Rank: Forum user 
|
The DWP have announced that a review of the HSE will take place.
The review will assess whether there is a continuing need for HSE’s functions, as well as whether it is complying with the principles of good governance.
A DWP Press Release states:
•The first stage of the review will identify and examine the key functions of HSE. The review will assess how the functions contribute to the core business of HSE and DWP, and whether these functions are still needed.
•If the conclusion is that the functions are still required, the review will then examine whether HSE as currently constituted remains the best way to perform those functions, or if another delivery method might be more appropriate. For a body to remain an NDPB it must satisfy at least one of the Government’s three tests:
•Does it perform a technical function which needs external expertise?
•Do its activities require political impartiality?
•Does it need to act independently to establish facts?
•The size and profile of HSE means that there will also be an independent ‘Challenge Group’ overseeing the review – their purpose being to rigorously and robustly challenge its findings
The full press release can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/gover...afety-executive-launched
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
My first reaction was - hurrah, it's Friday ......
My next reaction, after finding out the post is true is that the HSE, whatever you think of it's effectiveness, is a valuable body.
Looking at the press relase though, it seems that all departments are undergoing this, so it is not a "bash the HSE" project that I feared it might be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Well the Health Protection Agency (HPA) which provided useful independent advice to anybody that wanted it (a bit like the HSE) has since 1st April been Public Health England (or Wales or Scotland) and it now an executive agency meaning that it reports to the Secretary of State directly and does what he/she tells them to do rather than what the law requires them to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Shouldn't the HSE satisfy all of the 3 tests? but given the recent changes I would not be at all surprised if the HSE went the same way as the HPA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I seem to recall that in the early days of our recently deceased Great Leader, she was actively talking about doing away with the HSE and having the insurance industry fulfill the function.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
redken wrote:I seem to recall that in the early days of our recently deceased Great Leader, she was actively talking about doing away with the HSE and having the insurance industry fulfill the function.
I have heard many stories that the government of the 1980s tried on more than one occasion to get rid of the HSC / HSE but have yet to see a contempory report confirming this.
However, I seem to recall that when the government ordered the review of health and safety in the mid 90s, Michael Hesseltine initially wanted huge swathes of safety cut - only the minimum number of windows in a workplace, no legal obligation for the employer to provide toilet paper and soap for the toilets in the workplace, certain employees being forced to pay for their own PPE. Lucky saner heads prevailled and the Deregulatory Task Force left safety legislation alone for the most part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I'm led to believe by others that HSL does some very good work, but that which I had cause to review, in Court, was a complete shambles and based on a quite appalling understanding and application of science.
If a UG student of mine had done as badly, I'd throw them off the course, though like government-funded agencies and departments, that is remarkably difficult to do.
Is HSL to be reviewed as well as HSE?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Looks like it will be loads of laws but no enforcement.
Of course, the EU will have to be consulted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ian,
Can you please suggest an alternative system, specifically citing one that is significatly better than the HSE, in the developed world?
Billions of pounds of taxpayers money has been wasted on plcs that were supposed to be examples of the best of free-market private enterprise and efficiency, and yet not the same level of trienniel scrutiny, despite majority shareholding by the government after the bail out??
The governance of HSE previously has been held a good example, despite constraints in the funding system.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/simplification/hampton.htm
I would assume that HSL will be included in the review as it is an integral part of HSE
http://www.hse.gov.uk/ab...rd/organisationchart.pdf
Of course,, all organisations, irrespective whether public or private should continually improve and be efficient. Perhaps, if there was less interference and less so called populist initiatives by governments, ministers etc that impacted the operational working of these oraganisations, they would actually perform better???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not really a surprise.
This government has been trying to dismantle this countries health and safety framework since it came to power. Firstly we had the famously impartial Lord Young commissioned to produce a report on H&S. The Government then commissions a report from from the more credible Professor Lofstedt and then conveniently cherry picks the aspects that suit their agenda and either plays down or completely ignores his comments regarding certain other matters.
Individuals being promoted to positions of authority within the HSE who are more concerned with advancing their careers within the civil service and will basically tow the party line and not rock the boat no matter what they are told.
And finally the question of whether we will buy into this Conservative Governments rhetoric regarding leaving the EU. In my opinion if this happens then Health and Safety (as we know it) in this country will be dead in the water.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Jay
It's not my role to do that, unless you're prepared to pay a great deal of money. Even if that were so, you would find better people that I for that job so don't waste your time asking.
I would propose a top tier management consultancy firm, supporting the expertise available in various layers of central government. The question is not related particularly to matters of health, or to safety, but is of the [mis-] management of a large and increasingly dysfunctional organisation that has been failing for some years. Budget cuts and increasing workload are no excuse, any more than the quality of beef lasagne might be blamed for the falling Tesco share price.
There is nothing that I am aware of wrong with the general H&S framework, but the way HSE/HSL apply themselves to the task. I'm surprised and saddened that you confuse the two issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Well our organisation has already decided that they are with Jay and not Ian:
"Richard Jones, IOSH head of policy and public affairs, said:
“We certainly expect this review to find the HSE ‘fit for purpose’
Must have been away when that was consulted on!
http://www.shponline.co....t-launches-review-of-hse
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If HSE was not asked by successive govenments and ministers to undertake ther masters own "slant" on what to concentrate on etc i.e prioritise, and actually be permitted to run professionally, we would have even better outcomes. Also, a significant angst, primarliy from SMEs, is under local authority jurisdiction whose enforcement can be inconsistent.
In context of reputable management consultants, their track record is not always exemplary although they may provide a useful "cold eyes", thinking out of the box input.
Even without a costly review, most ( not all) Health & Safety professionals will in thier own way know that HSE will easily meetnot only the minimum one, but all 3 criteria set for continuation as a Non-Departmental Public Body.
In my view, HSE is probably at the top decile performance when it comes to Non-Departmental Public Bodies
http://www.hse.gov.uk/ab...dplans/corporateplan.htm
http://www.hse.gov.uk/ab...rporateplan/plan1213.pdf
http://www.hse.gov.uk/ab...e-people-survey-2012.pdf
http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/reports/index.htm
Can it further improve--yes, if it is permitted to be run professionally at arms-length in reality and provided with realistic funding!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
redken wrote:Well our organisation has already decided that they are with Jay and not Ian:
"Richard Jones, IOSH head of policy and public affairs, said:
“We certainly expect this review to find the HSE ‘fit for purpose’
Must have been away when that was consulted on!
http://www.shponline.co....t-launches-review-of-hse
Well, would they have the [...] to do otherwise?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
There may well be various issues with how HSE are operating at present. It would seem unlikely that those carrying out the review will be looking at HSE's performance in the same way that a practitioner does and therefore even more unlikely that what we may see as shortcomings would be identified. My key criticisms would be notice happy, looking at hazard not risk ie not evidence based approach and forgetting about SFARP and tolerability of risk.
I suspect that a reviewer would see notices as successful outcomes of intervention etc etc and as has been suggested it would be quality of governance rather than whether the mission was correct?
I was however surprised at such a vicious attack on HSL by Ian. In my experience people like Bob Rajan, Gary Burdett, Laurie Davies and many more are leading lights, highly approachable and their colleagues who operate as field hygienists are priceless. Perhaps in construction and asbestos we are just grateful to have access to such a resource.
Kind regards
Bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Jay, I followed your links and note that there are two only Performance reports 2006 and 2007. There is no explanation as to why they stopped producing them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Could be worse I suppose especially if ATOS were conducting the review.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
paulw71 wrote:And finally the question of whether we will buy into this Conservative Governments rhetoric regarding leaving the EU. In my opinion if this happens then Health and Safety (as we know it) in this country will be dead in the water.
Clearly nobody knows what the coalition would do with H&S if we left the EU.
However, historically, the best thing that happened to H&S in this country was the radical change from prescriptive laws to the 1974 Act which introduced the concept of employers having to manage their work such that it was safe, and face the consequences if they failed.
The EU has a history of being very prescriptive in all areas, including H&S and the concept of the 1974 Act is getting close to being dead.
Don't forget that HASWA 1974 was initially introduced to Parliament by the Conservatives - although the final passage was done by Labour as a General Election got in the way. Subsequent Conservative governments did not repeal the ACT so why should you believe the more centrist Conservative party of today should do so?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
colinreeves wrote:paulw71 wrote:And finally the question of whether we will buy into this Conservative Governments rhetoric regarding leaving the EU. In my opinion if this happens then Health and Safety (as we know it) in this country will be dead in the water.
Clearly nobody knows what the coalition would do with H&S if we left the EU.
However, historically, the best thing that happened to H&S in this country was the radical change from prescriptive laws to the 1974 Act which introduced the concept of employers having to manage their work such that it was safe, and face the consequences if they failed.
The EU has a history of being very prescriptive in all areas, including H&S and the concept of the 1974 Act is getting close to being dead.
Don't forget that HASWA 1974 was initially introduced to Parliament by the Conservatives - although the final passage was done by Labour as a General Election got in the way. Subsequent Conservative governments did not repeal the ACT so why should you believe the more centrist Conservative party of today should do so?
Colin
Please see below regarding the background to the implementation of the HSAW
"Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity Barbara Castle introduced an Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill in 1970[3] but the debate around the Bill soon generated a belief that it did not address fundamental issues of workplace safety. In the same year, the Occupational Safety and Health Act was passed into United States federal law. As a result, a committee of inquiry chaired by Lord Robens was established towards the end of Harold Wilson's first government, October 1964 - June 1970. When the Conservative Party came to power following the United Kingdom general election, 1970, they gave Castle's Bill no parliamentary time, preferring to wait for the Robens Report which was published in 1972.[4][5] Conservative Secretary of State for Employment William Whitelaw introduced a new Bill on 28 January 1974 but Labour were returned to power in the United Kingdom general election, February 1974 and the Bill again lost.[6] The new Labour administration finally secured the passage of a Bill that year.
I am afraid when it comes to workers rights under a Conservative Government then history has shown us that we would be wise to expect the worst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
People have been commenting on here about certain things for some time, certainly for nearly the decade I have been around..
Things like how easy it is to litigate against employers.
Well, now it isn't.
Unfortunately you cannot just have the bits you like.
Now the bits you won't like are arriving at your doors.
In case you had not noticed, we have a policy of deregulation, and [dare I say it] disenforcement.
The Inland Revenue (HMRC) have now been "captured" by industry, in that their leadership is now by virtue of the large accountancy companies.
The NHS is now no more, replaced by private companies that provide the services and are paid by government (at the moment...coming to a health company near you soon, basic service with pay-for additions) (free prescriptions ?)
Look at the cost of H&S to industry...some seven billion pounds a year.
Did you think that a government run by commercial concerns would ignore that ?
And I do not just mean the current government.
If the EU cavalry are expected to ride to the rescue.......I don't think so....Europe is bankrupt and sinking fast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Firesafety
Who said Atos and Capita will not be involved - They could be subjected to a PIP or ESA type assessment sheet - Now there is a thought to hang on to. Please can we have one for all politicians as well.
Ian Duncan Smith would be first in the queue as they are ALL in his department.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
So let me get this right in my head...
After using the Young and Lofstedt reports to blind, disembowel and castrate the HSE that are now going to audit them to see if they are fit for purpose as a regulatory body?
...Can't think what they'll find.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
"After using the Young and Lofstedt reports to blind, disembowel and castrate the HSE that are now going to audit them to see if they are fit for purpose as a regulatory body"
I see the penny has dropped ?
Presumably, if the audit shows they are fit for some sort of purpose, we shall then be treated to a further round of disembowelling, and then another audit.
Soon, we shall have a rake of laws governing elf-and-safety but nobody to enforce them. Doubtless there is more to come on making litigation inaccessible to the masses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
25 and #26
Also, if we (H&S practitioners, IOSH etc) complain about the HSE in any way, they will be deemed not fit for purpose. We will just add fuel. Seems we could be dammed if we do and dammed if we don't.
If they are found not fit for purpose, then what? Self regulation? Or external audit scheme of some kind for everyone (like OHSAS18001 - so thousands per year for everyone)? I'm sure I heard rumours of this years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.