100% Regulator.

TBH though, I do not have a problem with this as follows;

In the past before FFI I have had visits from the HSE and they have been ok. We have a had a cuppa, a look around and left without action from either party. Although, these were usually part of a campaign, like slips, trips and falls I personally always felt that 'at any minute, they could turn and spot something they don't like and....' so obviously, HSE inspectors are treated with kid gloves, shown the good bits as far as possible and politely ushered off-site as quickly and nicely as possible.

With FFI I have no reason to suspect that you are on my site to do anything more than to try and find something wrong to charge me. If you look hard enough, you will find SOMETHING. I cannot allow you to do this so you are not welcome anymore.

No matter what guise you come in, you are ultimately the Regulator, the person with the red and yellow cards. We have learned to play the game without a ref, business' know their own risks and hopefully have a 1/3/5/10 year plan in place to improve things with revenue and capital as it becomes available but right now they are where they are.
In house SHE (Q)(F) Managers are the safety function of the business- they know the business better than anyone else.
2 out of 3 interactions with inspectors in the past, the conversation has eventually got around to (led by the inspector) how miffed off they were that they were on less money as the enforcer than us guys employed by the companies.
Just one of the other reasons I cannot take the risk of your presence with this narking you!

So, for me, in summary, I know what you are, the law enforcer, this IS your role, please don't even try to come in any other guise - that's my job - you can't tell me anything new - although if you do, I'll smile and agree and keep fetching the coffee.
I'll lie to you, throw you off the scent, panda to you, shower you with gifts, waste time, flirt - anything, anything to get you off-site as quickly as possible - that is what I'm employed to do ultimately.

I had posted these comments on the 2 tribes thread but I think they are worth repeating here with some additional comment

Before I retired I was involved with safety and dealt with various enforcement agencies for over 30 years.

Over those years all enforcement agencies and the inspectors have slowly moved from being individuals that you knew and could approach for advice and guidance to simply policing the workplace.

In some cases, but not all, the inspectors have simply become book followers and having little knowledge of the process being carried out. I am sorry if that sounds a bit harsh but it has been my experience over the years.

To give an example I once had a visit from an EA inspector looking at our procedures for using open radioactive sources. The conversation started by the inspector admitting that he had no knowledge of work with isotopes as his background was waste disposal and he would simply have to use a tick box check list.

Going back to Davids (Stephen25053) question “Do you see HSE as a part of the Health and Safety function in your business or as 100% Regulator”

Unfortunately I now see all enforcement agencies as 100% regulators and with the push for all to impose fees and fines I see very little prospect of that changing. Which I personally I find very sad.

The move to cash generation would not encourage me to have any contact with inspectors unless it was essential for regulatory compliance.

I would add a caveat to this and say that I did find that the specialist Bio Safety Inspectors were always very approachable and easily contacted.

I feel we can achieve more by working with HSE and others and not keeping them at arm’s length.

Unfortunately I do not see an easy way of getting back to that I outlined earlier and being part of the Health and Safety function which HSE and others were in the past

John

Two factors indicate the much broader that needs to be taken into account in evaluating what the HSE is up to now

1. Today's publication by the Department for Business Innovation & Skills (BIS) of a new report in its Employment Relations Research series: Employer Perceptions and the Impact of Employment Regulation.
Contradicting the Coalition government's thinking on the impact of employment law on business via its 'Red Tape Challenge' and Employment Law Review, respondees from 40 firms generally considered that employment regulation was both necessary and fair. In the main, anxiety about employment law stemmed from a fear and misunderstanding of the law. This is the so-called 'perception reality gap', identified Peck and others in Business Perceptions of Regulatory Burden (2012).

2. An Appeals Panel, with employer and trade union representatives (including at least one IOSH member), considers appeals against fines associated with the FFI. As an enforcer, the HSE decisions are moderated by representatives of much broader interests of employers and employees

While working in N Ireland I had numerous examples where inspectors were of a profound help to me in some difficult circumstances. One senior inspector saved my sanity on a £200M construction project by reminding me of what was important when faced with the challenges of a tough contract, tough client, apathetic PC, foreign contractors.....Keeping folks safe.

I must be honest any say that it was probably down to the individuals rather than a process or policy on the part of HSENI.

Now, 100% regulator and it might be difficult to find those little islands of sanity!

Firstly, I will try to be as brief as possible but that will not be easy. The responses to the question so far are enormously interesting and also a little depressing, at least to me personally, as they do not appear to reflect my own experiences. At this stage I will explain and justify my position on the question - something that any Inspector should do in relation to their position on any question.

It is my view that the HSE can only ever be 100% Regulator, for many reasons. It is unquestionably the case that any site Operator knows their business far more than a visiting Inspector and is in a position to know the appropriate solutions towards managing the hazards presented by the activities on their site. The goal setting nature of the legislation is another reason that the only people who can decide on, implement and then manage safety or health measures are those with control of the business. Regulators do not have, and neither should they have, any control of any business. They only have recourse to the legislation (HSWA) which puts them into effect and defines the parameters within which they should operate. It appears to me that there is a great deal of antipathy towards Inspectors, for a variety of reasons, and that is absolutely fine but I do think that there is a lack of consideration for the difficulties that can be found when viewing a situation from their position.

Inspectors do come with their own experiences, both before and within HSE. These might be industrial, technical, legal or managerial but you do not just drift into HSE and find yourself as an Inspector. What does change when doing an Inspectors job is the realisation that things DO actually go wrong, and much more often than previously thought. In FOD, an Inspector might investigate 3 serious accidents every week, depending on the Group they are in. Most people should not experience this in their working lifetime! Every inspection, investigation and court case adds to that experience but it also influences how we approach our jobs.

There is no doubt that the recent introduction of FFI, where this is applicable, has changed the perceptions of industry quite widely towards questioning the motives of HSE when we find anything wrong but I am not convinced that any more 'material breaches' will be found now than were found prior to the introduction of FFI. It is my view that these now have a 'tag' which clearly defines them, more importantly they now have a financial cost! Different political perspectives carry these changes with a changing political landscape and they always have; had Lord Young or Professor Lofstedt or now the Red Tape Challenge concluded differently then much more profound changes may have resulted. It is important to consider the political influences on a regulator like HSE when considering how the Inspectors in that regulator communicate and work - this is certainly a very immediate influence on me and one I am constantly aware of. This does serve however, to further define the very different role that HSE has than that of the Health and Safety function in a business.

Finally and on a personal note, I sincerely hope that the relationships between myself and those companies that I Inspect are based on more mutual respect than those reflected in response to the question so far, that is perhaps an issue around the egos involved rather than the role of HSE and I am firmly of the view that ego should be left at the company gates. If you are not happy then it is perfectly reasonable to talk to someone else in HSE, that is what we do!

Regards,

David

Ok point 1. I am an ex-inspector and there are several of us on the fourms. So I think it unfair to suggest that antipathy is due to a lack of understanding. Perhaps you need to appreciate that the antipathy held by many is due to the expereinces they have had.

Yes you can just drift into being an inspector. I did. So did many. Needed work. Applied for lots of Gov't jobs as they had the best working conditions and ended up being an inspector.

You may leave your ego at the gates but many do not. There is a spilt in the HSE between those that enjoy the power trip and those that don't.

I find that when reading your posts that you give a very idealised view of the HSE. Do you really live in blissful ignorance of the darker side of the HSE and some of the inspectors in it?

Clairel, I am perfectly aware of those who were previously inspectors and those who currently are, at least if they have alluded to the fact. I choose my language very carefully and make no apology for it, usually it serves me well!

The antipathy clearly comes from a combination of factors including a lack of understanding but clearly also includes personal experiences. Just because you can see the relationship from both sides does not make that the majority view.

I have some experience of those who might come across as being on a power trip, although I am not convinced that this was actually the case. We are all human beings doing our jobs, sometimes we will get on and at other times, with other people, we will clash. However, we are also all adults and should be able to deal with these personality issues as such.

Now the tricky issue of my 'idealised' view of HSE. As an organisation I can absolutely see what we should be doing and I have my own views as to how we should be achieving this. Generally, I think we have a reasonably good focus on what society would want HSE to achieve and recent Government reviews would tend to support this view. Oddly however, I often disagree with my colleagues just as much as I do with dutyholders because I am very much of a view that we should not ask for any more than the law requires and we all have slightly differing opinions as to exactly what that might mean on a technical level.

As for the 'darker side of HSE' I really have never come across this although I am just about to have a rummage through our HR software to see if I can find it.

Regards,

David

David said

“It is unquestionably the case that any site Operator knows their business far more than a visiting Inspector and is in a position to know the appropriate solutions towards managing the hazards presented by the activities on their site.”

In the past I had regular meetings with the inspector who looked after the sites I was involved with.

Much of the discussion was about solutions we had used and also those implemented by others.

I was quite happy to also discuss where as a site we were experiencing problems.

So there was an exchange of information which was also a learning experience for both of us.

This free interchange of information, I consider, is now inhibited to the detriment of all.

John

I have had the pleasure of some really decent HSE Inpsectors but also two very rude and pretty nasty HSE Inspectors.

This was before the FFI.

The situation will only deteriorate in my opinion as H&S professionals will only see the HSE as trying to make money as per government dictate.

Son of Skywalker

Ah well. There's your difference. You work for HID and therefore how you operate and how you interact with your 'clients' will be very different from the rest of FOD, and has been for a long time. When I was there it felt very much thet HID was almost like a different organisation. So a lot of what I have said will mean nothing to you.

Bullying by the way is huge in the HSE and the HSE has one of the worst records for long term sick from work related stress.

And by the way did I ever see a RA for my own work activity whilst I worked there? Nope. HSE live by the 'do as I say and not as I do' way of thinking. Hypocritical really. Wonder if that ever changed.

Do you really mean that? Really?

If you do, I suggest that you resign immediately and try to regain both your honour and your credibility, but don't be surprised if IOSH throw you out on your ear before you can say "I resign"! Though brutally honest, it's foolhardy and unprofessional and isn't what IOSH expects of its members, is it?

Actually, perhaps you should be surprised, but that's another story.

To be brutually honest David it is that sort of attitude that allows the bullying to continue. Especially your remark about being comfortable to go toe to toe with most people. That implies a certain fraility to those being bullied. Being bullied can take many forms including a person of a senior status using their status to consistently undermine someone they are supposed to manage and also to prevent them progressing in their career.

Not a great deal of hazardous work?

Accompanied on sites?

Well trained?

Within a month or so of joining I was on my own inspecting farms (that I knew very little about) in the middle of nowhere with farmers who were going through one of the worse times of their working lives. No one knew what farms I was visiting or when I was due back. Mobile phones wouldn't work in most of those locations. I was completley alone and vulnerable.

You think that's acceptable?

I could give you other 'stories' too.

Yes. I think you live a blinkered life but I think that you do that by choice judging by your posts. Blissful ignorance.

the removed bit above said Occy Health Forum - not sure why removed as certainly not offensive and don't want anyone to think I typed anything offensive!

I am relatively new to health and safety and I am in my first role where the HSE is the enforcement authority. If the HSE arrived at my door tomorrow morning then the inspector would be made welcome and treated like any other visitor to my company - with respect, decency and with an expectation of honesty. If a material breach was to be identified, I would expect to be told why, what we needed to do to resolve the situation and it would be a hard lesson learned.

There appears to be a great deal of cynicism about FFI and the motives behind its introduction. Maybe it is simply a money making scheme, but it is down to us as professionals to ensure that it fails. This can only be done by us doing exactly what we are paid to do - making sure our employers are obeying the law.

Claire

Mentioning sexism - I once saw a PI pat one female inspector on the head. She proceeded to accidently step on his toes - literally. It was such a gracious smile and apology that she gave!!!:-)

Bob

Well said David68.........sanity at last!

Chris,

Thanks for your question, it is the heart of the matter after all. I think we should always have been 100% Regulator. Actually, I think we have just about managed that, and it has always been the intention, but there is not doubt that the introduction of FFI has drastically changed that perception and the Dutyholder / Regulator relationship, for now.

I don't recognise the phrase 'pro-active enabler' in the context of a regulatory body, although I suppose it might be argued that the Financial Service Authority (FSA) may have strived towards this before 2008.

I also have a very firm view that HSE does not directly improve safety or health outcomes other than through enforcement (in one form or another) as we do not control any aspect of any workplace. The only way that we effect changes is through communication whether that be verbal, written or formal / legal, but it is the employer who puts those changes into effect and so reduces the risk, hopefully.

The relationship has not changed in my view but I do think that society benefits from the influence that HSE has on dutyholders, I just do not pretend that we actually make the changes. I am perfectly aware however that we are one of the presences which apply the pressure to reduce risks and therefor benefit from this, it just might not feel like it at the time.

Regards,

David

I would consider my phrase of proactive enabler to cover any proactive measures from the HSE that allows employers to at least comply with their duties as laid down in legislation ie :-

a) Giving talks to various IOSH groups

b) Production of ACOP’s / guidance (after all, if you are only there to enforce the law why help define what is acceptable)

c) The web site with its helpful information

d) Particular campaigns run by the HSE from time to time

These are surly proactive and any other proactive measures would not be considered enforcement, do you think they (and any other proactive measure) should be stopped and are you aware of any plans to do so?

I do not see it as contradictory at all. It is obvious to me that if I gain agreement from someone on-site to remedy a situation before I leave that site and the only record of that is in my notebook then that is still enforcement. It might be regarded as gentle, pragmatic, call it what you will, but had I not been there it most likely wouldn't have happened, at least not at that time. If I decide, based on the use of the Enforcement Management Model (EMM) and the evidence available to me, that I will write a letter to effect some change, then that is a form of enforcement. Not the formal Notice or Prosecution type of enforcement but enforcement all the same.

If I were the person who was going to fix the scaffold, guard the lathe or design a suitable hazardous fluid transfer system then I would be the person who could actually reduce the risk. I am not however, I use a variety of different forms of communication (hopefully appropriate to the circumstances) to influence others to do that.

Much of my point of view comes from the findings of Lord Gill following his enquiry into the ICL Plastics Explosion whereby HSE was quite heavily criticised for essentially not being firm enough as the Regulator and not following up and forcing previous recommendations which had been made.

Regards,

David