Defend Health and Safety Campaign - Bulletin 2

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Letter to Branches




No. 163 / 2012
Ref N4
Date: 9 March 2012

To: All Branches

Dear Colleagues,


Defend Health and Safety Campaign Day of Action & Workers Memorial Day - 28 April 2012 - Bulletin 2
The need for enforcement
What the government is proposing
The Tory led Coalition government has said that it wants to drastically cut the number of health and safety inspections that are done by the HSE and local authority inspectors.

In March 2011 it published 'Good Health and Safety, Good for Everyone'. This said that the HSE and local authorities should cut the number of pro-active inspections by a third. Pro-active inspections are those where the inspector visits to check on the workplace as part of a general programme of visits rather than to investigate after a reported injury. Before then the HSE aimed to split its inspection activity so that 60 per cent of its visits were pro-active and 40 per cent were re-active.

Under the new government directive the HSE will no longer be able to inspect a wide range of employers premises pro-actively. The list of so-called 'Low-Risk' Industries include Royal Mail Group and British Telecom Group. This means that the HSE will only be able to visit after a reported injury or a complaint. Clearly this will mean that some employers will be far less likely to report any injuries in case they are inspected.

The reason that the government has given for this is that the industries are 'low-risk' or inspections are ineffective. The areas that the government thinks are 'low risk' include not only shops, schools and offices, but textiles, clothing, footwear, light engineering, electrical engineering, the transport sector (e.g. air, road haulage and docks), local authority administered education provision, electricity generation and the postal industry and courier services.
They have also said that pro-active inspections are ineffective in agriculture, quarries, and health and social care so should not be done there either.
The myth of low risk
By claiming that these sectors are low risk the government is only looking at injury figures rather than the whole picture. Many of these areas have very high levels of sickness caused by work. For instance Postal Workers are far more likely to suffer Manual Handling injuries because of the loads they have to carry and there's a high number of Slips, Trips and Falls in the industry. Supermarkets also have high levels of back pain amongst checkout staff, and injuries from slips. In addition, shop-workers face high levels of violence. Work-related stress is on the increase with workers in many sectors suffering high levels of stress, including many public sector workers including many who work in education, health and social care.
Are businesses over-inspected?
It is estimated that the actual number of inspectors in the HSE division that deals with all sectors (except specialist sectors such as nuclear, off-shore and chemicals) is around 650 to cover a total of 895,000 premises. There are another 1,010 (full time equivalent) inspectors working for local authorities covering 1,675,000 premises.

Depending on how you define an inspection the number of times the average business covered by the HSE will see an inspector ranges from once every 14 years to once every 38 years. Compare that to the position of premises that handle food, which are visited at least once a year. However, the number of deaths caused by food hygiene failings is far lower than the number of deaths caused by hazards in the workplace.

The International Labour Organisation says that it is a matter of concern if the number of inspectors in an industrialised country is less than 1 per 10,000 workers. In Britain it is one for every 15,615.
Prosecutions also falling
It is not only inspections that are falling. So are prosecutions. The number of prosecutions has fallen from 1,986 in 2001/2 to 912 in 2010/11 - a fall of
over 50 per cent. There has been a similar fall in local authority enforcement. The number of improvement notices and prohibition notices has also fallen
dramatically. The few prosecutions that are taken are usually a result of an investigation after an injury is reported and the HSE rarely prosecutes for offences that can lead to disease.

Prosecutions are a necessary part of ensuring that the culture within workplaces is changed and also, on occasion, that the injured person or their family get a sense of justice. Unfortunately, even when a prosecution is successful, it does not necessarily lead to justice. The average fine for a health and safety offence is similar to that for 'fly-tipping'. Last year the average fine was £24,005 for each offence in cases taken by the HSE and £8,154 in local authority cases.
Inspections and enforcement work - the evidence
Good employers have always supported both regulation and enforcement because it means that their competitors cannot take short-cuts with people's safety and undercut them. It is only unscrupulous or incompetent employers who fear consistent and fair regulation of health and safety.

Although evidence on the relationship between regulation and rates of injury and disease can be difficult to analyse the HSE did conduct some research in 2001 which showed that 'The evidence in this review suggests that the key to improving occupational health and safety is to ensure maximum compliance with health and safety legislation in terms of implementation of effective control measures both in theory and in practice. The evidence further shows that compliance with the law is generally a bigger motivator for employers than achieving business benefits.'



This is borne out in other studies. In the USA a study by the federal enforcement agency OHSA showed that inspections that imposed penalties produced a 22 per cent decline in injuries during the following weeks. A follow up found a 22.5 per cent fall in accident rates for employers who had received enforcement action against 7 per cent for those who had simply had advice and information.

Within the UK, researchers at Imperial College have developed a mathematical model to ascertain the effects of the levels set in regulation, and their enforcement on lung cancer numbers. In the case of silica, halving the maximum exposure rate would reduce the number of cancers by 202; however, the researchers also showed that regulation alone is only of limited value. Were the limit to be reduced and enforcement increased so that 90 per cent of workplaces complied, the number of cancers prevented would be a staggering 745 over the next 20 years.

There is also a clear link between inspection and enforcement activity and preventing injury and ill health. If employers know that there is very little chance of them being inspected by the HSE or a Local Authority EHO, they will be far less likely to comply with the regulations on health and safety.

The present Tory led Coalition government's approach sees inspections as being a negative thing. This is not the view of the TUC, or necessarily of employers. Nearly 90 per cent of all employers who have had contact with the HSE have seen it as a helpful organisation.

A recent TUC survey of safety representatives provides further evidence of this. The results suggest that the 61 per cent of employers have made an attempt to make improvements to health and safety ('a little', 'somewhat' or 'a lot') because of the possibility of an inspection.
What it will mean
If there are less inspections and less enforcement activity it will simply mean more deaths, injuries and illness. The biggest increases will be seen in those sectors where the HSE is withdrawing from pro-active inspections.

The HSE has itself accepted that decreasing resources will mean less enforcement activity and will lead to more deaths, injuries and illnesses. In their recent consultation on charging they stated 'the expected 'lower level of enforcement' would mean a consequent decrease in health and safety standards throughout Great Britain, with ensuing costs to society.'
What you can do!
The CWU Health, Safety & Environment Department is supporting the TUC organised a Day of Action to 'defend health and safety'. This will be held on Saturday the 28 April 2012 which is International Workers Memorial Day when we traditionally remember the dead and fight for the living. Never has that message been more important than now. Let's ensure that we make it clear that we want clear commitments and action from those who should be protecting us.

Following a unanimously supported TUC Congress Motion to campaign to defend H&S the TUC General Council decided that this year's Workers Memorial Day would double as a TUC 'Defend H&S Day Of Action'.

The CWU Health, Safety & Environment Department is supporting the TUC organised a Day of Action to 'defend health and safety'. We have organised a special CWU Conference 'Defend H&S Campaign' Fringe meeting on Monday 23 April with TUC Head of H&S Hugh Robertson as guest speaker and all Conference delegates and visitors are welcome.

With the support and assistance of CWU E&T Dept we are organising a WMD/Defend H&S event at Alvescot Lodge/CWU Memorial Garden to be held on Saturday the 28 April 2012 which is International Workers Memorial Day when we traditionally remember the dead and fight for the living. Never has that message been more important than now. Details will be announced shortly - All Branches and Members are welcome.

WMD Events are being organised across the Country and the Health, Safety & Environment Department will be publicising information received on these
events as information about them is received. Please join in any events in your area on that day and demonstrate that we will not give up our right to a safe workplace.


Yours sincerely


Dave Joyce
National Health, Safety & Environment Officer

                                                Workers Memorial Day 28th April 2012 - Remember the dead - but fight for the living