Posted By John Murgatroyd
Sour grapes ?
Or the way to go ?

Employers should face heavier fines for health and safety offences, ministers have been told. Bill Callaghan, chair of the Health and Safety Commission (HSC), has written to the Cabinet Office calling for 'more training for judges and magistrates so that the level of fines... recognises the gravity of breaches and acts as an effective deterrent.' In an HSC response to a government review of regulatory sanctions headed by Richard Macrory, professor of environmental law at University College London, Mr Callaghan said: 'Before we can look objectively at alternative penalties, there is a need to ensure the current level of penalties, in terms of the level of fines imposed, act as an effective deterrent. It is our belief that the current level is too low and needs to be increased.' The watchdog said the number of people killed at work in 2004/05 fell by 5 per cent to a record low of 212. The rate of deaths per 100,000 employees was also the lowest ever at 0.71. The fatal injury rate fell in agriculture, construction and services, but increased in manufacturing and the extractive industries. Mr Callaghan said there was no room for complacency. 'The figures are very encouraging but more needs to be done. There are still too many people killed at work every year, and quite often simple, inexpensive measures could have prevented the tragic loss of life.' He added: 'The figures show that the Commission's strategy is working. This is based on enforcement, information and advice, regulation and persuasion and working in partnership with industry and trade unions.' Jonathan Rees, deputy chief executive of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), said: 'Despite some recent high profile cases where larger penalties have been imposed, the average fine for offences involving deaths at work is less than £50,000 and for all offences it is just £12,500.' HSE came under fire from unions last week after Geoffrey Podger, its chief executive, warned that 250-350 jobs, representing up to 9 per cent of the executive's staff, were likely to go by April 2008 to satisfy government imposed budgets. HSE unions warn that cutbacks will lead to a further drop in HSE inspections and prosecutions. Fewer than one in every thousand reported workplace accidents results in a prosecution."
*******************************************************
Success, or continued failure ?

Construction union UCATT has called for directors to be held responsible for safety breaches to end the complacency 'rife' in the industry. Provisional figures on fatal injuries to workers in construction during 2005/06 put the toll at 59 deaths, down by 10 on 2004/05. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) says this is the lowest figure on record for the sector. But UCATT general secretary, Alan Ritchie commented: 'While I acknowledge there has been a reduction in both the rate and the number of construction fatalities this is no excuse for the industry to rest on its laurels. The figures still show that 59 workers died at work, 59 families lost their breadwinner, and 59 families will be torn apart by grief.' The official figures show construction still accounts for nearly 28 per cent of the total fatalities for all industries even though the industry represents just over 8 per cent of GDP. 'There continue to be fatalities resulting from construction activities where the risks are well recognised and documented and yet complacency is rife,' said Alan Ritchie. 'I don't believe this will change substantially until we have directors being held to account and facing the prospect of a custodial sentence should their negligence result in a worker's death. It is my union's dedicated policy to seek amendment to the current legislation in order to achieve that aim.' Stephen Williams, HSE chief inspector of construction, said: 'It is positive news that HSE in partnership with all in industry - employers, unions and stakeholder bodies - are driving down fatalities on sites. However, we should be cautious. One year's figures should not be viewed in isolation and it is too early to say whether the reduction in fatal injuries represents the significant behaviour change the industry has been promising. Let us not be complacent - one death is still one too many.'

Posted By Peter Hamilton
What a good question. I guess the obvious statement is that anything bringing a direct and negative impact closer to an individual will affect their responses. So targeting those who make decison (or lack of them ) that are proven to be significant factors in the accident chain should impact on accident stats.
At the moment there is no doubt that the penalty feared by most managers is financial failure of whatever ilk. It is immediate and can impact personally on them to the extent of losing their job.
How many managers do you kmow who have been sacked solely on the grounds of imcompetence in H&S? and then how many for failing to meet financial targets?
Therefore, not surprising that finance/budget control is given greater import than H&S. However, if there are to be more direct and personal penalties at management level for H&S failures, perhaps H&S will truly be be given equal importance to other targets???
Of course, not all accidents are the result of management failure. Or can I say that?
Chickens or eggs anyone?