Making Companies Safe - what works? (CCA ... - Unite the Union

perceived low level of current fines, is reducing the deterrent of prosecutions.
Most interviewees consider increased prosecution of directors, under corporate
manslaughter, would lead to improvements in health and safety.” 51
Uneven Enforcement
There is also evidence to suggest that a failure to enforce certain regulations, or even
specific provisions within certain regulations, can lead to widespread non-compliance. For
instance, studies of the construction industry suggest that the majority of clients lack
commitment to occupational health and safety, and fail to comply with their legal obligations
under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 (CDM). 52 Concern has
also been expressed that designers commonly fail to comply with their duties under the CDM
Regulations. 53 Interview and incident data suggest that this lack of commitment from clients
and designers is a major cause of the industry’s poor OHS record. 54 For instance, three
quarters of the respondents to the HSE’s 2002 discussion document ‘Revitalising Health and
Safety in Construction’, saw client’s lack of commitment to health and safety and negative
influence at the tender stage as the main challenge to improved health and safety standards. 55
An analysis of prosecution data from the HSE’s enforcement database confirms the
widespread perception that prosecutions of clients and designers under the CDM Regulations
are relatively infrequent. 56 Between 1 April 1999 and 31 August 2004 the HSE prosecuted
1195 breaches of health and safety regulations where the defendents were involved in
construction activity. 147 of these involved breaches of the CDM Regulations. Of these, there
were 78 breaches where the duty holder prosecuted was a client and only 9 where the duty
holder was a designer.
Recent survey data from the UK suggests that the lack of commitment exhibited by clients is
caused, amongst other things, by the low level of prosecutions against clients for breach of
their duties under the CDM Regulations, combined with insubstantial fines. 57 In addition, a
National Audit Office (NAO) review of an HSE initiative to influence designers found that some
designers themselves believed that only the issue of improvement and prohibition notices
would generate improvements. 58 Consequently one of the recommendations made by the
NAO is that HSE could increase the impact of initiatives by “increasing enforcement action
with designers”. 59 As stated earlier, the low levels of prosecution under the CDM Regulations
are surprising in view of the fact that earlier HSE-commissioned research had recommended
that: the duties of clients should be made more explicit, that these duties should be strictly
enforced, and that penalties for non-compliance should be substantial. 60
1 Health and Safety Commission (2004a: 11).
2 Health and Safety Executive (2003a).and meeting held by CCA with Head of HSE’s Construction Division.
3 Health and Safety Commission (2004a: 8).
4 Health and Safety Executive (2003a).
5 Health and Safety Executive (2003a).
6 See HSC’s ‘Enforcement Policy Statement” 2000, and Enforcement Management Model.
7 Health and Safety Executive (2003a).
8 Cosman (1999), discussed in Hillage et al. (2001: 30).
9 (Hussain and Willday, 2000).
10 Rakel et al. (1999).
11 Wright et al. (2004: vi), and see also Health and Safety Commission (2003a: Annex 3).
12 Wright (1998).
13 Wright (1998: 32).
14 Health and Safety Commission (2003a: 3).
15 Wright et al. (2004: 73).
16 Thomson-MTS (1993a: 87).
17 Gunningham (1999a: 15). See also McQuiston et al. (1998).
18 Lewis-Beck and Alford (1980). Discussed in Gunningham and Johnstone (1999: 233, endnote 38).
19 Perry (1982: 303).
20 Gray and Scholz (1993).
21 Baggs et al. (2003).
22 Hopkins (1995); Gray (1996); Shapiro and Rabinowtiz (1997): 722. 47