"50th anniversary of Ronan Point" & "Are tenants being listened to on safety?" (NO)

"Mayor Rokhsana Fiaz yesterday (Wednesday 16 May ) laid flowers and attended a special memorial event to mark the day, 50 years ago, that four people died in the Ronan Point tower block disaster.

Ronan Point in Custom House was a 22 storey block near Butchers Road. The building partially collapsed following a gas explosion on the 18th floor in the early hours of May 16, 1968.

Four people died as a result of the blast, Thomas Murrell and his wife Pauline, Thomas McCluskey and Edith Bridgestock. Thirteen other people were injured and 80 families were made homeless.

Mayor Fiaz was invited to the event by campaigners Patricia Jolly and Paul Wade who want to see a permanent memorial those who lost their lives. She was joined by Cllr Pat Holland, who represents the Custom House ward, and Newham Council Chief Executive Kim Bromley-Derry.

Patricia, who lost a relative in the collapse, told a group of around 50 who gathered at St Mark’s Church Community Centre: “People need these memorials that come in the form of statues and plaques. The collapse of Ronan Point was an unexpected and awful tragedy, but it is a part of the history of Custom House and Newham, and should not be forgotten.”

The Mayor thanked the campaigners for their hard work and pledged the council would be working with relatives, friends, and all those who remembered Ronan Point, to create a respectful permanent memorial.

As guests remembered the Ronan Point victims, thoughts were never far from 71 victims of last year’s Grenfell fire tragedy.

Mayor Fiaz said: “None of us will ever forget the feeling of horror and helplessness as we watched the events unfold on that dreadful night, and for those of you that lived in Custom House 50 years ago, it will have brought back the painful recollection of the tragedy at Ronan Point.

“Once again the country has been shocked into action and there is rightly, once again, a renewed focus on the safety of tower blocks, and all social housing. We in Newham have not, and will not forget the tragic lessons of Ronan Point and Grenfell and will make sure building safety lessons are not forgotten.” Hat tip Newham Council Website

and Inside Housing Magazine 

On the 50th anniversary of the collapse of Ronan Point, tower block safety campaigner Frances Clarke questions whether Dame Judith Hackitt is really listening to tenants..

"A great deal is at stake.

The Grenfell Tower tenants said loudly that their block was a fire risk. No-one in power was willing to listen and 71 people died.

We had a completely different experience during the Ronan Point campaign. Ronan Point, which partially collapsed 50 years ago this week, was rebuilt and re-inhabited.

In 1982 the first tower blocks’ campaign national conference brought together a range of tenants, experts, community workers and activists.

During the conference, tenants of Ronan Point spoke to architect Sam Webb and told him of their concerns: they could smell food being cooked many floors below, they could clearly hear the conversations and TV programmes of neighbours far away.

Mr Webb responded by carrying out a survey of the flats during which he dropped a coin between the floor and wall and it disappeared, demonstrating that the flats were not sealed units, and fire and fumes could spread. Regulations were breached.

Pressure from tenants was enormous.

Newham Council voted to empty the block and they offered it to the Building Research Establishment (BRE) so that they could test it thoroughly.

The testing process was very transparent. A flat was set on fire to test one hour compartmentation – after 11 minutes engineers were seen to be scurrying out of the flat above as fumes and flames travelled upwards.

The fire had to be extinguished, the test had failed, the flat couldn’t contain a fire for one hour.

Structural investigations took place which revealed that the H2 joints could not be relied upon to hold the block up, they could not withstand a pressure of 2.5 psi. Instead of being packed with concrete, they contained newspaper and tin cans.

The Tower Blocks Campaign and Newham Council worked together to ensure that tenants were informed and involved throughout.

There were frequent meetings, with free transport and council-run creches. ‘Experts’ were required to talk in plain English and the council funded independent technical advice for tenants.

This experience showed us that effective partnerships can exist between engineers, architects, politicians, tenants, community workers and the media.

Are tenants being listened to now, in the aftermath of Grenfell? Sadly, the example of the remaining large panel system blocks, blocks like Ronan Point, is not positive.

Residents of the Ledbury Estate had raised concerns about gaps in their flats for years, their concerns heightened after the Grenfell fire. Resident Danielle Gregory’s questioning of the Council and of Arups, their consultants, about the existing ‘stay put’ policy was not welcomed.

Nonetheless she was proven right, resulting investigations showed that the flats could not contain a fire for one hour.

Tenants went on to force the examination of structural joints and again the joints could not withstand a pressure of 2.5psi – they should not have had gas or people in the flats.

Would this information have come to light without serious tenant pressure? It is the efforts of these tenants that brought large panel system construction to the attention of Dame Judith.

In these examples, a change in building regulation would not have solved the problem as these blocks were in breach of current regulations.

So the role tenants played was to alert authorities to a dangerous situation. Why do tenants, such as these, have to work so hard to be listened to?

Why can’t landlords work in partnerships with tenants, as with the Ronan Campaign? Will Dame Judith’s Review properly address tenants’ voice?

Will she ensure that a legally enforceable pathway is created for tenants to report their safety issues when their landlords do not respond appropriately to their concerns?

Are you listening Dame Judith, have you heard?"

Frances Clarke, tower block campaigner and co-founder of Tower Blocks UK (JG adds and former Newham Councillor and Cabinet member)

Hat tip Inside Housing

"Workplace safety law is top life saver" says Daily Telegraph

A very surprising article by a Torygraph Leader writer. What next I wonder? "Paying taxes is good for you!"? Hat tip TUC Risks e-letter 

"Britain’s workplace safety law has probably saved more lives than any other piece of legislation, an article in the Telegraph has said.
Telegraph leader writer Philip Johnston noted: “Health and safety has become synonymous with nanny statism, interfering jobsworths, ludicrous litigation and risk aversion.

And yet the Health and Safety at Work Act (HASAWA), which is 40 years old this summer, has arguably saved more lives than any other piece of legislation, including the ban on drink driving or the compulsory wearing of seat belts in cars. It may well have reduced deaths by 5,000 or more.”

He added: “Forty years on, the Act has achieved what it set out to do, which is to insist upon high standards of health and safety in places of work. All we need do now is to apply the law with the common sense that inspired it in the first place.” The article mirrored comments earlier this year by HSE chair Judith Hackitt.

In a January blog she wrote: “This year will mark 40 years since Health and Safety at Work Act received Royal Assent. Arguably it is one of the best pieces of legislation on the statute books – although we know it is often misunderstood and misinterpreted. It has protected millions of British workers, and driven sharp reductions in incidents of occupational death, serious injury and ill health.”

This week the government’s latest attempt to weaken the lifesaving law, measures in the Deregulation Bill to exempt most of the self-employed from HASAWA’s scope, returned again to the House of Commons.

Ÿ  HSE news release.Ÿ  The Telegraph.Ÿ  IOSH news release.

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.

UNISON health and safety seminar 2011: Judith Hackett on the cuts and charging for enforcement?

Today the national UNISON Health & Safety Seminar took place at the ICC in Birmingham. There were around 250 delegates from all over the UK and all parts of UNISON. Assistant General Secretary (and member of HSE Board) Liz Snape chaired the seminar. She told us that UNISON has 12,000 safety reps protecting members and although our work is often invisible and behind the scenes are role is absolutely vital. Our keynote speaker was Judith Hackett (left) who is the Chair of the Health & Safety Executive who was described as someone “who says it as it is”. This reminded me of the last time I had heard Judith speak.

Judith also thanked safety reps for the important work that they do. The core mission of the HSE is still to prevent death, serious injuries and work related ill-health. She believes that despite the cuts and recent Coalition reports and pronouncements they still fall with the broad HSE strategy that was started in 2008. Safety reps and managers need to lead in safety matters. Need Joint working such as the “Safe and Sound at work - do your bit” course. In which there is joint training with reps and management. Finding solutions together rather than being confrontational. .  

The Comprehensive Spending Review meant a 35% saving on public funding over the next 4 years. However, a bit of context. 35% cuts are the norm in the Department of Work & Pensions. So we are not being dealt with harsher than anyone else under this remit. She accepts that many of us think there should not be any cuts at all.

1/3 of their work is claimed back already from industry. The cuts apply to the rest. Moving the HSE headquarters from London to Bootle has saved money. 200 HSE staff left in a voluntary exist scheme recently. Rationalisation of estate and cuts in back office services will result in further savings. Recognise the importance of saving front line services as far as we can. Will not change in high risk industries but will look to modernise. Other services we will not change are reactive work including inspections and responses to complaints and reports. Reactive will remain unaffected but somewhere pain is inevitable. Numbers of inspections will have to be will have to be reduced in some areas. Have to target inspections with regard to risk. Compare other possible methods of interventions than individual premise inspections. In some workplaces, pro active inspections remain the best but in other sectors evidence points to effectiveness of other interventions. We will not take decisions in isolation, we will speak to stakeholders. We will learn as we go on. Over time a company or sector may improve performance and receive less attention or if they deteriorate they will receive more. 

On Monday the Minister said the clear intention is to take tough line with those who flout the law. See the idea of cost recovery from firms who do this. We can discuss what “low risk” is. However “low risk” does not mean no risk. In future we may have a supporting role rather than leading role in the production of guidance. Charging for HSE inspections. This is a fair deal. It should be welcomed by vast majority of employers since they claim they are complaint so they have nothing to worry about. It only penalises those who don’t comply. It brings a level playing field with costs. It is another form of enforcement. We may charge for some advice. But will not go back on our policy to make all information and guidance free to download from our web site. Our ideas need to develop and work out the detail and we need to consult. So context again: there is not a 35% reduction in everything we do. We already recover costs so it seems fair to extend this. It puts an increased onus on those who at fault. So they should be charged for the costs we bear to put their house in order.  

Summary. Foolish to deny times are tough. What is still constant is that we both share similar concerns and a “shared mission”. We won’t agree on everything but we all agree on this. Now we need your support and all of you to play your part. To be our eyes and ears. This is not where you want to be but despite the problems we all need to work together and do our bit.

In the Q&A she was asked is it sending the wrong message by saying office’s are “low risk” when many office workers suffer from high stress levels and asbestos is found in offices? She said again that low risk did not mean no risk. It is obvious that the level of risk in a corner shop will be different from that found in a Timber cutting yard.

I asked whether she was suggesting that safety reps should be taking the place of HSE inspectors and if she envisage a “beefed up” role for reps? If so this would maybe help change the governments mind about cutting inspections? She responded by repeating our importance as being their eyes and ears.  

She confirmed that the “Killer Asbestos” campaigns will continue and that she was not sure whether a reduction in RIDDOR reporting from 3 to 7 days was a good idea. But we need to review RIDDOR since there are a lot of problems with it such as under reporting. She dismissed the question that did the cuts mean that the HSE was now a toothless tiger by saying that the organisation has delivered amongst the best health & safety record in the world. Things are not perfect but you should not forget this. The safety system in the UK does not depend on the HSE alone. You do yourself a disservice if you think this. 

Sometimes you have to say "this is just crap and you know it”.

Plain speaking Judith Hackitt, Chair of the Health & Safety Executive tells it as it is. This was in response to a question from a trade union safety rep at today’s joint SERTUC/HSE safety conference “The Healthy Workplace”.

The rep asked what he should do when he gets fobbed off by managers with silly arguments and excuses. Ms Hackett thought that the excuses sounded like a “rich trapeze of rubbish” then suggested using the C**P argument.

I don’t remember reading this negotiating advice in any HSE pamphlets or even during my TUC safety courses? As branch health & safety officer I hesitate to recommend this to UNISON safety reps but I suppose since this advice is from the Chair of the H-S-E! So who am I to differ? (this is a Joke, repeat Joke)

The conference was very good. The emphasis was on preventing work related ill health and promoting well being rather than traditional safety issues. Dealing with health issues is usually more complex than safety.

The day kicked off with a speech by the SERTUC regional Secretary Megan Dobney. Megan pointed that even in a recession you do not cut health & safety. Also the widespread disappointment that there was no mention in recent Queen’s speech about asbestos and plural plaques.

Next was Judith (2nd from left) who talked about the new HSE strategy and 3 key issues. 1. The importance of enforcement action to achieve justice. 2. All HSE leaflets are now available for free on the internet and 3. Safety campaigning - especially on asbestos. There are 2 million suffering from work related ill health. Apart from the suffering and emotional pain the business case for dealing with this is compelling. Prevention is better than dealing with it afterwards. Health more important than safety. Need to raise our game on health.

Ed Sweeney the Chair of ACAS was the next main speaker (on right). A healthy workplace has good communication and consultation; equality and dignity; good relations with trade union reps and their organisations. It is useless having excellent procedures and policies if they are not implemented. Or Managers not trained or supported on how to properly implement. He stressed the importance of good line management and importance of employee engagement. The role of the rep is an advocacy, influencing, supporting, training and development role in providing good working places for people in the UK (and the rest).

In the Q&A my former TUC Occupational H&S course (1999-2000) colleague Phil Hood asked about the risk to existing safety regulations if the Tories are elected. A Tory think tank is proposing that if a company carries out an “independent” inspection then HSE inspectors will be barred from inspecting them. Ms Hackitt said that companies complain that the HSE doesn’t carry out enough inspections! She pointed out that she came from a chemical engineering and business background and believes the role of safety reps is vital and it would be fundamentally wrong to prevent enforcement.

My question to her was about what the HSE can do about the rogue consultants who just sell businesses (especially SME) unsuitable off the shelf; one size fits all safety policies which are not consulted upon with workers never mind safety reps? Judith agreed that she had been astonished when she took up her present post that there is no legal regulation of those who call themselves safety advisors. She thought it was not a HSE responsibility but agreed that companies are spending thousands and being ripped off. She thought that the IOSH and the other safety professional organisations need to sort things out and there needs to be a way to discipline such rogue consultants. She pointed out that she had a degree in engineering but was not deemed competent in her field until she had proven herself at work.

The blacklisted and disgracefully victimised construction safety rep Dave Smith (my former TUC tutor) asked Judith why when he was sacked from job after job, because of his blacklisting and safety rep duties, he would contact the HSE for advice only to be told that this was an industrial relations matter, not a safety matter and they were unable to help. Judith confirmed that blacklisting because you were a safety rep was indeed a matter for the HSE. She apologised if wrong advice had been given in the past. She pointed out the (unspecified) action that the HSE had taken against the North Sea offshore energy rigs companies who had “deemed” certain union safety reps NRB (not required back).

Which raised more questions than answers but I feel that most of us (IMO) felt that Ms Hackitt would have a very sharp (and unprintable?) opinion of companies or organisations who in the future victimise or blacklist safety reps.

This was the morning session. I will hopefully soon post on the afternoon which was also really useful. But I’m just a little behind on a number of posts at the mo.

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.