The text was extracted automatically from an image of the document or from an old file, and may contain errors in some words or in line order. The original file is the reference.
Via e-mail only:
Dear
Duty of care to staff in Iraq I am replying to your e-mail to Peter Bennett dated 23 June 2004. Like you I think that the proposed statement is a sensible idea, and my advice as to its suitability is as follows
1. I agree that DFID, in common with all other employers, owes its employees a duty to take reasonable care for their physical and mental health and safety in all the circumstances of the case so as not to expose them to unnecessary, reasonably foreseeable risk of personal injury or death. The duty of care includes the provision of competent co-workers and adequate materials as well as a safe system of working. It also includes the provision and maintenance of a working environment for employees that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe, without risks to health and adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for their welfare at work. But the duty does not extend to, for example, the provision of personal accident insurance against special risks arising out of postings or travel overseas or, for that matter, advising employees to obtain appropriate insurance cover.
2.
The standard of care is that to be expected of a reasonable and prudent employer.
taking positive thought for the safety of its employees in the light of what it knows or ought to know. Where there is developing knowledge, DFID must keep reasonably abreast of this and not be too slow to apply it; and where it has greater than average knowledge of the risks, it may be thereby obliged to take more than the average or standard precautions. DFID must weigh up the risk in terms of the likelihood of injury or death occurring and the potential consequences if it does; and DID must balance against this the probable effectiveness of the precautions that can be taken to meet it and the expense and inconvenience these involve.
3
What DFID must do in order to comply with the duty of care depends on what is reasonable in all the circumstances, which include not only its own knowledge of the risks but also the degree of control it has over its employees given where they are their experience and the nature of their work. Beyond that I am not competent to comment on the precautions that DFID is committed to take, or to suggest what, if any, additional measures it should or could take. However, it seems to me that DFID has undertaken to do considerably more than it may be required to do by law, which is of course to be applauded Simon Harker Group Head Peter Bennett - Team Leader PEOPLE INVESTOR IS PROTH DECLASSIFIED
significant risks remain, it may be required to give its employees such information which is available to it to help them to evaluate properly the benefits of being in Iraq against the risks. However, such a duty is more likely to arise where the risks are not common knowledge (which I would say they probably are here).
6. DFID is not legally obliged to provide staff of consultancy organisations with the same level of support as it gives its own employees. Nor is it required by law to underwrite the steps taken by NGOs to support their staff working in Iraq. I would be inclined to omit the guidance for consultancy organisations and for NGOs unless this has been agreed with them, assuming that this is intended to be read by their staff as well as by DFID's own employees.
I am happy to discuss my advice.
Yours sincerely,
for the Treasury Solicitor DECLASSIFIED