Posted By Stephen D. Clarke
Article in today's Daily Telegraph business news says that the HSE has pledged to cut the £2bn annual cost of complying with its regulations. Under a new sensible risk management initiative it will aim for an acceptable level of risk. I thought that was what we had always been advised to do under MHSW regs i.e. reduce risks to an acceptable level and what about the so called cost of accidents £1 to £8-£36 insured to uninsured costs.

Posted By Granny
Considering the October SHP article on page 6 about the reasonable practicability case, isn't there potential for the costs to actually increase?

Posted By Diane Thomason
Jim - I'm glad I'm not the only one - I thought it was a stupid stunt too, but wondered if I had just had a sense of humour failure.

Stephen I think you're right - this looks like a dangerous development (if it isn't just temporary spin.) After all these years of stressing the benefits to business of good safety management (HSE book: the cost of accidents at work; Good Health is Good Business initiative) this is disturbing - seemingly an admission that "compliance" is indeed the burden that business sometimes claims it is.

Posted By Jim Walker
DD,

That's the point I was trying to make: they have time & money for this drivel yet are laying off Inspectors

Posted By Alan Hoskins
Hi Jim,

Have you been taking those 'serious' pills again?

Best wishes for a full recovery ;-)

Alan

Posted By Adrian Watson
Don't make me laugh! HSE are no more guided by HSC than the man in the moon; in fact HSE guides HSC.

Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By David Bannister
Actually, some of us do go on about how the police choose to enforce the law, just not on this website!

Posted By John Murgatroyd
I never go on about "how they enforce it"

Just bemoan the fact that they DON'T enforce it until too late.

Closing the stable door after the horse has not only been killed, but canned for dogs afterwards.

LOADS of h&s AFTER the event.......as long as the press will listen.

Posted By sagalout
Wow and I thought this was about the HSE moving towards sensible risk management! Which I also thought we all wanted, whether we be H&S professionals, hard pressed businessmen or just downtrodden union members or even just everyday exploited workers.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Perhaps the poor old beleaguered HSE should adopt that as their motto?

All power to them I say, they do a damn good job in an increasing difficult world.

Oh and by the way, I thought the backpain webpage was cool, perhaps it was aimed at a different audience? Of course, they may not be worth the investment if they do not fit your view of the world but then that is prejudice isn't it?

"Ubi dubium ibi libertas."

Posted By Adrian Watson
Jay,

Whilst I know and have great respect for many individuals within the HSE, I do not respect HSE as an organisation.

I have worked alongside HSE since the late 1970's. Since the mid 1980's, HSE has reduced the numbers of field inspectors. In 1972 the average inspection interval for a company was 3 years; today it is more than 12 years! No visit means no enforcement!

Today, more than ever, HSE does not know whether it is an enforcer or an advisor? Unfortunately it does neither very well - nowadays, it rarely gives advice if asked and it fails to properly enforce the law!

Part of that is due to a poorer quality of inspectors. I believe the quality of inspectors is poorer - and that is not looking back with rose tinted glasses - because inspectors used to be experienced professionals with appropriate academic, technical and professional qualifications and several years experience in business or industry before joining HSE. They therefore had wide knowledge, experience and a capability to judge situations realistically and give practical advice or take action when needed. Today inspectors have to learn on their feet and are not in post long enough to get experienced.

Furthermore, HSE seems to concentrate on enforcing easy issues. I have been into many businesses over many years that need clear guidance (not the paper kind) and a firm hand to get things underway. I have seen HSE Inspectors avoid dealing with difficult issues like managing risk to the point where I believe that they are culpably negligent! However, I have seen them jump on companies for a lack of paperwork because it is easy to enforce or concentrate on hypothetical, improbable and trivial risks to the point whereby the company no longer knows what is important and ends up pandering to the inspectors whims.

I believe not only should HSE concentrate on dealing with real risks - not hypothetical, improbable or trivial risks - but should ensure that HSE Inspectors should be auditors - realistically challenging systems and assessing against the standards set by law and realistic risk scenarios - being flexible and considering risks in context - and enforcers.

Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Adrian Watson
I'm afraid I can -

I have seen prohibition notices served for four dots the size of a five pence piece of asbestos contamination;

I have seen dangerous machines, without guards being fitted, where the inspector has made no comment or taken action other than comment on risk assessment;

I have seen gross contamination of MWF's in machine shops that was ignored;

I have seen theoretic risks from storage of dangerous chemicals being blown out of all proportion with expensive specialists called in to model risks to confirm that there was no risk;

and this is in the last year!

Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By ddraigice
Then you need to go to their line manager. As for the asbestos - that's what I would have done..... the inspector was perfectly within their rights to do that. It shows that asbbestos is not being managed and any contamination is a breach of reg 15 of CAW. Any breach can be prosecuted. The level of risk will determine the level of fine and that is for the courts to decide.

The level of risk? It doesnt matter but you cant say there was no risk at all - it shouldn't have been there but who knows what else is lurking unseen? And a PN is not so bad and at least ther was no Prosecution. Focusses the mind - they'll damn well make sure it doesnt happen again.

As for ignoring some things - well thats down to experience. I didnt always deal with everything on a site as doing too much can overload so you have to prioritise. Case law will tell you its not down to the inspectors to deal with everything.

As for the others, you need to complain!

Posted By Dave Wilson
HSE advised the HSC that removal of TC was very low risk, despite 115 MP's signing an early day motion, over 500 responses to the Con Doc and 65% of them opposed to the deregulation of TC from the new regs., 23% agreed and 6.8% agreed that another option is needed and 4.4% had no opinion.

So the HSC are supposed to be the protector of the public / workers and take into account their opinions!

Within weeks of this being announced the Dept of Works and Pensions announced a cut of £8m over the next two years.

So less inspectors again to enforce the new regs.!!

Posted By ddraigice
Maybe but the notice wasnt appealed though was it?
How can you be sure what the risk is? Did you carry out air monitoring? The fact is it's a possible risk. If no notice was issued and employees found out about it.. damned if you do and damned if you dont.

Posted By Tony Brunskill
Adrian,

You were under no illusion you were absolutely correct. I wish I had a pound for every time I have heard a client say, "we just had HSE round and they never mentioned that"... Usually in response to a comment like "we need to look at your work at height procedures" or "that's a confined space and a significant risk".

I believe that there is a problem associated with the size of H&S and the degree of specialism that some inspectors believe to be necessary before passing comment.

There is a conflict between enforcement and a common sense approach. If the letter of the law was applied there would be no need for improvement notices as the inspector must have identified a breach and therefore could prosecute. If we adopt a zero tolerance policy as has been suggested then for could read should.

It is not for HSE to decide what law to enforce as it is not for employers to decide which laws to abide by. Judicial review of the CPS is likely to reinforce this in the not so distant future. If the law is wrong then it needs changing not hobbling by cutting the policing force.

HSE has its political masters like most institutional bodies. I wonder how long the Chief of the Defence Staff will be in post now that he has said the presence of British Forces in Iraq is inflaming the situation. Not just H&S where politics reigns.

Posted By ddraigice
I mean to say, depending on what type of asbestos it is, there is a risk of further contamination from whatever caused the "small 5 pence piece size" debris.

What caused the damage? Is the debris friable? Is there air movement that will circulate fibres? How many people pass through the area?Is the ACM that the debris fell off now also releasing fibres? Is there a chance of more damage? Maybe not. I dont know. The company didnt know and the inspector didnt know, so a PN was justified. It is not, nor can ever be deemed to be no risk. We don't know how much exposure will lead to problems in the future.

I suggest that the reason companies do not appeal is not to allow HSE to save face and not to upset them but because they know they are in the wrong! I've appealed notices before - but only where I thought it was justified.

Posted By Dave Wilson
I agree and if the employer had done his survey and produced an asbestos management plan to control asbestos in his workplace then this would not have happened.

Posted By Dave Wilson
Adrian I'm with U on this

I now disagree as the above does not matter, you are allowed to remove AIB outdoors without even putting up an enclosure (page 55 licensed contractors guide).