Falling foul?

The Health and Safety Executive is under the spotlight. On 12 May the National Audit Office (NAO) is due to report on whether the HSE is improving construction's health and safety record. And a select committee on work and pensions is carrying out an inquiry into the work of the Health and Safety Commission and the HSE, with its last interviews due mid-May.

They are trying to find out whether the £219m of taxpayers money which will go to the HSE this year is money well spent. The cold hard facts would appear to say not.

Fatality figures released last month, for the year to the end of March, paint a bleak picture. 72 dead. It's four less than last year, but if you look at the average since 1995, deaths have been oscillating around an average of 84. The picture for reportable accidents is similar, fluctuating between 4,000 and 4,500.

Kevin Myers, HSE's chief inspector of construction, thinks that the assessment that there has been no impact on deaths and accidents is unfair. He points out that fatalities have been falling since the peak of 113 in 2000/01 and that this years' and last years' numbers are the second and third lowest to date.

It may be very one-dimensional to judge HSE on these figures alone, but these are the ones it records and publishes. The Construction Confederation, in its submission to the select committee, says that more detailed analysis of accidents would help.

The HSE's main role, according to the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act, is to enforce the law. That means inspecting sites and prosecuting breaches to the law. There are 140 inspectors in construction, which chief inspector of construction Kevin Myers is trying to get to 150. How can that many people police 500,000 building sites and two million workers?

More numbers needed
CIOB president Colin Busby has called for more inspectors. Construction Confederation health and safety director Andy Sneddon, himself an ex-inspector, says that more front-line inspectors are key. In the confederation's submission to the select committee, it suggests that an extra 50 would allow the HSE to target small builders.

"Much of the inspections happen on larger sites because it's a numbers game, despite the fact that the conditions on larger sites are generally better," says Sneddon. Failing to inspect the small guys means that they continue to cut corners on safety and undercut their honest competitors: "It draws the hard-pressed but straight small builder into the same game."

In response, Myers points out the need to concentrate resource where risk is higher, which often is on big jobs. Contractors at the professional end of the scale should not point to poor performance at the other end as a reason why they shouldn't improve. The one-man-on-the-roof will be the hardest nut to crack, argues Myers. Change in working has to come from the professional sites and move down.

As for prosecutions, HSE is disappointed with the fines handed out by the courts. The average fine fell 21% in 2002/03 to just £8,828.

The Construction Confederation criticises HSE's chasing of company directors for corporate manslaughter, claiming the cases have been driven by public opinion following on from the rail crashes. It says it is a waste of resource since these charges are almost impossible to prove and that it discourages directors from taking on responsibility for safety.

A Change of tack
In some ways, HSE has already admitted its traditional approach is not effective. It has been altering the way it works since 2001's Safety Summit (see 'Mr Nice Guy', CM, June 2003).

Further changes are on the horizon. The Health and Safety Commission, in its 'A strategy for workplace health and safety in Great Britain to 2010 and beyond', published in February 2004, flagged up the complexity of the existing safety system. It said that its limited resources, currently spread too thinly, need to be focussed where they are needed most. The document re-emphasised a more cooperative attitude to promoting health and safety issues, including better use of local authority employees to carry out some of HSE's work.

More Admin staff? If that’s a cover for untrained inspectors, we don’t want It

Andy Sneddon, Construction Confederation

New approaches from the construction section of HSE have included meetings with government departments and agencies to try and strengthen their position on health and safety as a client, visits to hundreds of designers to raise awareness on their obligations under CDM and a partnership approach with contractors.

Peter Jacobs, director responsible for health and safety at Bovis Lend Lease, who has given evidence to the inquiries, says that a switch in emphasis from policing to early intervention has kicked in over the last 12 months. This means that inspectors come and talk to the site team early to try and identify potential risks. "That's so much better than the old way of trying to catch you out during blitzes," says Jacobs.

HSE is also reaching out to small players, by organising information events, sometimes through local authorities, sometimes through organisations such as the Federation of Master Builders. These come under the 'Working Well Together' banner which also encourages major players, such as Bovis, to share information with the other end of the market.

But isn't it just the 'straight' traders who attend? Myers says that some do come under duress, for example if a local authority insists their suppliers attend. And post-event surveys, which ask people if they have learned anything and if they intend to change, demonstrate these days are having an effect, he says.

Myers has attempted to free up more time for his inspectors by using administrative staff for some parts of the job which include liaising with local authorities, planning, giving medical advice, collecting statistics and talking to the public. For example, office staff may now contact sites after complaints and gain assurances from contractors that problems will be sorted. Inspectors, rather than going out to the site, will only get involved if the contractor doesn't cooperate or the problem persists.

Sneddon cautions that using administrative staff could be problematic because they lack the skills, training, and legal authority of inspectors. He is worried it might be the thin edge of the wedge "If that's a cover for less inspectors and less well trained inspectors we don't want it."

Robert Hardy, an official with union Prospect (who, as CM went to press, was entering negotiations with HSE to try and get a pay-rise in line with inflation for inspectors), welcomes the use of other HSE staff to deliver information. But this should be in addition to visits by inspectors, not instead of visits, he says.

What's it worth?
It seems unlikely that HSE will come under fire from either of the inquiries for its work in the construction sector. The select committee has a wide-ranging brief and may well be focusing more on HSE's activities in the rail sector since this was a key trigger for the inquiry.

The NAO is looking at HSE's strategies and programmes: are they appropriate, are they having an impact on the control and management of safety risks, are they tackling barriers to improvement. It will be focusing on 'key stakeholders' such as government as client and CDM duty holders, all boxes which HSE has been ticking in the past couple of years.

It certainly seems unlikely that the reports will lead to more money for HSE, which organisations such as the Construction Confederation and the unions are pushing for. The government has frozen HSE's budget at £219m for 2003/04 and 2003/05 and in 2005/06 it will get £2m less.

This focus on funding is missing the point, says Myers. The call for more inspectors and heavy-handed enforcement is an attempt by the industry to avoid taking responsibility for the health and safety of their workers, as the law says. "The issue is not how much resource HSE has got," says Myers. "The issue is what are the people who are creating and managing the risk doing to manage those risks."