.....have you sent this information to Lord Young ???

The figure of 151 fatalities is about comapring like with like--refer to:-

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pr.../2010/hse-fatals0910.htm

http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm

http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatalinjuries.htm

I thing we should feel good that the fatal rate for "workers" has decreased, but as stated by the HSE Chair:-

"It's really very encouraging to see a further reduction in workplace fatalities in the past year. This is performance which owes much to good practice, leadership and employee engagement. No doubt the recession has resulted in lower levels of activity in some sectors and a decrease in the numbers of new inexperienced recruits has also contributed to this fall in fatalities."

"We should also remember that 151 families are mourning the loss of someone who last year went out to work and never came home. Being one of the best health and safety performers in the world means continuing to strive to drive these numbers down further - not getting complacent about what we've collectively achieved and recognising the new challenges as we emerge from the recession.

"As with all health and safety statistics, today's announcement is a combination of encouraging news about improvement but also a salutary reminder of the tragedies of lives lost at work."

Agree

Others on this forum should take note, re overburdening companies/organisations with OTT safety recommendations re fire, work at height, etc.

So far as is reasonable practical - not total risk avoidance/removal by the 'ban it brigade'

Life is a risk.

Ian,

Superfically, it appears that most of the 151 fatalities were preventable without excessive burden on UK Plc.

There is a 2009-10 names and details of fatalities:-
http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/fatalities/2009-10.htm

Regulators are supposed to take into account macro-economics (Use of cost benefit analysis in the
decision-making process) of additional measures required to reduce the "number of deaths" or similar measures.

Refer to:-
http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/r2p2.pdf

ALARP suite of guidance
http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarp.htm

Clairel,

All I have done is to counter the perception that somehow, there is no cost benefit analysis carried out when new regulations are enacted and especially when it comes to the decision making regarding the safety case regime for high hazard industries(ALARP).

I have not at all referred to the decision making process for prosecutions which is a different matter altogether--I very much doubt that the prosecutions for most of the fatalities in the list for 2009/10 have reached the hearing stage.

For example, the latest fatality stats inform that the Agriculture Sector has done worse, but the HSE has no intention enacting additional legislation to reduce deaths in Agriculture. On the contrary, it is raising the awareness of the employees and self employed by various means.

Obviously, as is the case with most regulators, they depend upon individuals and some of it will be down to individual bias/personalities--we find that in all manner of organisations.

For example, the process for setting WEL's (previously MEL/OEL) that can have a huge impact on cost benefit analysis does take into account the cost of mitigating measures versus the health benefit.

I accept that all HSE information need not be taken at all times at face value, but I feel that in the entire scheme of Health and Safety regulatory systems, when compared to others worldwide, the HSE appear to be doing a very good job and we should be proud of it rather than knocking then down at every oppurtunity.

Isn't one of the factors that the goalposts are continuously shifting?

Once it was acceptable to send children up chimneys.
Then our standards changed.
When I first started work (back in the fifties!) my job was to cut up blocks of graphite to make brushes for electric motors. No guards on the circular saw. As the person who trained me said: "Why? Only an idiot puts their hand into the blade!"
Would we accept that today?
Then we had the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act in 1974
Following this many other regulations.
Who is to say what our standards and expectations will be in the future.

I also agree with another posting. Fatalities are a tragedy. However, so are long term sickness, early deaths, etc. due to exposure to workplace environments. These usually don't show up in most statistics, many because they are either never identified as such or are not reported.

We need to balance the cost of action now against the long term cost of not doing anything. I would love to know what the cost of long term work related illness really is and then balance that against what would have been the cost of avoidance through better control measures, training, etc.

Just consider that it takes thousands of Pounds to train a doctor or nurse. Then, through penny pinching measures on controls against infection, dermatitis, etc. this investment is wasted. Does this make sense? In many cases where I have been involved in upgrading chemical exposure management measures the resultant control measures have actually reduced operating costs. It isn't quite that simple to say that health and safety is a cost and burden.

Chris

Refer to "Good practice in health and safety adds up to great savings for our economy"

http://www.iosh.co.uk/ne...ngs_for_our_economy.aspx

We can do better and based on the above, yes, the benefits will outweigh the cost!

The HSE accepts that purely in context of numbers, some (not all) of thge fall in numebers is due to the recession, but a better indicator is the fatality incidence rate per 100,000--that has also been steadily declining.

Refer to Table 6 and charts 1 & 2 for the rates.

I very much doubt that the NEBOSH Diploma syllabus covers the economics of safety decisions at macro level (countrywide policy decisions etc) and external costs etc, but some of the MSc courses cover it.

I tend to disagree that most of the fatalities to "Employees" were not preventable or it would not have been SFAIRP to have control measures. I have take some trouble to read the descriptions--although very brief, it will be obvious to most that it probably would not have require much to prevent the fatalities. The challenge here is not to increase regulatory burden ( as the risks and control measures are known), but what would it take to change the behaviour of the "cowboy employers". (assuming that in a majority oif the employee fatalities, the significant breach was on part of the employer)

Various govt departments use "value of life" etc in thier cost benefit analysis.


HSE principles for Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) in support of ALARP decisions.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpcba.htm


Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) checklist :-
http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpcheck.htm
It provides "values" of preventing fatalities

The setting of safety standards --a report by an interdepartmental group and external advisers
This report is about health and safety standards in general (including the health and safety
dimensions of environmental standards). It does not comment on specific standards, except
by way of illustration.
It is concerned with the balancing higher levels of safety against higher costs, and with the
role of absolute limits for safety risks. It is concerned especially with bridging the gap
between, on the one hand, information about risks and costs and public values and
preferences and, on the other hand, the development and the presentation of public policy
measures which are efficient, fair and publicly acceptable. It is therefore about the
economic, psychological, ethical and administrative aspects of safety standards. It is not
directly concerned with the scientific analysis of levels of risk, nor with the equally crucial
issue of enforcement.


http://archive.treasury..../html/docs/soss/soss.pdf




The Green Book sets out the core principles on which all public sector economic assessment is based. Supplementary guidance has been produced developing further how these principles should be applied in specific areas such as managing risks, optimism bias, competition, impact assessments and taxation in PFI and the public sector comparator. More detailed departmental guidance is also available, applying the Green Book to areas such as health, the environment, transport and the shadow price of carbon.

http://www.hm-treasury.g...a_greenbook_guidance.htm