Government slammed by Committee chair

and unions over ‘complacent’ safety stance

Pathetic, defensive and complacent are the words the chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee has used to describe the Government’s response to its report into the role of the HSC/E in regulating health and safety (see SHP May, News), which argued for the HSE to increase site inspections.

Terry Rooney MP said Committee members were shocked by the lax response, published on 2 July, which rejects practically all the proposals the Committee put forward. He said: “It is pathetic. They have conceded nothing at all. The Government is being extremely defensive and complacent.” He told SHP that the Committee could demand a parliamentary debate on the response, but as the earliest opportunity would be December, it would probably not pursue this action.

Chief among the Committee’s concerns is the snub to its call for more inspections. The Government argued: “Changes in employer motivation cannot solely be achieved through increased inspections. The prime factor which governs whether there are fatalities, injuries, or ill health at work is the motivation of the employer.”

The Committee’s suggestion that a lack of resources in the HSE’s construction inspectorate contributed to the recent 28 per cent rise in fatalities in the sector was also rejected. Instead, the Government said that “2006/07 represented a peak in recent experience, and is not representative of the general longer-term downward trend of both fatal injury numbers and rates”.

On the broader need for more front-line inspectors, the Government denied that the MPs had made a compelling case. It argued: “The Government’s commitment to maintaining front-line capacity has allowed over 40 new trainee inspectors to take up posts in the HSE since March of this year.”

Like Rooney, unions were similarly incensed. Representing HSE staff, Prospect negotiator Mike Macdonald said: “For the Government to refuse point blank to investigate increasing funding for proactive investigation, a policy we know works, is at best complacent . . . Safety in the workplace is so vital that it deserves a well-reasoned response from government, rather than just filing in the ‘too-difficult-to-do box’.”

UCATT general secretary, Alan Ritchie, echoed Macdonald’s views: “Self-regulation does not work in dangerous, casualised industries such as construction. By talking about the importance of giving ‘advice and guidance’, ministers and HSE chiefs give the impression that they think it is more important to stuff education material into envelopes than inspect sites.”

The Government also rebuffed the claim that the HSE was becoming embroiled in activities that were were not strictly workplace-related. It said: “HSE will always have to carefully assess and select priorities, but it is also appropriate to continue to consider possible synergies, which may result from bringing regulatory bodies together.”

On a rare positive note, the Government conceded the need for industry regulation through accreditation, although it argued it was for the “professional bodies themselves to come together to address the issue”.

IOSH president Ray Hurst said: “After years of campaigning, it seems we’re finally getting the Government to understand that people and businesses need the best safety advice. You wouldn’t put your medical needs in the hands of an unqualified doctor, so why put lives at risk because of incompetent health and safety advice, or risk unnecessary bans on perfectly reasonable activities.”