Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40
- 59)
TUESDAY 26 OCTOBER 1999
MR MALCOLM
DAVISON, MR
ROGER ALESBURY
AND MR
REX SYMONS
Mrs Dunwoody
40. Yet the only thing you talk about on enforcement,
of course, is charges; in the paragraph on enforcement, the main
burden of your complaint is that you do not think charges help.
And, indeed, you say, in open government, that there are certain
things that should be discussed freely and frankly but in secret?
(Mr Symons) May I deal with the charges issue first.
Charges are a very specific issue, which the Commission deliberated
on for a very long time, and took the view that charges was not
an ideal route to fund the Executive responsibilities, and it
is still of that view, although Ministers decided that charges
would apply to certain safety case regimes, and the Commission
has accepted that. The reason the Commission took the view is
that it was concerned about the long-term relationship between
the enforcing body, HSE, and those under the HSE's control, industry;
and it took the view that it is very important to have a relationship
where there is interchange and where there is exchange.
41. So it is more important not to upset them
than it is to actually enforce the rules?
(Mr Symons) No, I would not agree with that. It is
very important, enforcement is extremely important, because it
justifies the whole of the legislative framework. We at the Commission
and at the CBI are, of course, not at all involved in any decisions
about enforcement; it is very important that I make that clear.
42. With great respect, that was not what I
asked you. I was referring to your evidence.
(Mr Symons) About charging, yes.
43. Frankly, I am not clear what it is. Why
is it, for example, that you say, on the one hand, it is very
important that small firms should know, they should have a very
clear indication, but then, on the other hand, you say that, "We
don't believe in too much open government because that would make
it difficult for us to discuss the problems that arise."
We ask you about enforcement, you say, "The only thing that
concerns us really about this is that charges should not stand
between those who have to enforce the rules and those who have
to carry them out." Will you forgive me if I say I see a
little lack of clarity in the way that the CBI presents its position?
That may be unfortunate or unkind.
(Mr Symons) Of course I will forgive you. The charging
issue is very specific and relates only to the safety case regime.
What I think we need to make clear is that we feel that it would
be a very serious step to move down a route where enforcement
carried with it charges, that is the issue, because we think that
it would drive enforcement in the wrong direction.
Chairman
44. Do you think enforcement is carried out
evenly across all the regions, at the HSE?
(Mr Symons) That is a very difficult question to answer,
Chairman, without real evidence. There is a real attempt to carry
it out reasonably in all regions; there has, however, been a great
deal of discussion with the local authorities about ensuring that
it is the same in all parts of the country. So I think one can
find evidence to answer either side of the argument.
45. And do you think the courts are fairly consistent
in the penalties that they come up with?
(Mr Symons) I am not sure I can answer that accurately.
I know there is great concern that sometimes the courts do not
apply the penalties that are available.
Mr Olner
46. I just wondered, Chairman, what sort of
dialogue you had with the HSE, at CBI level; do you talk to the
HSE, as the CBI?
(Mr Symons) I am a Commissioner, so I am at every
Commission meeting.
47. Yes; and do you express or give any indication
to the HSE which route they ought to be going down?
(Mr Symons) In regard to the making of policy, all
of the HSE's proposals are put out to public consultation, and
we respond to that public consultation and we discuss the results
of that consultation at every Commission meeting. So, yes, we
do contribute continuously to those issues; but we do not contribute
at all on enforcement.
Mr Donohoe
48. If I ask Mr Alesbury this, in terms of his
own company, what powers does the workplace health and safety
representative have?
(Mr Alesbury) We actively encourage employee representation,
and in those plants that are unionised then we actively support
and encourage trade union safety representatives. Our view is
that everybody has to be involved in good health and safety, and
that employee representatives have got an important part to play
in promoting and improving health and safety.
49. And, Mr Davison, in your company?
(Mr Davison) If I could add that not only in our company
but in the electricity industry there is a Joint Health and Safety
Advisory Committee between trade unions, the management sides,
also the HSE attend that and the DTI; so there is an industry-wide
health and safety committee. Back in the individual companies,
there are differing arrangements for worker consultation on health
and safety. In my own company, we have both union and non-union
representatives, we have local health and safety committees, and
they work very well together, and they have the powers of investigation,
they are consulted, they are involved, it is a co-operative process,
and that is really what you need.
50. How many of them are full-time health and
safety representatives, within your company, seconded to full-time
health and safety? It used to be the practice; how many are there
now?
(Mr Davison) Most of them have other jobs as well,
they do not do it full-time, although they are the company employee
representative, so they are the ones who attend the monthly health
and safety committee meetings, but they do other work as well.
51. So you do not have any full-time trade union
representatives?
(Mr Davison) They are full-time trade union representatives
but they do other work as well.
52. They are not full-time then. Mr Alesbury,
are there any such people in your company that are full-time health
and safety representatives?
(Mr Alesbury) Could I give you a written answer to
that question later, because I do not have the information in
front of me as to how many we might have.
53. Should these representatives have the power
to stop work, if they see it as dangerous; in other words, that
you pass this provision to the health and safety representative,
to be able to prohibit work?
(Mr Alesbury) We actively encourage all of our employees,
not just elected representatives, to take an active involvement
in health and safety, and we would encourage all of our employees
if they saw something that they considered to be unsafe to report
that; we would then take some action to make sure that something
was done.
54. And if no action is taken on one of your
rigs, say, in the North Sea, what then; does the health and safety
representative have that power to be able to say, "I'm going
to prohibit any worker operating that machinery"? I do not
think that is the case?
(Mr Alesbury) I do not think that is the case, but
I would hope it would never get to that, because, in a responsible
company, if someone points out that there is an issue that is
a danger, or a risk, to someone's health and safety then it is
in everybody's interest to make sure that that is fully investigated
and appropriate action is taken.
55. Do you believe that it should be the case
that by statute that individual, the health and safety representative,
should indeed have the powers to be able to prohibit any dangerous
practice that they see in the workplace; do you think that that
should be given as a right to the individual?
(Mr Alesbury) I do not think that would be particularly
helpful, because it might promote antagonism between various parts
of the company. I would certainly encourage anything that would
reinforce the right of someone to actually report a health and
safety issue.
56. What financial incentives do you give to
the individual health and safety committee, for instance, within
your company; do you give them any budget within which to operate,
do you assist them in training?
(Mr Alesbury) We have systems for training people
in health and safety as part of good normal practice that we employ.
The health and safety committees are committees that involve both
employee and management representatives, and if that committee
collectively decides that something needs to be done then it is
for management to fund that.
57. What sort of number of occasions in one
year, for instance, would that be the case, that there would be
funding, there would be an away-day, or something, to do with
training?
(Mr Alesbury) Again, if I can come back to you with
a written answer on that, I do not have that information.
58. What about you, Mr Davison, in your company?
(Mr Davison) In our company, we have a joint trade
union/employer training programme for safety representatives,
and we put that on by demand. When there is a need to train new
representatives, or for refresher training for representatives,
we put the course on so that there can be joint input from both
the trade union and from ourselves. How many times a year: we
were involved last year in delivering two of those courses.
59. It used to be the case, I do not know whether
it still is, I am maybe just a bit old in that respect, but we
used to have to issue the health and safety card, the credential,
for the individual, that was the trade union, on an annual basis,
and before they were issued we made sure that the individual had
been trained. I am presuming that within your companies you still
accept that, and only accept that?
(Mr Davison) We only accept that people are competent
to do what we ask them to do, and that competency for the safety
representative comes with the safety representative training.
I would have to go back and give you a written reply as to whether
we issue a card in every case and what significance that card
carries. The importance for us is that the individual is competent
to do what we are asking them to do.
|
