102. The issue of regional variations was raised by a number of witnesses[173] who claimed significant differences existed between the regional offices of the HSE in terms of a) application of the law and b) approaches to investigation or prosecution.

103. On the application of the legislation, the Construction Confederation claimed that "at the present time different HSE regions demonstrate clear differences in their policy and this is not acceptable" and went on to cite the example of 'roof nets', which are insisted on by some inspectors and not by others.[174] This, the Confederation argues, means that "those organisations within a particular area may experience greater costs due to an inspector's whim if he has different standards to colleagues".[175] Regional variations in prosecutions are discussed at paragraph 52.

104. We were also told that variation may be even more of a problem in relation to the enforcement undertaken by local authorities. In oral evidence, RoSPA stated that while regional variance was "largely exaggerated", it was more of a problem among local authority inspectors, rather than HSE inspectors. However, the Local Government Association claimed that "any evidence of this trend is largely anecdotal".[176] This view was also supported by the TUC,[177] which also went on to argue that a certain degree of diversity in approach between authorities, in order to reflect differing local circumstances, is beneficial.[178]

105. The HSE used a similar argument to defend variation between its offices. It pointed out that a degree of variation in investigations and prosecutions should be expected to reflect geographical differences in industry mix or the existence of local policies such as 'blitzes'.[179] It argued that "variation does not suggest inconsistency of application of policy".[180]

173  HSE03, HSE16, HSE20 Back

174  HSE16 Back

175  HSE16 Back

176  HSE30 Back

177  Q113 Back

178  Q119 Back

179  Q297 Back

180  Q298 Back