The Weekly Reflektion 08/2025
When management want to encourage a certain type of behaviour or communicate an intention, they use words, and they select their words to ensure the underlying message is conveyed. Reduction in red tape and bureaucracy is often code for cost reduction and removal of allegedly unnecessary and ineffective processes. However, some of these processes may be related to quality control and assurance (QA/QC) and even safety measures to prevent injuries. Sometimes in our drive to improve we forget why the process was there in the first place. Unfortunately, it may take a Major Accident to find out.
Can you have an excessive health and safety culture?
In our Reflektion in week 24/2022 we talked about ‘Chesterton’s Fence’, and the message from G. K. Chesterton about not taking down a fence until you know why it was put up. His insight was:
The principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state is understood.
In his New Year’s message in January 2012, David Cameron, the UK Prime Minister, included the following statement in describing the coalition governments intentions.
‘This coalition has a clear New Year’s resolution; to kill off the health and safety culture for good. We pledge to wage war against the excessive health and safety culture that has become an albatross around the neck of British businesses.’
There was a general impression at that time that red tape and bureaucracy in the UK was hindering industry and growth in the UK was suffering as a result. Health and Safety measures were perceived to be a bit over the top and preventing work being carried out effectively. Cameron and his coalition government were going to shake the system hard so that unnecessary regulations, outdated standards and ineffective ways of working were going to fall out. To be replaced by functional requirements where industry would set the standards and live up to them. One of the main targets for these measures was the building industry. One of the drivers was more and cheaper homes to help solve the national housing problem.
The UK government had introduced their austerity measures in 2010, to reduce state spending at local and national levels. Cuts in budgets led to reduction in staff, including competent and experienced people regulating the building industry and inspecting the buildings constructed. These cuts also extended to the certification bodies that approved materials for use in the building trade, including insulation and cladding for high rise buildings. Compiling new and updating existing regulations was subject to the one in two out, later one in three out, rule. Any new or updated regulation issued required two regulations to be withdrawn. This of course led effectively to delays in updating ‘Approved Document B’, that described requirements for fire safety in the building industry. According to this document cladding and insulation used in high rise buildings should meet the class 0 standard. The stated intention was, ‘The external walls of the building shall resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building’.Testing was required to demonstrate the intention was fulfilled.Note that the standard did not require non-combustible materials.
The cladding and insulation manufacturers provided false and misleading information, the building certification bodies were complicit in their acceptance of combustible materials in cladding and insulation, the architects and builders did not ensure standards were being met, and the building authorities had neither the time nor the competence to exercise the controls they were expected to carry out. 72 people died in the Grenfell Tower fire on 14th June 2017 as a result. A high price to pay.