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

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

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.

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

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.