The S P F Blog

This question reared its head this week and the answer is, almost inevitably, probably you.

There are a gazillion possible scenarios, so let’s just have a look at a couple

1 Contractor is appointed without you checking on their health and safety arrangements, competence to do the job and insurance. If there is an accident, regardless of fault, it will without doubt come down on the ‘responsible person’ – you.

2 Contractor is appointed and checked for competence, insurance and health and safety arrangements. Whilst on site, the contractor leaves a cellar hatch open in the floor and a customer falls down it. Has to be down to the contractor right? Erm, no actually. This would come down on the ‘responsible person’ – you again.

Notice the running theme? Yep; it’s always down to you. The reality is that, as the responsible person, everything that happens within the building or business that you are responsible for is going to come down to you.

The lesson is twofold:

Firstly, make sure that any contractors you appoint take their health and safety responsibilities as seriously as you do; make sure that they are insured, that their staff are trained and that they are capable of completing the task in hand safely and competently.

Secondly. When you have contractors on site be sure not to make the mistake of assuming that they will take the same amount of care as you do. Retain complete control of your business or building, and don’t be afraid of managing your contractors every bit as completely as you manage your staff, whether they like it or not.

We have to live in the real world, so what would this look like in the day to day running of a business? Well, how about a for instance?

Would I, for instance, employ a window cleaner who turned up with his ladders on a hand cart with the idea that ‘public liability’ was a medical condition and that health and safety risk assessments were for ponces?

Sadly the answer is ‘no’. The world we live in is way too litigious and for every second that that guy is on my premises I’m responsible for everything he does and everything that happens.

Looking at all the horror stories we have gathered, the Challenge 21 campaign is still gaining way too many ’successes’ in terms of failed test purchases.

We think that won’t change until we see licensees taking their staff training and record keeping seriously, but also until young people in this country get used to the idea that they need to be able to prove their age when asked.

It’s unfortunate but many members of front line staff don’t implement an effective Challenge 21 policy. It may be from a lack of training but, equally, it may well be out of a fear of abuse; ‘are you calling me a liar/I come here all the time/I know where you live’ etc. etc.

In other countries, Australia and America for instance, people routinely produce ID and think nothing of it; it’s just what happens when you buy alcohol in those places.

Until we can get young people to understand that it’s not an invasion of privacy or a personal sleight the onus will remain on the licensee to be vigilant. Clearly, too many are not vigilant enough and the trading standards enforcement officers remain way busier than they should be…

There seems to be a clamour among the licensed trade for minimum pricing per unit of alcohol, a concept being mooted by what would normally be seen as opponents of the industry; health lobbies and the like.

I can’t help thinking that licensees voting for minimum pricing is akin to turkeys voting for Christmas; not really in our best interests.

Looking back over the last twenty odd years it’s starkly obvious where the last set of government fingerprints are and we are still dealing with the consequences.

What came to be known as ‘The Beer Orders’ of the late 1980s forced the ‘Big Six’ brewers of the day to shed thousands of tied sites in a ham fisted attempt to increase competition. The ultimate result is what we see around us; the demise of regional brewers like  Boddingtons, Greenalls and Tetley to name a few, the rise of super-brewers such as Heineken and Interbrew, and the birth of the much maligned pubcos, the obvious examples being Punch and Enterprise.

Government ministers were, in late 2009, quite candidly saying that they had ‘got it wrong’ and jostling for another chance to get their hands on our industry. I’m kind of horrified to see so many industry insiders nodding their heads and believing what they hear when the politicians start pontificating on the subject of the licensed trade.

Anyone thinking that minimum alcohol pricing might be a good idea would do well to look back at recent history and realise just what a horlicks the politicians made of it last time, start looking at them with a degree of scepticism and begin to fear unintended consequences.