Almost half of workplaces in the UK have never been visited by a health and safety inspector, despite evidence that inspection and enforcement activity is the most effective way to ensure that employers comply with health and safety laws.
This is according to the TUC, whose biennial survey of safety reps revealed that nearly one in 10 of those questioned said the last inspection at their workplace was more than three years ago, while a further 15 per cent indicated it was between one and three years ago. Only around a quarter (27 per cent) said their workplace has received a visit within the last 12 months.
In small companies employing fewer than 50 people, only 16 per cent have had an inspection in the last year. Even among large workplaces, with more than 1000 workers, only a third have been inspected within the last 12 months.
The statistics for 2009/10 released last week by the HSE revealed that a total of 9734 enforcement notices was served – an increase of 20 per cent on the previous year – while the number of prosecutions dropped by 6 per cent to 1026.
Despite a pledge in its most recent strategy (Be part of the solution, launched in 2009) that enforcement would “remain at the heart of our approach” the HSE’s failure to inspect more workplaces was described as a “scandal” by TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber.
The HSE responded by saying it measure progress according to the reduction in the numbers of people killed and injured at work, rather than via enforcement figures. A spokesperson told SHP: “We do not set targets for enforcement, or number of inspections.”
Mr Barber predicted that the situation will only get worse, given the recent announcement of a reduction in the HSE’s budget. He added: “Deep cuts in spending will make it easier for employers to avoid their obligations under the law to protect their staff at work. The Health and Safety Executive has just seen its government funding cut by 35 per cent and that – combined with a 28-per-cent cut in local government funding – will have a very damaging impact on safety in UK workplaces.”
The HSE said that “saying the situation will get worse implies we think it is in a bad way now – and we don’t.”
The TUC is adamant, however, that the law, the threat of enforcement, and actual prosecution remain the key motivators for employers to take action to make improvements in health and safety.
According to the safety reps survey, the proportion of employers who make some improvements because of the possibility of an inspection was 61 per cent – up from 52 per cent in the previous survey – while two thirds of employers do more than the minimum to comply with a legal enforcement notice.
While the HSE acknowledged that the possibility of inspection and the threat of legal action play an important part in improving safety performance, it emphasized that “in the majority of workplaces, it is leadership and workforce involvement that create the right safety culture, not fear of the law, or the regulator.”
The spokesperson concluded: “The investment we make in advice, support and information for employers and workers about how to manage workplace risks in a pragmatic, common sense and proportionate way is valued by those in the workplace and it has played an important part in helping make Britain one of the safest places to work in the world.
“Our inspection and enforcement activity focuses on protecting workers and members of the public from unnecessary exposure to danger and real health risks. In the most serious cases – several hundred a year – we will take companies to court for their criminal failings.”
Perhaps if the Safety Reps did a more thorough job, through their commitees, to identify potential and actual hazards to the employers and ensuring they were acted upon there would be fewer accidents. Waiting for an inspector to call is a bit like stable doors and bolted horses.
Fully agree that proactive employers work with TU safety reps to everyone’s benefit (and may even welcome an inspection).
Non-unionised employers sometimes don’t perceive the benefits of cooperation and are where inspections could be targeted. The two issues can be mutual
At the present time I am sure that there are many health and safety reps who though they are “entitled” to carry out safety inspections are involved with keeping both their job and a place of work for others. It must never be forgotten that they are “volunteers” paid for by the employer and are not an alternative to the HSE. I consider that more improvements are made following reports from members to the rep rather than the repeat inspections . The threat of HSE action is still the best reason.
Have I missed something here? Union Safety reps saying there hasn’t been an inspection. Under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations they themselves are entitled to carry out inspections so presumably do and are probably best placed to do so. They also have the best access to “encourage” action by employers so come on union reps, do what you are supposed to. The bigger risk is non-unionised premises where Safety Committees do not have the right of inspection.
Cutting back on this budget will not be a good thing it may well help on budget reduction for the goverment but at what cost to the workers of this country.
Roger,
That is a very general term that has no evidence to back it up, and so is invalid.
Government and TUC statistics show where there are Union Safety Rep’s (USR) ,accidents are lower then the average within business and industry, thus proving USR’s are effective. The problems is generally with small and none unionised companies, and it is here that Health Inspectors are required.
The HSE do not know how many people die from occupational dieseases in Great Britain each year – neither does anyone else. The 3 day injuries are under reported by at least 40% overall; major injuries are known to be significantly under reported. On the criteria for fatal accidents GB is one of the safest countries. However I thought the HSE was supposed to cover health and safety. A reduction in inspections lets more criminals escape as they expose those they employ to hazardous conditions.
It seems obvious to me that the Unions are now able to do less and less things of real advantage for their members, so they have embarked on a negative policy of attacking everybody else who is in a position to genuinely influence matters and by doing so Unions are showing themselves up recently to be automatic serial moaners
Inspections by safety reps can never substitute proper inspections by the regulators. I agree with Brendan Barber, the threat of Enforcement Notices and prosecution is the main driver in ensuring duty holders comply with the law. If anyone, including the HSE, think any different…they need to wake up and smell the coffee.
This situation is only going to get worse now the tories have cut the HSE’s budget.
The HSE used to adopt a ranking system that helps determine how often a comapny/premises are inspected to get the best value of their resources. They may still adopt a similar system that may explain things. The system took account of issues such as the nature of hazards involved in a company’s undertaking and how well a company manage H&S. The result is that the those with highest risk and poorly managed get more frequent visits than those with lowest risk and well managed.