TUESDAY 23 NOVEMBER 1999

RT HON MR MICHAEL MEACHER, DR DAVID FISK AND MR MURRAY DEVINE

  420. It has been suggested to us that any extension of this policy would mean that HSE's work could become fees and income led rather than establish really positive relationships with the organisations it is inspecting. Is there any validity in that?
  (Mr Meacher) I am aware that that point has been made. I see no evidence for it in respect of the nuclear industry or in respect of industries inspected by the Environment Agency, otherwise we would not have extended it. I am very concerned that there should continue to be a positive relationship between HSE and the industries it regulates, because, as we are all agreed, it is that positive management culture which really matters. We are not trying to turn industry against health and safety—quite the reverse. I would be very seriously concerned if I thought that was the case. The question is, who should bear the cost? Either it is the taxpayer or it is the industry. If these are highly hazardous industries, I think it is right that that should be borne by the industry. Of course it is handed on in terms of higher prices, but I think that that is right and necessary.

  421. Do you see that as a right policy only for hazardous industries rather than for normal-type industries?
  (Mr Meacher) I think it applies particularly in the case of hazardous industries, but it is not a policy which should be restricted to hazardous industries. Where health and safety inspections are required, it is reasonable that the cost of that should be borne by those who are inspected.

  422. What are the differences in approach between the way the Government and the HSE approach health and safety matters and the approach of the European Commission?
  (Mr Meacher) I think we are doing rather better than Europe. I do not want to say that, because it sounds like blowing our trumpet, and we are all agreed that health and safety is far from satisfactory, so I do not think that. I do think, though, that if anything they will be looking to how we do it, and I think that our record to that extent is quite a good one. It is true that post the Amsterdam Treaty there is no specific, separate treaty article covering workplace health and safety, but I think we would agree with the view which the Commission has taken, which the previous Commissioner, Padraig Flynn, took and which now the new Commissioner has taken, that we should be putting emphasis on the practical implication and enforcement of existing regulations. I do not think there is a case for a great new screed of new regulations, but we do need to ensure that what is there is properly and fully implemented. DG V, in its mid-term report in 1998, did confirm that the future focus would be on that. We basically agree with that. I am not aware that there is a problem in regard to Europe with health and safety regulations. As I say, I think they will be looking to us as to how we achieve in general levels of accident and injury which are half the EU average.

  423. So you do not have any concerns that there might be any new regulations or Directives coming forward which might cause a problem?
  (Mr Meacher) I am not aware of new regulations coming forward from Europe which might affect this area, no.

  424. To bring you back, Minister, to the question of charging, I can understand it for the hazardous industries, but both the TUC and the CBI, in evidence to use, said that charging would drive enforcement down the wrong route, and there is a worry about the small and medium engineering companies which would be charged whatever figure for a safety inspection. That seems a nonsense to me.
  (Mr Meacher) I repeat, one has to decide who should bear the cost. I think there is a strong case, in my view, for incentivised charges—in other words, if you have a health and safety regime in place which is a good one and which means you can demonstrate to an inspector that any inspections are likely to be either less frequent or certainly less prolonged and therefore the cost to you will be less. I think we have to get management to realise that proper management of health and safety is an extremely important responsibility, and if they do not carry the cost of that I do not believe that they will take it as seriously as we require.

  425. The Health and Safety Commission has been in place now for 25 years, has it not?
  (Mr Meacher) Yes.

  426. Is it still relevant to today's industry and commerce?
  (Mr Meacher) I think it is. I think the Health and Safety Commission actually does a pretty good job. I have attended a number of meetings with them. I had a meeting with them a week or two weeks ago, and I have to say, I was impressed. I was impressed by the commitment and the enthusiasm for the task. I was impressed by the lack of partisanship between, if you like, the two sides of the Commission. There were times when I wondered which representation of either industry or the unions I was being given, as it could have come from either, though of course there remain differences.

  427. This new CBI?
  (Mr Meacher) Yes. Let me say this on their behalf, the CBI representatives were certainly not giving a narrow-minded, protection-of-industry cost argument. They, I am quite sure, want to see a steady and continuing improvement in the level of accidents. They want to see better health and safety; they know it is in their interest. They ought to have the incentive, because the costs of health and safety failure amount to something like 4 to 8 per cent of total gross trading profit.

  428. With respect, those are mainly large companies within the CBI. They are dominated by small groups of large companies. It is very clear that most sensibly organised companies eventually come to the conclusion that there is a cost to not organising their health and safety, but it is very clear that because of fragmentation of large numbers of industries, particularly in things like construction which you yourself raised, and in the railway industry where money has been given to the HSE specifically to deal with these extra problems, it is not the case that the firms are concerned about health and safety—indeed, it is way down their list of priorities. How do you deal with that?
  (Mr Meacher) This is the point on which I was replying to Mr Olner by saying that it is important for companies of any size, in all industry, that there is a cost which they have to meet. If they do not have to meet that cost, if it is met simply by the taxpayer and the occasional inspector's visit, I do not think they will take it seriously. If it appears in the balance sheet I think they will begin to take it seriously. We do not want it to be onerous or to be burdensome, but we want it to be sufficient. That is a judgement we are trying to make.

  429. Would it not be better if a lot of those small firms or fairly small businesses and a lot of the non-organised workers had some representation within the Commission?
  (Mr Meacher) I accept that. There are nine members, three from employers' bodies, such as the CBI, three from employees', such as the TUC and three representing other interests, particularly local authorities. I think that that works well. As I say, I am impressed by the individuals themselves and their dedication, knowledge and obvious commitment. You talk about small firms. We have thought a lot about this, as to whether there should be a special place, a sort of quota, for a small firms representative. My view is that amongst the employers there should be one at least of the three who is a specific representative of small businesses. I do think we need someone who has that working knowledge, who works in a small company and who knows the pressures and the difficulties reflected in the Commission. I agree with that.

  430. The difficulty with that, of course, is that the person who works in the small business normally does not have the time to serve on any of these bodies, does he?
  (Mr Meacher) Indeed, and of course that is one reason why the current representative of small businesses, Mike McKiernan, actually works for a rather large company—he is with Lucas Varity which is not a small company, I quite agree. We did look to have a representative of small businesses, and I would like to have someone who specifically does reflect a small business, but I agree with you that many of them feel that they do not have the time.

  431. You were impressed with the Commission meeting presumably which you saw. Ought they to be open to the public so that the public can be impressed?
  (Mr Meacher) My view is that that is desirable. I certainly think that some at least of the meetings of the Commission should be open to the public. This is a matter which I have discussed with Bill Callaghan, the new chairman. I would certainly like to see as much as is reasonable open to the public, yes.

  432. What about inspectors' reports? Ought they to be publicly available?
  (Mr Meacher) I think there should be an overriding presumption in favour of openness for inspectors' reports. As you know well, Mr Chairman—that is why you asked the question—section 28 of the 1974 Act does impose restrictions on the disclosure of information which has been obtained by inspectors. I am very pleased to say we are proposing to tackle this through the Freedom of Information Bill, but I accept that there will still be some safeguards necessary—for example, for the protection of information which could be relevant to criminal prosecutions or information which might reveal, for example, a whistle-blower against the risk of personal threats. Those are fairly limited exclusions, but subject to those I would like to see inspectors' reports made available, yes.

  Chairman: On that note can I thank you very much for your evidence.