Posted By David Edward Partington
Allan, I tried to read this but the brain protested... It is late and I have had a difficult day.

I did glean that there is insufficient funding of the HSE and that outside the specialist fields there are only some 500 HSE inspectors.

I am also aware that the latest HS bill has been talked out of parliment.

Clearly we are in a bad situation and the government care little for HS. How many ministers (junior) have we had in the last ten years?... Why has the HS bill not formed part of the Govts agenda dispite their "revitalisation" of HS. It is no wonder that every month when the Practioner falls through the letterbox it is full of unacceptable situations being reported and of course this is just the tip of the iceburg.

The Govt are apparently more concerned if someone parks their car then the HS of the populace. In London if you park your car there are innumerable people ready and willing to put a ticket on it. Despite the fact that you may not be causing any harm to anyone. Compare and contrast this with 500 HSE Inspectors and we see where Labour's prioritys lay.

Regards

David.

Posted By John Murgatroyd
Well, I read quite a lot.
You just gotta like some of these guys....but not the ones from the HSE/HSC, who frankly sound like dorks. Probably for a good reason.
Extracts below.


"I am worried that we have effectively lost the plot somewhat because, by definition, asking employer representatives on the HSE or wherever to accept additional legal duties on directors is a bit like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas and you will never get consensus on something like that."

"Interestingly, picking up on your answer to Andrew Dismore, a lot of the concerns that we have had have been to do with small businesses and how they can operate within the terms of the HSE regulations. "

"Rob Marris: I think so. It was quite recently because it has been mentioned to us before. The Manual Handling Regulations came into effect on 1 January 1993, which was eleven and a half years ago, but we have still got this huge problem with back injuries in particular from manual handling, although that is not the only injury people get. The sense we get is that there is not a whole bunch of enforcement on that."

"Perhaps I could go on to probe some of those issues because I think the evidence so far is that at best the statistics are flat-lining as far as accidents are concerned, and as far as illness is concerned they are skyrocketing. That may be due to the fact that people are reporting more incidents of ill-health, it does not mean to say there is more or less ill-health but that people are more aware of occupational health being an issue. Can I go on to the question of prosecution. One of the concerns I have is that we talk about refocusing the HSE work but with fewer health and safety inspectors than there are Members of Parliament inevitably their work is going to be somewhat stretched. I think the HSE research, which we have seen, shows that fear of being taken to court is one of the real factors in getting employers to comply with health and safety legislation. There is no doubt that the number of prosecutions has fallen and your strategy is going to reduce the number of prosecutions even further. You are good at the carrot and stick approach, and I can see why you want to go down the carrot route but, in my view, taking the stick away or making the stick a lot thinner is not going to produce the right sort of balance."

Posted By Dave Daniel
I am drawn to the conclusion that perhaps the best strategy the UK could adopt (but won't) would be to pull out the Robens Commission Report and see how many of the criticisms made 30 years ago apply today. I believe the result would be depressing - too much legislation, too confusing etc etc. DSEAR is a classic example.

Perhaps the element of revitalising we lack is resurrecting Robens and trying to make sure that this time it is not thwarted by the bureaucrats.

Re VPP - The HSE tried to get the Motor Industry to agree to some form of this 20 years ago - basically it meant "you confess everything to us, and jump through every hoop we can think of and we'll prosecute you anyway"... there appeared to be no basis for any mutual working together or any "special relationship". Needless to say the Motor Industry Safety Group did not advocate this approach to its members!

Of course its only my view but I fail to see how laws are now simpler and just require a bit more explaining...... The most consistent comment made to us by our clients is that they need us to help them make any sense of the morass of legislation which faces them, and if they did not regard us as good value for the money, I would not have a job.

I also think the Audit Commission ought to actually audit the cost-benefit statements made by the HSC and where laws have been introduced which have cost too much for too little real benefit, seek to throw them out. eg- If CDM was such a good law which would make so much improvement, why are we having repeated enforcement blitzes on the Construction Industry????

Dave Daniel
Technical Director
Practical Risk Management Ltd