vigilant assessment of the safety failings that contributed to the death of 96 Liverpool fans at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989. It’s worth reading in full although I’ll precis it here. What struck me about this deadly litany of fudging and finger-crossing and hoping for the best is that the evil spectre of Health & Safety was nowhere to be seen, and look what happened. The Hillsborough Independent Panel, chaired by James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool and charged with combing through all the evidence two years ago by Labour’s Alan Johnson, presented its findings last week, since which all manner of bodies have queued up to issue full, frank and unreserved apologies to the families of the dead, including South Yorkshire Police, the FA, the Sun (not that one more blot on News International’s copybook is going to make much difference this year) and a sniveling Boris Johnson, on behalf of The Spectator. But Conn’s report looks past the appalling mishandling of the situation by the police, and the disgraceful misreporting of the tragedy by the tabloid media, and points the spotlight at Sheffield Wednesday, whose application to host the ill-fated FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Forest in 1989 was made despite its ground’s safety certificate not having been updated since 1979.

It was, in modern parlance, a Health & Safety nightmare. According to the report, helpfully and clearly disseminated by the Guardian, “the risks were known and the fatal crush … was foreseeable.” Counsel on behalf of the Hillsborough Family Support Group is calling on the director of public prosecutions to charge Sheffield Wednesday for corporate manslaughter. This is an interesting development, but not one that should come as a surprise. News International have been punished, in Liverpool at least, ever since the egregious Sun headline of April 19, 1989 (“THE TRUTH”). It seems likely that those officers at fault within South Yorkshire Police will at least be investigated by the IPCC. But what of the owners of the stadium itself?

I didn’t know this, but there was a “serious crush” at the Leppings Lane terrace in 1981, at which 38 people were injured. The club’s then-chairman Bert McGee, reacting to the police’s claim that they had averted “a real chance of fatalities” in a post-match meeting, replied, “Bollocks – no-one would have been killed.” This cavalier attitude to health and safety masks a much deeper contempt for the fans. The club erected those metal fences which created “pens”, something the report said made “a demonstrably unsafe terrace dangerous.” A supporter wrote to the FA after another crush at the “old, inadequate” turnstiles in 1988, calling the Leppings Lane terrace “a death trap.” What a chillingly prescient prediction; what a shame it was from a fan. Fans appear not to have mattered much to the FA, or Sheffield Wednesday, in 1988.

The FA asked Wednesday no questions about safety when it awarded them the FA Cup semi in 1989. Lord Justice Taylor, who delivered the first report four months after the disaster, listed all of the club’s “safety deficiencies and breaches of the Home Office Guide to Safety in Sports Grounds (or Green Guide)”, and described Leppings Lane – whose name is now etched on the minds of all who remembers that horrible day – as “unsatisfactory and ill-suited to admit the numbers invited.” The new report merely underlines these findings.

There was a disconnect between the club’s eagerness to host a glamour tie and count the ticket money of the 54,000 people who attended, and the reality of safely siphoning those fans into the stands. 10,100 fans came from Liverpool, and yet the turnstiles at Leppings Lane were “too few to admit so many supporters.” The tunnel into the pens had a gradient of one in six, much steeper than the Green Guide maximum; 40% of the fans were too far from the prescribed distance to an exit; the crush barriers were the wrong height and too far apart; and liaison between the club and the police – as we know – “failed.”

Good heavens, it really is a nightmare, and yet most of this stuff we’re only officially treating as gospel  now. (I think most ordinary people knew what went wrong at the time. Certainly Jimmy McGovern’s powerful Hillsborough made it plain in 1996.) But Sheffield Wednesday never admitted liability and not a single director or employee of the club resigned at the time. They didn’t even put up a memorial until 1999. As you know, I’m not a dedicated follower of league football. I come at this story from a pretty casual stratum of devotion to the sport, so if it sounds like I have it in for Wednesday, I clearly don’t; my reaction is based on what I’m reading – and, more viscerally, what I remember so vividly from the heartbreaking news pictures on the day. Trevor Hicks, chairman of the HFSG, speaks of the club’s “contempt” for those fans that died, or their families.

Sheffield Wednesday only made an official apology last Wednesday, on the morning of the report. Dave Richards, who took over from McGee as chairman in March 1990 – apparently prompted to join the board by what he saw on the day at Hillsborough – presided over the dead-air period when the club refused to memorialise the tragedy. He left in 2000, since which he’s been a well-rewarded chairman at the Premier League (his salary last year was £347,000). Under his chairmanship at Sheffield, the ground became all-seated. But the Guardian says that he now admits he didn’t put a memorial up to the 96 who died after legal advice; he was advised that if they put up a plaque it would compromise the club’s denial of liability. This is pretty rum. The families’ lawyer – who happens to be Charlie Falconer, former Blair flatmate and then Lord Chancellor, but wipe those old prejudices aside – says, “The idea that Sheffield Wednesday putting up a memorial would amount to admitting liability is utter rubbish … they wanted to reduce their association with the disaster as much as possible.”

Yes, that Health & Safety disaster.

It’s all too easy to fall in line with lazy, Daily Mail orthodoxy and regard Health & Safety with sneering disdain. But if Hillsborough’s safety certificate had been renewed at any time between 1979 and 1989, maybe 96 people wouldn’t be dead (41 of those deaths are currently adjudged to have been avoidable). It might be slightly irritating to have to wear a high-viz tabard, or a safety helmet, or protective gloves, in the workplace, but the same paranoia behind such measures might have reduced the chances of Leppings Lane becoming a “death trap”, into which fans were herded, down an inappropriate gradient, with many different sorts of contempt and neglect.

When representatives of official bodies give a “full and unreserved apology”, as the FA did, you have to check the wording. Are they really apologising fully? Or are they actually apologising partially, in order to avoid admitting liability?

I have been able to rewrite a comedy script to that an actor doesn’t have to be inoculated and stand in a pond, by relocating the scene to a children’s playground. Not so easy to rewrite – or relocate – Hillsborough.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Health, and safety

  1. Interesting way of looking at it. I think health and safety in a lot of peoples minds is made up of the stupid stuff, the silly, exaggerated stories the like of which might appear on the daily mail website. I don’t think they necessarily think of the bigger picture. A thing that keeps you safe on a station platform or at a concert etc… or at a football match.

    I’ve followed the campaign of the Hillsborough families & survivors for a long time. A good deal of what was in the report was well documented previously, so it’s very shocking it’s taken so long for this to finally be recognised as a national disgrace. At the same time its very emotional – even for people like me, with no association with the disaster. It’s something we’ve waited so long for. It’s something I never thought would ever happen. I feel overjoyed for the families who have fought for so long for this. Hopefully it will lead to at least a new inquest, and perhaps criminal proceedings. Maybe then, they can finally rest.

    • Yes, as I understand it, the new report is really a “meta-analysis”, which correlates all the existing evidence and draws a more definitive conclusion. It’s helpful that the newspapers are there to disseminate what’s in it. (And commissioning it was one decent thing Labour did before they were booted out.)

      Certainly, some people must be held to account. There finally seems to be a will to do something about it.

  2. As a lifelong Bradford City fan I’m pleased that there is now a shifting focus onto the aspects of health and safety responsibility, and the role they played in the tragedy. Some of my family were present at Valley Parade on the 11th May 1985 when a wooden stand burned down, killing 56 spectators. One of the things that has always shocked me about Hillsborough is that it was able to happen in the first place. The police couldn’t have dealt with the situation badly, the emergency services failed in elements of their response, or the media smeared fans in the aftermath, if the disaster had not been allowed to happen in the first place.

    The Popplewell report after the Bradford fire – and indeed the report into Ibrox years earlier – made many recommendations in terms of ground safety and wellbeing of fans, which seem to have been almost callously – let alone recklessly – ignored by Sheffield Wednesday, the FA and, by extension, the government. At Bradford, the absence of fences meant, mercifully, that spectators were able to escape onto the pitch… so why were 10 foot high fences there 4 years on? I shudder to think of the number of casualties had we had pens at Bradford, or the number of casualties had a fire happened at Hillsborough. It would have been thousands, and I’m shocked that after Bradford such barriers to a possible exit route were left there, largely because the government at the time cared more for crowd control than for crowd safety. Furthermore Popplewell recommended that all exit gates be manned at all times. Again, there was no way out for the unfortunate fans at Hillsborough, and nobobdy, as far as I can tell, able to take immediate action in the case of a quick evacuation from those pens. Finally, as you’ve said, Andrew, the club did not have the required safety certification. This was a breach the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act, introduced in 1987, as a result of Bradford. The penalty for this is imprisonment. So why, 23 years on, has nobody been to prison?

    That all this could happen just 4 years after Bradford, with that disaster still firmly in people’s minds, shows a sickening and unimaginable disregard for human life, and regardless of any action now taken against the police, or setting straight the record with regards to the media etc, someone should pay, because really, there was no excuse.

  3. Health and Safety legislation and practice are different, hence the rich vein of comedy and outrage. The legislation essentially requires that people are careful and evaluate and consider risks. There are some industry specific rules, for example relating to the testing of lifting equipment and building sites, but they’re the exception.

    Health and Safety assessments are required, but they’re essentially a process of looking at what you do as an organisation and considering if it’s safe and healthy. It’s not rocket science and it’s not (that) onerous. Organisations build their own rules to comply with this. So the process of testing for disease that you describe isn’t part of the law, it’s how a company has interpreted the law. Which tends to be completely over the top. Organisations tend to have a zero error approach to risk – in case they’re sued and/or pilloried in the press if something goes wrong. So common sense doesn’t make it through the committee phase.

    Our personal everyday evaluation of risk (driving to the shops, for example) is broadly instinctive and wouldn’t sustain a peer review. One set of commonly cited figures shows the lifetime risk of dying in an automotive accident as one in 240 (annually one in 20,000)*. We all get in cars all the time, but would you sign a document specifically accepting that risk for you and your family and agreeing that you wouldn’t sue anyone should an accident actually occur.

    This disconnect leads you to the Daily Mail beloved stories of kids playing conkers in safety goggles** and school parades that can’t cross a busy road.

    *yes, I know, but that’s statistics for you
    ** which was a staged event

    • Some key points made there. To be fair, a film company making a film may have to adhere closely to guidelines for insurance purposes. This may apply in other industries, too.

      I still can’t imagine why this wasn’t the case in 1989, though. I know guidelines are just that, but it sounds like Sheffield Wednesday just ignored them, rather than spend any money on improving the safety of the ground. It’s like not having a burglar alarm on your house; up goes your insurance premium. Isn’t there an equivalent cost factor if you run a sports ground? (Maybe there is now – but was there not in the 1980s?)

Do leave a reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s