Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
TUESDAY 26 OCTOBER 1999
MR MALCOLM
DAVISON, MR
ROGER ALESBURY
AND MR
REX SYMONS
Chairman
20. Would it not be a good idea to try to explore
a one-stop shop perhaps in one locality, just to see whether it
worked or not?
(Mr Alesbury) Yes, Chairman, a pilot clearly would
be a good idea, and it could also be piloted between agencies.
Mr Randall
21. It seems that the current regulatory approach
is effective for larger firms; how effective do you feel it is
for the smaller firms?
(Mr Symons) We think one of the strengths of the health
and safety legislative structure is its flexibility, and we think
it can be adapted to different sectors and different sizes. We
do recognise though that small firms need much more help than
large firms, as has already been said, they do need accessible
advice, and we really feel that it is not appropriate to have
two levels of legislation. I think the issue is one of access
rather than one of the legislative structure.
22. That is with regard to advice; what about
enforcement, do you think the HSE is as effective in enforcing
with small- and medium-size businesses as it is with larger companies?
(Mr Symons) I would like to believe that the enforcement
is entirely a level playing-field and is determined by the issues
and not by the size of the organisation.
23. But just by the sheer number, they have
obviously increased, the numbers of small businesses are much
larger than the larger ones; so are they able to make the visits
as frequently?
(Mr Symons) Their visiting is targeted according to
risk and according to hazard, and these are issues which really
need to be addressed to the HSE themselves. My impression clearly
is that they take a great deal of trouble to make sure that their
approach is consistent across the industry sector, regardless
of the size; but, of course, if you look at the statistics, there
are very many more small construction firms for example than there
are large ones, and naturally the HSE will visit sites according
to that perceived hazard and the perceived risk. But we do not
believe that there is any evidence at all to argue that the enforcement
is not a level playing-field.
24. So you feel, for smaller businesses, the
key to improving safety and occupational health is actually get
better advice and more accessible advice?
(Mr Symons) More accessible advice, which leads to
better knowledge and better training.
(Mr Davison) It is not just the accessibility of the
advice, it is also, I guess, putting the advice over in clear,
simple language. I can read through a set of regulations and make
some sense out of them; not everybody can do that, and what people
need is advice on specifically what they need to do. I think some
small firms actually have some difficulty with the concept of
risk assessment, and they would rather see, for a given situation,
some specific advice on how to deal with that situation. So it
is not only the means of delivery and accessibility of the advice,
it is what that advice looks like as well.
25. So even the regulations themselves need
some explaining; or in an ideal world they would be much clearer
all round?
(Mr Davison) The HSE does a very good job, in terms
of putting out already approved codes of practice and guidance
for regulations, but for the smaller firms I think some more pointed
advice, and that perhaps could be developed in conjunction with
the business units that they form part of.
26. Do you think there is a danger, with smaller
businesses, that under the weight of so many regulations the crucial
things, of safety and occupational health, get lost in all the
other regulations that fall down upon them?
(Mr Davison) Every business has a host of things to
deal with; that is why, in the area of health and safety, it is
important that we can get the message over to the small company
and in such a way that they understand how to act on it. And I
think the other aspect is they have to perceive a benefit from
acting on it, because they perceive, in the initial days of the
small company, production, output, as the main benefits; so we
need to be able to sell the benefit of good health and safety
for the small company as well.
27. Rather than just another imposition?
(Mr Davison) Yes, or the threat of prosecution; there
has got to be a good balance of carrot and stick.
(Mr Alesbury) Just to illustrate one of the points,
in terms of guidance; just recently, you are probably aware of
the publication of COSHH Essentials, and COSHH is a regulation
that has been around for round about a decade, and it was clear,
from surveys that the Health and Safety Executive had done, that
many small companies did not fully understand the requirements.
So, by collaboration with the Health and Safety Executive, industry
and also the trade unions, an approach was developed, called COSHH
Essentials, that was aimed at simplifying the whole approach to
risk assessment; and that is at this moment in time being widely
promoted by HSE, by the unions and by industry, and might just
serve as an example of the way to translate complex legislation
into something that small firms can deal with.
Chairman
28. But, on this question of risk, is it really
easy for people to assess the risk, as far as office jobs are
concerned, stress, those sorts of areas? I can see it is easy
to assess risk if it is a question of how many fingers get chopped
off in guillotines, but it is much more difficult, is it not,
in some of these areas?
(Mr Alesbury) Yes, Mr Chairman, I would certainly
agree with that. It is very difficult, and I think this is why
we have to increase the awareness, particularly on health issues,
amongst all stakeholders, to enable them to participate in that
debate, to try to come down with some simple guiding principles,
but also to provide the specialist resources that can help when
they get to areas that are beyond their competence.
Mrs Dunwoody
29. So does the CBI specifically say to all
its members, big and small, "No matter how tiny your organisation,
someone must have specific responsibility for safety"?
(Mr Alesbury) I think any company line managers always
have responsibility for health and safety.
30. Yes, but, with respect, both you and your
colleague are from very large organisations, where one would assume
you are only in business because you understand the implication
of legislation. I am asking you something different. As an organisation,
you are a trade organisation, do you tell everybody, irrespective
of the size of the units, that someone should have responsibility
for health and safety, right the way across the board, not just
in simple enforcement? And do you also suggest they should give
time for the training of those people, and do you, as an organisation,
offer opportunities for small businesses to take part in those
training sessions?
(Mr Symons) I think the answer to that is yes, and
the CBI Health and Safety Panel has 60 to 70 members, including
large trade associations, who disseminate to their members large
amounts of information and large amounts of advice in the health
and safety field.
31. And how do you evaluate how effective that
is?
(Mr Symons) By bench-marking. The Contour initiative
of CBI tries to bench-mark people's performance in a whole series
of areas, including health and safety.
Mrs Ellman
32. Does the HSE use enough stick? Only something
like 6 per cent of major accidents are investigated, prosecutions
are rare and penalties are mild. Are you satisfied with this situation?
(Mr Alesbury) We think that the range of options available
to the Health and Safety Executive is appropriate, and that range
is from the imposition of enforcement notices, improvement and
prohibition notices, through to court action. The problem with
taking more cases to court is that we understand that it is extremely
demanding on the resources of the Health and Safety Executive,
and, as such, could detract from their other activities. It may
well be that greater use of improvement and prohibition notices
might be one way forward.
33. Are you saying that there is an official
policy at HSE not to take people to court because of the time
that it takes up amongst staff of the HSE; is that a policy?
(Mr Alesbury) I am not aware of any policy, but I
am aware that taking someone to court does involve them in a great
deal of time and effort, and with their limited resources that
will detract them from other activities to promote and improve
health and safety.
Chairman
34. If you take someone to court, you get costs,
at the end of the day, if it is successful, do you not; so does
not that offset the cost to the Health and Safety Executive of
doing it?
(Mr Alesbury) I could not answer on behalf of the
Health and Safety Executive. Clearly, if people have committed
a crime, they have breached health and safety law, then it is
appropriate that they are treated accordingly; but, as I think
you have already mentioned, there are a small number of cases
that appear to get to court.
Mrs Ellman
35. Who sets the policy, in relation to how
the different kinds of penalties that can be exerted are actually
used, who sets the policy in the HSE, is that discussed, as a
policy issue?
(Mr Symons) That is a Health and Safety Executive
responsibility, the policy with regard to those matters. They
have produced a policy paper, which perhaps members of the Committee
may have seen, which sets out these issues and their rationale,
and I think that policy paper is broadly supported by CBI members.
36. Do you think there is sufficient investigation
of major accidents, is that taken seriously enough; 6 per cent
sounds a very low figure?
(Mr Davison) I think that the Health and Safety Executive
should investigate major accidents; do I think there is enough,
I cannot give an opinion on that. I would like to come back to
the prosecution, because if you look at the purpose of prosecution
and what it does to bring about a change or an improvement in
health and safety standards, the improvement and prohibition notices
give the opportunity to the inspector on the spot to cause a change
in a very rapid timescale. Prosecution, I think, should be used
when somebody has been wilful, flagrant in their disregard for
health and safety law, or it is somebody who should have known
better and did not do what they should have done, and I think
the HSE then should be prosecuting. In terms of whether it changes
people's views in the long term, immediately there is shame, there
are some costs, penalties, to individuals, but business does go
on, and it tends to fade into the background with time. So what
you need is something to continually reinforce the required behaviour
that gives you the health and safety standards you need; and I
still think the prohibition and improvement notices give better
scope for that than prosecution. Prosecution should be, and is,
a punishment for getting it wrong; some see it as a motivator,
some do not.
Chairman
37. It is a punishment for the company, it is
not often a punishment for the individual who has actually made
the mistakes, is it?
(Mr Davison) At a personal level, I would agree with
that, that some people may sigh with relief when the company is
prosecuted and not themselves; but individuals, I think, would
indeed take more interest if they felt personally culpable every
time somebody said there would be prosecution.
Mrs Ellman
38. As members of the CBI, how do you think
companies would react if there was a tougher policy, in terms
of investigating accidents and using enforcement on regulations?
(Mr Symons) The CBI would not oppose that, providing
that it was taken in context with other legislative action, in
other fields. I think that would be very clear.
39. Such as?
(Mr Symons) The environment, for example; it must
be proportional in every respect, and the CBI would not oppose
action to increase regulatory action, or penalties, if it was
being done on a level playing-field basis.
|
