Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120
- 139)
MR JOHN
MONKS AND
MR OWEN
TUDOR
TUESDAY 2 NOVEMBER 1999
120. So you suggest the burden of evidence from
one local authority to another should be shared so they at least
have some common basis?
(Mr Tudor) Yes, that would be useful.
121. And you are sure that is happening?
(Mr Tudor) I am not sure it is happening everywhere,
no.
122. But the TUC monitors the result of the
work of that committee?
(Mr Tudor) No, we do not.
Mrs Ellman
123. I want to take you back to your comments
on occupational health. Are you satisfied that there is enough
back up in research in occupational health now, linking factors
at work with ill health, and how would your proposals here improve
on what we have in that regard? Rather than dealing with the individual
person, I am thinking of the correlations and connections between
occupations and ill health.
(Mr Tudor) I think there is an awful lot of evidence
about links between occupation and health. There is a feeling
sometimes among the academic community and the scientific community
that there is a need for more research to establish those links
in certain areas. But I have to express a slight notion of cynicism
that there will always be that sort of view. Another good example
is to go back to stress, there is a lot of work which has been
done on the relationship between stress and work, we think it
is sufficient evidence to go forward in a legislative way by introducing
an approved code of practice. Other people disagree with that
and say more evidence is needed. What I am worried about is that
people will always be requiring more evidence and we will never
actually get round to the action, and I think that is of some
concern. We have been doing research on occupational health issues
for 100 years, there is always going to be another little bit
which could be added which would add to our body of knowledge
and fine-tune our response to something, but I think actually
the broad areas of action which would be needed to improve people's
occupational health are pretty well established.
Chairman
124. Presumably the TUC is a pretty stress-free
environment, but have you got stress management programmes in
place?
(Mr Monks) It is such a happy ship—and I speak
as the chief executive!
Mrs Dunwoody
125. You speak like any other employer I know!
(Mr Monks) I have heard others make those comments.
We do have our problems from time to time.
Christine Butler
126. I have been in touch with my own environmental
health department at the council and perhaps I can read a sentence
from a letter I received today because I think it is pertinent
to the point about the questions on local authority responsibilities.
"Due to shortages I am told the Health and Safety Executive
are not able to visit and investigate all fatalities at work in
premises under their control and that local authorities have a
better record, but even so health and safety is a lower priority
because hard-pressed officers have a legal performance target
to meet on food safety ..." and that takes up such a lot
of their time. It goes on, "No such targets are there for
health and safety." That might be something which the Committee
could note. Also the Environmental Health Officers Association
are pressing local government in pointing up the issue of call
centres and related premises and they say there are more people
employed in them than in the combined workforce of the coal, car
and steel industries. I wondered if you would like to make a comment
in view of those facts, whether you think HSE and the local authorities'
responsibility should be divided differently and what role is
there for Government in setting the remit for local government
officers?
(Mr Tudor) I am not aware, and I do not think it is
true, that HSE does not investigate fatalities. My understanding
is that HSE does investigate fatalities wherever they occur.
127. Always?
(Mr Tudor) Yes, that is my understanding. Where they
are aware of them, obviously, which is a critical issue. In terms
of resources, my understanding is that resources in local authorities
for health and safety inspections have fallen by about 9 per cent
in the last year compared with the Health and Safety Executive
where, as a result of the last Comprehensive Spending Review,
resources are increasing by 17 per cent in real terms over the
next three years. So regardless in a sense of what the current
position is, what we seem to be seeing is resources increasing
in HSE and declining in local authorities, and we are concerned
about that decline. One of the reasons, as you quite rightly say,
is because there are not the clear legal targets which environmental
health inspectors have to comply with in terms of food for health
and safety.
Chairman
128. Should there be clear legal targets?
(Mr Tudor) I think the reason for it is that health
and safety law is based on setting objectives which employers
ought to attain rather than laying down prescriptions. We used
to have a prescriptive health and safety legal system and by the
consent of all the parties concerned it was removed and replaced
by a goal-setting regime. It does make it an awful lot more difficult
setting those targets for achievements of performance of inspectors
than a prescriptive regime does. Certainly from our point of view,
we are still committed to the goal-setting regime and I do not
think we would want to go down the route of prescription. What
that means is that we have to find a more difficult way round
the problem of how local authorities adequately address the resource
problems.
Christine Butler
129. Any ideas?
(Mr Tudor) No is the quick answer, but the Health
and Safety Executive is currently working on performance indicators
which could be used in that way. We will have an input to that
process and see what they come up with. Can I say about call centres,
that the difference between HSE's and local authorities' roles
is that HSE will set policy on call centres, local authorities
will carry out the legislative requirements in terms of inspection
enforcement. We are currently being consulted by the Health and
Safety Executive's Local Authority Unit on a guidance circular
for enforcement in call centres and that will be the process by
which HSE tries to maintain consistency of approach and consistency
with the regulations in that area. I think that is a fairly appropriate
split in terms of responsibilities.
Mr Donohoe
130. In your submission in paragraph 11 you
indicate that the current system of enforcement is "woefully
inadequate". You indicate that little can be done to increase
the number of prosecutions. Given the increasing public concern
at the low level of prosecutions and penalties, how can that situation
be addressed and improved?
(Mr Monks) We are concerned about the low level of
prosecutions and we are concerned about the low level of fines
which are applied. The figures are fairly stark and are mentioned
in the evidence. Given that unions were doing about 125,000 personal
compensation cases last year with over £300 million coming
back in compensation, the role of the criminal law is tiny in
comparison, and of course fines never seem adequate against some
personal tragedy. It is very important not to get into some kind
of revenge scenario or satisfying the tabloid's thirst for these
kind of things, which we are very much aware of, but we do think
that a rise in the fines rate is overdue and would in a sense
give some focus and new attention on the need to prevent accidents.
131. But my experience in some 25, 30 years
in industry and in representing people in industry is that the
factory inspector is reactive rather than proactive, and it is
that we should be addressing in terms of how we improve upon health,
how we improve upon the safety of employees. The TUC have identified—in
a different form of words certainly—a problem, but I am
looking to you to give us some answers, if that is at all possible,
given the vast experience your organisation, and within your organisation
the individual trade unions, have got over a great number of years.
(Mr Tudor) Our view is that the HSE inspectors do
actually balance reasonably well a proactive and reactive approach.
132. I have never seen it, I must say.
(Mr Tudor) I was actually round with an inspector
at what used to be British Steel's special products unit at Skellingrove
yesterday and the inspector there was mixing proactive and reactive
approaches extremely well. He had been involved in helping the
company with the safety reps in the company set up a five year
strategy for improving health and safety, which was the proactive
element—
133. When did he set it up? The day before you
went?
(Mr Tudor) No, two years before I went. It was two
years into the process when I was there. While I was there I actually
saw him writing out two prohibition notices to prevent the use
of dangerous equipment which he had found on his investigation,
and that was the reactive angle. He had undoubtedly taken measures
there which would not only stop the use of that machinery which
could have been dangerous to an individual, but he actually used
those prohibition notices to target management's attention on
areas where the safety culture was weak compared with the rest
of the plant. That would then feed back into the five year strategic
approach. In that sense, it is very difficult to say, "He
should stop doing one and should do more of the other", because
they are both valuable and as an inspector he has limited resources
and always will have limited resources. In terms of fines we want
to make sure that when prosecutions take place they are given
the weight which they deserve in terms of the seriousness they
hold, and I am afraid that currently the level of fines average
at about £4 or £5,000 a fine. However, I do not think
there is any simple way of raising the level of fines. Governments
have down the years had difficulty in imposing their views—and
the current Government shares our view about the level of fines—on
magistrates and judges because of their independence. What I think
magistrates and judges do respond to, and have in the past responded
to in health and safety, is a general public concern about the
low level of fines in this area. We are currently developing a
report with the British Safety Council, which is an organisation
of safety professionals in companies dealing with health and safety,
on the low level of fines at the moment which we intend to use
with magistrates and judges to encourage them to give more adequate
penalties.
134. Can I say to you my practical experiences
are way out in real terms to what you are suggesting? I, frankly,
cannot believe that that is the norm, neither do I suspect do
you. You are taking one particular factory inspector and one particular
situation but in reality across the board the service is completely
and utterly incompetent in terms of its ability to be able to
address the situation on what would be meaningful time scales.
As the TUC you should be much more aggressive and coming up with
much more than, perhaps, you have in terms of the conclusions
that you have reached.
(Mr Tudor) You understand, we are partners in the
health and safety process so it is unlikely that I am going to
be substantially critical of a system that trade unions helped
to establish and which trade unions help to sustain.
(Mr Monks) Just hang on a minute, I am not a member
of the Health and Safety Commission.
135. That is good, we might get an honest answer.
(Mr Monks) You will get an honest answer, that is
that the picture you paint of your experiences I do not believe
is a general one. There is a considerable degree of respect for
the Health and Safety Executive, I detect, around a wide range
of unions. Where they do not operate in white collar areas, where
local authorities are doing it, we detect a much more variable
relationship. Some local authorities have a good name—anecdotal,
I am afraid, no league table—others have not. Although we
have had particular incidents with the Health and Safety Executive
over the years the number of complaints we have at the TUC and
unions about that, which are fed up to us, are very small.
136. The problem for you, I suspect, is just
as when I was a trade union official within the AEEU. At one time
I can tell you that the factory inspector would visit the plants
with 5,000 or more workers but would never visit a plant, the
ones I represented, that have maybe 550 people in them. You never
saw them. You could not get them. It is still the same today.
If I go around my constituency in the smaller plants and ask the
shop steward when they last saw the factory inspector, they have
not seen him. Even if you were to try to, you would not get them
there for about six months. The reason for that is that they are
under-resourced. I am told that if a factory inspector was to
make a half an hour visit to every single plant it would take
17 years for him to make those visits possible. That demonstrates,
does it not, there is an inadequacy about the funding and the
resources? I would expect that the TUC would be saying that in
their conclusions.
(Mr Tudor) We are saying that we want to see an increase
in resources. I think we have to also look at the results. Britain
does, on ILO statistics, have the best safety record bar one country
in the European Union, that is the outcome. It is certainly not
good enough, obviously we want to be number one, for a start,
and reducing accidents still further. The picture you paint of
a system which is completely failing does not square with the
international statistics on safety. Also in terms of visits to
work places it does not square with the evidence which we have
received from our safety reps. We have conducted fairly extensive
research among safety reps and find the level of visits is, as
HSE's own figures indicate, on average about six or seven years
between visits.
Mrs Dunwoody
137. Why do you say there is an inconsistency
in supplying information on important action, including prohibition
notices? You say that where, for instance, you do not have advisory
committees you do not know and you are aware there is a problem.
Actually your own evidence backs up what
Mr Donohoe is saying.
(Mr Tudor) That is right. That does not mean that
those work places are not being inspected, that simply means we
have a problem.
138. You do not know nor does anybody else.
(Mr Tudor) We do know that they are being inspected
because we have the reports back from our safety reps about the
levels of inspection and the contact they have with inspectors.
I am obviously being too bullish. They are not satisfied with
the issue, but if you compare it with other areas of government
that they deal with they are. They are more satisfied with this
area than with many others.
139. We are quite happy to know we are doing
better than Sicily but we may not be as content with the result
as you obviously think we should be.
(Mr Monks) We are in danger of giving an impression
of complacency.
|
