HSE are apparently thinking about the split in responsibilities between themselves and local authorities enforcement. There is an online survey for anyone interested.

http://webcommunities.hs...Questionnaire?qid=644675

This needs to be addressed and the LA enforcement of H&S legislation removed.

Working in the H E Education Sector, before I retired, I had LA inspectors trying to enforce in areas for which they had no remit.

Some LA inspectors seemed that in any area in which students were not taught that they had responsibility

Its clearly stated in the regulations that where the main activity is education the enforcers are the HSE and on a number of occasions the HSE had to remind them of this.

Are the HSE looking for more work?

Seriously, I would be in favour of one authority responsible for h&s, with the exception perhaps for food hygiene which is a specialist subject in its own right. I don't believe one individual can have the necessary knowledge for environmental issues, health, food hygiene, health and safety, etc.

The main argument for the change is that LAs do not have the resources to properly enforce h&s. They also tend to police themselves because as a rule the HSE do not get involved in LA projects. So in effect they are insulated from enforcement action which is one reason why LAs are so poor at applying h&s standards.

Hi

I work for a food company which has shops in over forty local council areas so have experience of having to deal with LA experts. If I were to ask each LA the same question I would probably get at least twenty different answers. However, I don't think changing the system to a national system would improve it, all it would probably do is increase costs.

The way forward seems to be Primary Authority Agreements which we have and although this a cost, local council charge us £2000 per year for the service, it has made vast improvements into how we are inspected. Prior to PAA an EHO would inspect all systems and premises, making any comments / enforced changes as they interpreted the legislation, whilst now with the PAA our systems are agreed with local council so all they inspect is that our premises are following the system and the fabric of the premises. The result of this if they have an issue with the system they have to address it to the local council EHO and not us. This has occurred about dozen times in the 2 years of the PAA and on each occasion we have not altered our systems.

The system work for both food safety and H & S as we are now agreeing our H & S procedures with the council.

The only fly in the ointment is a case between Newcastle city council and Hull City council regarding Greggs and the provision of customer toilets within their shops. If Newcastle fail to win their appeal this will probable result in the failure of PAA which I believe would be a backward step.

Not sure I understand why HSE wants to extend its scope given that the number of HSE proactive inspections has declined sharply.

I've nailed my colours to the flag before but I'm an LA EHO working in H&S enforcement.

I don't get the impression that this is about extending scope at all (although maybe I'm being naive) but rather genuinely attempting to deal with 1998 Regs and an A-Z allocation guide that are now very archaic - with some genuine grey areas and contradictions that make determining enforcement authority a skill in its own right. CDM'15 hasn't helped.

As to one agency - yup, definite advantages but disadvantages too. Have you even looked at the number of premises enforced by LA and compared that to HSE?
But still, LA's in particular are suffering as much as the HSE in regards to austerity measures and they had less resource in this field to start with. There is a real danger of some smaller LA's dropping h&s as a workstream...or certainly offloading to officers who are really lacking in competence. This will encourage tick-box inspection and a lack of consistency.
The real solution is a better investment in the regulators. But then again, I would say that wouldn't I? ;)

Crack on and fill in the survey but you'll see the questions aren't about the issues some might like them to be about.

Unfortunately both EHO's and HSE inspectors are under resourced. HSE inspectors have almost stopped doing proactive inspections. They will only engage in campaigns, respond to complaints and investigate fatalities. At least EHO's will do inspections and are more pro-active, but lack of public funds and Prof Lofstedt review have both conspired to pull the rug from under their feet. When I was an EHO each of us were doing 30 inspections per month as well as investigating accidents, complaints etc. We were not specialists, but we enforced H&S in considerably more businesses than the HSE. How times have changed...

Most, if not all large organisations have an army of health and safety people, site based personnel are trained, supervisors and managers are required to attend extra training, refreshers, etc. I suggest the real issue is the plethora of health and safety regulations and guidance which organisations and individuals are obliged to adhere to.

I could visit any significant construction site, warehouse, manufacturing plant and/or check the company policies and procedures and find numerous non-compliance. These are not normally deliberate errors but symptomatic of the prescriptive nature of h&s. Yes, there are still some poorly performing organisations but usually SMEs who don't have the resources (sometimes the will) to adopt good practices.