Unions Question HSE's Claim on Workplace major injuries

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Letter to Branches



No. 012/14
Ref EX5/14
Date: 8 January 2014

To: All Branches

Dear Colleagues

Trade Unions Question HSE's Claim That Workplace major injuries have hit an all time low for 2012/13
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) recently published their latest workplace injury and fatality statistics claiming that there had been an 11 per cent drop in major injuries compared to 2011/12, in a press release gleefully headed "Workplace Major Injuries Hit An All Time Low For 2012/13".  However, this claim was very foreseeable and predictable, after government pressure and recommendations from government initiated Health and Safety reviews led to the HSE changing the way that injuries are reported and recorded through the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences
Regulations (RIDDOR), which has now been changed on no less than three occasions since the openly anti-health and safety Coalition Government came to power.

It all started in September 2011 when the RIDDOR notification system used by employers changed, with telephone and paper reports scrapped and reporting now being predominantly online. Employer’s information provision was reduced and therefore less detailed information is available compared to the previous reporting arrangements. Then April 2012 there was a legislative change to RIDDOR, which extended the injury reporting threshold. The requirement for duty-holders to report all accidents causing a worker being incapacitated for more than 3 days was watered down and extended to over-7-days. Finally, from 1 October 2013, a further legislative change was made with RIDDOR 2013 coming into force, which introduced significant changes to the existing reporting requirements. The changes reduce and simplify the reporting requirements further in a number of areas; with industry coding, reclassifications, materials and substances information requirements involved in accidents deleted, the 'specified injuries' list was shortened, the 47 types of industrial disease was reduced to just eight categories of reportable work-related illness, and fewer types of 'dangerous occurrence' are now required to be reported.

The TUC has warned that conflicting evidence in the Health and Safety Executive’s new workplace injury statistics raise worrying questions about the safety watchdog’s claim that injuries are now at “an all time low.” The figures for 2012/13 published by HSE show an 11 per cent drop in major injuries compared to 2011/12. According to HSE figures, between April 2012 and March 2013 there were 19,707 reported major injuries such as amputations, fractures and burns to employees, a rate of 78.5 injuries per 100,000 employees  – compared with 22,094 in 2011/12 (a rate of 88.5 per 100,000 employees). The fatality figure of 148 deaths was the second lowest figure on record. The lost time accident figures however, cast doubt on HSE’s best ever claims because
the statistics show that the number of days lost through workplace injury has in fact significantly increased by a million from 4.3 million to 5.2 million, which implies that the number of people injured is actually going up. So what are the correct figures?

The government/HSE changes to the RIDDOR reporting regulations, combined with continual and increasing 'under-reporting' by employers, due to a total lack of enforcement, HSE budget cuts, HSE withdrawal of proactive intervention in most industry sectors plus the impact of FFI (Fee For Intervention) means that it is almost impossible for anyone to use the HSE statistics to measure accurately what is happening to workplace injuries. It would also be good to know how much under-reporting has changed as a result of the introduction of Fee for Intervention (FFI) which, coupled with the government's ban on pro-active HSE inspections in many workplaces, may mean that employers are far less likely to report an injury. It's now beginning to become clear that government’s policies over the past three years has driven up the number of injuries whilst at the same time ensured that they are not properly reported and recorded, in order to claim things are improving when they are not.

The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) were first introduced in 1985 to replace various legislation covering specific workplaces and activities. The regulations were reviewed by HSE ten years later, which led to revised RIDDOR 1995 regulations which came into force on 1 April 1996. RIDDOR 1995 consolidated and simplified the reporting arrangements, updated some of the requirements for reporting of occupational diseases and dangerous occurrences, and removed barriers to paperless reporting. The review also confirmed at that time that there was a high level of under-reporting and non-compliance with the regulations by employers - but little was done to remedy the situation and the opportunity was lost. This was despite very strong representations by the Trade Unions including the CWU and the TUC who both called for a radical toughening up of enforcement and called for the introduction of 'Fixed-Penalties' for HSE Inspectors to use, in order to improve RIDDOR compliance, without the complications and resources required for a huge number of Court prosecutions, which could be reserved for the more serious cases. However the suggestion was ignored and rejected by the HSE(HSC) and government Minister - the rest is history!  

In 2002, the Labour Force Survey concluded that there was wide-spread under-reporting of accidents under RIDDOR by employers and estimated only 44% compliance.

In 2005, the HSE conducted another fundamental review of RIDDOR, undertaking a public consultation involving the publication. The responses to the consultation again, as it did in 1995, indicated overall agreement that RIDDOR 1995 had serious flaws, and that change was needed to address these, especially the simplification of the requirements. The review highlighted a number of key issues, including widespread under-reporting. It concluded that "Compliance with the current RIDDOR requirements is known to be low." The report confirmed the fact that many smaller employers held the belief that submitting RIDDOR reports led to an increased enforcement response from local authority Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) and HSE Inspectors, which those companies that simply did not report accidents avoided ! The Trade Unions on the other hand once again called for much firmer enforcements, a clamp down on those breaching the regulations by non-reporting and the need for enforcers to use reports and data to drive investigation and HSAW Act enforcement. Disappointingly, HSE(HSC) considered the findings in July 2006 and concluded that it had no appetite for radical change at that time despite RIDDOR's flaws and all that was done was that HSE simplified the reporting process and its communications.

In 2007 an investigation of the reporting of workplace accidents under RIDDOR was undertaken by the University of Liverpool for the HSE. The report confirmed once again the huge level of non-compliance with the regulations. The report concluded that employers reported only 32% of reportable accidents. Self employed workers were poorest at reporting accidents, with a reporting rate of only 12%. The report was funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). However no action was taken.

In May 2010, the Coalition Government came to power, following the General Election and the Tory Party's anti-health and safety policy swung into action with the initiation of a programme of major reviews. Lord Young's report into Health and Safety in the UK, “Common Sense, Common Safety” recommended that the RIDDOR requirement for reporting over-three day injuries to people at work be increased to over-seven days and this change came into force on 6 April 2012. In November 2011, Professor Ragnar Löfstedt was commissioned by the Coalition government to undertake a full scale review of Safety Legislation in the UK. In his report “Reclaiming Health and Safety for All" which identified issues associated with the RIDDOR regulations and concluded that they were unnecessarily complicated. He recommended that RIDDOR and its associated guidance be amended and simplified further by removing certain employers reporting duties and providing clearer guidance on what must be reported and what does not have to be reported and by what deadline.

What this all means is that it is almost impossible to prove what we all suspect which is that the Government’s policies over the past three years have driven up the number of injuries (occupational diseases take a bit longer before they show). The reductions in workplace Inspections by the HSE and Local Authority EHOs, coupled with the deregulation measures and removal of guidance are bound to have an effect on what employers do. However because the Government have also changed the way that injuries are reported we will never be able to show exactly what the effect is. Clearly, when a Labour Government is returned to power, HSE (if it still exists) needs to be ordered to re-examine RIDDOR’s operation to determine what needs to be done to provide an accurate national picture of workplace accidents and the best ways to ensure compliance plus effective enforcement.

Yours Sincerely

Dave Joyce
National Health, Safety & Environment Officer