Without knowing the details it is difficult to comment on a particular case. Could it be that those who arranged the contract did not have sufficient knowledge or training on the potential health and safety issues? I see this regularly in my particular field. Those who make the decisions are either ignorant or incorrectly informed about risks to health applying to a particular situation and make decisions, often with the best of intentions, that actually result in actual damage to health. Possibly one of the statements that applies to this - and to many other situations - is: "The danger arises when you don't know that you don't know." Chris

How did you come to this conclusion Ray, and have you got examples of specific cases and the 'Paltry Fines'?

Prosecution. Fine. A concurrent Prohibition Notice. And the enforcement action ends. There may be your answer. No direction by the Court. Of even more concern, no Improvement Notice issued at the time of the offence. No measure or further action by the enforcement authorities to determine if the offender has done ANYTHING to stop this happening again. Something wrong with the enforcement approach generally. This seems to happen time and again. The public interest is NOT being served by this process.

I guess we could all argue that financial penalties for breaches of health and safety legislation generally, appear insignificant, but it is worth looking at the sentencing guidelines before being too critical. A quick search of the HSE prosecutions pages shows fines of between £1K and 40K, and costs from nothing to £20K for breaches of CAW. Cases include asbestos contamination at a school, after refurbishment contractors removed ceiling tiles having been assured they did not contain asbestos , a case of a Director who carried out an asbestos survey and missed out approx 1200 sqm of AIB and Lagging, part of the building then demolished, and an incident involving the disturbance of amosite containing sprayed coating during refurbishmentwhere failure to survey the property prior to refurbishment work commencing, resulted in unlicensed and uncontrolled asbestos removal and the spread of asbestos. In respect of financial penalties generally, I assume (dangerous I know) that most of us are aware of the maximum penalties in the lower and upper courts, but it is worth visiting the sentencing guidelines that state sentencers should determine the appropriate level of fine in accordance with the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which requires offence seriousness and the financial circumstances of the offender to be taken into account. For both individual and corporate offenders, the level of fine should reflect the extent to which the offender fell below the required standard. The sentence should also take account of any economic gain from the offence; it should not be cheaper to offend than to take the appropriate precautions. The following factors will be relevant when sentencing corporate offenders: The fine must be substantial enough to have a real economic impact which, together with the bad publicity arising from prosecution, will bring home to both management and shareholders the need to improve regulatory compliance. Appropriate fines for large companies might be beyond the summary fines limit. In such circumstances the case should be dealt with in the Crown Court. Where larger companies are dealt with in a magistrates’ court, the court should look to a starting point near the maximum fine level and then consider aggravating and mitigating factors. Care should be taken to ensure that fines imposed on smaller companies are not beyond their capability to pay. The court might not wish the fine to result in the company not being able to pay for improved procedures or to cause the company to go out of business. Where necessary, the payment of fines could be spread over a longer period than the usual 12 months. There is no single measure of ability to pay in respect of corporate offenders; turnover, profitability and liquidity should all be considered. If a company does not produce its accounts, the court can assume that the company can pay whatever fine the court imposes. When sentencing public authorities, the court may have regard to the fact that a very substantial financial penalty may inhibit the performance of the public function that the body was set up to fulfil. This is not to suggest that public bodies are subject to a lesser standard of duty or care in safety and environmental matters, but it is proper for the court to take into account all the facts of the case, including how any financial penalty will be paid. I think Ron has hit the nail on the head with his response.

When sentencing public authorities, the court may have regard to the fact that a very substantial financial penalty may inhibit the performance of the public function that the body was set up to fulfil. This is not to suggest that public bodies are subject to a lesser standard of duty or care in safety and environmental matters, but it is proper for the court to take into account all the facts of the case, including how any financial penalty will be paid. "It's a joke!" Is an unfortunate turn of phrase in my view, but I take your point Ray, and you are entitled to your opinion.

Gerry D - Thanks for sharing the link to the HSE press release about the case on the forum. However, your choice of topic title and the comments below the link remind me of the sort of health and safety articles which are published in 'Daily Wail' type newspapers. Perhaps you are a journalist! From the one case you make a massive and unjustifiable leap to besmirch all local authorities. As Phil Rose commented at #7 the press release gives limited information about the circumstances for which the city council involved was actually prosecuted under Sections 2 & 3 of the Health and safety at Work Act 1974. As the release does mention that proceedings against the sub-contractor involved are still ongoing, discussion of the actual circumstances on this or any other public forum is inappropriate. This would preclude anyone from the council involved from responding to this topic if they wished to do so. It is likely that OS&H advisers like myself who work for local authorities will regard your comments and some of the comments by some responders as reflecting ignorance, i.e. absence of knowledge, of arrangements for asbestos and other aspects of safety & health in such organisations. My impression from various sources, including discussions with advisers in other councils, is that local authorities are generally aware of the strict requirements regarding asbestos and have suitable arrangements, including surveys before building projects are commenced. However, when such arrangements run smoothly as they tend to do, almost everybody - including HSE inspectors - is satisfied and nothing newsworthy occurs. Council accountants probably don't like the costs of surveys and the engagement of licensed contractors to remove asbestos materials under controlled conditions. However, they probably like even less the cost of specialist clean-ups after uncontrolled disturbances of asbestos and fines resulting from prosecutions. As with any organisation councils are not immune to things going wrong. One factor is that work in their many buildings is often sub-contracted to firms and some of them further sub-contract the work to others, including very small firms or self-employed people who may have little awareness of or regard to health and safety matters. Allied to this is what seems to be a considerable reduction in the number of clerks of works employed by or for councils. In some councils they are an endangered species or perhaps even extinct! Councils have been subject to financial squeezes for years (the latest round is much more drastic than previous ones), with the result that fewer and fewer people in building related departments are trying to deal with more and more work and uncontrolled sub-subbing becomes more rife.

To add to my previous offering: Little point in robbing one public purse to pay another. Back to the effectiveness of the enforcement and prosecution regime then. What about a HASAWA s36 or s37 prosecution? Wouldn't that act as bigger deterrent for others?

Not again...just broken the end of my quill & ran out of blotting paper, but the gas lamps seem to still be lit & it's time to send another youngster up a chimney in the Town Hall...of course you must have guessed...I work for a Council & like the old adage, we are like broken arrows, we don't work & you can't fire us! But is it that time again, the season for Council bashing, for as we all know we are the root of all evil, being in the "Public sector" that is...I can hear the boos & hisses now. What I am intrigued about however is that two of the main posters decrying H&S in Councils come from the construction & railway industries.....a case of pot calling kettle perhaps? No, we are far from perfect, but in my time I have worked with, & come across, some of the most dedicated professionals in the country who deal in "cradle to grave" from nurseries to crematoria, & in the most challenging circumstances. Rant over...for the minute...time to fill the inkwell....

Zyggy The trouble is that the cap too often fits and makes councils an easy target. It actually amazes me that LAs with all their experience of the issues in many guises should still come to this point - failure of one person or failure of a system? The names of Gillian Beckingham and Barrow come to mind in this. People are exposed to issues beyond their competence but it is the council directors who are responsible for placing them in such positions. Perhaps director diqualification would be the best sanction. Graham Sub subbing is often recognised by designers fairly readily from past experience

Let's not get too hasty, I was not having a dig at LAs and apologies if it appeared so. Indeed, the principle of public institutions being fined disproportionately applies to all - even railways. In fact, in the prosecution of British Rail for the 1988 Clapham Junction train crash Judge Wright said: 'A swingeing fine of the magnitude that some, even now, might consider appropriate in the circumstances of this case, could only be met by the Board either by increasing the burden on the fare-paying passengers - which is hardly logical having regard to the fact that it is for the benefit of the fare-paying passengers that the legislation exists - or by reducing the funds available for improvements in the railway system in general. That again, could hardly be regarded as a desirable state of affairs.' For the record, British Rail was fined £250,000 in a crash which resulted in 35 fatalities and 500 injuries.

I would widen out the remit of the original question posed on this thread by asking why a lot of things are still happening? Why are so many people being injured in the same old ways? The reports of prosecutions on the HSE website and in the H&S journals make depressing reading. People at work are still being crushed, mutilated, burnt, electrocuted, gassed or made ill on a regular basis. Workers are still cutting bits of themselves off on machines, either because they put themselves in danger or through inadequate guarding. Others are still being trapped and crushed in machinery through the absence of simple isolation precautions. The year is now 2011 - has nothing been learned in the 37 years since the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act? Why do we still have the situation where workers are serously hurt or killed because of complacency, ignorance, ineffective control, penny-pinching, or just plain stupidity?