Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 14 July 2002 20:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp Prompted by "Paying lipservice to H&S" I have the following observations. The HSE have recently been blitzing construction sites across the country. In May the London area was targeted and 223 sites were inspected, which resulted in 110 Prohibition Notices being served, but not one prosecution - source HSE Press Release E084:02. What kind of message does this send to the construction industry? Of course if there had been a serious injury or fatality then good ol' reactive HSE would no doubt have prosecuted the offender! With the large increases in fatalities across all industries in 2001-02 is it not time for the HSE to be more proactive, Courts to issue penalties that reflect societies view -deterrent and punishment to fit the crime. What about this so-called tripartite H&S system in the UK based on goal setting and voluntary codes of conduct, is it just crap, or am I alone in thinking like this. Should health and safety representatives and professionals stand up and be counted, perhaps organise a forum, Safety and Health Institute for Truthful Eutopia ([expletive deleted]E). Please feel free to respond regards Ray
Admin  
#2 Posted : 15 July 2002 08:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis Ray Interesting thoughts but have you stopped to think that Improvement and Prohibition notices are part of the range of options available. The police do not take all offences to court, and the reality is that it can be difficult to persuade courts to give substantial fines for a simple breach of regulations, eg a guard rail missing, when there is no injury resulting. For many construction companies the fact of the notice can be a problem for further work. It is possible to see a notice as being a higher cost item to the company than a fine of typically £3-5k. Bob
Admin  
#3 Posted : 15 July 2002 09:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Lee Ainsworth Ray, I must agree with the comments of Bob. When the HSE have a blitz like the one in London, surely it must make the construction companies consider their position towards Health & Safety, and if nothing else the financial and delivery implications an inprovement/prohibition notice can have. Yes! in an ideal world, Health and Safety would be a concern for these companies because they wanted to be the best at it and create a safe working environment for their employees. Alas it is not and if this is what it takes to get them to take notice then so be it. We may not see an immediate result but it should have a long term effect. Lee
Admin  
#4 Posted : 15 July 2002 10:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis See also my comment in the other thread. If manufacturing and service industries are so bad I am glad to be here. We have our faults but in fact most people in our industry are very well aware of the risks but seem to feel that the job must be done in a particular waybecause its the only way that the client can afford or will pay for. Also we suffer from the normal problems of transient work forces and the consequent disincentives to training. If manufacturing etc faced the levels of construction risk with the attitudes outlined elsewhere I think the microscope would be rapidly turned away from construction. I am not saying in this that I regard the situation as satisfactory. No employee should have to go to work with any expectation of injury or other harm. In fact I dislike targets intensely as they can be ubderstood to say " I am only planning to injure 3, or whatever number you may insert, people this year". Our expectation should be to harm no person by our operations and manage to achieve that and that alone. Bob
Admin  
#5 Posted : 15 July 2002 10:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp Robert and Lee, First thanks for a response, I think your points regarding the HSE are valid but this is missing the point slightly. I used the HSE and construction sites as an example of poor H&S management particularly in construction. Although many other industries including my own (railway - enough said) often treat h&S issues with nothing less than contempt - and get away with, unless a fatality occurs. Rather too late for the victim and his family! We do not seem to have an effective means of suitably addressing organisation's who flout the law, particularly those who are repeat offenders. Court penalties are not a deterrent for most organisations. The current Corporate Manslaughter law is totally ineffective. Last year my company and an individual manager were prosecuted under HASW Act the Judge accused them of "paying lipservice to health and safety issues" - source HSE Press Release E122:01. Now where have I heard that phrase before? The present laws designed to protect employees who complain or report poor h&s standards is also inadequate, many of those working in small organisations like construction are afraid to speak out. Voluntary codes like Revitalising Safety are essentially aesthetic, I truly believe that only effective punitive measures will force employers to manage safely, perhaps a comprehensive and realistic Corporate Killing law might do the trick. Just my opinion folks. Ray
Admin  
#6 Posted : 15 July 2002 11:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mark Large No doubt it is a matter of cost and resources. Taking someone to court can be costly and they only have enough human resourses to take so many people to court. Its unsurprsing therefore that they concentrate on the most serious incidents i.e. those that have resulted in a serious accident etc. Especially when big business can be more than willing to spend lots on lawyers to delay and tie up prosecutions. Upsettingly more often than not thay are willing to spend money on lawyers than would have been needed to solve the problem in the first place. Also worrying is when fines are more bareable to a company than the production costs of doing it right. They do a cost benefit, pay the fine and carry on as normal.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 15 July 2002 14:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ashley Williams Nine construction companies have run foul of the HSE over their standards of safety while conducting work at height, more specifically, preventing falls of personnel from height. The companies pleaded guilty to offences under r.6 of the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 (CHSW). The nine were fined a total of more than £28,000, with £4,419 costs, after HSE prosecuted them at the City of London Magistrates' Court last week. This was just about the largest number of cases HSE has brought to court in one day, a product of the week-long construction safety blitz in the spring. A tenth company, E J Roberts Roofing, of Beckenham, prosecuted under the same regulations, pleaded not guilty, its case was adjourned.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 16 July 2002 10:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Richard Last month I was stood near to an HSE inspector during a break in proceedings at a seminar. Looking out of the window at a construction sight opposite (houses only, nothing heavy) he said "I'v seen nine prosecutable offences in less than two minutes" I don't think those prosecutions took place, and I can understand why. That could have been any one of thousands of small sites across the country, and the resources simply aren't there. Richard
Admin  
#9 Posted : 16 July 2002 13:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Patrick Duffy Raymond, I agree with everything you say. the vast majority of employers do not want to work together with H&S Reps. I work in Local Government, the new HELA 10 year plan to reduce accidents and improve health and safety in local government is a joke. Local authorities are good at putting policies down on paper but that is as far as it goes [no money is the war cry.] Reading some of the responses, the cost of H&S to employers comes through, surely it is much more costly when employees are injured or killed,[a] the loss to a family, [B] the court cost, fines compensation etc. My own thoughts on the matter, are until proper legislation is imposed to put bad employers in jail, not just for murder, any serious breach of H&S Law, then nothing will change. Pat Duffy and Josh
Admin  
#10 Posted : 16 July 2002 21:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Adrian Watson Dear all, Whilst, I believe that Health and Safety Law is not the only law that is disregarded with impunity there are a number of simple measures that could be done to improve the situation. Firstly, ensure that there are adequate resources to police the safety regime. When Lord Robens wrote his report the Factory Inspectorate was inspecting all premises one every three years on average. Today they inspect premises on average once every twelve years! If you believed you were never going to get court when speeding, would all people you stick to the speed limit? Secondly, the ambiguity as to whether Enforcement Inspectors are "Policemen" or "Educators" should be removed. Their primary duty should be to enforce the law. To that end they should use all the weapons in their arsenal. They should issue prohibition and improvement notices if the criteria laid down in law is met. They should not shilly shally around and give vaguely worded letters advising the person that they should do x, y and z. If the person needs time, the notices can provide for a reasonable time limit for compliance. Thirdly, Inspectors should be better trained. Fourthly the division as to who enforces what should be reviewed so that the right body enforces the right sector, rather than having the daft situation that a HSE inspector inspects a one-man band if his premises are a factory. Resources should be based upon risk and speciality, not historical acronyms. Regards Adrian. P.S. I'll pack up my soapbox until another sunny day.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 16 July 2002 23:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp Ye Gods, thank you Patrick and Adrian for your responses, for a moment I thought that I was on the Moon. I agree about the HSE being an advisory body, they should concentrate more on enforcement including prosecution. I also like the analogy with speeding. A short story about the HSE...and I do not wish to be seen as a 'knocker'. A couple of years ago I was attending the 36 day TUC Certificate course for H&S Reps. The facilitator asked the class if they wished to have a guest speaker from the HSE. Comments ranged from "no thanks" to "not the same old HSE Speil". Incidentally I spoke in favour of a visit by an Inspector. The debate continued until it was decided to take a vote, needless to say the doubters won the day. It is indicative of the regard that the HSE hold with H&S Reps and a sad thing it is too. So much for our respected tripartite system. I am no longer a H&S Rep and I am currently in first year of a MSc in Health and Safety Management. A lot of credence is given to 'industry standards' and 'best practice' we have h&s laws but still many employers and managers ignore even the most basic regulations. Is there an answer? I hope so and I bet it will have nothing to do with self regulation, voluntary codes or Revitalising safety. ps Thanks too all who have contributed to this debate - watch out for the book. Ray
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.