nohope said:
I'm a bit confused, you don't want to see us before the accident when things are going ok, you don't want to see us after the accident and yet you still want us out catching 'the others'.... hmmm which is it to be?
Hi nohope, and belated welcome. Thanks for your input.
Personally, I'd much rather have an inspector visit when things are going well, rather than finding out what I should have been doing once something has happened. The problem is, inspectors are pretty thin on the ground. In a previous career in the early 90s, I was involved in laying on training courses for HSE inspectors, and one of the biggest gripes we would hear at tea breaks was how thinly everyone was stretched, and how resources for inspectors were constantly being squeezed.
One of the problems with applying health & safety and other legislation in this country is perception of how far we have to go to comply with the law. Most people running small arb businesses really don't know how far we have to go in applying some of this stuff. It might be partly due to sections of our media, which delight in feeding us doom and gloom nanny state bureaucracy-gone-mad stories, but a problem with a lot of this legislation is no-one really knows the fine details until a case has gone to court and precedent has been set. Until then, we rely on little snippets we pick up here and there. For example,
is it totally illegal to use a top handled saw on the ground, regardless of whether it's used correctly or not? If I was caught using such a saw on the ground, would my NPTC qualifications be revoked? Am I still allowed to do arb work from a rope and harness on a tree where MEWP access is feasible? I gained CS 38 and 39 in 1997, and that was enough to do any arb work - do I now need to go out and get CS 40 and 41 before I dismantle or prune my next tree?
The other problem that comes to mind for the small business owner is the one-size-fits-all nature of legislation, and that size suits larger companies, where responsibilities do need to be pinned on specific people, and some sort of written system would be needed to keep track of it all. But, in a company of 1 boss and a couple of employees, applying the letter of the law becomes ridiculous. Take LOLER, which was the final nail in the coffin for me as far as climbing goes. I didn't object to inspecting my gear on a regular basis, I used to do that anyway. I didn't even object to paying to go on a course to become a "competent person" so I could inspect my gear. But, had I done all that, I still would not have satisfied LOLER , because any inspections I'd have done on my own gear wouldn't have been independant. In general, most of this legislation doesn't seem to give any concessions to the smaller operator. A big company like Fountains and the like can afford to pay people to sit at desks and deal with this stuff-for a small operator, getting to and from the job and doing the work that actually brings in money can eat 10-12 hours per day during the week. The h&s paperwork has to be done during that thing some people call the "weekend" - whateverthat is..
None of which is the fault of individual inspectors, of course. However, my personal feeling, sometimes, is that it's all gone too far, and the web of legislation is more to do with identifying who to blame once something has gone wrong rather than preventing things from going wrong in the first place. I felt I did a good job of complying with everything 5 or 6 years ago. I'm doing the same things, but feel I fall short now that things have moved on, and I wonder whether it's worth making that extra effort to catch up..even if I knew how far I had to go. If something drastic happened on one of my jobs, I feel I'd be hammered simply because I'm responsible.
By the way, do HSE monitor the effects of new legislation on accident rates? Can they point to any reductions in accidents due to specific changes/increases in legislation?