The HSE is proposing to slash the number of proactive inspections it carries out in light of its 35-per-cent cut in government funding.
The BBC’s File on 4 programme has obtained an HSE letter in which chief executive Geoffrey Podger reportedly outlines plans to reduce the safety watchdog’s inspections by a third.
Three high-hazard sectors – nuclear, offshore and chemicals – will be protected from any proposed cuts, the letter is reported to state. However, the letter also outlines the industries where proactive inspections could be entirely withdrawn.
According to the BBC, some of those industries under consideration pose “significant risk”, yet the letter describes inspections in these industries as not “necessary or useful”. In some other cases, the letter suggests that the “relative cost-effectiveness” of carrying out unannounced visits could warrant halting such activity in the future.
The letter is also said to propose replacing face-to-face contact by inspectors with more Web-based initiatives.
Asked about both the letter and the proposals outlined in it, an HSE spokesperson said: “Discussions are ongoing on future ways of working and a final decision has not been reached – it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time.”
Construction workers’ union UCATT believes the plans are a blueprint for a rise in workplace injuries and deaths. Last month, the HSE carried out a blitz of construction sites across the country, with a high proportion visited found to be unsafe.
Commenting on the HSE’s possible move towards online awareness-raising initiatives, UCATT general secretary Alan Ritchie said: “The softly, softly approach has been proven to be a failure. If companies don’t care about safety, then a glossy leaflet or a flashy website is not going to change their mind – particularly if they know that it will not be followed up by inspections and a prosecution.”
John Gollaglee, head of the health and safety team at law firm Pannone, said the HSE has not had the resources to carry out spot-checks across businesses in all sectors for some time, and that the proposal will mean the present focus of inspectors on organisations in high-risk industries will continue.
However, he warned that the impact of fewer inspections could also indirectly hinder the HSE’s advisory capabilities. He said: “The HSE was established to advise employers on health and safety law, as well as to enforce the law. With fewer inspectors and resources available, the concern is that the support function within the HSE is being eroded to the detriment of everyone.”
Prospect – the union that represents HSE inspectors condemned the proposal, describing cuts in inspections as a “false economy”. Negotiator Mike Macdonald said: “Such inspections are at the cutting edge of HSE’s work and saves industry and the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds in lost working days and medical bills.”
€
Ain’t that the truth Richard!
I regularly deal with businesses that apart from a scheduled enforcement inspection have zero health and safety advice and actually appreciate my visit.
If the proposals go through, these guys will probably either have to pay a consultant or just wing it and hope they don’t get caught out but risk crippling fines and ruined lives if it all goes wrong.
Perhaps I’m overly cynical, but I’m not convinced many would make the right choice either.
And of course it will make the life of the H&S professional more difficult. How can we stress the importance of good H&S to a company manager who knows he will never get a visit from the HSE so the risk of being caught is even lower. It will be a risk they are meore than ever willing to take.
The UK health and safety system is a triangle: sensible policy based on sound technical evidence and good advice, fair but firm enforcement, and responsible research; all bound together by good communications, practical advice and simple guidance. It is underpinned by a proactive approach promoting a prevention culture. No single element of the triangle works independently. If inspectors reduce proactive inspections they lose touch with reality. But isn’t that the Coalition Government policy?
You can’t get away with that Rod! With the active involvement and support of all the social partners, HSE has made a huge difference in reducing deaths and injuries at work over the past 35 years. This includes learning from incidents (reactive) and building an OSH knowledge base second-to-none from its proactive work. This this informs policy and is at the centre of the guidance and advice available on its extensive website and in print. If you take away the heart (HSE) the body (OSH) will die.
Now there’s a surprise – not! Enforcement is not just about proscecution but is also about preventative work including visits. I hope Young & Cameron will feel proud enough to take some personal responsibility for the increase in deaths, injury & ill-health that is likely to result & not just leave it to fall upon employers (including the unfortunate, unknowledgeable & naive but would be willing who could have been helped by visits). This will add to the true “cost” of business success in UK PLC
The HSE isn’t known for being pro-active; unless handing out of slip trip and fall leaflets counts.The HSE’s never done its job correctly since the ’80”s, because health and safety is now political, so a 35% budget cut won’t make an impact. Anyway, so far as Construction is concerned, with a good CMIOSH on site and the 2007 CDM Regs in place, there shouldn’t be any issues for the HSE to resolve. Let’s abolish the HSE and do what the ’74 Act required, and self regulate, perhaps through CONIAC?