Examination of Witnesses (Questions 400
- 419)
TUESDAY 23 NOVEMBER 1999
RT HON
MR MICHAEL
MEACHER, DR
DAVID FISK
AND MR
MURRAY DEVINE
Mr Brake
400. Do you think that something that would
help might be the concept of not a one-stop shop but a first-stop
shop where employers or employees could go for information?
(Mr Meacher) I think that is probably right. If one
is looking for the interface between health and safety, and we
have now got food safety, we have got building controls, we have
got planning, I think it is confusing. There is uncertainty about
where people who have worries and anxieties should go. This is
certainly something which in our review this year, Revitalising
Health and Safety, we should certainly look at, and indeed
are.
401. Who do you think should have responsibility
for that first-stop shop, the local authorities, the Health and
Safety, another organisation, separate organisations perhaps?
(Mr Meacher) I think it has to have joint ownership
if it is going to work. The relationship with the local authority,
local authority enforcement, is also important. They are concerned
with sites and workplaces of generally less hazard, ie offices
and shops, supervised by Environmental Health Officers, and that
is covered by the Commission's statutory guidance to local authorities.
There is also, of course, Best Value, which does impact
on local authority enforcement. HSE are committed under Better
Quality Services to reviewing their services in this area
on a rolling programme every five years. I do know that HSC are
now reviewing their current monitoring and evaluation of local
authority services. The answer to your question, I think, is if
there is going to be a one-stop shop it has to have an input from
all the various bodies but located in a single place so that whichever
is the appropriate body to deal with it will be contactable through
that point.
402. So I would have thought that was more likely
to be a local authority than the HSE?
(Mr Meacher) It would almost certainly be on local
authority territory. Because the Environment Agency does not operate
quite in that way, nor HSE, I think it probably would be organised
best through the local authority.
403. You mentioned Best Value and you
said it is going to affect enforcement, in what way is it going
to do that?
(Mr Meacher) There is a requirement under Better
Quality Services, which I am certainly told is more exacting
than under Competing for Quality which was the previous
regime under the last Government, for HSE to examine its services
and to do that on the basis of a rolling programme over a five
year period. That is what they are committed to and that is what
they are now doing. In other words, I know there is this general
view that Whitehall or Government organisations always have things
"under review" and, I agree, that can be a cover for
doing very little but I do think in this case Best Value
is different, there is a cutting edge there and you are expected
to come up with the results of the review which have to be meaningful
and relevant in changing what happens on the ground.
Mr Cummings
404. Do you believe that the Health and Safety
Executive's strategy for occupational health will meet its targets?
(Mr Meacher) It sounds complacent if I say I hope
so. Again, just let me spell out what we are doing. Occupational
health is probably the biggest area where—I hope we are
beginning to change this—before the present Government came
to office there was some neglect. The fact is 25,000 people every
year are forced to give up work and are never able to return.
That is an absolutely utterly unacceptable human cost. I think
the economic cost to the nation, which is over £2 billion
a year, about four per cent of GDP,[4]
is also completely unacceptable. We have said that one of the
major priorities in raising the profile under our Revitalising
Health and Safety document this year is raising the profile
of occupational health as a priority for the strategic plan 1999-2002.
That does dovetail with the Department of Health's Healthier
Nation strategy, including their document on healthier workplaces.
The biggest challenge to occupational health is asbestos and I
am glad to say that at last in relation to asbestos related ill-health,
which still kills thousands of people every year and will continue
to do so for many years to come, as from tomorrow, 24 November,
we are banning the use of white asbestos in addition, of course,
to the existing bans on blue and brown asbestos. I regard that
as extremely important. Occupational ill-health is something which
is far more prevalent than we realise. A self-reporting analysis
showed two million people, if you gross up the same, believing
that they suffered ill-health caused by work, including half a
million from increased stress. Tackling that, I think, has now
to be a central priority. Of course it goes a great deal wider
than just health and safety, it is about the whole nature of work
and the fact that those people who are in work are now working
increasingly harder, as has undoubtedly happened in the last two
decades.
405. Would you see this strategy, Minister,
fitting in with the Department of Health's work and also the Government's
overall strategy on health?
(Mr Meacher) As I say, the Department of Health did
publish a Healthier Nation White Paper and one of the key
items in it was healthier workplaces. We want to see the proposals
in that worked through and systematically implemented.
406. Can you see the mechanics of the exercise,
see it working through?
(Mr Meacher) Yes. We want it implemented and we intend
to monitor that it is implemented. That is basically a matter
for the Department of Health but it is something that they closely
liaise with us on.
407. You have the correct mechanism in place
to do this?
(Mr Meacher) I think so. If you had particular proposals
about how A Healthier Workplace can be better implemented
we would certainly look at it. We did have a full consultation,
as Government is always consulting, before that was issued. We
have tried to pick up the proposals which all the relevant stakeholders
have.
408. Which Department would be responsible for
monitoring?
(Mr Meacher) The Department of Health is primarily
responsible but in conjunction with us.
Chairman: On this question of stress could you
perhaps explain to me how you would deal with stress amongst ministers?
Mr Donohoe
409. Particularly at the time of a reshuffle.
(Mr Meacher) Since this is my 23rd appearance before
a Select Committee in two and a half years, one way would be to
reduce the frequency of these grillings, which I thoroughly enjoy
of course. I do not think that I should rise to your bait any
further.
Mr Cummings
410. A poor health and safety record virtually
has no effect on a company's bottom line. How can the costs of
poor health and safety be passed on to the companies involved?
(Mr Meacher) That is a very good question. I welcome
the fact that HSC have announced, I think today, that they are
going to publish a special annual report to name and shame both
companies and individuals who are convicted for health and safety
offences in the last year. I do think getting the public, customers,
shareholders, employees, to realise, to be aware of a poor health
and safety record is probably the biggest pressure we can bring
to bear. Of course, the other one is penalties and, if need be,
exemplary penalties in the worst cases, plus the option of imprisonment
in the most serious cases. What I would like to see is someone
in the boardroom who has specific responsibility for health and
safety matters and if anything goes wrong it is that person who
is fingered and that person who could go to jail. I agree with
Mr Donohoe that if we did that then I do think that the importance
of this issue would be raised far more vigorously and prominently
amongst the minds of senior directors.
411. Perhaps if you are willing to pursue that,
Minister, I might refer you to the old Mines and Quarries Act
where it started "At a mine there shall be a manager..."
and the buck stopped there. No-one could escape from their responsibilities.
Perhaps that is what ought to be envisaged in relation to the
railway industry.
(Mr Meacher) I think the mines, Mr Cummings, I entirely
agree with you, are probably the best example, it is an extremely
dangerous occupation and the rules and regulations were put in
place in which the unions, NACODs and all the unions, were heavily
involved. It had to be dependent on agreement because men's lives
were at risk, including supervisory and managerial staff.
412. It was indicated in the Act, Minister,
no-one could escape from it.
(Mr Meacher) I entirely agree. I think we have got
lessons to learn from that. That is a precedent that I would like
to see in other areas.
Mrs Dunwoody
413. You will include Government agencies, one-step
agencies, in the control over the terms and conditions of the
works, for example stress put on people like the Marine Coastguards?
(Mr Meacher) I see no reason to exclude them.
Mr Cummings
414. Do you see a role for the insurance industry
in promoting good health and safety at work practices?
(Mr Meacher) I think we need to do more here. Insurers
do already in many cases, of course, graduate employer's liability
premiums according to the level of risk. I think some provide
a free health and safety consultancy service, some visit sites
with peculiar hazard and all of that is desirable, I would like
to see that promoted further. However, I am concerned that whilst
we do have in place the Employer's Liability Compulsory Insurance
Act 1969 which proposes that employers take out insurance to cover
compensation which is awarded by courts in the case of accidents,
some employers—
Chairman
415. Order! I am not quite sure who is making
that noise but whoever is responsible for it can they stop it
now. Sorry to interrupt.
(Mr Meacher) I have suddenly become extremely worried
that I have brought in—I hope it was not mine. I do not
think it was coming from me.
416. If I could identify where it was coming
from—
(Mr Meacher) Just in case this occurs I am going to
turn mine off.
Mrs Dunwoody: We will not tell the Speaker.
Chairman
417. We were on insurance.
(Mr Meacher) There is a problem that some employers,
of course, notoriously have not taken out an insurance policy
and when a serious accident occurs are not able to pay their compensation.
I think we need to look at ways of enforcing that and that can
only be by requiring regular production of the insurance policies
to HSE. If there are any other ways of doing it I would want to
look at that. It is a very serious matter if a serious accident
occurs and an employee is not able to get compensation because
his employer has failed to carry out his statutory responsibility.
418. As I understand it the employer has a duty
to actually have the Notice of Insurance up on the wall somewhere
on the premises.
(Mr Meacher) That is correct. I agree with that but
unfortunately, of course, not too many employees necessarily are
aware of that. If only we could get that message across to employees
that they are able to require that and to know the facts we might
save some of these awful consequences.
Mrs Ellman
419. Do you see any scope for Health and Safety
Executive imposing charges for inspections which are done?
(Mr Meacher) We do. As you know, that is what we have
done. We consider that industry with potentially high hazards
should reasonably bear the costs of permissioning regimes. There
is nothing particularly new about that, it happens in the nuclear
industry, it happens in respect of inspections by the Environment
Agency. This is simply an extension on that principle, which I
think is right. I am aware that there are concerns about this,
to put it mildly. Industrial concerns are being addressed by charging
review groups which have been set up to monitor charging. We did
say, when we introduced this new regime, that we would have a
formal review within two years, and we will do that. There are
also fears—which I understand, and I think industry is right
to be concerned about this—as to whether there could be
any overlap in charging or regulations between COMAH (the control
of major accidents and hazards) and IPPC (integrated pollution
prevention and control). Environment Agency is certainly considering
this in finalising IPPC charges. So there are real concerns here,
but it has been done on a basis which reflects the Treasury's
fees and charges guide, and we have said that there will be a
review. It is not a new policy, though; it is an extension to
gas, transportation, offshore and rail industries of procedures
which already exist in the case of other things.
4 Witness correction: about point four (0.4%)
per cent of GDP. Back
|
