Feature

Time to be tough on the causes of work hazards

Existing law on occupational health and safety is often inadequate and poorly enforced, says Hugh MacGrillen — and it’s time for a fresh government to take a fresh look at the issues

Tony Blair, should he become prime minister, will have an early opportunity to make good his claim that he will be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime: he can bring in legislation on occupational health and safety which will redress the balance between workers and employers and introduce an element of fairness. Breaches of the present law by employers are frequent and are criminal offences. But in almost all cases, employers can expect to get off with small fines in the unlikely event that they are caught. New Labour can end this favourable treatment.

A Labour government would have to address the imposition of prison sentences on employers and senior executives who have been proved to have caused death or injury at work through incompetence or negligence. The Health and Safety Executive, the government’s enforcement body on workplace safety, estimates that at least 70 per cent of accidents at work are caused by some act or omission by employers.

The number of deaths and injuries at work has fallen in recent years as a result of shifts of employment away from the more dangerous industries. But the rate of accidents is constant, or even rising slightly, in almost all branches of the economy. In other words, safety standards are static and the vast majority of the UK’s 400 deaths at work annually result from malpractice by employers.

Public expectations of occupational, environmental and consumer safety have risen in recent years, influenced by disasters and scandals and growing scepticism about the claims of government and business. Most of the big unions and the TUC now have policies in favour of prison sentences for negligent employers. Their argument is not punitive but rather that the possibility of real penalties will act as a stimulus for higher standards. The shortcomings of present arrangements are apparent. The legislation is deficient and its enforcement is weak, both by the Health and Safety Executive and the courts. There is no effective deterrent for those who wish to ignore it.

There are important questions that need to be resolved in order to produce workable legislation: whether existing legislation is adequate if properly enforced or new offences should be created; and which individuals within companies should be liable for corporate crimes. But the essential matter is whether the political will exists to tackle the problem. A Blair government will have to address the issue and by its decision we shall know the colour of its money and who its real friends are.

Custodial sentences are the sharpest issue facing Labour but the occupational safety agenda does not end there. The Health and Safety Executive and Commission (the policy arm), cut by the Tories and with key functions threatened with privatisation, are in a poor state. The average company is now inspected only once every 17 years. The Commission is nominally a tripartite body with representation from the TUC and the CBI, but has suffered from the politicisation of public service under the Tories. Labour can reverse the ideological and organisational trends but it will require both effort and resources.

Chemical control legislation has grown ever more voluminous without making it much clearer what precise duties manufacturers and suppliers owe both to their employees and the general public. Failure to comply with the law is widespread, there being neither incentive nor deterrent to do otherwise. The onus must be shifted to showing that materials are safe to employ rather than on using them until they are proved to be dangerous. Such an outlook would have prevented the many thousands of deaths each year from exposure to asbestos.

But legislation, even with proper enforcement, can only go so far. Collective action through trade unions is essential to maintain standards at work. Labour must provide new rights on the recognition of safety representatives and the scope of their activities. Ordinary workers must feel secure if they blow the whistle on dangerous practices or refuse to do hazardous work with inadequate protection.

A fresh look needs to be taken at compensation, from both the state and from employers, for workers who do suffer illness or injury at work — and we are taking of very large numbers of people. Present arrangements are slow and cumbersome, often humiliating for claimants and, in the majority of cases, yield unsatisfactory results. In civil cases, the onus on the claimant to prove liability by the employer needs to be removed in favour of a ‘no-fault’ scheme. The period in which claims can be brought should be increased, and mass applications to industrial tribunals should be permitted.

There is a new, radical agenda on occupational health and safety which trade unions and campaign groups have worked out over the past decade and which a Blair government could adopt. Successive Labour spokespersons have offered guarded sympathy while making very few specific commitments. In a very few months, they may well have the chance to add substance to the rhetoric of renewal. If they do not take it, they should not expect any favours from anyone.