Ignore This Review On The Future Of The HSE At Your Peril!

David Cameron made it clear well before he became prime minister that if he got into power, he would rage war on health and safety at work protection legislation, and what he saw as “the health and safety monster” which was simply an "albatross around the neck of British businesses".

These words were echoed by him in January of 2012 when he stated that his New Year’s resolution was to "kill off the health and safety culture for good".

Clearly, the LibDems in the coalition government support his aims, as confirmed by is words to the Daily Telegraph on 5th January last year:

"This coalition has a clear new year's resolution: to kill off the health and safety culture for good.”

A start in reaching that end was self evident when the 2010 Young Report on Health and Safety was published and his adulteration of the 2011 Loefstedt Report which he used to justify further attacks on workplace health and safety protection.

Again his words in the Telegraph interview of 5th January 2012 indicate just how he’ll stop at nothing in taking us back to the pre-industrial revolution days when business ruled and injured and killed workers with impunity:

"I don't think there's any one single way you can cut back the health and safety monster. You've got to look at the quantity of rules - and we're cutting them back; you've got to look at the way they're enforced - and we are making sure that is more reasonable; we're taking self-employed people out of whole classes of health and safety regulation.

But the key about health and safety is not just the rules, the laws and regulations - it's also the culture of fear many businesses have about health and safety."

As far back as 2010 many observers started to believe that his next target would be the Health and Safety Executive itself.

So in 2013 we see Cameron’s final battle in his war on health & safety and intention to ‘kill it off completely’

A review into the HSE, its role and whether or not it remains to be a necessary body, that gives ‘value for money’, and whether or not it is a burden on business; was announced in parliament on 25th April, via a Written Ministerial Statement.

Unsurprisingly it received absolutely no coverage by major TV and Radio news media, but applause from the right-wing anti workers rights newspapers.

The review document has now been published with a closing date for submissions of 25th July 2013!

A ‘call for evidence’ seeks the input of stakeholders to a review of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as a Non-departmental Public Body (NDPB) and is being led on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) by Mr Martin Temple, Chair of EEF- the Manufacturers Organisation and Freeman at the Company of Cutlers.

The vested interest and direction of the intentions behind the review cannot be starker and more glaringly obvious than with the choice of big business as leader of the review!

He, and the right-wing media are starting the pressure on the review toward an outcome that suits them, and one which removes the protection of workers by H&S law enforcement in much the way the US system does; even before the review has even started.

Martin Temple's Company of Cutlers colleague, David Grey, Junior Warden at the Company of Cutlers in Hallamshire, was quoted on 6th June in the Yorkshire Post as saying at a media lunch at Cutlers’ Hall in Sheffield on the previous day: “employers and employees should share responsibility for safe working.”

This shows quite incredible ignorance of Health and Safety regulations and the Health and safety At Work Act which makes that clear in section 7),(a),(b).

Further Union Safety Reps are known for their working with management and promoting the responsibility their members have for working in a safe manner and following employer’s health and safety procedures and policies.

The article goes on, quoting him as saying:

“At the moment our companies have to write all our health and safety processes risk assessment as though we were employing three-year-olds.

There are 22,000 separate rules around health and safety. They could make a very simple change to the legislation and that is the responsibility for safe working lies as much with employees as it does with employers.

If they made that fundamental change you would get a safer system and you would be able to treat people as though they were competent, grown-up and mature adults who you are paying competent, grown-up salaries to.”

David Grey who is also managing director at Sheffield-based OSL Group of manufacturing companies goes even further in his condemnation of health and safety protection for the workforce, and blames health and safety legislation for the offshoring of manufacturing!

He said:

“We have outsourced manufacturing abroad. There’s a whole host of reasons why you would do that. If you are outsourcing manufacturing you don’t have to concern yourself with that type of stuff. This is about being reasonable.

I don’t think it’s reasonable company directors are also criminally liable. Why would you take that risk?”

Mr Grey added:

“We want a safe environment. It’s in nobody’s interest to endanger employees, but to do that you have to have responsibility. People do ridiculous things and yet the company is responsible.”

He also called for a reduction in the amount of statistical information that employers must supply to ‘bureaucrats’.

These are the attitudes of people who will provide evidence and fill this review with arguements and documentation which will be seen as 'other sources of evidence' that will undoubtedly outweigh those of trade unionists, health and safety professionals and most importantly, Union Safety Reps, and as such betrays the intended outcome of the review.

Derek Maylor Chair of the NW BT Unions Health And Safety Co-ord told Unionsafety:

"The co-ord is fully aware of the Government's aim in destroying as much of the existing workplace health and safety protection as possible and what we have seen so far, means that all those concerned about health and safety in the workplace need to be vigilant and ensure evidence is provided in response to this review of the HSE."

He concluded:

"We need a strong HSE able to fulfill its original function of protecting employees at work from injuries and death. So many governments have compromised the HSE's ability to be effective in doing this, ever since its formation over 30 years ago following the Roben's Report into workplace health and safety.

The co-ord will do it's part in providing evidence to support not only the HSE as it is now, but such evidence will argue for the firming-up of the HSE role in enforcement of the law, prosecuting the bad employer and supporting and helping those majority of employers who take the health safety and welfare of their workers seriously."

Chris Ingram, Unionsafety web editor commented:

"To say that the Health and Safety Executive is at risk is no exaggeration.

But, worse still will be an outcome that determines that the HSE needs no longer to be a 'Non Departmental Public Body' and that like a lot of legislation which has been 'handed over to industry' by the HSE's review of current H&S legislation; will become an employer's body policing themselves on the enforcement and interpretation of H&S legislation"

Dave Joyce, the CWU's National Health, Safety & Environment Officer wrote in LTB272/13:

"The CWU strongly disagrees with any suggestion that the HSE's functions are unnecessary or that it should be closed down as an unnecessary public body or privatised and delivered independently of the public sector."

The review document details the process for the gathering of evidence and procedure for examining it:

“The Review will be in two stages. In the first stage of the Review, Martin Temple, and his Review Team, will consider whether the functions delivered by HSE continue to be necessary, and whether an NDPB remains the best way of delivering those functions.”

But this is perhaps the biggest give away as to the final outcome:

“The responses to this call for evidence, alongside evidence gathered from other sources, will help to inform those considerations.”

Previous such reviews have shown that ‘expert’ witnesses and providers of evidence are not necessarily listened to, certainly if it does not fit in with the intended outcome. Indeed the Loefsted review is one perfect example!

The document continues:

“If the first stage of the review concludes that HSE should remain an NDPB with the same functions as now, the second stage of the review will consider whether HSE’s control and governance procedures meet the requirements of good governance.”

The process is further enhanced by a ‘Challenge Group’.

This is being chaired by Willy Roe, a non-executive member of the DWP Board.

The role of this group is explained:

“The Challenge Group will rigorously and robustly challenge the assumptions and conclusions of the Review. The Challenge Group will also ensure that the six principles for the appropriate conduct of triennial reviews, as set out in the Cabinet Office guidance, are followed. These state that triennial reviews should be proportionate, timely, challenging, inclusive, transparent, and offer value for money.”

Annexe D of the documentation entitled, Functional Analysis, identifies that amongst the HSE's Business Plan Objectives is to: "Negotiate and secure the best possible outcome in Europe for British industry"

Perhaps that in itself tells us more about the destiny of the HSE than anything else!

Details of how to respond to the review with evidence are as follows:

Any comments should be sent to:

HSE Triennial Review Team
Health and Well-being Directorate
Department for Work and Pensions
Zone B, 2nd Floor
Caxton House
Tothill Street
London, SW1H 9NA

Email: HSE.review@dwp.gsi.gov.uk

To arrive no later than 26th July 2013

The review documents can be downloaded direct from this website here

See also: Now The HSE May Be Axed Following A Government Review Into Its Existence And Necessity

Source: DWP / Yorkshire Post / Daily Telegraph / EEF / Unionsafety

Designed, Hosted and Maintained by Union Safety Services