Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By John Lewis
Did anyone else see BBC Breakfast TV this morning? The chair of HSE was being "quizzed" as the tabloids put it about the lack of prosecutions in relation to construction fatalities.
The line of questioning was that HSE are failing because they are not enforcing H&S enough. I felt there was aclear irony in that alone, but the bigger question should have been "How many inspectors have you lost in the last year and why is the London office closing?
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By RobAnybody John, Yeah I saw the interview & I thought to myself (whilst looking at a bowl of dry muesli as I forgot to buy milk yesterday) shouldn't another question be why aren't the courts taking a tough line in this? Maybe it's cos all the building firms H&S guys n girls are so good at providing mitigation these days that the HSE don't stand a chance? Anyway, here's the BBC news link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6598071.stmRob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Hoskins
Yes I saw it.
What surprised me was that although the data was refuted, it appeared that HSE was unable to pull out the same data that the TU was using to substantiate its claim.
A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lilian McCartney
Hi Folks
I saw it, he said they didn't prosecute cos of the lack of evidence!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By keith k
Responce on HSE website
"We take any death at work very seriously. We share UCATT’s concern that there are too many deaths in the construction industry. Indeed after a period of much progress, there is a possible 20-25% rise in fatal accidents in the industry this year. HSE takes fatal accidents very seriously and our staff are very committed to their investigation and, where right, prosecution.
Nobody, least of all HSE, underestimates the devastation that the death of a loved one can cause; but that should not be the basis for bringing a prosecution. This is not a police state. We do not prosecute without proper justification - both evidential and public interest.
There are many reasons why a fatality might not always lead to a prosecution: for instance if during a long investigation a company goes into liquidation, there is no duty holder to prosecute; if a self-employed individual were to fall from a ladder whilst working on their own, there are often no witnesses.
We haven’t had the opportunity to consider the report in detail, but it does seem that some of the statistics are inaccurate. For example, in 2002/3 the report says that there were 12 convictions. We are aware of around 30 such convictions for that year.
This issue is in danger of becoming a distraction from the real issue, which is that construction deaths are creeping up again. The question should be ‘how are we all going to work together to stop this?’
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By db
No, he didnt say HSE don't prosecute because there is a lack of evidence, he actually said that the figures cant be compared because each accident cant be treated on a like for like basis and for SOME investigations there isnt enough evidence. Thats different to we didnt prosecute the ones mentioned because of a lack of evidence.
It's not a simple process - and why should it be? Everyone is entitled to a fair trial. However, the HSE do say that some investigations may still be ongoing.
THe CCA stats are even more misleading - they are including all accident investigations, not just fatalities. Where there is evidence usually HSE prosecutes and if they didnt could be liable to judicial review. However, some fatals are purely accidents, some dutyholders are family so its not in the public interest to prosecute and for some the evidence is either not there or has been, how shall I say it, hidden or covered up.
And not every accident needs to be prosecuted but there will invariably be some enforcement action taken. In the end the result required by enforcement, whether thats notices, prosecution or formal cautions, is to ensure a change in the organisation that led to the accident.
However, what the CCA figures do show is that there may be a correlation between the decline in resources and staff at HSE and the lack of prosecutions.
Less staff = more workload = less time to take cases that should really be prosecuted. And as Rob says - why arent the courts fines so low for those that are prosecuted?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.