The
HSC are considering whether or not to seperate out its
advice and enforcement functions. Below is what a recent
HSC statement, said about this.
| 12 |
Some consultees have told us that they would like
to see an advice service separated from the enforcement
function - an approach used in the Netherlands
and the United States. The Commission received
a presentation in December 2002 from the Dutch
enforcement agency explaining their approach.
Their system was introduced in 1994 and requires
every employer to have a contract with a certified
occupational health service. A key benefit is
said to be comprehensive and trusted good quality
advice free from enforcement and any perceived
conflict of roles. Equally, they acknowledge that
their system has increased the administrative
burden on the employer, an issue they are trying
to address. |
| 13 |
The
literature review that helped inform the strategy’s
development indicated the roles of enforcement
and advice are not mutually exclusive. The two
functions work together to reinforce each other,
and the combination is necessary for consistency.
Stakeholders tell us that, above all, they value
our and LAs’ advice because it is viewed
as authoritative. |
| 14 |
Complete
separation would require extensive legal and organisational
changes as current legislation restricts our ability
to separate these functions easily. We would also
foresee major cost implications for which no provision
exists at the current time. In addition, at this
moment in time, we do not have any hard evidence
to suggest that the service would be improved
as a result. A member of HSE staff is visiting
the Netherlands in the autumn to find out at first
hand how this approach works in practice. Once
this visit has been assessed and their scheme
more properly evaluated, we will consider the
applicability of the Dutch model in greater detail
to see if all or parts of it would be of value
here. |
To
download, the full document, click
here
|
