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

esearch on the potential effectiveness of law reform in this area - which is curious because
of the importance that HSC has given to the potential impact of directors’ conduct. It accepts,
for example that ensuring that the “boards of large and medium organisations provide the
leadership and direction” in health and safety issues is “essential if we are to achieve our
health and safety targets.” 10
Similarly, in the background to HSC’s new policy on ‘enforcement’, nowhere in HSC/E’s
internal discussion papers, or in the minutes of their Board meetings, has there been reference
to any solid empirical evidence to support the shift towards “new ways of securing
compliance voluntarily”. In fact, the HSE’s Deputy Director General has acknowledged that its
decision to devote even more of HSE’s already over-stretched resources to educational
activities at the expense of enforcement is unsupported by evidence. He stated:
“It simply reflects a belief (and we agree at present our evaluation of the
effectiveness of different approaches and techniques is not sufficiently well
developed to allow it to be more than this) that… altering the balance in this will
help us to climb off the current plateau in safety performance and to tackle the
increases in ill health.” 11
This “faith-based” policy making is of course particularly odd since the HSC/E claim that:
“Our work is underpinned by sound science, technology and evidence, all of which
is open and available.” 12
And that their new strategy to 2010 and beyond:
“has been developed through a process of consultation and the examination of
available evidence on the effectiveness of health and safety interventions.” 13
However, our report shows that had the HSC/E studied this research – and genuinely used it
as a foundation for making decisions on these issues - they would have come to very different
conclusions to those reached in their new strategy.
Understanding the HSC/E
This report is neither about why the HSC/E has come to make the decisions it has, nor why in
doing so, it has apparently ignored the evidence – however, two important factors do, in our
view, help to provide an explanation.
The first is the issue of “resources”. In its recent evidence to the Select Committee on Work
and Pensions, the HSC/E acknowledged that its current financial settlement with the
Government, “represents a significant reduction in spending power”. In November 2002, the
HSE told its staff that “we will not fill any [inspector] vacancies for the time being” and that
“we also have no plans at the moment for further recruitment.” Due to staff retiring and
leaving this is already resulting in a reduction in the number of inspectors. The foreword to its
Strategy statement acknowledges that “this is a strategy about finite resources, hard choices
and priorities.”
Such a financial situation severely restricts the options available to the HSC. It is of course very
difficult for the HSC/E to agree a strategy involving more inspections, investigations,
imposition of enforcement notices or prosecutions – even if that was what the research
suggested – if the Government does not support it with resources.
The second factor – which is perhaps even more important – is the Government’s own
thinking on business regulation which appears to be dominated by a concern with 'relieving
burdens on business’. For instance the Government’s Budget report for 2004 states that the
Government is committed to delivering “targeted deregulatory changes to relieve burdens on
business”. 14
A recent HSC discussion paper on ‘Becoming a Modern Regulator’ acknowledges the
influence of the Government’s agenda on ‘reforming and reducing regulation’ within the
HSE. 15 . The report states: 9