Rank: Super forum user 
|
Afternoon all.
Yesterday I was introduced to the aforementioned Model and wonder how many others have had the pleasure?
Although impressed by the HS Inspector presenting, I was somewhat surprised as to the 'limited' routes leading to prosecution - based on the Risk Gap Table.
The Inspector stated that around two to three prosecutions would be average per year for his jurisdiction. This surprised me greatly, based on the level of standard I see on a daily basis. However, this was in disciplines outside of my specialism.
If this has already been discussed - sorry, if not, any other views on the EMM?
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Morning all, I thought I'd bring this back to the top as I'm sure I'm not the only one who's seen this HSE Model? If you haven't: http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/emm.pdfIt's an interesting read. I particularly found the relationship between RISK GAP TABLE 2.1 (Single and low casualties) and Table 5.1 (Health and safety initial enforcement expectation) surprising, as I thought more would have fell straight into the 'prosecution' category. Simon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Used it. Pile of rubbish. Can be manipulated. Certainly used to be done retrospectively when first introduced.
Many inspectors won't even do one prosecution a year, others may do a few. The way the cookie crumbles. Prosecutions are time consuming and need a solid case that can be justified for the resources (time) it takes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Clairel, a response at last - thank you.
Your experience of this model and the levels of prosecution happening (in reality) are a long way short of how I imagined it.
I thought the HSE would prosecute for things such as, broken / missing fingers, etc but it appears, these are not 'significant' enough injuries to do so. This was demonstrated through the EMM by the HSE Inspector.
I'm a bit miffed really! I can't help thinking how flimsy the prosecution levels are - regardless of time and complexity.
Finally, the HSE Inspector also indicated that certain types of 'non high risk' industries cannot be visited 'without good reason' anymore. Therefore, spot checks will not be possible (sorry for the lack of information or reference). Again, poor IMO and doing nothing in pursuit of improving standards out there.
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
You could argue that a large body like the HSE needs some sort of 'model' to justify the many inspectors taking the many decisions to prosecute or not.
You might find it useful to consider the occupational areas that get the most notices and or prosecutions, as well as the 'model' itself. And look at their enforcement policy statement.
Havin done this for real I have never liked the model [but I can see newbies would find it of use].
The UK HSE is having and will continue to have a very difficult time with resources for enforcement as well as the proactive advisory service they have done in the past. I have met many UK HSE inspectors in the last 10 years and the majority have been dedicated, professional and hardworking. The model adds little to their decision making but might help with any accountablilty issues.
In my view HSE is good guys with rubbish political leadership; if were not for the moderator I would express this in stronger terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.