Examination of Witnesses (Questions 380
- 399)
TUESDAY 23 NOVEMBER 1999
RT HON
MR MICHAEL
MEACHER, DR
DAVID FISK
AND MR
MURRAY DEVINE
Mrs Dunwoody
380. Are you looking at whether they should
be doing their prosecutions themselves or whether it should be
done by people more skilled?
(Mr Meacher) HSE uses lawyers, of course, to prosecute
the more serious cases in the higher courts, that has always been
the case.
381. But you have just told us that very few
of their cases actually get referred up.
(Mr Meacher) I am referring to cases that come into
the magistrates' court but which are seen to be serious and therefore
the magistrates decide, I think rightly, that a more serious penalty
is needed so they refer it upwards.
382. But have you discussed with the HSE whether
too much of their work is taken up in preparing prosecutions which
might more usefully be divided off in some other group of skilled
workers, ie lawyers? In theory they are skilled workers.
(Mr Meacher) As I say, we use lawyers in the higher
courts. The inspectors who do prosecute are, of course, given
proper training before they take out their first prosecution.
HSE are looking at whether there is a case for having fewer, better
qualified specialist prosecuting inspectors in the lower courts.
I think there probably is a case for that. The balance between
doing that and trying to improve your prosecuting record, and
I have to say last year there was an 83 per cent success rate
in 1,800 cases, that is pretty good, how you get the balance right
between that and more resources going into prevention is a matter
for judgment.
Mr Donohoe
383. Surely it is the culture in the industries
that we have that is wrong. The ultimate is to try to get to the
point where you do not have problems at all because the employer
recognises that this is to be of paramount importance. The best
way to send that signal out is to jail a few. It will not take
too long after that for any employer to realise that they are
not going to get away with it and if there is a death they are
going to be held criminally responsible for that death. It would
not take too long after that for the specifications of the improvement
in services to be there for everyone to see.
(Mr Meacher) I agree with that. I think my first rather
long answer indicated the measures which we are taking to try
to implement that. I do believe that imprisonment should be reserved
as a potential—
384. Not reserved, it should be there at the
forefront. If you want to change the culture, if you want to have
the thing transformed overnight, if you send out that signal it
will not be too long before these people realise that they cannot
get away with it. Fines of one million pounds to some of these
big companies are minuscule, they mean absolutely nothing to them
in projects that are worth billions. You must understand that
to be the case surely?
(Mr Meacher) Of course I understand it to be the case
and I did say that we are looking at the—
385. Not look at, get to the point of saying
that this will happen.
(Mr Meacher) Governments have to look at things before
they do things to make sure that what we do is sensible and right.
We do not change the law without very due care and taking account
of the consequences.
386. But people are dying because of the fact
that the culture is wrong in industry.
(Mr Meacher) I agree that the culture is not sufficiently
safety conscious in a number of sectors. There are the bad sectors
which we all know. The construction sector and the agriculture
sector are particularly notorious. We certainly do need to inject
a very difficult culture.
387. So the final question, when does this happen?
When do we get to the point where that will be delivered by this
Government?
(Mr Meacher) I did say we are looking for legislation.
Chairman
388. It is not in the Queen's Speech but we
are balloting today, are we not, for a Private Member's Bill?
(Mr Meacher) That is exactly right.
389. So you have got a hand-me-down Bill waiting
for some enthusiastic backbencher.
(Mr Meacher) If there is a backbencher who would wish
to promote this cause as we would wish, we can certainly assist
with regard to legislation which would, as I say, raise the level
of fines in the lower courts for most health and safety offences
to £20,000. You may still think that is not sufficient but
it is a very substantial increase on where we are now, but, more
particularly, make imprisonment available. That is that point.
Secondly, the Home Office—I repeat—are about to produce
their proposals on the Law Commission's recommendations about
the offence of corporate killing. If the Government decides to
proceed with that then we will look for a legislative option to
implement that.
Mr Brake
390. We have heard today that the HSE fails
to investigate 94 per cent of major accidents and fails to investigate
60 per cent of amputations. As a result of the extra 17 per cent
that you are going to give the HSE over a three year period, what
improvement would you expect in those figures?
(Mr Meacher) I hope a considerable one. I do not think
that I can say more than that. As one of the first measures we
took when we came into office we restored the cuts which were
programmed by the previous administration. That is an extra £4.5
million a year. That did begin an increase of inspectors' investigatory
and enforcement work by 30 per cent. In the Comprehensive Spending
Review earlier this year we made available an extra £63 million
which is one-third of the current total budget,[3]
which is a very big increase indeed, £20 million from the
Government, £43 million from the extra charges. That allowed
a recruitment of 70 extra inspectors. My answer to your question,
therefore, is I hope that there will be considerable extra investigations,
that there will be extra inspections and that there will be extra
prosecutions, although the main thrust of the policy, as we have
been saying, is to try to improve the managerial culture and there
are various ways of doing this: more inspectors; better use of
the insurance system and other measures.
391. I am sure we would all want a considerable
improvement but the Government has no precise target in mind.
The Government is not seeking for ten per cent of major accidents
to be investigated. The Government has not set a quota.
(Mr Meacher) No, we have not.
392. So you are happy, therefore, that six per
cent gives you the feedback you need about the range of accidents
and what best practice can be derived from those investigations?
(Mr Meacher) No, I am not satisfied. I think the carnage
from severe and disabling accidents in factories and other workplaces
is still absolutely unacceptable. I think we have to lean on those
responsible as to the appalling personal as well as economic cost
involved in that very strongly. You asked me whether we have established
specific targets, no we have not but that does not mean to say
that we are not intending to get those figures markedly down.
This year on the 25th anniversary of the 1974 Act we instituted
a major review to try to establish the salience of health and
safety better. The level of accidents both amongst employees and
the self-employed has come down, particularly amongst employees.
I think it was 3.6 per 100,000 in 1971 and it is now down to about
0.9 per 100,000 this year but it has been stuck at this level
through most of the 1990s and we need to get that lower. Again,
to put it in perspective, I think they are the lowest rates in
the EU and about half the EU average. I am not complacent. The
personal cost is appalling and we have to reduce it.
393. I hear you say you are not complacent but
how can you establish whether you have succeeded, whether the
money is going to be well spent, unless you have actually set
targets for the HSE to deliver it?
(Mr Meacher) The litmus test is whether those figures
do reduce, whether we begin to push down those figures and start
on a continuous lower track in future years. That is the best
evidence.
394. Would one of the ways of achieving that
be perhaps to make a different allocation of health and safety
responsibilities among, for instance, local authorities, the Environment
Agency, possibly Chambers of Commerce?
(Mr Meacher) Well, that again is something I think
we certainly need to look at. There is an agreement concluded
between the Environment Agency and HSE about joint working in
order to avoid duplication and also with the Maritime and Coastguard
Agency and the Civil Aviation Agency. I am not aware that is not
working reasonably well. Maybe we do need, I accept—
Mrs Dunwoody
395. You have not discussed this, for example,
with the head of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency?
(Mr Meacher) I have not. It is my transport colleague
who has prime responsibility within the Department.
396. But now that we have joined-up Government
and we are all working together to the same object—
(Mr Meacher) That is correct.
397. You will be discussing it with your ministerial
colleague who will in turn be discussing it with the flexible
and responsive head of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
(Mr Meacher) I think it is not conversations between
ministers which are so critical, which is the point you are driving
at, it is effective collaborative working relationships between
professionals in the field.
398. Exactly. So ministerial direction might
be of some positive use.
(Mr Meacher) If there was evidence that this was not
working well I entirely agree that we should be looking to see
how we can improve it. What I am saying is no evidence has been
brought to me that this relationship is not working well.
399. "Not me, gov, the man next door".
(Mr Meacher) I am not saying it is the responsibility
of someone else, it is my responsibility, but no evidence has
come to me that this is not working well. There are many aspects
about health and safety which do need my attention, what I am
saying is I do not believe that this is a major one.
3 Witness correction: annual budget. Back
| 
