Looking at this in a wider context:

One of the strengths of the HSE used to be its ability to work through a large range of trade, employer, professional and standards groups, as well as the trade union movement. In addition, the HSE has been an initiator/supporter of several sector based initiatives, some going back to the start of the organisation. For many years I have thought the value of this work is underestimated and often not recognised.

In the HSE Research Report 620 ‘Review of targeted initiatives in the manufacturing sector’ 2008. They found:

‘The literature review indicates a number of similar schemes that report significant reductions in injury rates in the order of 50% over a period of 8 years.

‘It is apparent that the initiation and initial stages of these schemes entail a higher level of HSE involvement in order to secure initial commitment of the sector and lead organisations, agree targets and priorities. The commitment of HSE resources may also facilitate and encourage contributions from partners.’

Since the establishment of the HSE they have developed both an enforcement role – the main one – and an enabler function. In this second role HSC (as was) Industry Advisory Committees established tripartite approaches in specific sectors. Changes in the economy; moving to a service based economy; increasing self employed and a whole host of other factors mean that the tripartite system is less influential and doesn’t exist for many sectors. As estimates give trade union membership at about 20% of the workforce, the success they have had in assisting employers improve health and safety standards, is now applied to a minority of the workforce – albeit economically significant.

So the HSE has no longer got the resources to be able to effectively underpin its enabler role. Quite clearly the Government want it to only apply its enforcer role to ‘higher risk’ activities, hoping the ‘lower risk’ activities will be ‘self-regulated’ by employers using the simplified guidance now freely available for those with access to the HSE website.

The simplification of Regulations etc is designed to ‘inspire’ employers into complying with the law as their obligations now become clear [after nearly 40 years]. Apparently they will enthusiastically fulfil their obligations once the Red Tape has been cleared away. Fees for Intervention (FFI) is just part of the move to underpin the HSE’s narrow enforcement role. For example I understand that if Inspectors find a ‘material breach’ they are mandated to implement the FFI procedure. ie less discretion.

So with the Government policy limiting HSE funds; reviewing all ACoPs/guidance; ignoring the benefits of health and safety regulation; the day to day role of the Inspector is bound to change.

This gives those employers using the services of around 30 million workers (many of whom will never see an Inspector) the opportunity to ‘voluntarily’ see the light and ‘self-regulate’ themselves into fulfilling their legal obligations. This indeed is the Challenge of the Red Tape Fallacy.

A squadron of pigs stands ready for take off.

Cheers.

Nigel

quote=Clairel]

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.