Examination of Witnesses (Questions 324
- 339)
THURSDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2005
MR ALAN
RITCHIE
Chairman: Good morning, Mr Ritchie. Thank
you for joining us. Before we come to you, Mr Cohen.
Harry Cohen: I just want to declare to
the Committee that I am on the Parliamentary Panel of Advisors
for UCATT. There is no financial gain personally, but I wanted
to make that clear.
Q324 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed. Mr Ritchie, perhaps you could introduce yourself briefly
and then we will go to questions.
Mr Ritchie: My name is Alan Ritchie.
I am General Secretary of the construction trade union UCATT.
We have 125,000 members employed in the construction industry
throughout the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. There
are 2.2 million people working in our industry and it attributes
to 9% of the GDP in the UK. UCATT have a longstanding campaign
for safer sites and have consistently raised the issue of the
disproportionate high levels of fatalities, injuries and ill health
which affect construction workers. Since the beginning of April
2005 there have been 40 fatalities amongst constructions workers.
It would only be right for me to pay tribute to George Brumwell,
the General Secretary and my predecessor, who died on Tuesday.
George was a long campaigner for corporate manslaughter legislation
to come into our industry. I would like to quote a speech he made
at the conference in April 1992 when he stated that he wanted
"proper investigation, proper accountability, radical changes
to the criminal justice system and new criminal offences to cover
corporate recklessness where life and limb are put at risk or
in danger." UCATT believe that is the only way we can achieve
what some people would consider to be a radical line—and
I know we have ruffled a few feathers so far as construction employers
are concerned. When you listen to the points that were made, such
as, "Well, a company might go out of business" or "It
might put some financial strain on a company," we ask: What
does it do to the families of the people who are killed in our
industry? George Brumwell made the point that it was time that
we called a halt to unnecessary deaths in our industry. The question
really is about whether there is a will within the industry or
on the part of the police who are there to protect us; the HSE,
who are supposed to be there to enforce and protect; and on the
part of the courts, who are there to protect and enforce the rights
of the individuals. Our campaign really is concerned with highlighting
the weakness that exists in all those areas.
Chairman: Mr Ritchie, I do not want to
cut you short but I hope we understand the general points and
I hope we can cover all the issues of concern to you. With the
events in the House this week, I had not heard of the George Brumwell's
death. He would have been known to a number of members of the
Committee, so, please, would you pass on our condolences. If we
could now go to the questions.
Q325 Colin Burgon: Good morning,
Mr Ritchie. I met George Brumwell several times and he certainly
was an outstanding figure in the construction industry. Several
trade unions have given evidence to us, including Amicus and T&G.
Why for UCATT is the statutory offence of corporate manslaughter
such a priority?
Mr Ritchie: We are a specialised
trade union, not a general union, and we deal mainly with the
construction industry. If you look at the HSE league tables, we
are at the top. We are twice as high as agricultural. As general
secretary and when I became a regional organiser, I had to go
to the widows of some of our people who had been killed on sites
and I had to explain to them the tragedies, what had happened,
and the justice system of where we are. Even to this day, this
year alone, I was up in Dundee, where the company went into court
and pleaded guilty: "Yes, we breached the Health and Safety
at Work Act—fair cop, Guv'—and we killed the employee."
The judge was scathing on the company and then fined them £7,500.
We think that is a scandal. I cannot justify that to the dependents
or to the widow, that that is justice. There is no consistency
in law. When you are a drunk driver and you go behind the wheel
of a car and you knock someone over, you face a custodial sentence.
But, in this country, if you are a construction worker and you
break the Health and Safety at Work Act and you kill your employee,
you face an average fine of about £7,000. It is scandalous.
Not only that, I have met some of these directors in my role as
regional secretary for Scotland and now as general secretary,
and one of the directors put it to me in this way: "Alan,"
he said, "one of your contracts has got £20,000 a day
plus penalty clause for every day it is late. For us to introduce
health and safety and to be rigid on it could possibly put that
contract behind, whereas, if we break the Health and Safety at
Work Act and kill the employee, we face an average fine of £7,000.
It is a big choice for us as a company, isn't it?" That is
where the injustice to the law is. That is why construction is
very important. By the end of this week, another two people will
have been killed. To be fair to George Brumwell, George Brumwell
was campaigning for this legislation for the last 20 years. We
have seen a lot of construction workers killed in that time. We
do not want any more delays in this legislation.
Q326 Colin Burgon: People who have
submitted evidence to this Committee have told us that the Bill,
as it is currently drafted, will add to what is called the regulatory
burden on companies and it will not dramatically improve safety
at work. What is your response to that?
Mr Ritchie: I just do not accept
it. I have heard it all from construction employers. Some construction
employers say that this could put a further burden on us. Constructions
employers who are playing it by the book have nothing to fear
with this legislation. They are doing everything that is right.
It is the ones who are not who have everything to fear from this
legislation. I have heard this about red tape. I was out in Dubai
this year on a construction project that was there for the ILO.
In their health and safety there is a lot left to be questioned.
There are no real regulations as we have here. The construction
paper there said to me, "Look, we are trying to get the facts
and figures of how many people were killed last year in Dubai
construction." The contactor, once he had come back home,
told me that 700 Indians alone were killed in the construction
industry—that is deaths—because there are no regulations,
there is no safety net there. And, by the way, there are British
companies working out there. You have got to turn round and ask
yourself: If you did not have that red tape, if you did not have
that regulation, what would it be like compared to at present
in the construction industry? I do not accept that this red tape,
or so-called red tape, is going to be a further burden. As I am
saying, there are a number of good companies out there who are
playing it by the book and are doing everything properly and right,
who have nothing to fear, as I am seeing it. The people who have
to fear are the companies who are just turning Nelson's eye to
the whole situation of health and safety. Not only that, the statements
we have heard from the Health and Safety Executive are saying
by far over 80% of the deaths in constructions could have been
avoided if proper planning in health and safety was implemented.
Q327 Colin Burgon: In your memorandum
to the Committee you highlighted that in the year 2003-04 there
were just short of 5,000 workers who sustained serious injury
in the industry. Would you argue that we need a statutory offence
of causing serious injury by gross negligence?
Mr Ritchie: Yes. We did include
in our submissions the "over three-day injuries". We
are saying that major injuries are amputations, fractures. We
think they are important as well as corporate manslaughter. We
are saying that the seriousness of these injuries should be taken
into consideration, and, also, that if the situation has been
gross negligence then we believe the Bill should cover that. As
I say, we have criticisms of the Bill but we have got to see it
as better than nothing and we are going to support it and hope
it is going to be implemented.
Q328 Mr Rooney: As you are probably
aware, on Monday we heard from industry representatives. They
were arguing that the prospect of individual liability would increase
the "fear factor" of individuals and organisations but
would not necessarily lead to any improvement in health and safety.
How do you respond to that?
Mr Ritchie: Again, what I have
already said, that if a company is implementing a proper health
and safety policy they have nothing to fear. If they are turning
round and saying that it is going to introduce a fear factor,
then there is no fear factor at the present time. We have got
some good construction sites going at the present time, where
proper health and safety is being managed and is being implemented,
with the T5 and sites like that—massive construction sites.
They have nothing to fear from corporate manslaughter. The only
people who have anything to fear is if their company is totally
ignoring health and safety procedures at the present time.
Q329 Mr Rooney: I might come back
to that in a minute. You have argued that secondary liability
should not be excluded, but that should only be applicable to
senior managers. Why do you think it should not go down the line
below that, so that if people have aided, abetted, counselled
or procured, then the offence of corporate manslaughter below
the level of senior managers?
Mr Ritchie: The problem we have
got with that is that we have a lot of subcontracting within the
construction industry. You see some of these big contracts and
over the site there is a big board up with the name of the company.
They do not employ anyone on the site, they will subcontract a
subcontractor to a subcontractor, and it goes right down the line.
Our fear is that that responsibility is then shifted to these
wee subcontractors. The main contractor is responsible. He is
responsible for his site. We would be fearful if that responsibility
was then going to be shoved on to somewhere else.
Q330 Mr Rooney: Just to clarify this,
are you saying that in all cases liability should lie with the
main contractor, irrespective of what any other subcontractors
does, no matter how big that subcontractor is?
Mr Ritchie: The main contractor
should have a policy for the subcontractors and the procurement,
and he sets out the guidelines to those subcontractors and says
"Look, here you are, here are the conditions I want you to
work on site; here is the health and safety practice I want you
to follow out." If he does not do that and says to the subcontractor,
"Oh, it is up to you," our fear is the subcontractors—as
happens a lot in the construction industry—will then declare
themselves into liquidation. The main thing is that if there is
going to be control on the site and health and safety, the onus
should lie with that main contractor.
Q331 Mr Rooney: I understand what
you are saying, but could I clarify this. Your argument is that
the main contractor should be responsible and the person held
responsible for all health and safety issues, including deaths.
Mr Ritchie: Yes.
Q332 Mr Rooney: If he does what you
just said and lays down conditions for subcontractors as to how
they should work, and one of those subcontractors breaches that,
why should the main contractor be held responsible?
Mr Ritchie: It just does not happen
when a death occurs on the site. What normally happens—and
I am saying with this main contractor—is that the main contractor
goes in there and lays down the conditions for the subcontractor
and he says, "Look, this is what I want." He should
be policing that subcontractor to make sure he is carrying out
his duties. Now, if a situation suddenly is highlighted to that
main contractor, then he can remove the subcontractor off the
site. The problem and the danger that I see is that, if you start
putting that responsibility down the line, sort of thing, then
you are giving a cop-out clause to the main contractor: "It
was not me, Guv'. It was him." That is our fear. That is
why we are saying the main contractor is responsible. He is responsible
for driving health and safety on the site. He is responsible for
hiring the subcontractor; he should be checking that subcontractor
before he comes on the site: Is he going to comply with the legislation?
What is his track record? What is his performance in other contracts?
That is the responsibility of the main contractor. If we turn
round and say that responsibility can be passed on, we see a fear
for us.
Q333 Mr Rooney: Do you not think
that statutory duties for directors could be dealt with in other
legislation, not least to prevent this legislation being further
held up?
Mr Ritchie: No. The problem I
have got is we have waited 20 years, as I have already said for
this legislation to come through, and I do not mind the legislation
being held up as long as it will only be processed at the one
time and it is not going to be a wait of another 20 years. That
is why we would say, "Yes, it should all be part of the one
Bill." But if it has got to be that for making it a better
implementation of the policy, then we would not be opposed to
that separate legislation, as long as it is all going to be enacted
at the one time, as long as we are not going to be sitting here
in time saying "We still have a problem with this and we
are going to go back into it to amend" or whatever. That
is the danger of it. But, yes, if you were turning round and saying
to us, "Well, would you prefer to allow that slight delay?"
yes, we would go down that road of delay but making sure that
it is all being implemented at the one time would be essential
for us.
Q334 Colin Burgon: A slight delay,
not a long one.
Mr Ritchie: No.
Q335 Natascha Engel: My question
moves on from Terry's, but about senior management within one
organisation. In previous evidence sessions we have had a lot
of debate about definitions of senior management but also about
what defines the passing of, the devolving of responsibility.
The Law Commission has made a very strong point about the fact
that health and safety should be the responsibility of management
more generally. What is your view? What are your anxieties about
the definitions of senior management and laying that firmly at
their door?
Mr Ritchie: We are saying obviously
that senior managers and directors at the very top of the companies
are going to be held responsible. We have always said that with
the first prosecution that comes up with a director of a construction
company for breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act and killing
an employee, we believe there would be a jolt in our industry
which then would be reflected in better health and safety standards.
We think that it is the senior people who have to be held accountable
as individuals. That is why it has to be directors and those senior
managers that are there.
Q336 Natascha Engel: Do you not think
there might be a problem with that, in that it makes those people
less likely in practice to take on that responsibility for health
and safety because it is such an individual responsibility?
Mr Ritchie: No, I do not think
so. I think the situation is that first of all some senior directors
have got to make sure that someone responsible comes in and there
has got to be a senior manager who has to be responsible for that.
Again, I do not think they have anything to fear as long as they
are operating proper health and safety structures at the present
time. But they have got everything to fear if they are not. I
will tell you one thing, one of the points is that if you want
to murder someone in this country, the best thing to do is to
employ them in the construction industry: get them as a subcontractor
and kill them and you would face a fine of £7,000. That is
how ludicrous it is.
Q337 Justine Greening: Part of the
draft Bill is about what organisations it should encompass. At
the moment, the proposal is that it should exclude partnerships,
sole traders, and other incorporated bodies, for example clubs.
I know that in UCATT's submission you thought it should include
all employing organisations. Do you not think that those small
organisations that would be captured by your proposal are already
covered by the individual manslaughter offence?
Mr Ritchie: We are saying that
a lot of unincorporated companies in construction are small—so-called
small businesses, one-man band types of thing. Often, though,
their actions lead to deaths. We are saying, "Yes, it should
cover everyone. It does not matter the size of the company."
May I just say that you could be pointing at me and I could turn
round and say, "Yes, trade unions should be excluded as well
because we are a charity and we are not a company," but I
do think we are responsible to our employees and we should be
included.
Q338 Justine Greening: Another part
of your submission concerns the duty of care that an employer
owes. We have already talked in these sessions today about the
fact that on many construction sites you have a principal contractor
and then lots of subcontractors. You have said that the principal
contractors should be responsible but do you think there is a
way in which the legislation could be drafted better in order
to make sure that subcontractors are ultimately held responsible
if it is truly them that are in breach of the legislation?
Mr Ritchie: Yes. I think compliance
with the health and safety legislation should be sufficient—they
should be the guidelines and the rule of thumb. If subcontractors
are not complying with HSE and their recommendations, then they
should be prosecuted. But if there is a clear sign there that
it is the subcontractors, and the company is complying with the
legislation, then that should be sufficient in itself. If there
is a subcontractor who breaches the Health and Safety at Work
Act, we believe he should be prosecuted, as under the law just
now. But, again, I go back to the main thing: the main contractor
is the person who is responsible to make sure that his subcontractors
implement proper health and safety structures.
Q339 Justine Greening: To press you,
it sounds like you are happy with the way the legislation is worded
at the moment, but you feel that if it incorporated your suggestion
of the principal contractor that would be sufficient.
Mr Ritchie: Yes.
|
