It reads to me as a self-serving fait accompli, in the main a simple regurgitation of the Lofsted Report. I'm also puzzled as to why there's a foreword by the Minister for Disabled People.

I still had Chris Grayling in mind - I'm not great at keeping up with reshuffles.

So HSE have amended their guidance on queries and disputes and dropped the word 'appeal'. Basically done away with the first stage of the process so all disputes now get kicked straight to what used to be the second stage panel that includes a token third party. Its still not the justice I was brought up to respect and uphold.. And the guidance on HSE site is very much less forthcoming about the possibility that HSE inspector might make mistakes. The guide lists things the panel may consider during a dispute - they do not include this possibility. I'm sure the earlier version did? I predicted back in January that HMG would hear the comments about commercialisation loud and clear but would evade or sidestep the criticism of FFI and the way it is perceived and operated. It doesn't make me any happier to see I was correct.

I'd be interested in people's thoughts on the Government trumpeting the reduction in LA proactive h&s by 90% from 2010 to 2013. They aimed for a reduction of a third but I expect the cuts may have assisted greatly. I don't doubt that there were some arguably pointless inspections being done...but at the same time I can't believe it was any more than a small percentage of that total figure. As per Steve's comments, the HSE are apparently assumed incapable of making mistakes whereas the assumption is that LA's are likely to be doing h&s wrong and need keeping in line. Clearly I'm showing my LA origins (and undeniable bias) here but the knock-on effect of this huge reduction is reduced numbers of competent inspectors within LA's in the long term - this doesn't do anyone (regulator or regulated) any favours.

Imho its now about extracting money from those that cannot afford QC representation. Similarly Safety Cameras did little for RTAs according to research but quite a lot for Westminsters coffers.

I guess it comes down to the fact that there are 400+ LA's. There are small rural district affairs up to large unitary affairs. I'm not sure it would be fair to suggest that one is any more switched on than another. Although, I personally have only worked in urban unitary authorities and would hold with my original point - I wasn't personally doing any pointless h&s inspections. All work was risk based and targeted which is now 'codified' for but was always how a good LA should have operated. So I can't speak for the large majority of LA's where I haven't worked....but I still struggle to believe that a 90% reduction is in anyway a positive thing and remain concerned that the retirement of experienced officers and lack of replacement (plus lack of ongoing experience gaining from 90% reduction in inspections) is very bad for the long term. The next stage is a complaint that LA's have failed to effectively fund their statutory duties re: h&s when some major investigations start to fail or simply not to take place when the public would demand it... So this could, be default, start to drive a medium term LA move to FFI .... or maybe we'll see Martin Temple's plan of HSE and LA enforcement roles being merged.