Posted By Alan Pearce Thanks for asking Benjamin. I’m finding it very amusing, although a tad predictable. The funny thing is none of the people commenting here seem to have read the book. Should you find yourselves browsing in WH Smiths or Waterstones, have a flick through the book and you won’t find that the health & safety professional is the villan of the piece. Rather it is the jobsworth, the ambulance chaser, the no-win-no-fee lawyers, the councils stared stiff of being sued and, most of all, the government that ended legal aid for personal injury claims back in 1998 that set this crazy circus on the road. I should add that I am on record (on Radio 4’s Today programme with Jeffry Podger former CE of the H&SE) as saying that I think the H&SE does a very good job. For his part, Mr Podger commended my earlier book ‘Playing it Safe’ and said he found it ‘very entertaining’. When it comes down to it, you may find that I loath the morons who use H&S as an excuse just as much as you all do. The difference is that I have chosen to fight back using ridicule.

Posted By peter gotch 1 Hi Alan, I may well buy your book! But, as an ex HSE Inspector, I am by no means convinced that HSE is currently doing a good job. Before the accident, they are very good at reminding us that risk assessments should be concise, focused and proportionate to risk. Unfortunately, after the accident they are all too prone to deciding that the risk assessment was not "suitable and sufficient", and more insiduously, there has been a trend for press releases following a guilty plea (often for tactical reasons, taking into account the risk of going to trial) to include a pack of lies, or at best unnecessary exaggerations. Example - "the method statement was inadequate" despite the Joint Experts' Report required by the Court concluding that "the method statement was substantially sound". (or words to that effect - I would need to check the exact wording). Example - "he was untrained". I have a copy of his certificate of training in my office - and, yes it was cited in the defence productions! Alan, where I do think that your book will have failed to hit the nail (on the basis of your postings here) is your homing in on the H&S (Offences) Act where I feel that there is little or no room for misinterpretation - all the Act does is up the potential penalties for various offences - partly as a reflection of cases such as that involing child labour removing asbestos in Birmingham - in my view the Judge quite correctly considered that the offence of employing children in an industrial undertaking (as defined by the Children, Young Persons and Women Act 1920, Section 1 of which is still in force)was more serious than failing to comply with the requirements of the company's asbestos licence. The first of these offences was NOT imprisonable, the latter was. The Judge did not think that he should use his powers re the latter charge to imprison for the first. In effect, he was saying that Parliament had had many years opportunity to making breach of the 1920 Act imprisonable and had not deemed this necessary. Hence, a masssive broadening of the offences which are not imprisonable. Personally, if given the power, I would sweep away the vast majority of the H&S regulations that have been catalysed by EC Directives - whilst, probably leaving most of the content that has been transposed from previous regulations - I do not have any problem with ANY of the Directives - but successive Goverments of blue and pinkish hues [ - the most important precedents were made by Governments led by Maggie - ] could, and should have said to the EU that Sections 2-9 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (backed up by regulations) and possibly backed up with some Approved Codes of Practice, approved under Section 16 of the 1974 Act. (Not got my Redgrave to hand so if someone wants to tell me that it is a different Section please do) adequately implemented the Directives. Instead, we have a substantial proportion of HSE's workforce beavoring away about how to implement the latest EC Directives who might be much better deployed on the "front line". I had an illuminating trip to Ukraine in December 2005 to audit an integrated iron and steel works. Safety standards dire, management of occupational health risks decades ahead of the U.K. May be these HSE legislative policy people should be redirected? Regards, Peter

Posted By Bob Howden Bought the book yesterday, almost halfway through it. Mainly amusing.

Posted By Alan Pearce Bravo Pete! Am I right in thinking we now have a law that potentially criminalises people who use a stepladder the wrong way, or allow someone else to do so? And, if H&SE regulations are breached, I assume people can be fined and sent to jail in certain cases. So who makes these regulations?

Posted By Kenneth Patrick Well said Pete and Peter, It is good to know that I am not alone in my frustration at function creep, excessive number of regulations and chronic use of risk assessment. I wonder if perhaps the "new" government in 2010 might have HSE as one of the quangos on its hit list. Ken

Posted By Jay Joshi Is HSE a Quango--how many times has the HSE had to appear and account for itself at the DWP Select Committees? Yes, HSE has some shortcomings, primarily due to under-resourcing, but let us not forget that all of us have the opportunity to respond to consultations BEFORE the regulations and the ACoP accompanying it are finalised. In fact, all the HSE committees that have significant input are tripartite and have employers representatives. I am getting frustrated with ill-informed discussions and contributors having a go at the regulators without even bothering to understand how the legislation is actually made. The fact of the matter is that Employers and trade bodies have conflicting agendas and they do not attempt to reach a consensus, therefore the "larger employers" organisations and trade bodies succeed in their lobbying. Most of the OTT requirements spread from consultants and suppliers who profit from selling their services and products rather than the HSE. Let us not forget that even some of the quotes from HSE Inspectors are in a context and that context is not communicated in the stories we hear.

Posted By Kenneth Patrick Jay, HSE is not strictly a quango ,in the United Kingdom the official term is "non-departmental public body" or NDPB. And to answer your second question, here is a July 2009 quote from the HSE chief executive. “HSE is accountable to Parliament through the Minsters at the Department for Work and Pensions and both Judith Hackitt, HSE Chair and I have appeared before cross-party Select Committees on a number of occasions. In addition, in 2008/09, we responded to 150 Parliamentary Questions, 316 letters from MPs and 6,582 Freedom of Information requests. We believe that this shows a proper level of public accountability.” Ken

Posted By frank123 Just a note on the 'Jobsworth' issue. We give our employees a list of 'Do's and Don'ts which must be adhered to. This list encompasses topics such as PPE, Duty of Care, reporting hazards and complying with the Employers controls to reduce risk, to name but a few. In some cases, failure to obey this list could be considered as gross misconduct, and termination of employment could well be the end result of a disciplinary hearing. With this in mind, being a 'Jobsworth' is not always a bad thing to be. In general, a person that inconveniences / delays somebody else through their worktask can sometimes be called a jobsworth but, when something goes wrong, the first thing that happens is for blame to be attributed. Then comes the wisdom after the fact. 'Why didn't he/she do this/that then? That's what they get paid for after all!' A bit of a no-win situation there then. Luckily, we fully support employees who uphold the rules and would rather take to task others who would seek to break them or attempt to belittle the efforts of people who actually care. Within 'the business', we should reward receptive employees as it is certainly a good way of reinforcing a positive safety culture. Please note, I am not commenting on any business which interfaces with the general public. That particular topic will need a whole new thread of its own, if not already discussed previously. Frank

Posted By Brett Day I have had a browse whilst in a book shop, somewhat dissapointed, I don't think Allen has made his point very well, books and websites that I could point too being Snopes and the Darwin Awards - they have different catogories such as: Urban Legend / Myth (what it says) really), Personal Account (I witnessed), Confirmed (There is fact behind but not quite the fact that is assumed) Confirmed by Darwin (The facts are true and as presented). I haven't given the exact definitions word for word as I don't have a copy of the Awards with me, but if Allen was genuine it would have been good to see something similar such as a reason behind given by a safety practitioner or a this was a decision made due to insurance. Nice try, but no cigar (from me).