Safety inspections are not optional – Governments should respect international law and protect workers (so should employers)

Hat tip TUC Risks. We need to stop our Government (and employers) ignoring international law and make them take responsibility for the safety of their workers.  UK Employees who work for anti-trade union employers such as Ealing based Catalyst Housing Association are in an even worse place, since if you work for an employer who refuses to recognise a trade union you don't have State or Safety rep workplace protection either.

"The UK government is breaking international rules requiring safety inspections of all workplaces, an International Labour Organisation (ILO) ruling indicates. In November, ILO issued is findings on a complaint by Dutch unions about their government’s failure to comply with a number of ILO conventions.

The unions believed cutbacks and reorganisation meant an effective inspectorate and related medical service no longer existed. Like the Netherlands, the UK has ratified and is required to abide by the ILO’s Labour Inspections convention. This states: “Workplaces shall be inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions”.

Other parts of the convention lay down requirements for inspectors’ independence, training, access to advice, and provision of local offices. The ILO ruled the Dutch government was breaching the convention’s requirements because of its failings on the number and frequency of inspections, the support provided for inspectors and the system for notification of occupational diseases. The ILO also stressed the importance of unannounced inspections, noting the provisions applied to “all workplaces, particularly in enterprises that are not considered to be in high-risk sectors and in small enterprises.”

According to TUC head of safety Hugh Robertson, the majority of UK workplaces are exempt from unannounced inspections and the Health and Safety Executive’s medical service has been decimated. He concluded “many of the arguments used by the Dutch trade unionists apply equally or even more so in the UK, where the Coalition government has slashed inspections, while at the same time reducing the number of HSE offices and level of support available. The Dutch government has been told to put their house in order. We will be asking the UK government to do the same.”

TUC Stronger Unions blog.

ILO Governing Body report, 6 November 2014.

ILO Labour Inspections Convention, No.81.

Why Government policy on health & safety is "absolute drivel"

Check out this great post by TUC Hugh Robertson on "Government H&S policy built on myths"

"The Government have set out their policy on health and safety on the DWP website. It is clear, concise and simple and is also absolute drivel.

One of the four points it makes is “We believe that good health and safety is important, but the burden of excessive health and safety rules and regulations on business has become too great and a damaging compensation culture is stifling innovation and growth.” In a nutshell they are saying we have too much regulation and compensation and as a result business is suffering. They give no evidence for this and we are expected to just take it as fact..."

SERTUC Health & Safety Seminar 2011

This seminar in Congress House had Hugh Robertson (TUC) and Judith Hackitt (HSE) speaking and was chaired by SERTUC regional

secretary, Megan Dobney (right of picture).

Hugh made the case that under this government, the cuts to the HSE and getting rid of essential safety enforcement and regulations, will lower standards and result in more work related accidents and illnesses.

In the Q&A that followed I said that things are very depressing but trying to make a small positive out of a huge negative - the best safety protection at work comes from trade union organisation. Many workers currently have completely unrealistic expectations of their legal rights and safeguards. We have to tell them that they will have even less rights in the future. So to protect themselves at work they must join a union and the union must recruit and organise the workforce to make things safe.

Judith accepted that there was unprecedented change but that the cuts do not have to mean that people will be less safe. The HSE is going to try and cut the backroom not the front line. Reviews can be a good thing. The aim is to remove unnecessary bureaucracy not protection. 

In the Q&A there was some "heated" comments which as usual Judith took on the chin and batted straight back. Megan had to remind people that they were "entitled to make forceful statements but must remember to remain on the right side of civility" (a wonderful Chair's intervention which I will steal). Judith did speak out against low fines for criminal breaches of safety laws. She would rather that there was much higher fines but that is the job of the Courts. She thought it was a disgrace that the death of a member of the public was worth more than a worker. She ended by saying the HSE were "not the enemy". That is true. 

While I do expect more people to be injured at work (and worse) due to the Tory and Lib Dem cuts in the HSE budget and the getting rid of essential protections, we have to blame the coalition and not the civil servants. Who at times have to implement and defend the indefensible.

I will post later on the Lofstedt report.

Future of Health & Safety Enforcement.

I attended this conference organised by the Centre for Corporate Accountability (CCA) on behalf of London UNISON regional Health & Safety Committee. It took place at the NUT headquarters in Hamilton Place, Kings Cross in its main hall and it was full. The CCA is a charity concerned with promoting worker and public safety.

The first speaker was Judith Hackitt, the Chair of the Health & Safety Executive Board. On the same panel was Graham Russell who is the Chief Executive of Local Better Regulation Office and Louise Adamson from “Families Against Corporate Killers” (FACK) see photo left. Louise gave the most impressive and emotive speech I have ever heard on the real importance of effective safety enforcement.

Judith spoke first and welcomed the new tougher sentencing that will come into force in January 2009. Fines have been significantly increased and many health & safety offences will now be punishable by imprisonment. She thought that the HSE have done a good job and that there had been a 70% reduction in deaths in the last 30 years. Britain has amongst the very best health & safety record but is not complacent. There are still 200 deaths each year, 28,000 seriously hurt and 2 million workers hurt. Asbestos kills 4000 per year. Work related ill-health is a major problem. What is needed is refinement and improvement but not radical overhaul. There should be a common sense approach based on common goals. Whilst I think that it is true that since the Health & Safety at Work Act in 1974 there have been huge improvements in safety, because we no longer have a large industrial manufacturing and mining sectors anymore then a significant reduction in deaths would have happened anyway.

Graham spoke next; I must admit that I had only been vaguely aware of the “Local Better Regulation Office”. Putting aside any comparisons to “Yes Minister” and its fictional “Department of Administrative Affairs” its aim is to advise ministers on reducing “unnecessary” regulations. There are some 200 British and EU regulations on safety. Many people present at the conference are naturally suspicious that this could result in voluntary rather than statutory regulation of health & Safety. Graham claimed this is not so and that the aim was better regulation of high risk employers not “light touch” deregulation. Companies also currently waste around £140 million per year on advice from health & Safety consultants which they could have got for free from the HSE/Local Authority Inspectors.

Louise spoke movingly about the death of her brother in 2006 who was electrocuted at work. I would urge everyone to read her speech here at the CCA site. Several times during her very eloquent message she struggled to contain her emotions but she carried on. It was also a hard hitting; factual account about inadequate and inappropriate enforcement, unacceptable delays a judicial process which often resulted in derisory penalties. Somebody wiser than me once said: “the world is a dangerous place, not because “those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” So, we call upon those responsible for enforcement to stop looking on”.

Sitting next to her was of course Judith Hackitt. Sitting next to me was a Mother and Father who had also lost their son while at work.

During the Q&A I asked Judith why she said that an 80% success rate for HSE prosecutions was “about right” and if it was more than this it would mean that the HSE was being too safe. While Graham had said that Local Authority prosecutions had a 95% success rate. Didn’t this indicate that the Local authorities were too safe and not taking enough prosecutions? Apparently not, HSE and Local authority prosecutions of the same law are in someway “different” (hmmm).

There was an interesting discussion about the IOD/HSE guidance for Directors. It is a voluntary code but the key actions are legal duties.

After a rather hostile question was put to Judith and Graham, a national safety officer from GMB (I didn’t hear his name) did thank Judith for turning up to such a meeting, to face the music which I thought was a fair point and pretty much everyone agreed.

After coffee we had Tory MP Andrew Selous, Shadow Minister, Work and Pensions. He thanked the CCA for being the only NGO that monitors workplace deaths. He attacked the false allegations made against the HSE by the tabloid press. To my astonishment he even attacked the “Daily Torygraph” for printing an untruthful story about choir boys being banned from pancake races for health & safety reasons. He then called the paper “shameful” for refusing to print a rebuttal. Andrew pointed out that there had been a crossbench consensus on Health & Safety and that it was a Tory government that brought in the 1974 Act. He supported the recent Health & Safety offences bill not least because he did not want decent companies undercut by rogue firms. He expressed concern about the reduction in the number of HSE inspectors and put forward a suggestion that companies should be forced to publish information relating to the health & safety record in their annual accounts.

Well, I never....however, before getting too carried away with this new generation of One Nation Tories I should have reminded Andrew of the bile that his own leader David Cameron came out with during his recent conference speech attacking the "health and safety and human rights culture". Same old Tories?

Next was Neil Hope-Collins from the trade union Prospect who is the HSE branch Chair. Neil is a HSE inspector but was speaking (in front of his boss) in a union capacity.

He quoted Gordon Brown from his 2003 speech that “Safety at work, is, as it should be, the mark of a civilised society” then “judge not by your words but by your actions” (from 2005 Batman film – who said inspectors don’t have a sense of humour). He thinks that the HSE “model” as set up by Robbins in 1972 still “works” but Neil is rightly concerned about the rock bottom morale at the HSE. A large number of staff has left, leading to fewer investigations and pro-active inspections. Low pay means that there is a skill gap in the HSE since so many experienced inspectors have left. It takes 5 years to become a fully trained inspector. Enforcement is needed to challenge employer’s indifference and apathy. Good intentions are useless. Safety reps should be the “eyes and ears” of the HSE.

The final morning speaker was Steve Tombs, who is the Chair of CCA. Steve is a former butcher and construction worker who is now a Professor of Sociology in Liverpool. Steve takes no prisoners. He’s not all that keen on Geoffrey Podger, the HSE CEO. Now in the past I have had a few differences of opinion myself with “Geoff”. So I can understand where he is coming from.

Steve spoke about a recent report called “A Crisis in Enforcement”. How people were in fact more likely to suffer “violence” (as in physical harm not from physical assault) while at work rather than violence or harm outside work. He believes that there is an employer accountability gap. Despite this problem there has been a huge fall in HSE inspectors and enforcement action. Investigations into reported injuries are also down, with many serious injuries not being investigated.

It is inconceivable to imagine that if someone lost an eye or a limb in a fight or traffic accident in Liverpool city centre that the Police would refuse to investigate it. Yet if someone loses an eye or leg in a work related “accident” usually the HSE will not investigate.

Steve argued that “targeting” sends out the wrong message and risk based regulation leads to less regulation for business and less protection for workers.

After lunch we had an unexpected lively and interactive presentation from the Greater Manchester Coroner, Nigel Meadows. He is not what you expect a Crown Coroner to be. I completely failed his video quiz on what witnesses see or don’t see in a game of basketball (I say no more).

Unite national officer Rob Miguel and CCA director David Bergman presented reports that comprehensively showed that many (if not most) local authorities are failing to carry out their health and safety responsibilities.

Solicitor Colin Ettinger reported on research that examined fatalities amongst migrant workers and was able to demonstrate disproportionate death rates, particularly of Polish construction workers.

Hugh Robertson, the TUC (and formerly UNISON) senior health & safety advisor (& HSE Board member) reminded everyone that we should be concerned not only about safety but ill-health at work. Often if someone loses their hearing during the course of their employment it is obviously difficult to record and pin down this serious injury as an “accident”. Funny enough today, in Forest Gate I noticed a workman making a repair to the road using a really loud hammer drill using no obvious ear protection at all. He was a young bloke who will probably be deaf or hard of hearing by the time he is 50. What should or could I have done about this?

The conference finished with presentations on Corporate Manslaughter by Steven Summer from the Local Government Employers and Julian Topping from NHS employers. It would seem that both groups of employers are finally getting their act together with regard to health and safety.

We will wait and see. But interestingly my interpretation of their presentations is that greater management interest and involvement has been driven by the threat of enforcement action against them personally. The Corporate Manslaughter legislation has not worried them as much as the prospect of personal imprisonment due to the upgrading of health & safety offenses from fines to porridge. I think it is early days but there is a message somewhere.

Health & Safety in the 21st Century

Today I went to the 4th joint Health & Safety Executive/SERTUC seminar for trade union safety representatives at Congress House.

There were about 250 reps from London and the South East and a pretty high profile panel of speakers.

It was opened by Stephen Williams, the local HSE area Director, then a keynote speech from Judith Hackitt, the Chair of the HSE. Next a Q&A including Lord McKenzie the Minister for Health & Safety and Hugh Robertson (formerly UNISON) from the TUC and non-executive director of the HSE.

There were stalls run by Thompsons solicitors and the HSE. In the workshops that I attended there was two HSE inspectors (one a manager) and a senior Council safety enforcement officer. Considering that many safety reps never meet or speak to a HSE or council safety inspector in their careers, this is pretty good access.

I’ll post now on what I thought was interesting in the speech by Judith Hackitt and I’ll try to post on other matters later. Her speech was entitled “Health & Safety in the 21st Century” while the seminar itself was called “Worker Involvement in Health & Safety”

Judith (right of picture next to Lord McKenzie) was appointed as Chair of the HSE last year for a 5 year term. She had previously been a HSE commissioner. Her background is Chemical Engineering and it was mentioned that in the past she had worked for companies that had been prosecuted by the HSE for safety offences. I’m not sure that is reassuring or not?

Firstly, dare I say a health warning? This report is based on my very hurried and scribbled notes.

Judith started off very well by stressing the importance of safety reps as “absolutely essential” and that she was surprised that we still had to promote the idea to employers of workers involvement nowadays.

The world had changed, there was the emerging and growing SME sector, and we had to face the fact that trade union representation had declined and that many workers had no union protection.

New risks such as bullying, violence and infection control need to be controlled by effective risk assessment (I’m not sure that these are all that new, but in the past they were not properly addressed). The HSE is now willing to consider enforcement action to facilitate safety reps (excellent news). Need to concentrate on supply chains, training and educating employers on the benefits of safety reps.

Since 1974 Britain had been very successful in health & safety and was “amongst the best in the world”. Even so it was still unacceptable that some 200 workers are killed, 28,000 seriously injured and some 2 million hurt every year. Not forgetting the 4,000 who die annually from work related cancer (asbestos).

It is still the overriding principal that it is those “who create the risk that are the best to manage it” (employers). She attacked “jobs worth’s” that use ‘elf & safety” as an excuse not to do things they (bureaucrats) don’t want to do. Instead of trying to stop people being killed they bang on about banning conkers and Pancake Day races. Real health & safety is not about stopping anyone doing their job, it is about making it safer and more efficient. The media should stop its nonsense and tell the real story.

She addressed the trade union call for more safety inspectors. She asked is this the only solution? Since it is logically flawed. The HSE is not responsible for safety, it is managers and employers. There is a question of motivation about safety. Safety needs to be embedded into the culture of companies. The HSE needs to concentrate on high risk employers but there is no question of an exemption for anyone. Duty holders manage the workplace. The HSE should provide them with advice and guidance. Encouraging better and more constructive safety arrangements.

There was a somewhat lively Q&A afterwards. I had the opportunity to try and explain that the reason why trade unions asked for more inspectors is that too many employers don’t take safety issues seriously and for example, either don’t do risk assessments or just employ consultants to write them up and leave them on shelves. We want more inspectors not just to go around prosecuting employers (even though we could do with more of this), they are needed to visit and explain to employers what they should be doing to protect the safety of their workers. That is why we need more of them.

Judith answered that is what the HSE are trying to do, target employers who need advice and guidance. I still don’t understand how they can do this with so few inspectors?

Lord McKenzie took a question on the victimisation of safety reps by employers. One rep present had recently been sacked for safety rep duties. To be fair to Lord McKenzie, he utterly condemned any victimisation, said it was totally unacceptable, even though he did not know the details of this case, he promised to look into it. On his way out he did stop and take details from the reps concerned.

A couple of other points were that the HSE/Councils are compiling a list of rubbish safety consultants. They have also prosecuted consultants in the past for bad practices and are aware of the problem and intend to do something about it. Good!

The second point was a response to a question by another Housing association rep about whether public funding should only be given to organisations that have good health & safety practices (supply chains?). The response from the panel was a suggestion was that this was something that could be taken up with the regulators of these bodies and those responsible for these public funds. Which I will bring up at my branch executive later this month? It makes perfect sense.

Finally, I thought that Judith Hackitt performed well, and she certainly was not savaged the way that I have seen previous Chairs of the HSE been treated at similar conferences. Maybe, its early days mind?

Lord McKenzie was a breath of fresh air as a safety minister. He gave the sincere impression that he genuinely wanted to listen and learn. None of the arrogance you get from some ministers.

I think that the overall message to the unions was that the HSE think safety reps do, by and large, a good job, but that most workers who need protection do not work in unionised workplaces anymore. Where there are unionised workplaces, I think that the HSE have woken up to the fact that safety reps can in theory actually do “their” work as advisers and guide employers. This would free up their time to inspect the workplaces that are not unionised. I think this is what they are saying, and if so, this is potentially a huge opportunity for unions.

Personally, I think for this to work, safety reps need more of an enforcement role (provisional inspection notices?) but this is a change which I think needs to be more widely debated in the trade union movement. It’s a classic “threat” and “opportunity”. There again, while we suffer plenty of threats we don’t that often get all that many opportunities.