Posted By Allan St.John Holt In an extension to Garry Saunders thread, some may be interested to read the report just published by the Dept of Work and Pensions Select Committee. IOSH gave evidence to the Committee, and many of our comments have been taken on board in the recommendations. You can find the summary at: http://www.publications....t/cmworpen/456/45603.htm The full document is over 100 pages long but worth the read. There will be a lot of debate on this subject over coming months, no doubt. Allan

Posted By Alec Wood All very interesting. I notice the TUC and the committee are still banging on about Union Safety Reps powers being extended. In this modern day and age, far as we are from the unions' heyday of the 1970's, is it not about time we looked beyond union safety reps as some kind of special case, and levelled the playing field a bit. Most workplaces in this country are not unionised and thus have no union safety rep. The neutering of the ROES by the unions is one of the greatest travesties in this country's H&S legislative history. It is about time all safety reps were treated the same with the same access to training and the same powers and protection. I don't want to hijack the thread so please stick to the original subject, the above rant was just my reaction to part of its content and the BBC item on it. I welcome replies directly by email, particularly those of a strongly abusive and personal nature - I like a laugh at the start of the day Fire away...... Alec Wood Samsung Electronics

Posted By Jay Joshi The IOSH oral submission (with ROSPA) and report of the committee is with positive reccomendations, but will the government act on it ??? I for one had great hopes when the Revitalising and other initiatives were launched, but it appears that, H&S is not a vote winner as are other media headline grabbing issues--hence the inability to find parliamentary time for some of the required changes. I for one, have been advocating for carification of various aspects of competence requirements thro an ACoP--hope this recommendation materialises. Secondly, the world of work is very different from the one in 1974--and there should be a streamlined responsive regulator on the lines of the Food Standards Agency and the Environment Agency--the two tier structure between HSC & HSE slows the decision making process etc. Lets see what happens, i.e the HSC/HSE response and the response from DWP

Posted By Sean Fraser This ties in with the debate we've been having recently regarding the continued effectiveness of the HSE as an enforcement body. The policy has turned from one of policing to encouragement or prevention, and that is not a bad attitude to take. There is an unjustified fear that just because a company hasn't had an inspection in some time that it is automatically dangerous - guilty before proven innocent. Patently untrue in many cases. So the targeting of resources to higher risk industries and organisations is, on paper, a sound strategy. But we are failing to recognise the good standing and recognition that the HSE has, way above that of other regulatory bodies (EA are particularly poorly regarded which only harms and delays the urgent need for environmental action). In the same way that the Fire Service does more than just put out fires, and even wants to make fire-fighting the smallest proportion of it's overall activities, and as the NHS is recognising that money spent on health promotion reduces the amount needed to tackle ill-health in the long term, the HSE can move away from it's restrictive policeman status and promote good health and safe working environment. To do that, it needs to be careful that it is not seen to be sacrificing it's traditional (and statutory) role of firm facts and action to being wishy-washy and lax over safety issues. It still needs to prosecute, to warn those willing to take the risk of failing to provide a safe working environment that such risks are not acceptable and do not benefit society in the long term. Hand in hand with this is the actual punishments meted out. Putting the corporate manslaughter issue aside for now, we know that the cost of a life in some cases can be as little as £3000 + costs (sometimes costed in hundreds, not thousands). The average is generally recognised as being too low to be an effective deterrent. This is as frustrating to the HSE who take on and win these cases, as it is to the rest of us. And it is time the courts stopped taking as mitigation the fact that since the fatality the culprit has now changed practices and implemented a safe system of work, and hence reducing the potential cost of the fine - the message given out is that it is OK to operate without a safe system until an accident happens and then only do something about it.