With the reduction in HSE staff by 201 companies like these will probably not be getting drop in HSE visits so IMHO if they ignored H&S in the past they will not change and take it seriously in the future. I wonder where the H&S assistance and supervision were in this particular case? Take Care

im afraid to think the even if the hse inspections tripled ! that this thing will still happen . its going to be long old road until we can say we have tackled this especially the construction sector. ive just come out of construction 23 years (bricklayer) and iv seen it all. and sorry but done most if not all of the bad practices . but this is how iv seen it ~ time-scales for work to be finished ~ prices for the tender unrealistic ~ foreman will not let work stop due to there downfalls in paperwork or organising ect . ~ MOST IMPORTANTLY i say until tenders are won by way of accumulation of good h&s records and not £££££ then this will not stop , no matter how many inspectors we have it will not be enough .period its the lads on the ground who get put in the position they find themselves by poor leadership . iv seen it, iv been put in countless times and have walked away in 1 piece although now i get awful flashbacks of what we did . iv now done my construction cert & ready for my diploma in a couple of weeks only trouble is the way things are shaping up ill be waiting a long time to pass on what iv learned . just my thoughts on the thread . thanks paul .

How do we prevent it you ask. When you can stop the client and the principal contractor from being too greedy. PC's tender for the work and the last thing on their mind is the cost of a suitable & sufficient health and safety management/monitoring program. Particularly with bigger PC's all the work is now sub-contracted out and the onus is then put on the sub-contractor to work safely within the time limits given. Unrealistic due to the greed of the PC and/or Client. From the outset PC's should dictate to the client what the true costs of a genuinely safe and healthy project are and allow sub-contractors to tender accordingly. Yes I'm aware that is what the CDM Regs require, but in the real world it simply isn't happening. Greed......Simple as that.

A live example of my earlier comments has occured within the last 30 minutes. One of our clients (a Painting & Decorating Company) sub-contracting to a Large PC on Local Authority Contract has just called me insisting on a site inspection. No I haven't done one for them for 11 months. Why? Because every time I contact him for addresses to carry out visits he never replies (All done by email for my records). Again that begs the question why? Basically because he is probably not complying with the Risk Assessment/Method Statement in place with regard to safe access, segregation, PPE etc. I'm in no doubt that an incident/accident has occured somewhere on one of the PC's sites and the proverbial has hit the fan.

quote=Martin1] The organisations I have worked for in the last 5 years have varied from barely adequate to hopeless. In all cases the problem could be traced back to senior management attitude and lack of either concern or commitment to health and safety. Including that old chestnut - we have no money! Well find it - none of these senior managers ever took a pay cut or gave up the large company car or could have stood up to a close check on their expense claims - none of them ever filled in on the shop floor when the numbers were cut and everyone else had to work harder for less. Stupid articles in the papers about health and safety have really hurt us at ground level ( stupid people read the articles and stupidly believe them ). Cutting back on the HSE is also bad news. End of rant!!!

One answer to the question posed by Pete48 at the end of his reply above can be found in the new IOSH "Li£e Savings" initiative, as described at http://www.iosh.co.uk/ne...mpaign_life_savings.aspx Good for IOSH and everybody who has been involved in developing the initiative to spread the message that real occupational safety & health (OS&H) is about saving money as well as lives. Those of us who work in OS&H ought to play a positive part in supporting and promoting the initiative in whatever ways we can. This includes using appropriate opportunities to be ambassadors for real OS&H. This includes occasions when you are asked what you do for a living. I usually say I work in occupational safety & health - and then add, but not what the press and most people tend to think of as health and safety. For a start, I don't ban things - much of my work is about helping to ensure that my employer and its various employees, whatever their role, provide an effective and reasonable service without killing or otherwise harming employees and others. It's also cost-effective and good for business as successful organisations will confirm. After that, see how the enquirer responds and discuss accordingly. It's good to find that some people have a positive attitude and experience about OS&H. Others prove to be avid readers of "Daily Wail" type newspapers and faithfully believe the guff which they repeatedly read about "elf n safety". It's interesting to try and challenge them - a version of education as advocated by Pete48 in his opening comment above. Ask them if they think they should believe everything which they read in their newspapers and on the internet. It's also interesting to see how people respond when you ask them why newspapers are produced. My understanding, a somewhat cynical one, is that the main reason is to make money by pandering to the curiosity, wishes and predjudices of readers. As for imparting information, this is simply a by-product of newspapers. The same goes for news websites.

Redken I understand your frustration that is the main reason I am involved in H&S. When I first started in lift engineering I worked for the worlds largest company in this field, everything you needed to complete your job safely was always provided. I am sorry to say this is not the case in many other companies especially smaller firms, it is a matter of cost and the price they are getting for that particular contract, unfortunately in many cases H&S goes out of the window, there is no enforcement so easy to get away with.

Does anyone remember the advert from the 70's or 80's where the bloke electrocutes himself with a power drill ? It must have been quite hard hitting as I can still remember it vividly. Why can't the HSE fund a short advert, that's dramatic enough to make people take notice, but end it with a quick guideline about the duties of the employee and the financial implications of non-compliance ? Surely if the parasitic 'Have you been injured at work' companies can afford the airtime the HSE can. My father-in-law moaned the other day about the state of his workplace, poor storage, blocked fire exits etc. He said it was pointless telling the boss as he never listened. I upset him when I told him he was also in the wrong as an employee (ignorance isn't bliss) and could be prosecuted under Section 7-'must report hazards etc....'

If you want to see some more detail of this accident follow this link to the local newspaper article. http://www.thisisplymout...772547-detail/story.html I do agree that the penalties imposed are a joke when compared to other areas of law such as commercial and fraud so some proportionate increase might prove some small deterrent. I still doubt that fear of prosecution and its consequences has any real impact on changing the approach in many businesses. It is just not the prime motivator and is unlikely to ever be so. Fear of commercial and reputation loss is much stronger. I do not see how more enforcement would do anything but push stuff further under the counter. Do more "policeman" ever have any lasting impact. Wasn't that after all the system we moved from all those years ago when I was a fresh faced, bright and bushy trainee safety "officer" (and that must have been a while ago as I was paid in pound shillings and pence!) I was also trying to challenge a norm. HSG65 and other associated management systems have become a mantra for success and therefore must be the solution to all workplaces; H&S law often applies universally irrespective of risk; safety cannot be managed unless the boss is committed; line managers must manage that ephereal thing called H&S rather than just manage the business? Are we sure this is still the best, and as some would have it the only way, to prevent injury and harm? Some of these management documents are rooted in late 80's/early 90's cultures after all, are they really still the answer? p48

“Perhaps a change of view about just what successful H&S is all about is overdue? Any takers ? P48” OK to start I think the role of modern H&S should not only include providing sound Health and Safety advice, but I think it will have to include an element of cost reduction. Ie reviewing a process that with a small spend could both improve H&S issues, but do away with PPE for that activity. I know we do this anyway, but do we make a big enough fuss about it so others are aware and don’t just see another small spend. If we can demonstrate we are not there just spending money, but seen to be looking at how spend can be reduced, we may gain more respect. When was the last newspaper report on how good H&S could save money as well as lives, I don’t just mean SHP but the papers Joe public read ( whatever we may think of them), Is this something IOSH should be looking at. To get that respect we will of course have to continue doing all those others things expected of H&S these days :- Environmental issues, training (not just H&S), managements systems ( 9001, 14001, 18001), pandering to our clients whims, accident claims etc and anything nobody else wants to do. I’m sure I was not the only one put in this position. I agree with a lot of what has been said above, and I wonder if we would chose to close the business or try and struggle on by cutting a few corners. I would like to think I have enough integrity, but until actually in that position I cannot be certain. PS – some police would be nice though, not the pretend ones that are only out at 2pm on sunny afternoon’s.

Dear All This is interesting topic which requires the equivalent of writing the history of the world on the back of a postage stamp to address. So here’s my starter for 10: 1 Start a new approach by centring effort on what workers do, what obstructs them from doing work safely, make information directly relevant to their jobs and get their opinions first before developing measures. While the law on consultation over health and safety requires this, the HSE estimate that 60% of employees are not consulted over health and safety matters that they should be. After all, we’ve got shed loads of stuff on managing health and safety. So that should lead to … 2 A greater demand to enforce the law. The HSE estimate that around 80% of injuries can be attributed to a failure in managerial control: enforcement action on an annual basis is minuscule in relation to actual breaches of health and safety law. Enforcement in Great Britain is a minimalist concept in health and safety and just because it has never been effectively tried before, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be expanded now. That could be supported by ….. 3 Sector based initiatives where organisations, health and safety specialists, trade unions etc can develop programmes – with HSE support - to focus on priorities relevant to their sector. The HSE Research Report 620 on Targeted Initiatives analysed several of these and identified what worked and what the limitations were. Some have scored major successes. Each could have its own plan to reduce injuries and ill-health. For example every sector could develop a ‘sharing good practice’ database similar to www.safequarry.com where there are literally hundreds of sector based solutions to health and safety problems freely available to anybody. The website also has training materials donated by member companies and tool box talk briefings. It also features a CPD recording facility so that time spent on the website can be added to an individual’s CPD portfolio. [It was good to see that Martin Isles, Health and Safety Director at the Material Products Industry received a RoSPA Award for Distinguished Service for his valuable work in this sector. It was well deserved.] HSE inspectors - and others - could then promote and reinforce ‘sensible’ sector based solutions to health and safety problems which clearly identify what is ‘reasonably practicable' and all becoming 'Part of the Solution'. This means that ….. 4 Employers would have access to industry specific solutions that are practical and of direct application to them. This would make it easier for organisations to identify and apply effective control measures. So that …. 5 Health and Safety Practitioners can be spared from the constant whining of some business representatives stating health and safety regulations are too complicated because they are just too bewildered to collect the useful practical information themselves. Which in turn …. 6 Could leave many employers without any excuses as to why they break the law. So leading to the need for …… 7 An increase in enforcement activity, which, I think, the Government of the day has no interest in. Cheers. Nigel

I must take issue with Stephenjs comment about insurers "...insuring unsafe practices". Without wishing to cause offence this sounds like a misunderstanding of the purpose of Employers' Liaibltiy insurance. EL insurance is there to provide compensation for the injured person in the event that their employer is found to have been negilgent. Insurance is a compulsory requirement just so that funds are available. Insurers are not permitted to place clauses/conditions on their policies - for example that if there was a breach of H&S legislation no compensation would be paid. That would mean most innocent employees injured by the negilgence of their employer woudl receive no compensation. That would create an outcry. The purpose of EL insurance is to provide compensation NOT to ensure that employers follow H&S legislation - although that may be a spin off benefit And I hear the reply/challenge - "Why don't insurers simply refuse to insure those employers who are flouting the law?" There are many reasons - cheiefly - that we do not know what gos on. We have insufficient resources to visit all those insured and we rely on what we are told. And insurance is a competitve business and if one insurer refused to insure an employer/firm chances are there is another that would have less scruples. And as for profit... EL brings in lots of money but claims take most of it. Think about that fact that say 100 builders pay a few thousand £s each for their EL cover - but one will have a fall from ladder accident that results in compensation of £1m. Ok - so I work for an insurer.. but I read many comments on this Discussiosn Forum and would love to have the writers sit with me for a few days and see how it really works. Phil