The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee has agreed to the following Report:—

1. Workplace health and safety play a key part in the UK's society and economy. Hazards need to be clearly identified and risks assessed and appropriately controlled to protect both workers and the public alike. This is the role of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) which was set up in 1974 under the Health and Safety at Work Act. As part of our continuing scrutiny of Non-Departmental Public Bodies we decided to undertake a short inquiry into the HSE's work. We last looked at this matter in early 1997. [3] Since then, new concerns have been highlighted including the HSE's low rates of investigation and prosecution of firms and its ability to adjust to changing labour market conditions.

2. In response we received 30 written submissions and took evidence from seven organisations over three sessions. To inform our inquiries, a number of us also undertook site visits. We would like to thank the HSE inspectors—Emma Davies, Peter Garland, John Hawkins, Barry Mullen and Anthony Polec—who kindly allowed us to accompany them on visits to a number of workplaces including manufacturing plants, construction sites, a waste transfer station, a school and a local authority depot. We would also like to thank our Specialist Advisers, Professor Malcolm Harrington and Graham Reid, for their valuable advice and assistance.

4. The aim of the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and the Executive is to ensure that risks to people's health and safety from work activity (including members of the public affected by those activities) are properly controlled. [4] The Commission has overall responsibility for health and safety and for giving advice to Ministers and comprises a Chairman and nine members, three of which represent employer interests; three trade union or employee interests; and three 'other interests' (ie local authorities and the public). This is known as a 'tripartite' approach to health and safety.

5. The Health and Safety Executive is a separate body which reports to the Commission. It has three main functions: the development of health and safety policy, for approval by the Commission and the Government; provision of a scientific research service through the Health and Safety Laboratory currently based at sites in Sheffield and Buxton; and the enforcement of the Act. This last area was the focus of much of the evidence we received. It is important to note that the Act imposes a general duty of care on employers to take all reasonable and practicable care with relation to safety, [5] and the role of the HSE is to ensure this happens through its regulatory regime:

• inspecting workplaces to secure compliance;
• investigating accidents and complaints;
• taking formal enforcement action; and
• providing advice to employers, workers and the public.

6. The HSE therefore plays a fundamental role in ensuring that people in Great Britain work in safe and healthy workplaces. The UK has a strong health and safety record compared with that of other developed countries and our systems are respected and replicated elsewhere, as a number of witnesses commented. [6] The Trades Union Congress (TUC), for example, noted that "on many comparative measures Britain does rather well compared to a number of other advanced industrial economies". [7] The table below sets out comparative data on key health and safety performance indicators for European countries and the USA.

Table 1 Workplace Injury in Europe and the USA 1994

Rates of Fatal and of Over 3 day injury per 100,000 workers or employees

General notes to table 1

Source is Eurostat except for the USA and rate of fatal injury of the Netherlands. Eurostat excluded commuting accidents. Eurostat excluded road traffic accidents from rates of fatal injury but included them in rates of non-fatal injury where the effect of their inclusion is relatively small.

All rates of injury are based on a combination of 8 sectors of industry: agriculture (including hunting and forestry), manufacturing, construction, retail and wholescale distribution, hotels and restaurants, transport, and financial services and real estate activities.

Notes for individual countries in table 1

1.The rate of fatal injury in the Netherlands is based on figures from the Ministry of Labour. It includes some road traffic accidents and is adjusted to allow for under-reporting of fatal injuries in that country.

2. The rates of non-fatal injury in the USA, Austria and the Netherlands include the injuries which result in 1 to 3 days absence from work. They are rates of over 1 day injury. The equivalent British rate is 2,550 based on the Labour Force Survey.

3. Eurostat did not publish a rate of fatal injury in Luxembourg which is based on a relatively small number of fatal injuries.

Source: HSE

7. In addition to highlighting the UK's strong performance relative to other countries, many witnesses also praised specific aspects of the work of the HSE. In particular, the following were commended: the quality of inspectors;[8] the HSE's approach to disseminating information—both in terms of the quality of its publications and its use of the Internet; [9] its independence from Government;[10] the approach to consultation;[11] and arrangements for the reporting of incidents.[12] It was described to us as a body which is "authoritative and independent of commercial or political pressure".[13] Clearly the HSE has a high degree of credibility in the eyes of employers, employees and other organisations.

8. This view is, to an extent, backed up by the figures on fatal injury rates, which showed a downward trend for the period 1971-1994.[14] However, since 1994 the UK has become 'stuck' at a plateau of approximately one fatal injury per 100,000 workers per year.[15] This problem has been acknowledged by both the DETR and the HSE.

9. In addition to the stable record of fatal accidents, witnesses suggested that the HSE faces a number of difficulties and made several criticisms. One particular issue was that the current system fails to take injury in the workplace (as distinct from fatalities) sufficiently seriously. Other concerns centred on the number of investigations and prosecutions; [16] the relationship with other agencies; [17] the composition of the Health and Safety Commission; [18] a historic lack of focus on occupational health problems; [19] and regional variations in approaches to enforcement. [20] In addition, aspects of the regime which are outwith the control of the HSE received criticism, such as the level of penalties awarded for health and safety offences and the issue of charging for inspections. [21] These criticisms and the tragic train crash on 5 October 1999 at Ladbroke Grove with the loss of 31 lives, are clear reminders that the Government and the HSE cannot afford to be complacent about health and safety at work.

3  See HC 277i, ii and iii (1996-97) Back

4  HSC Health and Safety Commission Annual Report 1998/99 Back

5  Section 2, Health and Safety at Work Act Back

6  See HSE11, HSE13, HSE16 Back

7  Q106 Back

8  HSE05, HSE16 Back

9  HSE05 Back

10  HSE17 Back

11  HSE17, HSE18, HSE29 Back

12  HSE22 Back

13  HSE24 Back

14  DETR, July 1999 Revitalising Health and Safety. Consultation document Back

15  DETR, July 1999 Revitalising Health and Safety. Consultation document, para 16  Back

16  HSE06, HSE15, HSE20 Back

17  HSE03, HSE13, HSE17, HSE22 Back

18  HSE06, HSE15 Back

19  Q82, Q107 Back

20  HSE16 Back

21  HSE09, HSE11, HSE22, HSE24 Back