If I was being cynical, I might suspect that you had some axe to grind!

"Does anyone else feel this lot has too many powers...."

I assume that this 'lot' means the HSE? No I don't think that they do. The powers of an inspector are covered under HASAWA Section 20. In general I have found most inspectors to be sensible and reasonable. Any change in powers would I assume require a change in legislation.

"I think the burden of proof should rest with the prosecution particularly in view of their new tax raising initiative."

In many cases I think it still does apply, although under HASAWA section 40 the onus is upon the defendant to demonstrate that they had complied so far as is reasonably practicable etc. Again, any move away from this would require a change in legislation. I assume you're referring to FFI, and if so I would be interested to hear why you think that the burden should change specifically because of this.


"I think company directors / owners should be the only people they should be able to prosecute.".

Really? Really, really? Your approach seems hopelessly flawed to me. So you're suggesting a system that does not seek to prosecute those who actually COMMIT offences UNLESS they also happen to be a director or owner? Of course many H&S offences are committed by people who are not directors and owners. So everybody else who commits an offence, including those that may have caused a serious accident, possibly resulting in serious injury or even a fatality will not be prosecuted? Does that seem a reasonable or ethical approach? Can I ask, what reasoning have you used to come to such a conclusion?

"This will probably cause uproar with the dun nuffin ron nuffin ta hide brigade.".

I don't know who this 'brigade' is. But I suspect that few will support your last suggestion to prosecute directors/owners ONLY and I would think that such an approach would be an anathema to most on here.

Thank you for your erudite replies but the only axe I have to grind is with potential abuses of Govt authority. IMHO the balance of power has tilted far too much and anyone now can be trotted off to sing sing unless they can afford a decent QC.

NO

There seems to be more and more Sect 7 prosecutions and with the effective abolition of legal aid not much chance of mounting a defence.

It has always been easier to prosecute the little man than the Chief Executives surrounded by their legal teams and I am not sure that is what Roben intended.

It was only recently the previous Govt wished to imprison people without charge for 3 months so I suggest the Executive likes to always have a stacked deck.

You see this is where you really don't know what you are talking about. It is much more difficult to prove a case against an employee because there have nearly always been management failings as well.That is why historically there have been so few prosecutions when in fact more employees should probably have been prosecuted for their dangerous acts. Many employees have got away with it when they shouldn't have done.

It is really easy for people like you to sit in judgement on the HSE when you have no experience of being an enforcer.

I'd not noticed an increase in section 7 prosecutions.
In fact, I think I've spotted just one in the past year

Can you point me to them?
I'm genuinely interested in these, as I'd like to get over to some of our staff that they too have legal responsibilities.

Well Ronald

There were 8 in 2010/2011 and 12 in 2011/12 that my friend is an increase of about 30 percent.

And statistically it is an insignificant increase based on the data set. You would need to trend it over several years not two.

I think you're confusing the HSE with MI5.

Nobody, including MI5, has got the money or resources spare to bug your home to listen to you complaining about gas boiler care!

And they're not the slightest bit interested in your personal life unless it threatens national security!

Nope nothing in there about the HSE tapping phones and having worked for them I can say that they don't!!!

Why don't you find a more appropriate forum for your anti-establishment rantings!!

Anti establishment rantings; I merely highlighted the draconian powers available to even Local Authorities which much like your tone I find unpalatable.

Still the good people at this site feel everything is just dandy and I accept their learned feedback.

BJC

I don't think everything is fine and dandy. However the following statistics may indicate that the HSE are quite lenient and have a regulatory 'light touch'.

1 Since 1981 when Managing Safety was published the HSE has consistently indicated that about 80% of accidents are attributable to failures in managerial control. Roughly 13% can be attributed to the employees themselves.

2 According to the HSE statistics for 2011/12 there were 173 fatalities; 111,000 other injuries were reported under RIDDOR - which included 22,433 major injuries; 1.1 million working people were suffering work related ill-health; the estimated cost to the economy was £13.4 billion in 2010/11.

3 Using an 80/20 split we could anticipate around 968,138 potential prosecutions of employers for failing to protect workers. In 2011/12 there were a total of 551 prosecutions by the HSE in England and Wales and the Procter Fiscal prosecuted 34 cases in Scotland. Hence actual prosecutions represent a minute fraction of the potential that could be taken.

4 The HSE investigate around 4 to 9% of major injuries – depending on whose estimates you look at. So if we consider what may be the worst injuries – not accounting for fatalities – there were 22,433 major injuries reported in 2011/12. The HSE accepts that even for major injuries there is a significant under reporting. Taking an optimistic view of investigated major injuries – 9% - it means 20,414 did not get an investigation. If 4% were considered 21,535 would not be investigated. No prosecutions there then.

5 I understand that HSE only take cases where there is a good chance of them winning. The figures do not appear to reveal that the HSE are being heavy handed or abusing their powers.

6 While some people would like to see more workers prosecuted this is always a balanced judgement. Following someone into hospital and as they come round from the anaesthetic - after they have found out about their broken/amputated limbs; paralysis; or the realisation they will never work again - offering them some court proceeding papers is unlikely to aid their recovery.

7 I’m reminded of an old cartoon that used to be printed in the Hazards magazine in the 1970s. It was a picture of a worker with his hand laid on the floor and blood gushing from the open wound on his wrist. Standing over him was an over-the-top stereotypical representation of a Victorian employer who stated: “It’s my land; it’s my factory; it’s my machine; and it’s YOUR fault.”

8 I haven’t even considered the 14,000 people a year who die from work related ill-health!

Don't know about MI5 but over 40 construction companies were caught funding, supporting and using an illegal blacklist of around 3,200 workers in 2009. One of the reasons that many workers were blacklisted was due to them raising health and safety issues. Not one single company engaged in this despicable illegal practice was prosecuted. Nothing to do with the HSE, of course, just an indication of the legal balance between workers and the organisations that employ them.

Cheers.

Nigel

Blimey!

I was having a rant on here, the other week about Judith.

And I've noticed a mysterieous black van parked in our street several times recently...............its all beginning to make sense now!

Nigel

You seem a genuine person and I care very much for all those injured at the hands of despicable employers. Please do not confuse my distrust of the new FFI HSE with not wanting to rectify that sad state of affairs.

Great post; it almost made me wish to saddle a Posse and round up a few greedy multi -millionaires.

Believe me the LEP is happy to make a mountain out of a molehill