Date: 18th March 2011

The BBC claims that in the four-page document Podger suggests cutting proactive inspections by a third, compared with previously planned levels, and making entire sectors immune from an unannounced “knock on the door”.

According to File on 4, which was broadcast yesterday evening (8 March), Podger states that the HSE is not intending to reduce inspection in high hazard areas, principally the nuclear, chemicals and offshore industries.

But the letter does say inspections can be stopped in sectors where proactive inspection is not seen as “cost effective”, and also in other sectors where Podger admits there remains “significant risk” but proactive inspection is not considered “a necessary or useful component” in future interventions.

The HSE, which is facing a 35% cut in its government grant, insisted no decision had been made, and would not confirm to the BBC which sectors could be exempted from proactive inspection.

“We regularly consult with partner organisations on future ways of working,” a spokesperson said. “Discussions do not constitute a final decision so it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time.”

Campaigners, unions and safety professionals were quick to condemn the letter’s contents. Professor Rory O'Neill from Stirling University told the BBC he fears for employee safety if the HSE proposals become policy.
 
“What it basically is, is a recipe for regulatory surrender,” he said.

Construction union UCATT went as far as saying there will be more workplace deaths if the HSE goes ahead. “In construction, large numbers of employers simply ignore safety laws,” said general secretary Alan Ritchie.
 
“The only thing which compels them to keep workers safe is the fear of a knock on the door from the HSE.”

Prospect, a union that represents HSE employees, pointed out that a proactive inspection regime is a key tool for improving health and safety because it brings inspectors directly into contact with employers that have not had a major accident.

“In areas of high industrial activity, inspectors are already so pushed by the rate of major accidents that proactive work is limited,” said Prospect negotiator Mike Macdonald. “The 30% reduction will cut even deeper.”

The PCS union, which also represents HSE workers, called on the government to guarantee that inspectors will not stop making unannounced visits to workplaces such as building sites, farms, waste disposal plants, quarries, or factories using dangerous machinery.

The union claims to have seen documents making it clear that ministers want to “modernise” their approach to enforcing health and safety laws in industries with comparatively high rates of injury or industrial disease.

“The only model of health and safety regulation that has worked anywhere in the world is a combination of proactive inspections and enforcement,” said PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka.

Speaking to File on 4, Alexander Ehmann, from the Institute of Directors, was more positive about potential changes, saying if cuts deliver some more proportionate inspection regimes, that can only be a positive thing for businesses currently encumbered by a lot of regulation. 

Julie Nerney, chief executive of the British Safety Council (BSC), reacted to the letter by calling for a public debate about how best to deal with “the reality of fewer resources” for the public bodies involved in health and safety regulation.

She said the BSC shared concerns about the consequences of fewer proactive inspections, which have been “proven to be a very effective tool in encouraging compliance and preventing harm”.

Source- www.healthandsafetyatwork.com