Corporate Manslaughter - the Lion Steel Case. Are there implications for event directors?

Many would argue that legal action against a company and its directors following a death at work was fully justified.  The case however does raise important concerns regarding the prosecution of individual company directors.

 

In 2008 a maintenance worker for Lion Steel fell from the roof to his death.  The company was charged with Corporate Manslaughter and offences under section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act (HASAWA).  Three company directors where charged with Gross Negligence Manslaughter and offences under section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act.  In July the company, which has a turnover of £10 million, pleaded guilty and was fined over £480,000 plus £84,000 in costs.  The directors who went to trial were acquitted in a plea bargain arrangement.  The CPS presented evidence of a lack of training, no risk assessment, no safe system of work and lack of supervision.  The facts which lie behind this case should be of concern to all directors and event company directors in particular for a number of reasons.

 

Firstly the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) tried to establish a de facto ‘carte blanche’ duty of care for all directors to all employees by virtue of their office.  The judge ruled against it on this occasion, but it does not mean that the CPS will not do this again.  Previous attempts to establish a specific Director’s Duty in law have not come to pass but it could come into place by way of case law in a future case.  Part of the reason that it failed in this instance was that it was hard to establish a direct link between the actions of the directors charged, one of whom was the finance director, and the operative on the roof. 

 

The case against the directors did not fail.  They entered a plea bargain arrangement whereby they allowed a guilty plea of corporate manslaughter against the company, in return for the charges against individual directors to be dropped.  It is not hard to see why.  The Directors were facing a range of punishments including, custodial sentences of 2 years to life imprisonment, fines and disqualification from holding a directorship for up to 15 years.  Their trials and the threat of a heavy custodial sentence could have been drawn out over four years possibly resulting in professional and financial ruin even if they were found not guilty.

 

It raises the disturbing question as to whether the CPS deliberately brought these charges against the individuals in order to leverage a corporate plea.  If this is the case we could see more cases of directors automatically potentially facing life imprisonment following a death at work.  And what of these directors’ fiduciary duties to the company and its shareholders?  Surely there was a conflict of interest in sacrificing the company to defend their own cases.

 

Lastly the CPS did not rely on witnesses.  Instead it used documentation and e-mails dating back to 2002 to support its case.  This underscores the need for careful attention to archiving of key documents to prove that directors are routinely discharging their duty of care, from issuing and implementing a proper health and safety policy to ensuring that there are safety files for each event.

 

The law of corporate manslaughter was brought in to target companies and not individuals and yet it appears to be having the perverse effect of encouraging the targeting of individual directors in order to secure a conviction against the company.

 

Lion Steel was not a corporate behemoth, its pre-taxed profits ranged from £187,000 to £317,000 and its highest paid directors received £88,000 per year.  It now faces a struggle to survive commercially with such a hefty fine which they must pay within three years.

 

So what lessons can we derive in the events industry?  Firstly the events business has had its fair share of fatalities; work at height and event construction activity place us at the higher end of the risk scale as an industry.  It is for this reason that the HSE have decided to enforce safety at the construction of events (see previous updates).  The safety industry commentary was critical of the CPS in targeting individuals in this way¹.  In the events industry it would be a lot easier to establish a link between the actions of individual directors and the activities on the event floor particularly with the portfolio structure of most organising companies where senior directors are clearly responsible for specific events.  Any director who is part of the structure of a venue management team would also have clear links with operational activities which would be easy to establish in court.

 

Responsible organisers and venues already proactively manage risk.  This case should prompt a shakedown of policy and procedures in those companies that do not have robust risk management processes.  All companies should look carefully at their major incident handling plans in terms of processes in place to defend the companies and its directors against charges of corporate or individual gross negligence manslaughter respectively.

 

 

Note.  1.  Safety and Health Practitioner August and September Issue, Health and Safety at Work October issue.

HSE enforcement at events and the application of Construction Design Management Regulations (CDM) to the events industry.

The HSE has taken over responsibility for enforcement of event construction and is now arming itself with a new set of regulations to do so.  That can only mean more regulation.  In this update the wider events and exhibitions industry is challenged to find its voice in the consultative process in response.

 

This is the single biggest regulatory change to affect the events industry in health and safety terms in recent years and needs to be taken seriously.  The essential issue is that the HSE, having taken responsibility for enforcement of event construction, are now seeking to amend the CDM Regulations and apply them to events and exhibitions by 2014.   The consultation phase is underway.   E-mails are now flying around with a mixture of concern and comment (some of it ill-informed).   This was flagged up in earlier X-venture updates (see blog site) but my earlier comment has now been overtaken by developments.

 

Industry opinion on this ranges from being happy to let the AEV et al negotiate a deal with the HSE, to grave concern about what all this portends in the long run, particularly with regards to potential costs on the industry.  Some are concerned that that challenging the HSE will provoke a negative outcome.

 

I have been fairly vocal in my concerns and notwithstanding soothing noises from the HSE have not seen anything recently that gives me any comfort.   My essential concern is that we are about to get ourselves saddled with prescriptive, costly and unnecessary regulations which will be enforced by the HSE who have little or no knowledge or understanding of our business.   Their initial research was very narrow and superficial.  They reviewed six accidents and made six site visits.  These were all related to entertainment, festival or sporting type activities, one dating back to 1994.  There is not one mention of exhibitions except a reference to ‘other events’¹. 

 

A lot of confusion has been created because these regulations are in theory being pared back to make them less prescriptive which will benefit the construction industry.   The proposal, however, is to widen the scope to include the events industry which is not good for us because if the intention is not to impose more regulation on us then why do it at all?   Whatever has been said, the CDM Regulations have never, since they were first introduced in 1994, been applied to event construction, so applying them now is not ‘just a simple tidying up of the rules’ as it has been portrayed.

 

One of the arguments in favour of revision is that the introduction of the 1994 regulations had the unintended consequence of spawning a whole new industry of professionals required to interpret and apply these regulations for the construction industry.  Are we not therefore at risk of the same costly unintended consequences when these regulations are applied to an industry for which they were never originally intended? 

 

There has also been a lot of confusion between regulation of temporary and demountable structures (TDS) and event construction generally.   Responsible organisers and venues ensure that complex structures are properly checked.   CDM however has never been just about structural safety per se but the whole construction activity including all working at height, vehicle movement, site access, PPE etc.   So there are two things going on here.   The HSE is interested in enforcement of TDS guidance and they also want to apply revised CDM regulations to event construction in general.   To illustrate how intrusive that could be, we are potentially talking about every event construction project having to be registered with the HSE in advance.   The term ‘construction’ at present means any build up or break down activity which would also include conferences.  The HSE, when pressed further on this have said that ‘construction’ is legally defined in the regulations.   The definition currently specifically excludes erection of ‘exhibition panels’ – so presumably shell scheme , however in my view the definition is not sufficiently clear as to whether this applies to exhibitions and conferences generally and could be taken either way.   My point is that since the regulations are being reviewed, presumably the definition can also be redefined to specifically exclude exhibitions and conferences. 

 

The potential issue here is one which risk managers call theoretical legal jeopardy.  Regulations are brought in to target a specific problem such as use of temporary stage sets but are widely applicable to smaller events.  So for example conferences and small exhibitions are not targeted but find themselves caught up in the regulations.  Venues with no desire to tangle with the HSE ramp up tenancy requirements to counter a theoretical legal risk and before long we have conferences required to employ a NEBOSH qualified floor manager.  None of this would have been intended but is analogous to what happened to the construction industry and took 19 years to review.

 

In the UK risk control is based on what is reasonably practical relative to cost.  Thus far the argument has been based on micro issues in terms of the detail of CDM.  We need to step back and take a look at the macro issues.  In my view exhibition organisers and venues in particular should think about the wider economic impact – ultimately it will be exhibitors who will pay for this as they usually do.   The HSE has taken over responsibility for enforcement of event construction and is now arming itself with a new set of regulations to do so.  That can only mean more regulation and by extension more cost.  There are a number of well-designed, state of the art and well-run venues around the world that would be only too happy to offer a more business friendly approach to events than the UK. 

 

The solution is simple.  ‘Construction’ as it applies to temporary structures should be defined so as to focus on the intended targets in the entertainment business such as large stage sets.  For example the trigger for CDM could be structures designed to be up for more than four days, over 6m high and over 50 m² thus all other structures would revert to the status quo.

 

We need some loud and powerful voices to make the argument for not damaging a successful and profitable industry with unnecessary regulation.

 

Notes

 

1.    HSE report, ‘Identification of safety good practice in the event construction and deconstruction of temporary and demountable structures’

What would be the impact on an event if the country in which it was held left the Euro during the tenancy or close to it?

Whether or not you believe in the whole European project and the Euro, we have reached a point where there must be at least an even bet that one of the Eurozone countries will leave the Euro in the next 12 months.  The question, therefore, is not why or whether it will happen, but how to prepare for such an eventuality.

 

Responsible event companies plan and train to deal with ‘major incidents’.  Many focus on the topical risks such as fire or a bomb threat.  Companies with more advanced risk management programs include a wide range of possible scenarios such as political and civil unrest or serious disruptions to travel infrastructure such as occurred when flights were suspended over much of Europe after the Eyjafjallajoekull volcano erupted in Iceland.  Are we, however, missing one of the most obvious scenarios?  What would be the impact on an event if the country in which it was held left the Euro during the tenancy or close to it?

 

The problem is that, for many, the whole EU project is an emotive issue which tends to cloud our judgement.  There is no place, however, for emotive subjectivity when it comes to risk analysis. To add to the confusion, if you put any two economic experts in the room, each will argue convincingly a completely contradictory position and this is especially true with matters concerning Europe.  Yet through all the clamour one clear message is emerging.  Whether or not you believe in the whole European project and the Euro, we have reached a point where there must be at least an even bet that one of the Eurozone countries will leave the Euro in the next 12 months. 

 

I have no particular claim to economic competence so these views are based on the output from what I regard as the more serious and objective comment from the Economist and other similar journals¹.  In particular Roger Bootle has produced a paper ‘Leaving the Euro:  A practical guide’ that gives an insight as to how it might occur².

 

The Warning Signs

 

The one thing that is certain is that if it does occur, everyone will say that they knew it was going to happen.  It will be less easy to explain why it was not planned for.  Most economists seem to agree that the ‘Armageddon scenario’ is a country ‘crashing out’ in a disorderly default.  However if a country signals its intention, it would very likely precipitate the disorderly default that would be caused by the markets’ reaction to the news.  An exit therefore would need to be planned in secret.  In essence we can expect no early warning.  Some expect that it would still be necessary to impose capital controls in advance to ensure that if the news leaked out, it did not cause a run on the banks and a flight of capital from the country.  This might provide an indication that a country was preparing for an exit.  Event companies should consider whether capital controls would have an impact particularly with regard to moving freight across an international border.

 

The Timing

 

Managing an exit during normal trading would be impossible.  The ideal scenario would be to make the announcement on a Friday after trading preferably before a bank holiday.  This at least gives us a clue as to when it might happen.  Easter is a good bet.  Using this prediction it does at least give us some guide regarding the potential vulnerability of events particularly those that open on a Monday or a day after a bank holiday.

 

If there were no convenient bank holiday, the country could announce one which opens the prospect of the additional problem of an event finding itself trying to open on an unplanned bank holiday in the middle of its tenancy.

 

The Transition

 

The next working day, trading would begin in the new currency probably at 1:1 parity but with expectations of falls of between 30% and 50% in the new currency depending on the currency in question. 

 

On the bank holiday days cash points would be closed.  There would be no new currency in notes and coin form.  We have, however, moved a long way towards a cashless society and planners would rely on the fact that many transactions could take place electronically.  It would also be probable that the Euro in note and coin form would be allowed for small transactions at the new market rate much as it is accepted in Switzerland alongside the Swiss Franc. 

 

This raises some practical issues.  It is very likely that cash would quickly be in short supply.  This is more likely to be a nuisance rather than a serious problem and organising teams can easily mitigate this risk by ensuring that everyone has a healthy supply of Euros and perhaps an emergency fund held centrally.

 

The Reaction

 

Here we are in uncharted territory and one certainty is that this would create a great deal of uncertainty.  Exhibitors and visitors would be pushing the organiser or venue for information regarding the viability of the event or travel to it, and the practical issues such as the lack of currency in note or coin form.  Communicating with key stakeholders and visitors would be vital in regaining the initiative.

 

One of the chief concerns of exhibitors and visitors would be personal security.  There would almost certainly be significant civil unrest with colourful media images of riot and disorder in the country and the destination city particularly if it were a capital city.  This may well be exacerbated by high profile calls for industrial action and the resignation of the government.

 

Many of the businesses, exhibitors or visitors may anticipate financial difficulties or take a view that the venue would be unsafe or very poorly attended and opt to pull out.

 

Every event relies heavily on hourly paid workers for a range of tasks such as forklifting.  Faced with industrial and civil unrest, transport problems or a more emotive desire to remain with the family, many may stay away from work creating operational problems due to labour shortages.

 

The Legal Question

 

Some event companies are already opting for business transactions expressed in US dollars in anticipation of this kind of issue.  An event may well be faced with cancellation and this would raise the issue of cancellation insurance.  Some policies are written to expressly exclude cancellation due to variations in the rate of exchange, rate of interest or stability of any currency.  It is certainly worth checking the position with insurers.  More seriously could contracts agreed in Euros be settled in the new devalued currency? 

 

How to Prepare

 

The breakup of a monetary union is not without precedent, e.g. following the breakup of Czechoslovakia in 1993 but in most cases the political and economic contexts are not comparable so researching previous examples will not necessarily help.  The first step is to accept that it could happen and is at the higher end of the risk scale based on probability and potential consequence.

 

Whilst the context may be unprecedented the likely consequences in operational terms, such as disruption to infrastructure are not.  Companies with well-practiced major incident handling processes will find that they are well prepared because the following principles will still apply:

 

·         Monitor the risk and identify the tipping point when it becomes a major incident for the company

·         Respond quickly and simultaneously at strategic and operational level

·         Ensure well-timed and effective communication with key stakeholders

·         Monitor developments and cross-reference sources of information to sort fact from inaccurate speculation.

 

Event teams should look at simple practical issues such as an emergency fund of additional currency.  In addition, other key parties such as contractors or host venues should affirm that they have plans in place to cope with such an eventuality.  Setting up a hosting scheme for exhibitors and visitors at the airport with a help desk may help to allay the fears of those concerned about travel to the host country.

 

The Euro ‘crisis’ has run for over 2 years and we have become used to the high drama of political brinkmanship and summits where financial chaos is imminent and then narrowly avoided until the next peak in the crisis arises.  It is up to professional event companies to ignore the hype and objectively assess and prepare for this entirely foreseeable risk.

 

Notes

 

1.    Economist – August 2012 ‘Breaking up the euro area’

2.    Capital Economics – ‘Leaving the Euro: A practical guide’  Roger Bootle

X-Venture Update - Summer 2012

The London Olympics has focused the attention on event safety as never before against a background of a government sponsored review on health and safely law.  There is also uncertainty with regards to the approach that the HSE will take with their new remit to enforce construction safety at events and powers to charge businesses for their time in attending and investigating a breach of regulations.  Taken together these changes represent a significant change in the regulatory environment for the events industry.

 

HSE Enforcement of Construction Safety at Events

 

The enforcement of safety in construction activities has now been taken up by the HSE directly and will no longer, in theory, be enforced by the Local Authority (LA).  It was previously assumed by event safety professionals that this move prefaced the application of the Construction Design Management Regulations (CDM) to events, however, this is not the case.  The HSE has set up a working group to deal with event construction. 

 

The HSE is responsible for the enforcement of health and safety law in the UK.  For events this is usually delegated to the local authorities who have largely the same powers of enforcement as the HSE.   The London Olympics were the catalyst for a review by the HSE into event construction.  The HSE have decided that they will take on enforcement with regards to construction at events. 

 

The HSE report, ‘Identification of safety good practice in the event construction and deconstruction of temporary and demountable structures’ gives us an important window into their mind-set.  They reviewed six accidents and made six site visits.  These were all related to entertainment, festival or sporting type activities, one dating back to 1994.  There is not one mention of exhibitions except a reference to ‘other events’.  Drilling down into the report it is clear that some generalisations have been made concerning the events industry as a whole based on a very narrow focus of research.

 

Whilst the application of CDM is not envisaged, it is quite clear that a central theme of the report is a dislike of the perceived varied and ad hoc approach to management of events and a desire to impose some form of template in this regard which is worrying. 

 

On the other hand the HSE have a valid point as the events industry has not covered itself in glory with regards to health and safety in the past.  Also the findings of this report may be tempered with the findings of the working group over time.

 

The HSE have visited a lot of venues but as yet we have not seen any active enforcement.

 

HSE Fee for Intervention

 

The HSE proposes to introduce a Fee for Intervention (FFI).  It was due to come into force in April but this has now been postponed until October subject to parliamentary approval.  The regulations put a duty on the HSE to recover its costs for carrying out its regulatory functions from those found to be ‘in material breach of health and safety law’.  A ‘material breach’ is where in the opinion of the HSE inspector there has been a contravention of health and safety law that is serious enough to require them to notify the person in writing.  The proposed fee is an hourly rate of £124 chargeable to companies and not individuals.  It applies not only to time on site but any follow up work associated with the visit including investigations.

 

The idea behind it is that the government believes that businesses and organisations that break health and safety laws should pay for the HSE’s time in putting right, investigating and taking enforcement action.  The hope is that it will encourage compliance.

 

The principle of paying for law enforcement agencies to investigate a breach of law is not replicated in general law enforcement and a cynic would point to the 35% budget cut imposed on the HSE as the true rationale.  The following is an extract from the HSE guidance with regards to material breach:

 

Falls from height

Falls from height are a frequent and well-known cause of death, or serious injury such as broken bones and partial or total paralysis.

Some examples of failures might include:

·         not adequately planning and/or supervising work at height;

·         not ensuring workers are competent for work at height;

·         not choosing appropriate access equipment where falling from a height is possible;

·         not inspecting and maintaining access equipment, such as scaffolding, harnesses or ladders, to ensure it remains effective at preventing or reducing injury;

·         using forks or a pallet on the forks of a fork-lift truck for a person to work at height, instead of a suitable working platform; and

·         using damaged/defective ladders/stepladders, eg splits in timber ladders, cracked welds at rung/stile connections on metallic ladders, missing rungs or steps and missing anti-slip devices.

 

The full guidance can be found on the HSE website at

 http://www.hse.gov.uk/fee-for-intervention/index.htm

 

It is still possible that the exhibitions industry will not notice a difference because, with or without FFI, the HSE’s reach cannot currently encompass the whole events and exhibitions industry.  That said, the larger events with heavy construction could well receive a visit.

 

The HSE’s view will be heavily influenced by the Olympics and they could make unfair comparisons given LOCOG’s unparalleled access to resources.  There is a danger that the Olympics will raise the bar on event safety to levels which are not sustainable particularly in competition with other events business internationally.  Working at heights and general site management in terms of controlled access and site safety discipline will be issues which the HSE could target and many exhibitions would be vulnerable.

 

Another factor will be the reaction of venues and the role of the eGuide.  The eGuide may serve to assuage HSE concerns regarding the exhibitions industry’s ability to regulate itself.  Conversely the venues will not want trouble with the HSE and this will create a pressure for tighter controls.  Higher standards are desirable but they must be sustainable from a business perspective.

 

Recent governments have a poor record of producing legislation with unintended and unproductive consequences.  FFI may prove to be yet another example with the HSE using it to generate revenue to fill a funding gap and unfairly targeting industries such as exhibitions and events. 

 

Directors’ Liabilities

 

Previous updates have commented upon the apparent developing trend to hold company directors personally and legally accountable for health and safety failings.  The HSE have now revealed that the prosecution of directors under s.37 of HASAWA has increased by 400% in the last 5 years.  The HSE denies that this a targeted campaign but point to wider changes in the legal framework under which directors operate such as the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act and the Health and Safety Offences Act.  Both of these were covered in previous updates.  Conversely prosecution of employees under s.7 has dropped sharply indicating a definite shift, deliberate or otherwise, to focus legal sanction against company directors.

 

Löfstedt Review

 

Professor Löfstedt was tasked by the Government to review UK health and safety legislation and formerly reported at the end of 2011.  He concluded that there is no need for a radical overhaul of health and safety legislation which he found to be broadly fit for purpose.  He did, however, propose a review of ‘strict liability’ offences giving rise to civil compensation even where the employer has done all that is reasonably practicable to prevent harm¹. 

 

Overall the government’s desire for a common sense approach to health and safety is to be welcomed; however this is not likely to make any significant difference to the events industry currently.

 

Fire Safety Prosecution

 

Following a fire in 2008, the first case of a trial by jury under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order has seen a hotel and its director prosecuted and fined for a failure to conduct a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment and a number of other offences under the order.  The director was ordered to pay fines and costs of £230,000.  The case is important because it is yet another example of the fire authorities taking enforcement action and prosecuting a venue for public endangerment.  Fire legislation is regularly breached, particularly on the build up of exhibitions and venues and organisers are vulnerable to enforcement action.

 

eGuide

 

The latest eGuide has just been republished.  This rotation has seen some significant revisions.  ACC Liverpool, AECC and HIC Harrogate have adopted the guide.  This has meant that variations in Scottish law have had to be included to accommodate the AECC.  The eGuide committee has been restructured with the formation of a technical committee to review and implement updates and revisions.  This will speed up the process of responding to end user requests for revisions and incorporating legislative changes.

 

Note

 

1.     Stark v Post Office.  The Post Office was found liable for the injuries sustained by a postman after he fell off his bike even though the defect which caused the fall was undetectable.  The court ruled that the duty to maintain work equipment in a safe condition was absolute and as the bike was broken that duty had been breached.

Speaker Session at Safety and Health Expo

I have been invited to represent the IOSH Sports Grounds and Events in a speaker session at Safety and Health Expo on 16^th May at the NEC (1330 – 1530).  I would be delighted to see a few friendly faces in the crowd.  I have two slots; one on disaster handling and recovery for events and one on the HSE’s involvement in event construction.  The link to the IOSH page is below.  I have written a couple of articles on this and posted them on this blog site  As with all of these type of sessions they are made by the intelligent and informed questioning that follows which is why I am hoping that some of you lot will show up!  Of course you will also be able to drop in and see Mirabelle and the UBM organising team at the same time.

http://www.iosh.co.uk/news_and_events/events/networking_zone_at_she.aspx

What lies behind the HSE’s decision to get involved with enforcement of event construction?

IOSH Sports Grounds and Events Group - Safety and Health Expo 2012 16 May

As a preface to the IOSH speaker session which will provide ‘An update on the HSE’s new initiative to enforce construction safety at events’ the speaker, Simon Garrett, looks at the background to this.

The HSE is responsible for the enforcement of health and safety law in the UK.  For events this is usually delegated to the local authorities who have laregly the same powers of enforcement as the HSE.  The London Olympics were the catalyst for a review by the HSE into event construction.  The HSE have decided that they will take on enforcement with regards to construction at events.  The HSE report, ‘Identification of safety good practice in the event construction and deconstruction of temporary and demountable structures’ was based on a review of six accidents and six site visits.  These were all related to entertainment, festival or sporting type activities and there is a concern among event safety professionals that this was a very narrow focus on which to base some of the generalisations stated as fact in the report.

CDM 2007 applies to all construction projects and essentially is about the management of those projects in a safe manner and the design of structures so that they are safe to use and maintain.  The HSE’s stated position is that although legally this legislation does technically apply to events, they will ‘not enforce CDM provisions at events’.  This was always a bit of grey area but we now have a definitive position.  The HSE’s view is that duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations the Working at Height Regulations and other construction activity related regulations are perfectly sufficient for the enforcement of event construction. 

The HSE’s focus will be on construction by which they mean ‘any structure being constructed’.  It may reasonably be assumed that they intend to focus on the larger more complex structures though in theory it applies to all structures from shell scheme up to complex structures.  The HSE have been somewhat opaque in regards to the extent that this covers rigging though it is reasonable to assume that there will at least be overlap.

Where does this leave local authorities?  This is difficult to gauge because it will depend on individual authorities.  The HSE has limited resources and some industry commentators believe that it may not have fully appreciated the extent of activities covered by their new remit.  Notwithstanding there is a clear HSE agenda here and they would not be doing it if they did not feel that there was a problem to be addressed.  One thing is clear, the events industry is going to have to ensure that it has its house in order with regards to event construction if it is going to be put under renewed scrutiny by the HSE.

Simon Garrett is the MD of X-Venture Global Risk Solutions and a Chartered Practitioner

www.x-venture.co.uk

Do we really live in a more uncertain world?

IOSH Sports Grounds and Events Group - Safety and Health Expo 2012 16^th May

As a preface to the IOSH speaker session which will consider ‘The Essentials of Contingency Planning and Major Incident Handling’ the speaker, Simon Garrett, considers whether the rising interest in this subject stems from the fact that we really do live in an uncertain world.

Who would have thought that the actions of a Tunisian fruit seller would trigger a series of events in the Middle East in 2011 that would lead in the space of a year of the toppling of dictators in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya that hitherto had had an iron grip on power for decades?  Many argue that the pace of these events was fuelled by media exposure and the ability of the masses to use social media to organise themselves in a way that would not have been possible a few years ago. 

Closer to home, those living in Western economies have for decades enjoyed the proceeds of growth, prosperity, longevity and free access to education and health care.  The next few years will bring with it the need to share austerity, accept falling living standards and stricter rationing of social infrastructure such as education and health care long considered a basic right.  The rationing of university education in the UK through pricing is just one example.  The riots in London and other UK cities in 2011 is testament to the ability of relatively small numbers of people organising themselves using social media to wreak havoc to the extent that city centres became no go areas and thus subject to mob rule.  We have seen riots before of course but these were largely contained to specific areas.  Are we now seeing the beginnings of a new and less containable social phenomenon?

Whilst risk prediction even a few months out is usually a mug’s game it is hard not to conceive that the latter half of 2012 will see the dénouement of the Euro and the whole EU project in some form or another.  The backlash from the dispossessed victims of austerity measures who feel that they have little to lose and much to gain from mass civil disobedience against leaders seen to have long ago exceeded their political mandate is likely to be violent, massively disruptive and unpredictable.  Economic opinion appears to be divided between those that think that the collapse of the Euro is unthinkable and those that believe it to be inevitable. 

In the events industry we are uniquely vulnerable the sudden changes and disruption to civil infrastructure.  Our business is expeditionary conducted at a distance from our base location.  An event organising team can leave its London office to set up an event in Birmingham, Barcelona or Beijing. The greater the distance, the greater the dislocation from our normal environment.  We are highly dependent on meeting tight deadlines.  A factory may lose production for a morning and catch up using overtime. We have no such ability to catch up.  We are thus highly reliant on the civil infrastructure and in particular transport links to function normally and efficiently.

The uncertainties of the world around us and our unique vulnerability to unforeseen changes in local conditions, presents both a challenge and an opportunity to event organisers.  It is a challenge to the unprepared and an opportunity for event organisers to expand into new markets where others fear to tread.

We cannot know what the next unthinkable or unforeseeable crisis will be, but we can prepare knowing that the only certainty in our business is the need to plan, prepare and train to deal with uncertainty.

Simon Garrett is the MD of X-Venture Global Risk Solutions www.x-venture.co.uk