SHP Online is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.
Cuts, cost-reductions, or efficiency savings – whatever name you use to describe the situation the HSE, like other government departments, is facing, it is unrealistic to think that the health and safety watchdog can get away without any cuts at all.
This was the response HSE chair Judith Hackitt gave at the IOSH Conference today during a panel discussion on ‘Evaluating the outcomes of ‘the health and safety review’.
Stressing that he was posing a question in a personal capacity, Lawrence Waterman, head of health and safety for the Olympic Delivery Authority, accused the HSE of losing its intellectual leadership in the debate about cost-savings – a term he described as an obfuscation for cuts. He expressed disappointment that the HSE had not, as yet, provided a more coherent ‘opposition’ to the cuts by emphasising more clearly the business case for investing in health and safety.
He asked where such a resigned stance from the HSE would leave health and safety practitioners in the private sector, who might be asked by their bosses: ‘why can’t you give me a third in savings as they are doing at government level?’
In response, Ms Hackitt stated defiantly: “I will not defend the case that HSE can’t make efficiencies,” admitting that “we know we will not be able to maintain our frontline capacity”.
She nevertheless went on to point out that the 35-per-cent cut in its government grant will not only come from reducing headcount but from ‘efficiency gains’, such as losing some back-office systems, or consolidating its estate. She added: “The rest will come from replacing government funding with cost-recovery from those who are at fault.”
IOSH chief executive Rob Strange said he had some sympathy with the HSE’s situation but stressed that the Institution’s position will always be to “speak out against any reduction in the HSE’s resources”. He added that the important thing to look at is where those cuts are mad and where extra income might be generated to avoid cuts.
Asked about the HSE’s proposal to start charging companies that are found to be at fault during inspections, Ms Hackitt dismissed the suggestion that the Executive should introduce a flat rate, arguing that it would be a fairer and more level playing field to just charge those businesses that are found to be not complying with the law.
While conceding there was a risk that HSE inspectors might be encouraged to recover costs by seeking fault where it doesn’t necessarily exist, she remained adamant that there is no intention for that to happen and the Executive would prevent it by working out in detail and consulting carefully on exactly where cost-recovery would come into play.
She also admitted that maintaining the level of contact between the HSE and local authorities in terms of proportionate and consistent enforcement would be a particularly challenging area. Her comments led to a call-to-arms plea to conclude the debate from IOSH president Steve Granger. Speaking from the floor, he suggested that, given the challenging economic time the UK is facing, the work the HSE has done should be taken up by the wider health and safety community, both domestically and internationally, and all stakeholders should start working much more closely to develop best-practice standards.Click on the video below to hear delegates views on the panel debate:
