MR JOHN MONKS AND MR OWEN TUDOR

TUESDAY 2 NOVEMBER 1999

  160. So that would be something you would like to see increased?
  (Mr Tudor) Currently they would have a safety rep who, when he spots something wrong, can raise it with the manager or call in an inspector. What we would like them to do is what happens by consent in some parts of British industry—South West Water and Teesside Acute NHS Trust—where safety reps are actually able to say, "This is where I think you have breached the law, I think you should put this right. If you have not put it right within 28 days an inspector will come in and adjudicate", and that is the system which works in Australia. Where employers trust their safety reps they are doing that already.

  161. You have mentioned these roving reps and you obviously support the idea of them. What benefits do you think they will bring?
  (Mr Monks) We have identified in the earlier exchanges the fact there are not enough statutory inspectors, there are not going to be enough statutory inspectors, and as such we are missing out a significant number of work places. We believe—and agriculture is very much in the forefront of this particular case—that a rep that is established in a geographical area should have the ability to go out to other places where there is no rep and just do the same job and check for the union and establish whether or not the practices are safe in a neighbouring area. Farms are a good example where unionisation is pretty thin on the ground but there are safety reps in certain areas who could go and do a good job for health and safety in the locality. We have noted in other countries, again Australia and Sweden, roving safety reps do exist and it does not seem to be a controversial issue. What we come up against is employers saying, "We are not allowing somebody to have access to our premises who is not our employee or a statutory inspector." Given the kind of line we have got on powers, we do not see that is much of an argument. The aim is to make this a constructive process and one that helps improve standards. So we ask you to help us perhaps on this particular campaign.

  162. But you are not pushing very hard for things like corporate manslaughter charges, are you? Are you asking the Government to look hard at the area where people are seriously injured at work and whether there ought to be a change in the law to actually bring it home to a few company directors they have a direct responsibility? I think you will find somebody incarcerated for a couple of years might consciously affect the attitude of a few company directors to something other than their salaries.
  (Mr Tudor) Yes, we have pressed, I think quite strongly, for corporate manslaughter to be introduced in a meaningful form. It is theoretically possible to jail employers for health and safety offences and—

  163. But it does not happen.
  (Mr Tudor) There are one or two examples. One of the reasons for that is that we do not think the law is adequate to allow that to happen so we would very strongly like to see that. I hope that is a last resort, I would not like to see lots of employers locked up—

  164. But if one or two were it might have quite an immediate effect, might it not?
  (Mr Tudor) Yes, I agree.

  165. Are you satisfied with the way the Health and Safety Commission operates?
  (Mr Monks) We are satisfied generally with what it does. The areas where it does not touch on, or does not touch on very often, are the ones which give us concern. We are satisfied more with it on safety than we are on health questions, and the general feedback from unions is that where it is operating it is well regarded, inspectors generally are well regarded and so on, and the gaps we see could be addressed mainly through the roving safety rep concept and more encouragement for safety reps but obviously more resources, which are coming through in some degree, are important. We would like to see the whole significance of health and safety increased in the national arena. The health and safety area has been very, very quiet until particularly the Paddington disaster has given it such a high profile and prominence in recent weeks.

  166. How deficient is it in terms of health issues?
  (Mr Monks) We have not got an efficiency audit or anything like that to point to, I can only point to its general reputation in the eyes of trade unions which is pretty good.

  167. The responsibility for health and safety has not been devolved to either the Scottish Parliament or indeed the Welsh Assembly. Are there any health and safety issues arising from the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly with their environment and public health functions?
  (Mr Monks) I think it was right not to devolve health and safety. Obviously companies operating across the United Kingdom, across Great Britain, need to have common standards and so on and so we thought that was the right decision. Of course, then there is the interface with local authorities, who are in a completely different position, and the health services, and in Scotland of course the different legal system comes into play. So I am very much aware of the fact the GB-level machine does need to be very sensitive to the different circumstances which operate in the different countries on this island and basically establish very good links with the organisations which are subject to devolution.

  168. Could you explain to the Committee why you think it is appropriate to charge for advice on the control of major accidents and hazards?
  (Mr Tudor) I think there is always a question about where you raise money for health and safety from. Traditionally in the UK and traditionally with trade union support we have been in favour of it being raised out of taxation. We have really been responding to the views of our members who say they do not see why employers who have certain responsibilities in health and safety should then get those responsibilities effectively paid for out of general taxation. The actual position on COMAH was a ministerial proposal which we, with some misgivings about some of the implications it might have, agreed to on the basis it would lead to more resources for the Health and Safety Executive. What would be useful would be a general review of where we could be obtaining extra resources to improve health and safety and it may turn out in that case charging for COMAH and permissioning regimes in oil, gas and rail would be less favourable than other ways of raising funds. I think there is a general polluter pays principle which our members have certainly voiced support for in the past which says, "If it is your responsibility for causing health and safety hazards then it is your responsibility for putting some money into making sure they are cleared up."

  169. Why should not therefore the polluter pays be extended to all areas of health and safety activity, or in this case the company pays for safety?
  (Mr Tudor) There are grounds for exploring how far it should be extended. In terms of the actual charges which have been introduced, they are dealing with some fairly specific requirements which apply to very high hazard organisations which have a different health and safety regime from that which applies in the normal work place and therefore requires a different system of control, and that is why I think they were selected out, but the ground is now open for looking at what things are charged for.

  170. So as an organisation you would not necessarily oppose in principle the extension of charging for other areas of health and safety?
  (Mr Tudor) Not necessarily, but we would want to make sure those charges were appropriate in such a way they did not undermine the work that was being done on health and safety by other people, and we want to make sure the COMAH charging regime, for instance, is adequately reviewed and adequately monitored to make sure it is not happening in that area.

  171. You have made some representations to us that we should put things into our report. I assume that most of the points you have put to us today you have also put to the Commission itself?
  (Mr Tudor) Yes.

  Chairman: Fine. On that note, thank you very much.