Health and Safety at Work

My Lords, this has been a good debate and I thank my noble friend Lord Harrison for enabling us to debate some important issues. I also thank all noble Lords who took part. I am disappointed not to hear the story of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I am even more disappointed not to hear him sing. No doubt we will have that pleasure in future. This is a serious matter. The most recent annual figures show that 220 workers were killed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, that many, if not all, of those deaths were avoidable. That is a striking statistic, as is the statistic that 150,000 other injuries occurred to employees during that year. Although the focus of today’s debate has been on deaths and accidents, I want to take this opportunity to talk about wider workplace health issues. Surveys show that about 2 million people suffer from an illness that they believe to be caused or made worse by work and that more than a quarter of the new cases occurred in the latest 12-month period. Of course, we can all be proud of what has been achieved in the past 30 years. My noble friend Lady Whitaker referred to the start of legislation in this area in the Victorian age. We are all proud of what has been achieved since 1974. There have been significant advances. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott—it is a question that I have asked—I do not think that they can be dismissed as simply the product of structural change. I am convinced that they are real advances. My noble friend Lord Brookman gave graphic details of the conditions in the steel industry 30, 40 and 50 years ago. What a huge difference we have seen in those years. We should be proud of the commissioners and the officers of the Health and Safety Executive. Having worked with them for about eight months, I think that they are a truly magnificent British achievement. We should acknowledge that. We cannot be complacent. The figures that I quoted are stark. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, Buncefield was a vivid reminder of the need to be alert at all times. He will know that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, is the independent chair of the board that is considering these matters. We await its report with interest, not only in relation to what happened at Buncefield, but also in relation to any lessons that need to be learnt about the regulation of highly hazardous areas, of which we have many in this crowded country. It is important that we learn the lessons of Buncefield. The current approach and targets of the Health and Safety Commission are reflected in the Revitalising Health and Safety Strategy Statement. The targets run for a 10-year period from 2000. They are to reduce the incidence of fatal and major injuries by 10 per cent; to reduce the incidence of work-related ill health by 20 per cent; and to reduce the number of working days lost from injury and ill health per 100,000 workers by 30 per cent. These are challenging targets; there is no question about it. How far have we achieved them? The realistic answer, according to the analysis by our statisticians, is a mixed bag. On fatal and major injuries, there is no evidence of change and therefore the halfway target has not been met. We think that the ill health target has probably been met and the days lost target has possibly been met. I am very careful to use those words because we cannot give a precise explanation or analysis yet. The injury figures look stubbornly flat, although the ill health figures offer great promise. That means that to achieve the 2010 targets, we—the commission, the executive and all those involved, both employees and employers—will have to work very hard indeed to make sure that we deliver on these targets. My noble friend Lady Gibson and the noble Lord, Lord Brett, said that the modern working environment that we are attempting to achieve through these targets is very different from that of 1974. The commercial and industrial structure of this country has changed enormously. There are fewer large firms and more small businesses, and less manufacturing and more service industries. The labour market has also changed: there are more women in the workforce, more part-time working and more self-employment, which has been discussed by a number of noble Lords. There is a greater use of agencies and there are flexible working patterns. In many ways, these changes are to be welcomed. They are a reflection of the dynamic economy that we need to have to prosper in future. But moving away from the traditional structures of industry poses real challenges in the health and safety arena. They are the great challenges that we have to consider and work on over the next five years if we are to meet the targets. Before addressing some of the specific questions I was asked, I shall respond to my noble friend Lord Lea who very astutely pulled together all the policy strands of my department—pensions, welfare reform, and health and safety—in a cohesive round. He very kindly did not mention the Child Support Agency, but perhaps even there we can weed it in. He is right that statistics show that occupational health needs further development. In health and safety, the emphasis has always been on safety. We need to maintain that emphasis and do much more in relation to occupational health. The Green Paper that we published two days ago, which will lead to legislation in due course, reflects that. The number of people on incapacity benefit points to the need for employers to do much more to analyse the health issues facing their employees. We also need to see a development of occupational health services. Only 15 per cent of employers have what could be described as an occupational health service. It is actually worse than that: analysis by the Health and Safety Executive shows that only about 3 per cent of employees have decent occupational health services, where, if an employee is off sick through stress or back injury, when he comes back to work he will be seen immediately, given rehabilitation and enabled to get back to work as quickly as possible. That is the approach that is needed and we have to encourage it. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, that the National Health Service itself needs to learn a considerable amount about how to deal with its staff. Some NHS organisations have done very well. I commend the Leeds Mental Health Trust for its fantastic work in dealing with sickness absence in a holistic way with the support of its staff. We need to encourage more organisations to do likewise. If we are to tackle occupational health issues and meet the targets that embrace the new structure of work, we have to deal with small and medium-sized enterprises. This is the big gap in our health and safety approach at the moment. If we look at the big companies, in the main, they do very well. They recognise that investment in health and safety is not only good for their employees, but is good for the bottom line. But with SMEs, there is a real challenge. That is why my noble friend Lord Lea was so right to mention the Workplace Health Connect scheme that will start very shortly to give free advice to SMEs. We have had an interesting discussion about the issues of inspection and enforcement. There have been two strands in this debate. Some noble Lords have cautioned that if we are so risk-averse that we lead companies down to an ultra-safety-first culture, it could an have a big impact on their productivity and on UK plc.  On the other hand, if we do not have inspections and are not prepared to prosecute, we will not have the right structure and culture in which to tackle serious health and safety problems. Let me say at once to my noble friend Lord Harrison and to the noble Lord, Lord Brett, that a fall in prosecution figures was indicated in the latest Health and Safety Executive reports. The Health and Safety Executive undoubtedly devoted about the same amount of resource to investigation and enforcement activities as in previous years. The drop in prosecutions and notices appears to reflect a reduction in fatalities and reported injuries—which is good news—and better targeting of the HSE’s enforcement efforts. It is tending to focus on more serious incidents where it would also have successful prosecutions. Therefore the number of successful prosecutions arising from investigations is, in fact, increasing. I can also report that the executive has improved working relationships with the police on manslaughter investigations, which account for about 10 per cent of HSE’s investigation and enforcement resource. It is too early to draw any hard and fast conclusions from that, but I have met the commission and the executive to discuss those figures. I am keeping a close eye on them, as is Bill Callaghan, the excellent chair of the Health and Safety Commission. I can assure your Lordships that there is no complacency there. On inspections, one has to be cautious about simply using the number of inspections as an indicator of the success or failure of the Health and Safety Executive. We must focus on outcomes, not outputs, but inspections will remain an important part of a broad range of interventions that the HSE may use. I think the HSE would say that its inspections are targeted at the areas of highest risk, and that that philosophy underpins all that it does. I emphasise that inspection and enforcement remain important activities for the Health and Safety Executive. I have made it clear; I expect it to be tough on those businesses that wilfully break the law and put people at risk. Where conditions are poor, or there is blatant disregard for the law, inspectors will not hesitate to use their powers to require the necessary improvements. Nor will they hesitate to prosecute where that is required. If someone has been killed, the expectation is that prosecution will follow—unless the evidence does not support it, or it is judged not to be in the public interest. I assure your Lordships that I attach great importance to enforcement; undoubtedly, it remains an important tool in securing compliance. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Harrison that the penalties currently available are too low. There is no question that the average health and safety fine imposed by the courts is too low to reflect serious offences properly. The Government are committed to raising maximum health and safety penalties when there is a legislative opportunity, which I am personally keen to find. I have noted the comments of my noble friend Lady Whitaker and other noble Lords on corporate manslaughter. Noble Lords have referred to the fact that pre-legislative scrutiny has begun on the draft Bill. The Home Affairs and Work and Pensions Select Committees have taken the time to do that excellent work. We are considering the committees’ report and aim to respond shortly. I should also make clear that the Government are keen to see the Bill taken forward quickly and will do that when parliamentary time allows. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, commented on director duties. That matter is currently being considered by the Health and Safety Commission, but it is important not to legislate in a way which, far from taking a proportionate approach, would then lead to defensive action by companies. That is one point of issue about the commission’s current work. I believe that a report will be going from the executive to the commission on that matter in April. On carbon monoxide poisoning, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, I have met a number of the organisations concerned. It was a good meeting and a review will be undertaken of CORGI in which some of those issues can be considered. I have also discussed the need to do more research in that area with both the Health and Safety Executive and CORGI. I hope to get some improved research, because one problem is whether we know how many people have actually been affected by such poisoning. My noble friend Lord Harrison mentioned disturbing incidents of work-related violence. Again, it was the Health and Safety Executive, through the health service advisory committee, which really began tackling the issue of violence at work. It began to get good detail in quantified statistics. The good news there is of a significant drop in reported incidents, from 1.3 million to 655,000 over the past 10 years. Again, we cannot be complacent and must keep up the pressure there. On the railways, I noted that my noble friend Lord Berkeley rightly said that it is transferring from the HSE. I will ensure that his comments are transferred to the Railway Inspectorate. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, asked about regional differences relating to occupational health. It is partially linked to the distribution of different types of industry, but that does not account for all differences. The HSE is investigating that to see what lessons can be learnt. My noble friend Lord Harrison mentioned Scotland. We have just set up an advisory committee there to help collaboration between stakeholders in Scotland—the Scottish Parliament, Ministers, industry and trade unions. It will be looking at the Scottish figures and what can be done about those. On agriculture, the HSE is unaware of the reasons for links to the time of day. It is obviously interested in looking further into that; it may be related to the kind of work which takes place on farms—although, living in Birmingham, I would not claim great expertise in such matters. I would hesitate to debate that with the experts on farming here in your Lordships’ House. Clearly, the substantive issue, as mentioned by my noble friends Lady Whitaker and Lord Christopher, is the fatal accident rate, which is very disappointing. The Health and Safety Executive believes, based on the last annual figures available, that it was the result of unwise risk-taking. That continues to be a problem, but is also compounded by poor weather conditions. Many farmers welcome advice and respond well to it, but there is a real challenge. The HSE runs free half-day sessions for farmers up and down the country, and those work very well. Another issue is the self-employed; contractors bring many self-employed people onto farms. That remains a priority for the executive. With regard to construction, there is good news and bad. The good news is that rates have come down. I have visited some sites and I know that many reputable companies have done very well in improving safety. That is not just for their own employees, but for the many contractors who come onto sites. Yet the cowboys remain, and that area also remains one of great importance for the Health and Safety Executive. I recently met the newly-appointed chief inspector of construction and emphasised to him my support for the measures that the executive will be taking in future. My noble friend Baroness Gibson raised the issue of road transport. I pay tribute to her for her presidency of RoSPA, and to RoSPA for its marvellous work—and for its wisdom in choosing Birmingham for its headquarters. Long may it stay there. I understand the road safety issue. It is not true to say that the Health and Safety Executive is not involved or does not work in this area. We are working with the Department for Transport. We will approach RoSPA to help to develop some transport management standards. My noble friend Lady Gibson mentioned the joint guidance document, Driving at Work: Managing work-related road safety. I can say to my noble friend that we will shortly have the publication of a protocol, with the Association of Chief Police Officers, which will help liaison and co-operation. The RIDDOR review will consider whether to make work-related road traffic accidents reportable, which, if it did, would lead in to the enforcement measure. I have to say that I have an open mind on that. I do not want to give too optimistic a view, but it is being considered. There has been an increase in funding in terms of total expenditure from the forecast out-turn in 2004–05 of £271 million, up to £287 million for 2005–06. It will remain at that level over the three-year period. I recognise the importance of trade union representatives. I understand the issue about roving representatives. There are some issues about whether turning representatives, essentially, into informal enforcement officers is the approach that should be taken. It is clear that where there are good safety representatives, there is often good health and safety. We need to encourage that more. On the risk-averse debate, of course my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and I are at one. I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, could possibly suggest any different. My right honourable friend was referring to the very point that the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, referred to; that is, the problem of ultra risk-averse behaviour. This has not been laid down by the Health and Safety Executive. The HSE is as concerned as anyone about it. Risk-averse behaviour gets in the way of focusing on the most important safety issues. The risk-averse behaviour that we all condemn will have had nothing to do with stopping serious injuries or fatal accidents at work. So the Health and Safety Executive is at one with the noble Baroness in seeking to remove this awful risk-aversion behaviour that one can see among so many public authorities in this country. It is not the health and safety inspectorate that is causing this to happen. We have a problem sometimes with health and safety advisers. I commend IOSH, the professional body for safety practitioners, which is at one with us. I also believe that the education of young people is important. We need to educate managers to make common-sense judgments, not simply to implement over-cautious advice. I thought that my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe made a very interesting and reflective speech. He made some very important points about risk aversion. I am not sure that I am with him on a revision of legislation, but I want to encourage further dialogue between him and the Health and Safety Commission. We have already had one meeting. In conclusion—my time is up—this has been an excellent debate. All noble Lords who have taken part have contributed highly. We are all agreed that we should be very proud of health and safety in this country and that we do not want to be risk averse. But we are also agreed that we cannot be complacent. I am sure that we can go forward with that strength and encouragement. With that, I suggest that we should acknowledge the tremendous work of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive.