Memorandum submitted by the GMB—Britain's
General Union
INTRODUCTION
1. The GMB is a major (general) trades union
representing around 650,000 members, employed in a wide variety
of occupations in virtually every sector of the economy including
(in particular) public services, private services and manufacturing.
2. The GMB has a well-deserved and enduring
reputation as the leading trade union on health and safety at
work issues. It has campaigned consistently for improvements in
health and safety standards at work. It trains thousands of safety
representatives every year, and supports their efforts to reduce
risks at work with high quality advice, guidance and publications.
It has vigorously promoted a partnership approach with enlightened
employers to reduce injury and ill-health rates in workplaces.
It has been successfully involved in a diverse range of tripartite
arrangements with the Health and Safety Executive and employers,
and has made a major contribution to the UK health and safety
system since the 1970s.
SUMMARY
3. The GMB welcomes the establishment of
a Select Committee inquiry into the work of the Health & Safety
Commission and Health & Safety Executive. Motions to the Union's
Congress in 2003 expressed a view, firmly held by many GMB health
and safety representatives, that the HSE is under-resourced and
does not enforce the law vigorously enough. Some would argue that
the HSE is a failing organisation.
4. This submission will therefore identify
a range of serious concerns about the performance of the Health
and Safety Commission and Executive and the resourcing of health
and safety. It will also identify the need for the HSC/E to ensure
that the involvement of trade unions, and in particular our workplace
safety representatives, is central to any future strategy to improve
the management of health and safety at work. Central to the viewpoints
outlined below are: the establishment of a Work Environment Fund
(WEF) to generate extra and much needed resources; and the granting
of new and improved rights for trade union safety representatives,
to create new opportunities for enhancing and expanding the most
successful model for improving health and safety standards at
work.
THE LEGISLATIVE
FRAMEWORK
5. The steady decline in the rates of serious
and fatal injury within British industry that followed the introduction
of the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) is a testament
to the principles and approach enshrined in the Act. The HSWA
had the principle of consultation with workers, through their
unions, at its heart, and this led to the engagement and involvement
of many thousands of trade union safety representatives. These
safety representatives effectively contributed towards the "policing"
of the self-regulatory regime which Lord Robens (whose report
led to the enactment of HSWA) envisaged as developing.
6. The HSWA is based upon the notion of
employers adhering to a duty of care towards their employees,
with both the regulators (the Health and Safety Executive) and
the unions (as the collective instrument of the workforce) contributing
towards the creation of conditions that encourage employers to
comply with their obligations. HSWA legitimised the role of trade
union safety representatives within the regulatory framework through
the enactment of the 1977 Safety Representatives and Safety Committee
(SRSC) Regulations under HSWA.
7. The basic premise of the Act, and the
role it afforded trade unions (through the SRSC Regulations) in
participating in joint endeavours to reduce work-related injuries
and ill health remains sound. As enabling legislation, HSWA also
created an effective legislative framework for the making of specific
regulations to address prevailing risks in the workplace. This
remains the case.
8. The GMB's view is that the problem is
not with the legislative framework. It is that the effectiveness
of the self-regulatory approach has been diluted by a number of
developments: the predominance of "goal-setting" regulations;
the performance of and resources available to the HSC/E; the lack
of enforcement of health and safety regulations; the predominance
of small to medium enterprises (SMEs); the emergence of new hazards
and an increase in occupational ill-health (eg stress) resulting
from changes in the nature and structure of employment and; the
marginalisation or declining influence of safety representatives,
without the existence or emergence of any credible alternative
means of involving or consulting employees. These points are expanded
on below.
"GOAL-SETTING"
VS "PRESCRIPTIVE"
REGULATION
9. Whilst employers must legally protect
the health, safety and welfare of their workers and others, and
should assess all work activities in order to reduce risk, far
too many do not. Goal-setting regulations, in contrast to prescriptive
ones that place specific and absolute duties on employers, rely
heavily on the use of risk assessments to inform decision-making
on the preventive and protective measures that need to be implemented.
Many employers do not understand the risk assessment concept or
process, and many more do not carry out assessments. For "goal-setting"
regulations to be effective, HSE must put considerable more effort
into assisting employers to understand the purpose of risk assessment,
and must enforce the law when risk assessments have not been conducted.
10. There must also be less dependence upon
the mono-culture of only enacting goal-setting regulations. The
GMB believes that the judicious use of some prescriptive regulations
(for example, a specific duty to prevent falls from a height above
1 metre, as opposed to a duty to prevent falls from a height "that
is likely to cause injury") would be welcomed by employers
and employees alike. SMEs, in particular, are often anxious to
know that they have done enough to comply with the law. Prescription
offers certainty, therefore, it is apparent and obvious whether
or not the regulations have been adhered to. This has benefits
to employers, employees and their safety representatives and enforcing
authorities alike. The balance between the use of goal-setting
regulations and prescriptive regulations needs to be redressed
to incorporate more use of the latter.
THE HEALTH
AND SAFETY
COMMISSION AND
EXECUTIVE
11. The GMB believes that the HSC/E should
fulfil a vital role in ensuring the health, safety and welfare
of the workforce. HSE is regarded as an extremely important authority
by our members, safety representatives and their employers. For
example, the importance of the HSE "badge", on research,
guidance and publications cannot be over-stated. The endorsement
of an approach or preventive measure by the HSE gives it a credibility
that is essential to employers and employees alike. Many HSE staff
are of an extremely high standard, and are undoubtedly committed
to the tripartite approach towards improving health and safety
at work. The GMB sees many of the difficulties of the HSE as rooted
in the constraints imposed by a lack of resources, but nevertheless
we do have concerns about an apparent lack of commitment to the
principle of recognising and embracing the contribution made by
trade unions to the UK's health and safety performance.
12. The GMB welcomed the decision to place
the HSC/E under the overall control of the Department of Work
and Pensions. It was hoped that the outcome of this would be to
ensure that HSC/E played a more proactive role in promoting a
greater awareness of the need to recognise and reduce the economic
and social burden of poor health and safety management. The current
structure of the HSC also has the broad support of the GMB, but
its inability to give a strong strategic leadership has been illustrated
by recent initiatives such as the failure of the HSC to secure
support and resources for "Revitalising Health and Safety".
13. The HSC recognised in 2000, with the
development of the "Revitalising Health and Safety"
strategy that the initial progress achieved as a result of HSWA
had stalled. The principle of setting targets for the reduction
of injuries and ill-health and the development of priority programmes
to achieve measured outcomes was strongly supported by the GMB
and other unions. However, the "Revitalising" strategy
has not properly involved, and was never properly established
to sufficiently involve, trade union safety representatives. Whilst
it may be argued that a lack of resources has hampered the progress
of the strategy, the failure to involve safety representatives
represents a missed opportunity to ensure the engagement of a
greater number and diversity of key stakeholders in order to achieve
the desired outcomes at workplace level.
14. The GMB recognises that in recent years
there have been concerted efforts within certain elements of the
press, and by some employers, to undermine the safety culture
that the HSE seeks to develop and enforce. The GMB sees this attack
on the HSE as a regulatory body as one element of a wider attempt
to portray health and safety regulations themselves as "burdens"
on business. The GMB believes that there is no case to answer
that health and safety is a burden on business—on the contrary,
poor health and safety management costs the UK economy between
£14 and £18 billion per year. The HSE should mount a
forceful defence to this charge by making the business case for
preventive measures to reduce accidental loss much more vigorously.
The HSE's partners in this endeavour could be the trade unions,
who have access to evidence, in the form of case studies, of our
work with employers that has resulted in reduced accident rates.
This partnership approach has been developed in some sectors,
but the culture of indifference towards unions that seems to exist
at a senior level within the HSE has perhaps precluded the possibility
of a more widespread effort to challenge the hostility expressed
by the "burdens on business" brigade.
15. The HSE has consistently failed to pick
up trends and changes in demographics which can impact on health
and safety. For example, the GMB has continued to raise concerns
about the aging workforce, the increased number of women in employment
and the rise in migrant labour. To date, there is no evidence
that the HSE has made any progress with these issues.
RESOURCES
16. We have serious concerns that the freezing
of the HSE's budget for 2003-06 will have a negative impact on
health and safety and will result in a failure to meet the Revitalising
Targets. In the recent HSC Document "A Strategy for Workplace
Health and Safety in Great Britain" there appears to be a
general acceptance of the limited resources and a thrust towards
self regulation to reduce the burden on the HSE. Inevitably, the
resource intensive but highly effective inspection and enforcement
activity is the first casualty. As there appears little will within
the HSE to support worker involvement through increasing the rights
of safety representatives and by actively supporting the work
of trade unions, self regulation will not be the answer to reducing
the burden on the HSE and subsequently reducing workplace injuries
and ill health.
17. We believe that the Treasury needs to
fully understand the economic benefits of preventing work related
injuries and ill health. The cost of work related injuries and
illnesses to the UK economy are well documented, but may only
be the tip of the iceberg, especially when it comes to the costs
on the NHS. In addition to the human cost, chronic injuries and
long term ill health caused by work, place a drain on our health
services. Investing in the prevention of these injuries and illnesses
as well as early rehabilitation will reap long term benefits for
the UK economy. Investment in prevention comes through adequate
resourcing of the HSE and through the HSE spending their budget
on effective preventative measures including inspection and enforcement
activity.
18. Equally, we appreciate that financial
resources are not infinite. We believe that it is time to use
the "polluter pays" approach to health and safety through
the establishment of a Work Environment Fund. Raised through a
small payroll levy, this fund could provide an equitable means
of ensuring that practical advice and assistance is available
to employers. The funds could also be used to finance research
into emerging health and safety problems, best practice and evaluation
of projects. Just twenty pence per week per employee would double
the HSE's current budget.
19. We also believe that there has been
inappropriate use of resources by the HSE, particularly in relation
to publications. The priced publication "Health and safety
in golf course management and maintenance" and the free leaflet
"Health and safety in ski-slope operations" are just
two examples of publications which we believe were not priorities
at the time of printing. Yet a free publication, helping employers
understand how to comply with the Safety Representatives and Safety
Committee Regulations and the benefits of worker involvement has
never been published despite claims by the HSE that worker involvement
is central to their strategy.
20. In relation to publications, we are
very concerned about the current moratorium on new HSE publications.
Generally, HSE publications are seen as authoritative and highly
regarded by safety representatives and employers alike. Publications
which offer practical solutions to common problems such as ergonomics,
violence and noise are particularly welcome as are industry specific
publications. Increased reliance on the website as a source of
information is helpful to some groups but should not be a substitute
for the production of hard copies of publications. The assumption
that every employer and every safety representative has access
to a website is erroneous. We believe that a Work Environment
Fund and a strategic publishing budget, where key stakeholders,
including advisory committee members, are consulted on future
publications is the way forward.
ENFORCEMENT
21. The GMB is alarmed by the low level
of enforcement of health and safety. On average a registered premise
that is not seen as high risk will receive an inspection every
20 years. The number of contacts with employers has been falling
steadily since 1995.
22. HSE's own research has found inspection
and enforcement activity as an effective means of securing employer
compliance. Research into the impact of the HSC/E found that,
if targeted at key groups, inspection can bring about significant
improvements in health and safety performance. The same study
implies that HSE awareness raising campaigns are already preaching
to the converted. Studies have found a high level of compliance
with improvement notices and that the effects of such notices
endure. We are aware of several companies, who as a result of
an improvement notice, significantly changed their safety culture
to one that is more proactive.
23. In the HSE's analysis of the responses
to "A Strategy for workplace health and safety in Great Britain
to 2010 and beyond" they found little appetite for reduced
inspection/enforcement and a good number of calls for increased
activity in this area. This view is not only expressed by unions
but by employers and their representative groups. Hard to reach
groups, as defined by the HSE, also indicated that there should
be far more regular inspections.
24. We believe that in 2003 the media attention
around the HSE enforcement notice on stress at the West Dorset
NHS Trust had more impact on duty holders than a costly advertising
campaign on stress at work.
25. The GMB has been highly critical of
the failure by many HSE field inspectors to communicate with safety
representatives during a visit to their workplace. Whilst we have
seen some improvements, it is by no means consistent throughout
the country. We believe that these improvements have been driven
by the individual attitudes of Regional Directors but that progress
has been hindered by the HSE's institutionalised inertia and failure
to recognise the benefits of consultation at policy level.
26. Consistent failure to enforce the 1977
Safety Representatives and Safety Committee Regulations has also
been a major concern to the GMB. As of January 2000 HSE Inspectors
had served just one improvement notice under the 1977 Regulations
(in 1984) - that's one in 22 years. We have numerous examples
of employers failing to comply with these Regulations and know
of cases where the assistance of the local HSE has been sought
but has not been supportive. In our opinion, there remains a perception
within the HSE that the 1977 Regulations are about industrial
relations, rather than regulations implemented under the Health
and Safety at Work Act to promote partnerships and joint working
on health and safety.
27. We also believe that inspection and
enforcement activity should be separated from information and
advice giving and propose the separating of the two functions
and the formation on one body responsible for health and safety
enforcement in all workplaces.
REFORMING THE
HSE'S ENFORCEMENT
RESPONSIBILITY
28. The steady decline in local authority
inspections is a grave concern, particularly as the workload of
local authority inspectors is increasing as the industrial profile
of the UK changes. Competing pressures, including food safety
and environmental controls, mean that health and safety frequently
takes a back seat.
29. The GMB believes that it is fundamentally
inequitable that the geographical location of a worker is the
sole determinant as to whether he or she is better protected.
In the 2003 report "Safety Lottery: How the Level of Enforcement
of Health and Safety Depends on Where you Work" it is quite
evident that (for example) workers in Rossendale District Council
are less protected than those working in Kennet District Council.
30. The GMB believes that it is time to
draw a line behind these inconsistencies and give the HSE the
budget and sole responsibility for enforcement of health and safety
in all sectors. We do not believe that the proposed audit/benchmarking
systems and the effective use of s18 guidance by HSC will make
enough of a difference. HSC/E does not, and is unlikely to ever
have, a say in how individual local authority budgets are spent,
which is the overriding factor when it comes to resourcing health
and safety enforcement activity in the local authority environment.
THE TRIPARTITE
SYSTEM
31. The HSWA is founded on the belief that
health and safety is best promoted through employers, trade unions
and government working together. The GMB believes that this tripartite
approach has been one of the strengths of the current system,
and is alarmed that a lack of resources could end in the potential
disbandment of a number of key tripartite committees. We have
already expressed concern, at paragraph 13 above, that the HSE
does not wholly recognise the need to keep the trade unions at
the heart of its strategy. This concern would be exacerbated by
any developments which were to result in a further erosion or
fragmentation of the tripartite approach.
32. Since the HSWA, the principle of tripartitism
has successfully underpinned the various Industry Advisory Committees
which have been established by the HSC. Some of these have been
extremely effective in promoting better health and safety within
the industries or sectors they cover. Unfortunately, in recent
years, the commitment from the HSE to these bodies seems to have
waned with some Advisory Committees being wound down, and others
finding it harder to gain access to the support they need to deliver
outcomes, such as the production (with input from both employer
and union representatives on the Advisory Committee) of sector-specific
guidance. There has also been an unwelcome trend towards diluting
both the employee and employer interests on Advisory Committees,
thereby undermining the principle of tripartitism.
IMPROVED RIGHTS
AND BETTER
SUPPORT FOR
SAFETY REPRESENTATIVES
33. The most enduring and successful model
for improving health and safety standards at work is the "trade
union" model. Independent research, including studies that
were recently cited in a paper discussed by the HSC, demonstrates
that in those workplaces where there is consultation and trade
union recognition, the level of work-related injuries is half
that of workplaces with no union recognition and consultation.
The GMB has produced and circulated a wealth of case studies that
describe the benefits, in terms of measurable reductions in accident
and injury rates, of joint union/employer initiatives in workplaces
where the union is recognised.
34. The GMB's approach towards achieving
health and safety improvements for our members at work is founded
on the belief that health and safety is best promoted through
employers and trade union safety representatives working together.
In addition to our own case studies, research has shown that in
those workplaces where trade unions and employers have a joint
approach to health and safety there is a better safety culture
than in those without trade unions. The GMB has an excellent track
record of delivering joint training courses that assist managers,
supervisors and safety representatives to develop a joint approach
towards risk assessment, and help companies to examine and improve
their safety culture.
35. Despite the success of the joint approach
pursued by the GMB and other trade unions, this contribution does
not seem to be fully recognised and placed at the core of the
HSE's work. There are notable exceptions, such as the "Recipe
for Safety" initiative developed in the Food Industry, but
the HSE's policy approach and the thrust of its prevention work
has been focussed predominantly on employers and managers. Over
25 years after the publication of the SRSC Regulations, and regardless
of the enormous contribution that unions have made, the HSE still
often does no more than include a token sentence in its guidance
informing employers of their legal duty to consult our safety
representatives.
36. The GMB believes that to achieve tangible
improvements in health and safety at work, the HSE must recognise,
value and include trade union safety representatives as a positive
force for improving the safety culture within workplaces. Inspectors
should, as part of their inspection regime, automatically ensure
that employers are complying with their duties to consult. We
would also wish to see more HSC/E materials specifically aimed
at Safety Representatives—there are currently no such publications
available, although there are many hundreds aimed at employers
and managers. The GMB has also, for many years, advocated a publication
that describes to employers, in positive terms, the benefits to
be gained from meaningful consultation with Safety Representatives.
37. Of utmost necessity, and the GMB's top
priority, are the changes required to the Safety Representatives
and Safety Committee Regulations to make them more effective and
relevant to the present day. These include changes to Regulation
8 to introduce "Roving Safety Representatives", giving
safety representatives the right to inspect all premises where
they have members, and those of contractors. It is of fundamental
importance that the Regulations are amended to reflect the changes
in the way that many people work nowadays, by comparison to when
the SRSC Regulations were introduced. Examples include the numbers
of people working in SMEs, the proliferation of contractors, people
working part-time for a "portfolio" of employers etc.
As union membership is less concentrated in large, fixed workplaces,
like the factories of the 1970s, many GMB members no longer have
a safety representative permanently present in their place of
work. An amendment to Regulation 8 is necessary to ensure that
their health and safety representation is assured, and to bring
the benefits of the successful model of union-initiated improvements
to a wider audience of employers and employees.
38. Another important reform, which would
help to bring a new impetus to the system of self-regulation referred
to in previous paragraphs, would be to grant safety representatives
the right to issue their employer with a Provisional Improvement
Notice (PIN). Issuing a PIN would be a last resort when there
was a failure to act upon a recognised health and safety risk
which could endanger life and limb. This system works well elsewhere,
and would take advantage of the existence of the vast number of
trained safety representatives present in workplaces throughout
the UK. Even with a massive increase in resources, HSE Inspectors
cannot match the numbers of safety representatives operating on
a daily basis within workplaces, and the proposal to allow the
serving of a PIN offers a sensible and practicable "enforcement"
option that would be, in our view, a giant step towards reducing
accident and injury rates.
39. Other reforms to the SRSC Regulations
that the GMB would like to see include an explicit duty on employers
to respond to issues raised by safety representatives, and greater
clarity and enforcement of the rights to training and information.
40. The GMB (in common with other trade
unions) has campaigned for and advocated the reforms to the SRSC
Regulations described above for many, many years. We do not believe
that these proposals have been given the serious consideration
that they deserve. In our view, this is indicative of the inability
or unwillingness of the HSC/E to promote and progress imaginative
and sensible measures that we are convinced would make a significant
contribution towards improving health and safety standards at
work. In view of the remarkably persistent levels of injury and
ill-health that occur in our workplaces, and the manner in which
the progress achieved since the 1974 HSWA has been stalled by
economic, social and industrial developments, it is an indictment
of the HSE that it has failed to respond imaginatively to the
ideas advanced by key stakeholders in the health and safety system.
SUMMARY OF
CONCLUSIONS
1. The basic legislative framework of the
HSWA remains valid, but the UK health and safety system is under
strain due to developments since its inception in 1974.
2. Poor health and safety management, and
a lack of understanding of the regulatory requirements amongst
employers, coupled with inadequate enforcement of the law, costs
the UK economy £14-18 billion per year, and results in hundreds
of deaths and thousands of workers injured or suffering from ill-health.
3. The balance between the use of goal-setting
and prescriptive regulations is weighted too heavily towards the
former.
4. The HSE does not enforce the law effectively.
This leads to unfounded claims of over-zealousness on the one
hand, whilst trades union safety representatives representing
the victims of occupational injury and disease regard the HSE's
enforcement activities as weak and ineffectual.
5. The HSE cannot be "all things to
all people". It should be an effective and recognisable enforcement
agency with sole responsibility for enforcing health and safety
regulations in all sectors. Advice, guidance and information on
health and safety should be provided through a separate agency.
This could be resourced by the establishment of a Work Environment
Fund.
6. The HSC/E lack the strategic vision to
recognise, embrace and promote the success of the trade unions
in reducing accidents and ill health. This has meant that opportunities
to improve health and safety at work by reforming and improving
the SRSC regulations have not been grasped.
7. The HSE's future strategy to 2010 and
beyond is predicated upon an assumption that stakeholders must
accept that the organisation needs to withdraw from a range of
activities. Predominant on this list appears to be the abandonment
of the commitment to maintaining a range of tripartite arrangements,
which are the most successful means of ensuring the involvement
of key stakeholders and ensuring that "revitalising health
and safety" targets are met.
8. The HSE is under-resourced. The lack
of funds necessary to invest in the future health and safety of
the nation's workforce represents a major constraint. The GMB's
view is that the establishment of a Work Environment Fund to generate
dedicated resources is central to the promotion and development
of an effective preventive strategy to reduce injures and ill-health
at work.
Kevin Curran
GMB
13 February 2004
| 
