Examination of Witnesses (Questions 544-559)
19 MAY 2004
RT HON
JANE KENNEDY
MP AND MR
GARETH WILLIAMS
Q544 Chairman: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. We are coming to the end of our Health and Safety Inquiry
and we are delighted to welcome the new Minister for Work, Jane
Kennedy, who will be supported this morning by Gareth Williams
who is Head of the Health, Disability and Work Division, or is
in some process of transition which we might learn about in a
moment. We are very pleased that you have found the time to come
and give us evidence this morning. The Committee is still relatively
new to this subject area. In the course of the inquiry we realised
again the importance of the issue because of Morecambe Bay and
recently we have had the tragedy in Glasgow. Although it is obviously
far too early to draw conclusions from any of these things, I
hope you will give us some assurances that everything that can
be done is being done in order to learn lessons and communicate
any helpful results that may flow from these tragedies in their
own different ways. Minister, perhaps you would like to set the
scene by saying a word about the Department's view. We have had
very good co-operation from the Department, as always, in the
written evidence we have received from you, and thank you for
that. Maybe you could make a short opening statement and then
we will go straight to the questions, if we may.
Jane Kennedy: First of all, I
should introduce Gareth Williams. As you say, Chairman, Gareth
is marked as "former". As I came in through the front
door of the DWP, Gareth was introduced to me and I was told that
Gareth would shortly be leaving the DWP to go to the Department
for Transport.
Q545 Chairman: Nothing to do with your
arrival!
Jane Kennedy: Nothing to do with
me. It is a great loss to me but a gain to the Department for
Transport. Gareth was the official within the Department for Work
and Pensions who was the sponsoring official for the Health and
Safety Executive, I think I am right in that. I will rely to some
large degree upon Gareth's expertise in terms of the technical
issues.
Q546 Chairman: We perfectly well understand
that.
Jane Kennedy: We sent you a memorandum
which I know that you have had and will have read. A very quick
sketch: 30 years ago under the Health and Safety at Work Act,
the Health and Safety Executive was established. We believe that
the Health and Safety Executive is pretty much an unsung success.
Since 1974, as you will have seen from the figures, there has
been a dramatic reduction in death and major injury. The number
of fatal injuries to employees since 1974 is down by over two-thirds.
We believe we have one of the best records on health and safety
in Europe. We think that is largely due to the work of the HSE
and the Commission. The HSE is renowned and respected for its
expertise and effectiveness. It has allowed the HSE to play a
leading role in Europe and to offer advice to other administrations
in other countries and to participate in policy development abroad.
We have been pleased to become the sponsoring department for the
Health and Safety Executive and the Commission. We would be interested
to know if you concur with that. I know that is broadly the thrust
of your investigation. Joining the Department for Work and Pensions
has allowed the HSE to link into a wider political agenda. We
took the opportunity of the move to work with the HSC and the
HSE to look at their performance, which had plateau-ed. The rate
of decline of accidents was much slower, we were not making the
progress that we had hoped, and I think the HSC acknowledged that.
As a result of that, building upon their original report in 2000
called Revitalising Health and Safety, we have worked with
them. They published their strategy in February of this year.
We are now working with them to make sure that they can achieve
the strategy that they have laid down. We recognise the changes
that have been taking place in the workplace, the changing hazards
in a new economy. We believe you are going to be seeing greater
emphasis on occupational health issues and that is now reflected
in the new Health and Safety Strategy. As a result of all of this,
the HSE has been going through some quite profound changes since
it was set up 30 years ago, probably the biggest change in programme
that it has faced. We think that these changes and the new strategic
approach will contribute significantly to improving performance.
We will see a greater shift towards the health side of the agenda
probably, but that will not mean that the Health and Safety Executive
will take its focus off the safety side of the agenda as well.
That is broadly what I was going to say in opening. I know there
is a lot that you want to cover.
Q547 Chairman: That is very helpful.
We will pick up the threads of that helpful opening statement
as we go on. I wonder if I could start by asking you a couple
of questions that are all part of the theme of legislation. I
think it would be true to say that the evidence is that moving
the work of the HSC/HSE to the Department for Work and Pensions
as the sponsoring department was recognised as a logical move
by most people, and certainly the HSC/HSE people were very happy
to see that change and obviously have been lobbying for it for
some time. I have just a couple of brief questions about legislation.
The new strategy seems to downplay the role of further regulatory
solutions. I think if that is the strategy, there is some evidence
we have received that there are worries about that. What I think
we are missing at the moment is any evidence that that strategic
approach is sound. The suspicion amongst some of the witnesses
in the evidence we have taken is that it was simply being moved
in that direction because you were cutting the cloth to fit the
resources available and, therefore, the strategy was convenient,
moving away from further regulation in order to save money because
enforcement of regulations is more cost intensive. Maybe the answer
is no but if there is evidence in the Department which reached
the conclusion that downplaying the role of further regulatory
solutions was the way forward, we would be pleased to see that.
Jane Kennedy: The Executive itself
did quite a major piece of work in reviewing the effectiveness
of the legislation. They undertook that in response to the Revitalising
document that was published in 2000. We have drawn upon their
view that the legislative framework, as it stands, is adequate.
I think we share the view that the Health and Safety at Work Act
has stood the test of time. The general thrust of that piece of
legislation and one of the reasons for its success is the partnership
that develops as the Health and Safety at Work Act is played out.
I think the Health and Safety Executive would share the view that
it is engaging industry and business in safety, getting them to
recognise the importance of safety, that brings them a greater
degree of success than straight enforcement of a set of regulations.
It is about winning hearts and minds, it is about persuading people
of the importance of safety. In terms of the actual legislation
itself, the conclusions that they came to were that existing health
and safety legislation does offer adequate legal protection for
all workers, including workers who would have non-standard working
patterns, such as agency workers, mobile workers, contractors,
home workers, the voluntary sector and so on.
Q548 Chairman: Can we come on to that
in a minute. The question is straightforward and maybe the answer
is no, maybe the answer is yes. If the answer is yes, that there
is evidence on which the changes to the strategy seem to diminish
downplaying the role of regulatory solutions, if there is evidence
in the Department or the HSC/HSE, could we see that? If it is
available, could you send it to us?
Mr Williams: I think it is generally
done by regulation on a case by case basis as part of the Regulatory
Impact Assessment. I do not think HSE or ourselves start from
a position of assuming at the outset that regulation is the necessary
and first response. What we want to be clear about is the purpose
of individual regulations and their cost benefit and that is something
that we and HSE try to instil, whether it is at a European level
or a domestic level. For each regulation you look at the evidence
for and against that particular regulation. To support what the
Minister has been saying, in broad terms the advice of the Commission,
the Executive, is when they look at the safety environment certainly
they believe that the regulatory and legislative framework is
broadly complete and the greatest emphasis should be about advising
businesses on how to comply effectively with the current regulations
which are already in place.
Q549 Chairman: I think I have got that,
that is fine. I have got another two questions to put to you.
One is about directors' responsibility. In your Revitalising
Health and Safety I think there was a recognition that standards
were higher in companies where board members individually took
responsibility. I think the Government at an early stage set out
to achieve that but I do not think it has happened. Is that the
case and, if not, why not?
Jane Kennedy: The Executive consulted
widely on this issue. They consulted trades unions, employers,
other organisations. They took soundings on the question of directors'
responsibilities. Based on that consultation they published their
guidance in July 2001. The evidence they have got since the publication
of that guidance has shown that directors are giving leadership
and direction, that increasingly companies are directing health
and safety at board level and that better guidance to companies
is what is needed rather than legislation or further regulation.
Des Browne was advised by the Commission in January of this year
that new legislation was not needed as a result of that and he,
therefore, accepted that advice.
Q550 Chairman: That takes me to another
dimension of that question. We got some evidence that the TUC
seemed to be particularly worried that there were some proposals
to give workers better access to safety representatives and in
the consultation process that idea was abandoned by the Government.
Mr Williams looked slightly askance when I said that, have I got
that point wrong? Was there ever a suggestion in the Collective
Declaration on Worker Involvement that there was to be closer
consultation and access by workers to safety officers in the workplace?
The TUC seemed to think that was a good idea which failed at the
first hurdle in the consultation with HSE
Mr Williams: The slight puzzlement
was that the Secretary of State announced last year that we were
giving the HSE an additional £1 million per annum for the
next three years in order to assist them in the recruitment and
training of workplace safety advisers.
Q551 Chairman: Is that the Challenge
Fund?
Mr Williams: Yes.
Q552 Chairman: I think the point I am
making is slightly different. The consultation process, giving
people clearer access to people who knew what they were doing
in terms of risk assessment in the workplace, was something that
they valued and it got lost. Am I right about that? I may be wrong
and if I am wrong please tell me.
Mr Williams: I recognise the point
that the TUC are emphasising the importance of that but it is
something that we and the Commission and the Executive share.
The outcomes of the Workplace Safety Adviser pilots were extremely
positive and that is what led to the additional Government support.
In terms of doing risk assessment better, that is one of the main
strands of the work that they are doing on communication under
the strategy and that is reflected in their evidence to you.
Q553 Chairman: Finally from me under
the heading of legislation, we heard some very powerful evidence
from the Simon Jones Memorial Campaign. They were obviously focusing
on recruitment agencies and the lack of requirement to conduct
proper risk assessments with the tragedy that was involved in
that particular case. Is there anything you can tell us about
any proposed changes to how recruitment agencies are monitored
and controlled?
Jane Kennedy: As I said earlier,
the Executive did review whether changes were necessary. They
concluded that the existing health and safety legislation is adequate,
as I have said. They believe that the best route to clarify knowledge
and uncertainty will be through clear advice to companies backed
up, where necessary, by enforcement action. This would apply to
issues like risk assessment that perhaps have remained a bit of
a mystery to small businesses in particular. This really takes
us back to the worker safety adviser's role that we were just
discussing. The fact that this extra work is being introduced
means we recognise that more can be done to disseminate information
and communicate with companies, but not by regulation.
Q554 Mr Dismore: One of the concerns
I have about the general thrust of the evidence so far, not just
from you, Jane, but more generally, is this drive towards obtaining
a consensus on what needs to be done. It seems to me that the
result of that is if there is no consensus that acts as a veto
on the Government taking any action. I am worried that we have
effectively lost the plot somewhat because, by definition, asking
employer representatives on the HSE or wherever to accept additional
legal duties on directors is a bit like asking turkeys to vote
for Christmas and you will never get consensus on something like
that. What I am concerned about, therefore, is that we are not
looking at what we are trying to achieve, ie better health and
safety standards, the drive is to obtain consensus rather than
the health and safety standards that we need to see. I think that
what we ought to be looking at is at the very least giving a strong
benefit of the doubt towards stronger action rather than the benefit
of the doubt going towards the lack of consensus.
Jane Kennedy: I think if there
was no progress being made we might have to review the position
that we are taking. There is evidence, published research in 2003,
a survey covering a sample of 400 organisations drawn from the
top 350 companies, and the result of that showed where health
and safety is directed at board level, the number of companies
where that is happening has risen from 58% to 66%. We are making
progress, the message is being heard by companies. So long as
we are making progress, the need to further regulate has diminished.
Q555 Mrs Humble: Can I just come in on
a technical issue to do with the legislation. It has been drawn
to my attention by employees of the DWP actually that the situation
has changed, or it is proposed to be changed, with regard to fire
safety, the Fire Precautions Act, that there is a Regulatory Reform
(Fire Safety) Order which in essence will withdraw the need for
fire certificates and replace them by risk assessment alone with
the responsibility being placed upon employers. They are talking
about one of the buildings that I have visited, a DWP building,
that has not got a fire escape up at the top and they are more
than a little worried. They actually tell me that they think this
Order would also apply across the board to smaller businesses.
They even refer to hotels. I cannot imagine a hotel being allowed
to be in business without a Fire Safety Order. Interestingly,
picking up on your answer to Andrew Dismore, a lot of the concerns
that we have had have been to do with small businesses and how
they can operate within the terms of the HSE regulations. Do you
have any knowledge about these proposals with regard to fire safety?
I intend to write to you anyway but perhaps if you could look
into it and then just give us some information because there are
concerns that if the onus is on employers to do risk assessment,
we have already heard a lot of evidence that people do not believe
that employers are doing risk assessments properly and if they
now have a new responsibility to do that in the context of fire
precautions then it is a matter of some concern.
Jane Kennedy: If you are going
to write to me it will give me a chance to work out the answer.
Mr Williams: We will look into
it.
Q556 Mrs Humble: If you could look into
it before we finish our report and report back to our Chairman.
Mr Williams: Certainly we will
look into it. In the first instance I would have to plead that
fire regulations are not a matter for the Health and Safety Executive,
they are within the ambit of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,
but we can take it away.
Jane Kennedy: I am a little surprised
because my office in Liverpool was recently inspected very rigorously
and we were given a number of jobs to do as a result of the fire
inspections. I have not noticed any change in the regulations,
sorry, Chairman.
Q557 Mr Goodman: Minister, you will not
be surprised for a moment to hear that a theme raised by a large
number of witnesses in giving evidence to date has been money
and resources. Also, you will not be surprised, therefore, that
I am going to ask you, in the light of what they said, do you
think there is enough money and resources supporting an efficient
and acceptable health and safety regime? What more needs to be
done?
Jane Kennedy: Clearly there has
been an increase in resources to the HSE over recent years. Since
1997, when their budget was £176 million, it has grown to
£208 million this year. In addition, the Executive received
an additional £4 million from the DWP and DfT jointly for
each of the years 2003-04 and 2004-05 to fund work on the Cullen
recommendations specifically on rail safety. This year's allocation
in Spending Review 2004 is still being determined but we are,
however, operating within a pretty flat cash settlement. Whilst
every organisation can do more, and spending ministers can always
use more money, we can always make a case for more money, we also
have to look at maximising the value that we are getting from
the money that we are spending and that is why we strongly support
the HSE's strategy, because we believe it very much measures the
work of the HSE and gives us an opportunity to look at their performance
in terms of the funds that they receive.
Q558 Mr Goodman: I am not asking this
in any especially critical way, but if you asked a question of
the kind I just asked to a minister, what a minister will always
do is provide the figures and say that you need to get better
value for money. The question that follows surely is this: why
are you so out of step with what a lot of witnesses have said
to us because they simply think we are not starting from the right
place? The TUC pointed to the fact that spending on industrial
injuries disablement benefit exceeds spending on HSE by eight
times. The GMB argued HSE is under-resourced. Prospect described
the 2002 Spending Review settlement as "little short of disastrous".
They think you are simply not starting from the right place and
you are a long way behind. What is your response to that?
Jane Kennedy: As I said, we can
always use more funds but I think that despite the flat cash settlement
the HSE's performance has been improving. Gareth might have a
bit more of the detail on that. I think what the HSE have been
doing is they have been very vigorously engaging in looking at
how they are operating, focusing on those activities that have
the greatest impact, for example putting less resources where
risks are well managed, so that more resources can be put where
risks are not so well managed. I think these are perfectly sensible
and reasonable questions to put to an organisation that is, after
all, spending public money.
Q559 Rob Marris: Following on from that,
in terms of putting resources where they will have most impact,
the National Audit Office report says that there is one HSE inspector
for every 3,333 construction sites now. There has been an improvement
in construction health and safety but there is still a long way
to go. A ratio of one to over 3,000 for construction sounds pretty
poor to us. What is your response to that?
Jane Kennedy: It would be for
the Executive to determine the numbers of inspectors that they
employ within their resources. They are beginning to shift their
emphasis towards prevention. They are aiming to put about 60%
of their resources on prevention and 40% on investigation. I do
not feel qualified to say whether that ratio of inspectors to
building sites is one that I would be content with.
Mr Williams: I do not think you
can look at this just from the dimension of resources because
if you ask the HSE, as you did, had they more resources, where
would they put them, the answer would not be inspectors, it would
be around the advice and communication and prevention upfront.
Even if you sought to improve that ratio with the additional funding
to that order of magnitude, you still would not cover every company,
you would still only inspect them on a limited number of occasions
and the advice would depend on the day you turned up. A lot of
the emphasis within the new strategy is about looking at this
as a system and is about HSE trying to maximise the use of external
resources. I think that was a theme of some of the union evidence
as well as the need for workplace safety advisers. It is a theme
in the work that they are now putting to the fore with us in Government
about seeing the procurement chain as a resource in this. It is
not gainsaying the fact that for many companies inspection does
work. It is not the only approach or necessarily the approach
that covers most ground most effectively.
| 
