House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 May 1998 (pt 16)

1.49 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on raising a debate whose importance was underlined by his chilling litany of statistics. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will tomorrow launch important new guidance supporting the offshore version of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations, so my hon. Friend's debate is fortuitously timed.

Employees and the public have a fundamental right to acceptable standards of health and safety protection. A healthy, well-protected work force is not only right, but good for business and society. The Government are determined to give health and safety at work a much higher profile than it had during 18 long years under our predecessors. We have demonstrated our commitment by providing new resources for the Health and Safety Commission and its executive. An extra £4.5 million has been allocated in this financial year to be spent on increasing the number of HSE inspectors, and therefore their enforcement activity. I know that my hon. Friend will welcome that.

My hon. Friend touched on asbestos, and I want to make it clear that our resolve to ban white asbestos remains unshakeable. We are pressing the European Union to agree a ban quickly through an amendment to the marketing and use directive. We are also contributing to understanding the science surrounding asbestos, so that we can be sure that its substitutes are safer. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that is an important step.

We have freed inspectors from bureaucracy imposed by the previous Government to enable them to concentrate on their primary role of enforcing health and safety law. The cumbersome "minded to" procedure in enforcement practice was dropped on 1 April, and inspectors can now enforce the law as soon as they encounter a breach, instead of having first to put offenders on notice that that might happen later. My hon. Friend will agree that that is a step towards the higher standards that we all want.

We are particularly concerned to get the message across to employers that accidents at work and occupational ill health are neither inevitable nor acceptable. A strengthened HSE is only part of our approach, and we are doing more to prompt higher standards. Breaches of health and safety law should carry tougher penalties, as my hon. Friend said. He rightly pointed out that fines for

20 May 1998 : Column 934

health and safety offences currently average about £2,500, and fines are often derisory, seeming not to reflect the seriousness of offences. We have begun discussions with the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary on the options available to address that problem. We want penalties to fit the crime, and to act as a deterrent to health and safety law breakers.

We need to create a culture that includes all those with an interest in reducing the toll of accidents and ill health. An approach based on partnership between employers and workers is in everyone's interest. We have seen such an approach at the European level, in our work with the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work, and at national level in the Health and Safety Commission. It can also work at company level.

If records for accidents and occupational ill health are to improve, employers need to manage health and safety effectively. To do that, they must involve their work force. A management system can succeed only if there is consultation with employees. No less than 25 years ago, the Robens committee, whose work led to the setting up of our present occupational health and safety system, identified involvement of the work force as a key factor in better self-regulation by industry. In spite of that, there has been less development and success on worker involvement than on many other aspects of the UK health and safety system.

Safety representatives have a vital role, as my hon. Friend said. Their commitment, and their experience of workplace conditions, enable them to identify potential problems where prompt action could lead to a healthier and safer workplace. It is, after all, those who do a job who know best what the hazards are. Employees, through their safety representatives, have an invaluable part to play in reducing risks in the workplace.

Safety representatives are important to the explanation of safety measures, and to securing a commitment from the work force. Safety procedures are effective only if those involved understand the reason for them; if not, procedures may all too often and all too easily be bypassed. Research carried out a few years ago, using data from the workplace industrial relations survey, showed that workplaces with trade union-appointed safety representatives and committees have up to 50 per cent. fewer injuries than those in which there was no consultation on health and safety.

In recent years, the role of safety representatives has been greatly undervalued, and we intend to redress that. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will hold regular meetings with safety representatives, which illustrates the value we place on their experience and views. As my hon. Friend pointed out, trade unions can offer safety representatives considerable support, such as training courses, information about workplace hazards and safety systems, and in some cases a national structure able to give advice on particular issues. That helps representatives to take an informed, independent role in health and safety issues. I hope that trade unions will appoint safety representatives wherever possible.

The regulations that give trade unions the right to appoint safety representatives are more than 20 years old. Over the past 20 years, the UK has moved away from being predominantly based in manufacturing and construction industries with highly unionised work forces; the service sector now provides 70 per cent. of