Hugh Robertson - The Institute of Employment Rights
Download
Report
Transcript Hugh Robertson - The Institute of Employment Rights
www.tuc.org.uk
Beyond
Löfstedt
Hugh Robertson
TUC
www.tuc.org.uk
TUC view on Lofstedt
• Must separate the Government hype over the
report from the actual report.
• Most of it was positive, sensible and evidence
based.
• Reinforced the union view that health and
safety is not a burden.
• Mainly what HSE already doing.
• We do not oppose simplification. We do
oppose anything that reduces protection.
• Some disagreements over some detail,
especially over self employed
• Real issue is the remit
www.tuc.org.uk
Lofstedt - Remit
“The review will consider the opportunities for
reducing the burden of health and safety
legislation on UK businesses whilst maintaining
the progress made in improving health and safety
outcomes.”
• Like the Young report, it was limited to looking at
the “burden” of regulation
• Like Young, it found that the current framework
was fit for purpose and there was no evidence of
excessive regulation, or of a compensation
culture.
www.tuc.org.uk
Government view
Despite that the Government still thinks
that:
• There is excessive regulation
• There is excessive enforcement
• Business is over-compliant – often due to
consultants
• There is a compensation culture that makes
companies risk-averse.
www.tuc.org.uk
Are we over regulated?
Complex, unnecessary or impractical
regulations are, at best useless.
However
• HSE simplification exercise – with support
from unions and employers
• 46% fewer regulations now that there were
35 years ago.
• 57% reduction in number of forms used
• Average business spends 20 hours and just
over £350 a year on risk assessment (BIS)
www.tuc.org.uk
Levels of enforcement
• HSE prosecutions have fallen from 1,986 in
2001/02 to 1,026 in 2009/10
• Average fine for H&S cases - £14,614 for HSE
cases and £5,607 for LA cases
• FOD made 23,000 inspections in 2008/09 - for
884,000 premises – this is likely to fall further.
www.tuc.org.uk
Inspection policy
Published “Good Health and Safety,
Good for Everyone” in March 2011
Inspections to be reduced further by
the cuts.
No proactive inspections of “low risk
premises” – this will reduce proactive
inspections by a third.
“Low risk” is a myth based on a
believe that only safety counts.
www.tuc.org.uk
Importance of inspections
Possibility of a visit is an important factor in
ensuring compliance.
If a visit can only happen after an injury it will be
counter-productive. Most employers do not think it
will happen to them.
Will also lead to under-reporting
TUC research shows that 61% of employers make
improvements because of the possibility of a visit.
Visits are not necessarily seen as negative by
employers. Over 90% found HSE a “helpful”
organisation
When an enforcement notice is served 70% go
beyond just the minimum required for compliance.
www.tuc.org.uk
Over-compliance?
Over half of businesses have not done a basic
risk assessment
Reliance on consultants will increase as
inspection numbers go down and access to
information folds.
However is it a major issue?
Should we be promoting simply compliance
or best practice and continual improvement?
www.tuc.org.uk
Compensation culture
Personal Injury claims by workers have fallen
by 64% in 10 years.
Only one in ten workers entitled to claim
does so.
Government making it harder (Legal aid bill)
Yet compensation claims are an important
driver for safety – force insurers to act and
bring issues to notice of employers.
www.tuc.org.uk
What this means in practice
HSE 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.”
Biggest effect will be in occupational health
www.tuc.org.uk
Occupational health
171 workers killed at work last year
8,000 died from cancer and 4,000 from COPD
70% of work related sickness absence due to
MSDs and stress
Occupational health is by far the biggest
issue
Yet – not mentioned once in Young review,
“Good Health and Safety, Good for Everyone”
or the government response to Lofstedt.
www.tuc.org.uk
Why emphasis on safety?
Many occupational diseases only manifest
after 10-40 years
Injuries and immediate fatalities higher
profile
Policy determined by public perception
Politicians are mainly concerned about what
happens “on their watch”
At times of economic pressure, priority is
things that go bang and immediate fatalities.
Will have huge consequences for the future of
health and safety.
www.tuc.org.uk
Role of unions?
Less inspectors and inspections
H&S reps cannot replace inspectors but can
be “eyes and ears”
However Reductions in safety representatives ability
to enforce rights to training and protect from
victimisation.
Assault on “facility time”
Other priorities in public sector (pensions and
cuts)
Less support from HSE.
www.tuc.org.uk
Summary
Regulation must be simple, relevant
and effective to work
Must be enforced.
Should aim at best practice
Business needs good support and
guidance
Resources should be targeted at what
will have most effect
Role of H&S reps needs enhanced
Health and safety too important to be
left to politicians.