Brett, are you honestly saying that awareness, development, knowledge and Technology etc.. Have only been in place the last 30 years? Are you saying that the workforce before the HASWA came in were not knowlegable, aware, didn't develop, and there was no technology around??

Sean, I think you have misread my post I have refered to constant development. The reference of three decades came from the document "Rebalancing Act?" The HASWA came into place through development. I am stating that it cannot be proven that the HASWA has saved those estimated 5000 lives, but it should be seen as contributing factor alongside other developments. I am constantly seeking ways of improving my company whether it's legislation, technoligy, CPD, training, awareness, staff development or any other method available.

I see your point Brett, but if you compare the UK with other OECD countries which don't have the same kind of stringent legislation we do, such as say the USA or Germany, you will see that our record is better than others. So the Act does make a great deal of difference if you ask me. You say that you will always wtrive for improvement, but ask yourself this; why are you employed? Is it because your employer fears the great big stick wielded by HSE? How many safety jobs would there be with a much softer legal framework? The theory of the firm says that the purpose of an organisation is to spread risk among the shareholders and produce profit; in our industrial culture some of that profit is recycled as PPE, SSOWs etc. Yes, I know we talk about the costs of an accident, but a fair bit of the cost rests on certain legal processes, such as civil law right to redress and criminal law prosecution. Take those out of the picture, or water them down substantially, and all you're left with is the down-time bits. In other words, employers have to have a reason to do anything, and in my mind, their main reason for taking safety seriously is because of the consequences of an accident, and many of those consequences flow from HASAWA and civil law, John

JWK I am always sceptical of statistics. They are more often than not created in such a way that suits the individual sending them out. With regards to being employed I was a self employed carpenter for many years. I now own a couple of companies. I can always remember my father telling me how he and my cousin who is now employed by me, unloaded an arctic load of concrete blocks in a mud drenched field and then had to cart them nearly half a mile by hand. I do not see the JCB telescopic handlers developed for their welfare, they were developed to reduce labour, and time therefore improved profits. Anyone can come to me and try and push cost benefit analysis down my throat and it will not make any difference to me whatsoever. What does make a difference to me is I have really good employees and at no time have I ever sent them out to work wishing any injury to them in any shape or form. I do not know an employer who would (it's not cost effective). I have had somebody use me as an excuse for an accident at work where I was carrying out a task. The company that I was carrying out the work for investigated the accident. A number of colleagues of the employee came forward and reported him for intentionally deceiving all concerned. I do wonder how many situations similar to this are included within general H & S stats, and certainly how many employees have got away with it. The point is stats again. I do think that the HASWA has saved lives and will continue to do so. I never for the life of me thought that the Act was brought in to create H & S jobs. You have also refered to statistics from the USA and Germany. As I said earlier statistics are made to suit those who issue them. 9 out of 10 cats prefers it comes to mind (Whiskas). I have spent time in both Germany and America and both have their goods and bads just the same as the UK. I brought an anti vibration hammer back from the USA I believe the same hammer took six years to reach this country. I was in France and saw some of the most fantastic scaffolding I have ever seen, I walked around the corner and found the worst. "Fear the great big stick of the HSE" Is that what employers are supposed to do? I see the HSE as an educator, trying to get information through to make the work place a safer place, and the more I learn the more I share with those who work with me such as contractors, sub contractors, consultants and any one else. Don't forget we learn an awful lot from other peoples mistakes/errors, which is where the HSE gets a fair amount of information from, hence developing regulation. A friends employer has recently had a serious accident in their workplace, they told me the employer is distraught about it. We in H & S can read all about the fine and what happened in the SHP magazine . It does not tell us the full story, but what it does do is guide us in the right direction. Or is it setting an example of an employer to employers? As the post is about the estimated 5000 lives saved since the introduction of HASWA. It is an estimate, I would have used the words guesstimate instead. There are no possible calculations that can prove how close this estimate is with the advances in technology, the loss of industry that O'Donnell pointed out and many other factors. I must also point out that IOSH did not say "because of it's introduction" they said "since the introduction of the HASWA". This is choice words used. As I said previously the HASWA is a contributor to saving lives but is not the sole factor.

The most common error with statistics is to assume that changes are due to a single reason. It is likely that legislation, training etc do contribute to this reduction but there are probably other, equally relevant reasons. When I started working at the pit in 1971, six miners were killed in one go in a gas blowout. Several more were killed before I even finished my apprenticeship and on one occasion I nearly copped it myself. Where are the mines now? or the steelworks? or the manufacturing industry? Where are the jobs that get people killed? On what scale do we go deep sea fishing now compared to 20 or 30 years ago? Construction is relatively safe now if the right methods and right kit are used. We don't make anything because successive governments don't care if we make anything. They are made up of fabulously wealthy people who have never had a proper job that actually produced something. Young people now aspire to soft jobs, sitting in front of a computer screen (made in Asia) so everyone now works in banks, offices or call centres. The ability to talk inane management speak at endless meetings is now respected more than practical skills. I work for a council and get stupid calls from stupid people who perceive completely innocuous issues as a risk. I feel like taking them down an anthracite mine for shift, for a wake up call. This soft life and blinkered aspirations have ruined the economy and eroded national pride, but made work a safer place. We assemble cars for the Japanese and the Indians but that is about it. The Germans are doing very nicely, even in a global recession, because they make Porsches, Mercs and BMWs - quality products that sell globally. They make it with German steel, German components and German labour and in Germany, engineering is not a dirty word. Perhaps accident statistics are also an indicator of a country's ability to produce stuff. When you think of the engineering advances we saw in the past it is enough to make you weep. I say bring back the spirit of Fred Dibnah, artist, builder, engineer. Rant over.