I have been doing this job for a few years and, like a lot of you I suspect, have seen the HSE gradually become less and less visible.

The threat from HSE inspection seems to have passed. For small and medium companies the risk of prosecution seems remote and the fines often small. I don't recall the last time I saw an inspector.

Apart from corporate manslaughter what threats hang over the heads of organisations who ignore their health and safety responsibilities? From a financial point of view are organisations better off saving the money they would spend on health and safety and put it in a little pot from which they could pay any fines and buy some bottles of booze with what remains?

A lot of companies seem to trust to luck. They are aware that the occasional large fine is levied but know that the chances of this happening to them are remote.

What is the point if we don't have a large stick? Not everyone WANTS to do health and safety - most only do it with a grudge.

Claire

I've seen plenty who could not care less and education is something they have never come to grips with in any walk of life!!!

I think although hopefully not cynical, I see where Martin is coming from to a degree.

I work for a large(ish) local authority and have seen many senior managers view H&S as something which is nice. I said to someone here the other day that VFM (value for money) is the current (and rightfully so) buzzword for loacl authorities, but that H&S was pureley seen as a cost with very few understanding or appreciated the value of a robust safety management system.

I've also seen manager prepared to ride their luck in the knowledge that they're unlikeley to be visited by the HSE unless something serious happens.

Times we live in...

Martin, a pragmatic view of your world that many will recognise I am sure.
I am not sure that I have ever met a company who did safety simply because they were afraid of criminal prosecution. It is one of those things that has little impact at senior level until the reality of the costs of having to attend court are presented for approval!

Business is all about taking risk so we shouldn't be surprised when they do. Limited enforcement resource is best aimed at the real villains. Those that do the most harm or consistently offend. However, since any legal system is, at best, systematically flawed even if we had an Inspector on ever corner I doubt it would make a proportional difference.

So that leaves us with education and encouragement. As Claire says, a much better tool altogether. The better we are at that, the fewer safety issues there will be in the long run.
It won't change the real villains but it will bring more and wider knowledge and awareness into play.

In the meantime, keep smiling and be there with the answers when they ask the questions.
Does anyone ever believe that one day there will be a place where..........?

p48

True but thankfully for the likes of us we had good parents who brought us up this way
We all know our jobs are not easy but that is what makes them so rewarding when one by one we do make a small difference , I know from my work place it is an up hill battle with my manager but when he does follow some of my advice it really does taste sweet

Kev
p.s its nearly Friday

I may be a cynic too, but I am convinced that most employers only comply with law for fear of prosecution and the better employers may like to provide good H&S, but not at too great a cost please. Being a social and sporting animal (golf and snooker) I mix with many tradesmen and employers, mostly SMEs, and I can guarantee you that they do as little as they can get away with and some do next to nothing with regards to health and safety management. I am also a consultant and the same attitudes prevail even in high risk industries like construction. Reduce enforcement and there will be a proportional rise in injuries and fatalities. Forget education, these people know the score and many are prepared to run the risk of getting caught. Sadly, given the frugal level of fines imposed by the courts I can't blame them really.

Only this week I was talking to a golfing buddy who informed me that a 16 year old had joined the greenkeeping staff of my golf club and coming from a farming background he is well used to driving tractors and other farm equipment!! I really despair with what is going in the world of health and safety - the next person who mentions walking safely in stairways, or lids for hot drinks...

As pete48 said they are allowed to drive tractors at 16, as long as competent to do so. However, agriculture is the most dangeorus of all professions (statistically according to number of workers) and a big part of that is the blurring of work and personal life and perhaps an over familiarity with machinery and other risks.

.....stairs??...cups of tea??....not working on fragile roofs and not wrapping themsleves up in machinery would make me happy!!

When I started in safety long ago we were taught that the three reasons for managing safety were the moral, economic and legal ones. I felt then, as I still feel now, that if the moral and economic reasons were compelling we would not need health and safety laws. Most businessmen are canny individuals and if there was profit to be made from this health and safety stuff they would all be doing it without any prompting from anyone else. The problem is that safety costs and there is no money to be made and money to be lost only if you are caught or if you have a catastrophic accident which damages property which happens to be uninsured. The experiences of most businessmen are that the likelihoods of having a serious uninsured accident or of getting caught for health and safety breaches are both pretty low so why bother. Many of the local (and very well respected) builders where I live certainly don't bother. Most of them are still doing OK despite the recession and they keep their profits up by ignoring most of the safety precautions which we would expect as standard. Walking my dog earlier this evening I passed four places where local builders were putting up extensions to houses. All of the sites deserved immediate prohibition notices on several counts but the chances of this happening are close to zero.

The HSE used once to trumpet that good standards of health and safety are a cornerstone of a civilised society. I felt this was spot on but what they failed to add was that the cornerstone was going to cost money but it was money worth spending if we wanted to build that civilised society. And it is the job of government to legislate to compel those who do not wish to behave in a civilised manner to conform to the wishes of the majority. However legislation without adequate enforcement is rather toothless and this is where we are now with health and safety legislation

One change in recent years has being an increase in the driving of health and safety standards through the supply chain. I have seen several chief executives suddenly start to take an interest in health and safety when they can see that the customer is very interested and there is a danger in being taken off the tender list if minimum standards are not attained. But all too often this degenerates into a bureaucracy of pseudo-certification and box ticking.

Martin asked in post #1 "What is the point if we don't have a large stick? Not everyone WANTS to do health and safety - most only do it with a grudge." I am not sure that I have an answer but I can empathise with the reasons for asking the question. Perhaps Martin can try to find a employer who is swayed by the moral argument and the bit about the civilised society.....but don't expect any help from this Government or the HSE. :)

Claire,
"As pete48 said they are allowed to drive tractors at 16".

I read that as saying not under 16, sorry and thanks for the clarification,

Indeed for yard tractors, the tragedy last year(?) in Cornwall shows that,
p48

Some interesting observations and it's understandable why people do often feel so cynical. Personally, I was slightly bemused by

"Apart from corporate manslaughter what threats hang over the heads of organisations who ignore their health and safety responsibilities?"

Although of course a very serious offence, which has the potential to cause significant distraction and 'damage' (I aren't simply talking about sentence imposed) to an organisation, is this realistically the most significant threat that most organisations face?

If it is, then I fear we could all soon be out of work!

Just my ramblings post Torchwood and pre bedtime!

From my small world of fire safety, I reckon Martin's views are spot on.

In a world of public service cuts, many enforcing authorities have reduced their audit policies and tend to concentrate more on enforcement after an incident rather than the older proactive (stick) approach. This does send out a message (to some) that it might be worth winging it as you'll only get caught if you have a fire.

The attitude to fire safety seems to be broadly split in the three camps. Consider the high risk area of Hotels.

The bigger multi nationals will have dedicated fire safety professionals as staff or as contractors and in the main do a good job. Some will go overboard on infrastructure such as sprinklers/water mist, they will complete regular audits - and although their hotels will attract (the safer) business clients and the buildings may be large - they will all have alternative means of escape

At the other end of the scale, the little B&B (family home), poses not much greater risk than a domestic dwelling. Most owners will do something, but many will hide away until audited due to the costs involved in compliance.

It's the medium sized Hotels that worry me most. Perhaps occupied by a sole trader with a wallet which is permanently welded shut, they are into making and not spending cash. Some will operate cheap poorly maintained budget hotels with high risk social security residents, backpackers and the mentally ill from tall single staircase buildings with no alternative MOE and dodgy infrastutcture.

This 'attitude model' is repeated through most sectors with medium sized businesses posing perhaps the greatest risk, but being missed by many enforcement policies. I think Martin's idea of rebalancing the stick approach does have some value. I'd like to see on the spot fixed penalty notices issued for some less important infringements of fire safety (such as having no FRA), as businesses tend to take more notice when pounds (not morals) are involved!

quote "Health and Safety at Work only works because of some real, or imagined as real, risk of action after an event."

This may be true in part but is clearly not a universal truth.
The use of penalty is but one small part of how society controls itself. Those parts are mutually supportive not mutually exclusive. Penalty, when used as the primary means of control, coupled with a lack of education and support breeds revolutionaries not responsible citizens.

If what we are trying to achieve is responsible citizens with regard to H&S then we best not rely upon the weight of the law to get us there. It clearly is not effective at preventing offences in any part of society.

Given the choice between a 1000 new inspectors and 200 employers who, through education, convert to a respect for H&S and meet their legal duties with responsibility then I would choose the latter.

p48

Take away law, take away enforcement, and you have only morals and conscience remaining.
The recent riots, ignoring their cause, show what happens when the law is remote from the event.
So I'll just reprint the origin of the quote above:

"The opinion of Manwood, chief Baron [c 1580], was this, as touching Corporations, that they were invisible, immortall, and that they had no soule; and therefore no Subpœna lieth against them, because they have no Conscience nor soule"