Evidence from SERTUC to the Greater London Assembly Scrutiny Inquiry
Health and Safety of Construction Workers in London
This submission represents the views of Southern and Eastern Region TUC and the 800 000 trade union members who live and work in London. It is based on feedback received, following consultation with affiliate trade unions organising within the construction sector.
This submission will address the 5 headline areas in the terms of reference, as indicated in the scrutiny invitation letter of 18th March. We will also use this opportunity to provide additional comments that may be beyond the specific terms of reference but will add value to the broad scope of the scrutiny exercise.
1. Context
Prior to considering the terms of reference, we would like to provide some context on the construction sector in London. Identifying the nature and scope of construction and the labour market in the region is an integral part of this process in order to examine the existing and forecasted scale of the sector and, hence, the magnitude of the health and safety issues facing public bodies now and in future years.
i. Construction in London
The construction sector is an important part of the London economy, not just as a generator of wealth and employment but it is also crucial to the success of major infrastructure projects and regeneration plans. Major infrastructure projects that are already being undertaken or that are planned for the London region include: Paddington Basin, Heathrow Terminal 5, Wembley Stadium, White City, Kings Cross / St Pancras, Stratford City and CTRL, Thames Gateway housing and Thames Gateway Bridge, NHS investment in hospitals and the DLR extension. Possible projects include Crossrail and Olympic facilities. Alongside these major projects, there is the vast amount of smaller and domestic projects in London, both residential and commercial.
The construction sector is segmented and, in London differs significantly in character from the GB as a whole. The construction sector is segmented between public housing, private housing, major infrastructure projects, public non-residential, private industrial, private commercial and repairs and maintenance.
Construction output per sector in GB in 2002
Public Housing 2%
Private Housing 10%
Infrastructure 10%
Public non-residential 8%
Private industrial 4%
Private commercial 18%
Repairs and maintenance 48%
(Experian)
The private elements are disproportionately larger in London than in the GB economy. In 2002, office development in London was very strong, in 2003 there was a significant fall in activity generally and in 2004 both infrastructure investment and housing are strong in London.
ii. Construction labour market in London
The size of the construction labour force in London and the employment status of workers within the sector are open to a number of interpretations, for example there are discrepancies between figures obtained from the London Skills Commission’s Construction Flagship Initiative and GLA Economics. Obtaining exact data is problematic due to the nature of sub-contracting and self-employment (both formal and informal). The following figures should, therefore, be treated with caution. For the sake of up to date information, we have used the ONS figures presented in Regional Trends and Labour Market Trends. For this exercise, it is probably more important to identify the growth trend in the market rather than attempting the most accurate identification of current numbers.
According to ONS, in December 2002 there were approximately 135, 000 directly employed workers in construction in London (Labour Market Trends, March 2005). In addition to this, in March 2003 there were 95, 000 self-employed within the sector in London (Regional Trends, March 2005, Table 5.5).
This provides us with a total workforce in the Spring of 2003 of around 230, 000 of which 41% are self-employed. This would tally with the findings of the Department of Trade and Industry report 'Output and Employment in the Construction Sector: Fourth Quarter 2004' which indicates that the combined GB construction workforce stood at 1, 693, 000 in October 2004, of whom 37.6% were self-employed.
While there is variation between the two breakdowns of employed and self-employed indicated here, what is clear from the figures is that self-employed workers constitute a large and significant slice of the total labour force in construction in London. The implications of which will be covered in the next section on the monitoring and reporting of accidents and ill health in the sector.
As well as understanding the current size and nature of employment in the sector, it is also important for this exercise to gain an accurate picture of the forecasted growth for construction in London. This will provide a better understanding of the scale of the challenges facing public bodies in the future.
iii. Construction Growth in London
Again, there are a number of interpretations.
GLA Economics predict a 31% decline in construction employment between 2002 and 2016, a loss of 63, 000 jobs. This is predicated on a model that uses mapping of historic trends to calculate the growth rate required in order to maintain employment levels in the sector. For construction, this is put at 5.2%. The overall growth rate is predicted at 2.5% per annum hence the predicted reduction in construction employment over the period 2002 - 2016.
However, we regard this methodology as flawed in that its historical trend mapping in the period 1988 - 2002 does not take into account planned or on-going construction projects that we feel will either maintain, or perhaps increase, current employment levels. The historical trend analysis does not include reference to Crossrail, Olympics or Thames Gateway house building, for example. Neither does it necessarily take into account the future maintenance and repair of current building projects. The importance of maintenance and repair as a slice of the construction sector has already been demonstrated and, furthermore, this part of the construction sector is not necessarily predicated on growth.
Another issue that must be taken into account in regard to future projections is the issue of new entrants and recruitment. Even if the GLA Economics forecasts were entirely accurate, it is safe to assume that the sector will need to recruit additional new entrants in order to replace an ageing workforce, plug skills gaps and replace other leavers from the industry, e.g. migrant workers possibly moving to other labour markets. As the Institute of Employment Research at Warwick University put it
' The changes outlined … relate to changes in the net demand for labour. Some occupational groups are expected to grow in size while others are expected to decrease. This is not the whole story, however, since employers will need to replace those parts of their workforce that leave employment. The key component of such replacement demand is exits from the workforce, in particular the retirement of older workers. Total labour requirements in an occupation will thus consist of the combination of structural change and replacement demand. In some instances, an expansion in the level of employment will be reinforced by the need to replace part of the workforce. In others, even though the level of employment is projected to decline, employers will continue to recruit to meet replacement demand and such recruitment will partially, or even wholly, offset projected job losses .'
So, for example, using the SOC Major Group criteria we can see that although Skilled Trades Occupations in London are projected to decrease by 76, 000 jobs there is a 'replacement demand' of 78, 000 in order to maintain the required job levels when leavers from the sector are taking into account (figures from Institute of Employment Research, Warwick University December 2004).
The following tables illustrate the relationship between structural change and replacement within the Skilled Construction trades in London. These figures were provided by the Institute of Employment Research at Warwick University, it is worth noting that the figures relating to each LSC sub-region are problematic given the mobility of labour in London. The Greater London figure is the most reliable.
| Projected numbers employed in skilled construction trades in London, 2002-2012 |
|||
| London LSC area |
Expansion demand |
Total requirement |
|
| Central |
-4,700 |
5,700 |
|
| North |
-1,800 |
2,900 |
|
| South |
-2,500 |
5,600 |
|
| East |
-4,300 |
6,400 |
|
| West |
-3,800 |
5,200 |
|
| G London |
-17,100 |
25,800 |
|
| Expansion
demand = change in overall level of employment |
|||
| Total requirement
= replacement demand |
|||
Additional figures from CITB Construction Skills Trainees Survey shows that in 2003/04 there were 49, 153 new trainees taken on nationally, which indicates the scale of the training need for new entrants. Of this group 21, 557 were under-18 and we can safely assume that the majority of these were being exposed to construction hazards for possibly the first time.
The conclusion we reach here, therefore, is that in one way or another there will be an ongoing need for expansion of new entrants into London’s construction sector and, hence, an expansion in the provision of good health and safety practice for workers in the industry, including the expansion of training provision for new entrants.
iv. The cost of workplace injury and ill health in the Construction sector
Poor health and safety practice and the accidents, injury and ill health that arise as a result in the Construction sector have explicit and hidden costs for all players within the industry as well as wider society.
Workers, in the short term, are deprived from earnings as well as suffering pain and longer term debilitating injuries that curtail careers. Employers experience increased costs in terms of compensation, insurance premiums, administrative and recruitment costs as well as possible damage to equipment and delays on jobs. Wider society also bears the costs through increased demands on the public agencies such as the health service, the HSE and local authority inspectors and DWP administration. There are also threats to public safety as well as economic development issues around the loss of output and productivity caused by bad practice.
HSE estimates that the cost of workplace injury in London 2001/02 was between £100 and £110 million and the cost of work related ill health in London was between £120 and £200 million.
According to the DTI’s ‘State of the Industry Report - Winter 2002/03’, construction companies had been hit harder than most by large increases in professional indemnity and employers’ liability insurance. According to surveyed members of the Construction Products Association, employers’ liability premiums rose by 123% over the previous 12 months, while their other insurance premiums increased well beyond inflation. As a response to this the DTI has commission research into the issue, though it is clear that reported rates of accidents and injuries must have some bearing on this.
Having provided some context into the wider state of the industry, we will now turn to the terms of reference included in the scrutiny invitation letter.
2. To consider the current levels of work force injury and ill health within the construction industry in London.
To consider the current levels of injury and ill health, we will use figures obtained from the HSE. However, these do not tell the complete story. Concerns around reporting and monitoring will be highlighted in the section.
i. Workplace injuries and fatalities: the national context
The number of workers killed in the construction sector each year in Britain has remained around 80 since 1994/95
| Year |
Employees |
Self Employed |
Workers |
| 1992/93 |
70 |
26 |
96 |
| 1993/94 |
75 |
16 |
91 |
| 1994/95 |
58 |
25 |
83 |
| 1995/96 |
62 |
17 |
79 |
| 1996/97 |
66 |
24 |
90 |
| 1997/98 |
58 |
22 |
80 |
| 1998/99 |
47 |
18 |
65 |
| 1999/00 |
61 |
20 |
81 |
| 2000/01 |
73 |
32 |
105 |
| 2001/02 |
60 |
20 |
80 |
| 2002/03 |
57 |
14 |
71 |
The rate of non fatal accidents per 100,000 employees in the GB was 214.4 in 1993/94 and was 335.1 in 2003/04.
ii. Workplace injuries and fatalities: the London context.
The following table depicts trends in fatal and major injuries in ALL sectors in London from 2001 - 2004:
| 2001/02 |
2002/03 |
2003/04 |
|
| Fatal injury |
21 |
16 |
28 |
| Major injury |
2, 468 |
2, 634 |
2, 841 |
In London in 2003/04 the construction sector had the highest rates of fatal and major injuries to employees (395.6 per 100,000) and the highest rate of over 3 day injuries (773.3 per 100,000).
The following table depicts trends in fatal and major injuries in the construction sector in London from 2000 - 2004:
| Injury numbers and rates in London for Construction Sector, by year |
||||
| 2000/01 |
2001/02 |
2002/03 |
2003/04 |
|
| Fatal injuries to employees |
11 |
8 |
5 |
10 |
| Major injuries |
625 |
584 |
660 |
564 |
| Rate of fatal and major injuries |
478.6 |
443.1 |
522.0 |
395.6 |
| Over 3 day injuries |
1081 |
1040 |
1305 |
1122 |
| Rate or over 3 day injuries |
813.4 |
778.4 |
1024.3 |
773.3 |
(Source: HSE)
The rate of fatal and major injuries in the construction sector in London has been higher in each of the years since 2000, such that a construction worker in London was 24 percent more likely to be killed or seriously injured in 2000/01, 23 percent in 2001/02, 45 percent in 2002/03 and 17 percent in 2003/04, than a construction worker in Great Britain on average.
The situation from April to December 2004 does not look like much of an improvement. On construction sites in London there were at least 8 fatal injuries in this 9-month period, which would suggest a trend at least as bad as 2000/2001.
There is also a trend towards greater numbers of reported major and fatal injuries in central London boroughs compared to outer boroughs as the following figures suggest:
2003/04 Fatal and Major Injuries (source HSE)
Westminster 101
City of London 64
Tower Hamlets 43
Southwark 41
Camden 40
Newham 28
These 6 boroughs account for 55% of the London total.
Figures for all reported injuries range from 261 in Richmond to 1, 446 in Westminster.
iii. Causes of injuries and ill health
HSE estimates that, in 2003/04, 96,000 workers in the construction industry suffered from an illness caused or made worse by their employment in the sector.
The main causes of serious and fatal injuries were falls from height (46%), struck by a moving or falling object (15%) and electricity (10%). During the last 8 years progress has been made in preventing falls from height, with the proportion of fatalities down but similar progress has not been made in other hazards.
The biggest causes of non-major injuries, which might still cause long term absence or termination of a career, are slipping and tripping, lifting and handling.
As well as the main causes of injuries mentioned above, skin complaints were also reported (between 5.5 and 10.5% of construction workers are thought to be allergic to cement) and damage to hearing and vibration white finger, (28.5% of all VWF occurs in construction) was prevalent. The industry also has the highest rate for musculoskeletal disorders with MSDs accounting for 8% of major injuries, 34% of 3-day injuries and 26% of RIDDOR reported accidents.
Construction workers, through exposure to asbestos and other toxins, suffer high rates of mesothelioma. The number of deaths in GB from mesothelioma across all industrial sectors increased from 153 in 1968 to 1862 in 2002. It is expected that the annual number of deaths from this asbestos related cancer will peak at a level between 1950 and 2450 sometime between 2011 and 2015.
The following table (taken from DTI ‘Construction Statistics Annual 2004’) presents national statistics on reported injuries to workers in the construction sector that indicates the scale and nature of workplace injuries:
iv. Ill health, injury and employment status
Workers in construction with the least time with their current employer have the highest rate of serious injury. A worker employed for less than 1 year by an employer is 5.7 times more likely to receive a serious injury than a worker employed by an employer for more than 5 years.
The number of non-fatal injuries to the self-employed in construction doubled in numbers from 367 to 682 between 1998/99 and 2002/03. The accident rate also almost doubled in the same period from 56.5 per 100, 000 to 98.0.
The rate of fatal and serious injury varies significantly between occupations within the industry. The most dangerous trades include steel erectors (41.2), crane drivers (32.8), roofers and cladders (24.6) and scaffolders / steeple-jacks (21.2). The figures in brackets indicate accident rates per 100, 000 for the GB as a whole 2003/04.
What must also be taken into account is that up to a third of workers within the sector are employed in office and desk-based work and, as such, are not subject to construction-specific hazards. As such, accident rates as a percentage of the total construction workforce should be considered with this in mind.
Accidents and injuries are also related to age. Construction workers aged 55+ are the most likely to receive a serious injury. Workers who are 35-54 are the least likely to be seriously injured.
3. To consider how health and safety within the construction industry is monitored and reported.
Most of the figures used in Section 2 have been obtained from HSE. However, as has been stated, these figures do not provide the total picture.
Injury figures from the HSE are based on accident reports from employers and the self-employed made under the ‘Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 known as RIDDOR.
It is believed that HSE is able to record all fatal accidents. However, it is known that employers do not record all non-fatal accidents. Analysis of the Labour Force Survey 2002/03 indicates that employers report only 43 percent of those incidents which ought to be reported, (46 percent in construction), and that self-employed people report fewer than 1 in 20 reportable injuries. Given the significant proportion of self-employed workers within the sector, this last figure is particularly telling.
4. To consider what is being done to reduce work force injury and industry related ill health
Reducing work force injury and industry related ill health is the responsibility of all players in the industry, e.g. project managers, contractors, workers and their safety reps and agencies of government. The best health and safety practice will feature co-operation and joined up work between all those identified. For the purposes of this submission, we will look at the role of three main groups; government, employers (including project managers and contractors) and workers (focusing on trade union activity).
i. Government
The Government, via the Health and Safety Commission, launched the ‘Revitalising Health and Safety’ strategy in 2000 targeted at reducing fatal and major injuries in the construction sector by 40 percent by 2004/05 and 60 percent by 2009/10 (using a baseline of 2000/01). As we have seen from the figures presented in 2i and 2ii above, the interim target for 2004/05 is unlikely to be achieved.
Health and safety for workers in the construction sector has improved significantly since the introduction of the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act and the creation of the HSC/HSE inspectorate has been a positive development historically. However, as figures above have shown, in recent years there has been little change in the number of fatal and major injuries and this had led some to suggest the notion that a health and safety plateau has been reached. This is a suggestion that we reject on the basis that all accidents can be prevented and that there is no ‘inevitable’ accident rate for the construction industry.
The two main roles that government can play in reducing accidents and injuries are through enforcement and regulation on the one hand and through partnership and leadership on the other.
Enforcement and Regulation
There is a perception that the regulation and enforcement regime is not applied with sufficient rigour. The number of convictions secured by HSE against employers has fallen sharply from 114 in 2000/01 to 48 in 2003/04, the latter representing less than 4 percent of the GB total convictions for that year of 1232.
Bill Callaghan, Chair of HSC, contends that the number of site visits across all industrial sectors in London has increased by 55% in the years 2000 - 2004 (in an address to SERTUC H&S reps conference, 19 November 2004). However, it remains the perception among trade unions in the region that HSE inspections do not occur to the frequency required and, when inspections take place, there is insufficient contact made with workforce safety reps.
In March 2005, the HSE conducted a targetted ‘blitz’ on a range of construction sites across Great Britain. Of the 1, 170 projects visited, 214 received enforcement notices and a further 244 voluntary cessation of works were agreed until improvements had been made. This indicates the potential scale of the problem of safety breaches on construction sites in London.
The HSC’s argument that partnership and prevention is as, if not more, important than enforcement is accepted in part but we feel that more rigorous enforcement, backed by increased powers and penalties, would provide the right kind of zero tolerance message to all players in the industry. We would also argue the case for greater resources for HSE in order to achieve a suitably rigorous inspection and enforcement regime.
Partnership
The HSE’s ‘Revitalising Health and Safety’ 10 year strategy has placed partnership and worker involvement at its centre. This has been illustrated in the previous 18 months by increased joint project work between the HSE London, SERTUC and affiliated unions in the London region.
A London Trade Union / HSE working group has been established and events have been planned to bring workplace safety reps and HM Inspectors together to discuss issues. Systems have been established between some unions in the region and HSE to publicise forthcoming audit visits so as to inform workplace safety reps and provide contact details to inspectors prior to visits.
SERTUC and the HSE have also engaged with the Mayor of London’s Office and the London Health Commission in order to produce a mission statement (aka the London Health and Safety Accord) for London which will be jointly signed and used to launch a number of initiatives for the region aimed at building the case for world-class health and safety practice, with particular reference to the need for worker safety reps in every workplace.
We also welcome the use of the Worker Involvement resources on the HSE website and the Worker Safety Challenge Fund initiative, providing grants for businesses and organizations that can demonstrate an innovative partnership approach to health and safety in the workplace. There are currently 2 such initiatives involving trade unions in London.
ii. Employers
According to the HSE, approximately 94, 000 businesses in London are construction businesses, representing around 14% of the total. Businesses range from multi-national construction companies to the self-employed and micro-businesses. To illustrate the fragmentation of the industry, the following national figures are provided from the DTI ‘Construction Statistics Annual 2004’ indicating both the number of firms by size and the number of people employed by firms of different sizes:
Private Contractors: Number of Firms
| Size of firm (employees) |
Year 2003 (total) |
| 1 |
70, 370 |
| 2 - 3 |
53, 022 |
| 4 - 7 |
25, 704 |
| 8 - 13 |
10, 508 |
| 14 - 24 |
5, 892 |
| 25 - 34 |
1, 932 |
| 35 - 59 |
1, 821 |
| 59 - 60 |
583 |
| 80 - 114 |
451 |
| 115 - 299 |
535 |
| 300 - 599 |
135 |
| 600 - 1,199 |
75 |
| 1, 200 and over |
64 |
| Total |
171, 092 |
Private Contractors: Total Employment
|
Size of firm (employees) |
Year 2003 (total employment in 000s) |
|
1 |
82.9 |
|
2 - 3 |
99.8 |
|
4 - 7 |
133.3 |
|
8 - 13 |
112.6 |
|
14 - 24 |
104.2 |
|
25 - 34 |
56.5 |
|
35 - 59 |
82.7 |
|
60 - 79 |
37.7 |
|
80 - 114 |
45.5 |
|
115 - 299 |
100.7 |
|
300 - 599 |
60.0 |
|
600 - 1,199 |
61.9 |
|
1, 200 and over |
165.0 |
|
Total |
1, 142.8 |
The nature of sub-contracting has a tendency to blur employment and contractual relationships and responsibilities that often have negative implications for the provision of training, particularly health and safety.
It is important to state that there are contractors and employers in the industry who have good records on health and safety and in working in partnership with their workers and unions to effect good practice. According to the DTI’s key performance indicators, the rate of construction companies achieving zero accident rates has increased year on year from 31% in 2002, 39% in 2003 to 42% in 2004 (DTI ‘Construction Statistics Annual 2004’).
However, there are still many problems with employers in the sector.
The London Skills Commission Construction Flagship Initiative reports that the May 2003 Employers Survey showed that only 31 percent of firms in the construction industry have training plans and 27 percent have a training budget, compared to 52 percent and 45 percent respectively for the financial services sector. In a sector where the risks are greatest and training the most important, employers are failing in their duty of care.
The shortfall in employer training is indicated by figures which show that the median annual training days per worker in the sector was 0.8 full time equivalent employee days and that the median % of workers qualified to NVQ Level 2 or higher was a mere 30 percent (Summary of Industry Performance over three years to 2004, DTI ‘Construction Statistics Annual 2004’).
The Major Contractors Group has made an explicit commitment to all workers on their sites being a holder of a Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) card. However, UCATT report that they are behind their targets on implementing this policy. Meanwhile, many SMEs are reluctant to insist on CSCS card ownership and often only call for these when required as a condition of contract.
This last point would add weight to arguments that call for rigorous health and safety systems and the recognition of worker safety reps to be incorporated as terms and conditions of contract on all developments. This could be extended to include the provision of training also so that a ‘culture’ of health and safety is woven into the business practice in construction in London. Managing health and safety through the supply chain will allow SME contractors to cost training and health and safety into tenders and still compete on a level-playing surface.
iii. Workers / Trade Unions
Trade unions play an integral role in ensuring best health and safety practice. Evidence shows that unionized workplaces have around half the accident rates of non-unionised workplaces across all sectors. Trade Union safety reps are key to health and safety in the workplace as they are generally well trained, know the workplace better than managers, they are often the first to see risks and they are in consultation with workers and colleagues.
TUC Education provides rigorous health and safety training for worker safety reps that is regarded as a market leader in terms of quality of training. The Health and Safety Stage 1 and Stage 2 courses offer 60 hours of guided learning and there is also the chance to study for a NVQ Level 3 Certificate in Occupational Health and Safety. In the SERTUC region in 2004, 633 reps completed Health and Safety Stage 1 and 282 reps completed Health and Safety Stage 2 training. There is no breakdown for reps in the construction sector specifically, but these figures illustrate the capacity for trade union training on health and safety in any given year (the figures remain mainly consistent year by year).
Trade union safety reps provide an essential qualified resource to support the monitoring and prevention of accidents and injuries on sites. Moves made by employers and government agencies in support of safety reps are to be welcomed.
However, the role of the safety rep could be developed in order to support a more rigorous regulation and enforcement regime. Three main areas could be changed in order to provide a more effective role for safety reps.
First, the development of rights for roving safety reps, covering a range of sites including those without union recognition, would allow for all construction workers to benefit from the experience and qualification of trained trade union safety reps.
Secondly, safety reps should be given rights to issue safety notices. This system is employed in parts of Australia and the HSE have reported on its effectiveness.
Thirdly, there should be a statutory obligation on employers to respond to all queries and concerns raised by safety reps. Until this is in place, employers are able to ignore issues of concern raised by reps, thereby invalidating their role.
5. To consider the health and safety implications arising from the diversity of the construction industry work force, and how these are being addressed.
There are substantial numbers of migrant workers from the EU accession countries working in the construction industry in London, especially workers from Poland and the Czech Republic (see Jill Craig, Head of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, Europe Policy, in the Financial Times April 2005). Nonetheless, new arrivals might well have difficulty understanding health and safety briefings reporting processes or their rights at work.
While tensions may arise from the use of illegal migrant workers on some sites, it is our view that all workers should experience best practice in the workplace and the protection of the law. We, therefore, believe that concentrated work should be undertaken on raising awareness and providing information and training to migrant workers in the sector in order to promote their health and safety.
Work has been undertaken in the region by HSE and trade unions, notably UCATT, in providing ESOL training and safety awareness training to construction workers who have English as a second language. For example, HSE held a well-attended event for Polish construction workers in Hammersmith following fatal injuries to Polish workers in the area. SERTUC helped HSE develop a questionnaire for Polish workers and UCATT were invited to participate on the day, raising awareness among the workers of their employment rights.
6. To consider ways that public sector bodies can influence, encourage and support the health and safety of construction workers employed on public sector projects.
We have stated above where we feel the strengths and weaknesses are in the government’s regulation and enforcement of health and safety in construction. We do believe there are roles for other public bodies, particularly those agencies of regional government, both in terms of procurement/supply chain management and in terms of leadership and partnership.
We believe that it is the role of the agencies of regional government in London, e.g. Mayor’s Office, London Health Commission and the functional bodies, to work with stakeholders such as Trade Unions, HSE and employers’ organizations to:
- establish models of best practice and disseminate them to all players in the sector.
- instigate additional research into areas of concern / scant evidence, e.g. migrant workers in construction or the use of bogus self-employment
- highlight the need for best health and safety practice, the costs of accidents and injuries and to sell the business case to employers
- argue the case for the appropriate level of resources for effective regulation and enforcement in the region.
Given the large-scale nature of much public sector investment into construction and infrastructure projects, there is a need for more effective procurement strategies in order to utilise the supply chain to deliver health and safety gains. The health and safety arguments should be factored into work around the issue of sustainable procurement that is being conducted across the public sector.
For example, the LDA should be analyzing how procurement for potential Olympic projects can be used to provide the best possible health and safety frameworks, preferably predicated on the Sydney model of social partnership and recognition and rights for trade union safety reps.
This format should be extended to local authorities, particularly those in the Thames Gateway / East London areas of development, the NHS and TfL, e.g. in relation to the building of Thames Gateway Bridge.
Conclusion
In conclusion to this submission, we here list a summary of the proposals that we feel would provide more effective health and safety for London construction and will work to reduce the accidents, injuries and ill health affecting its workforce.
- Employer’s duty of care to be placed centre stage, in a range of contexts from the statutory to business practice and partnership with public bodies.
- Support all employers to realize the strong business case for health and safety.
- Use those businesses with good practice as demonstrators for other businesses.
- Motivate and enable workers to learn, implement and constantly update their H&S knowledge.
- Every construction site to have a trained worker safety rep.
- Provide statutory recognition for roving health and safety reps
- Use the procurement process to require year on year improvements in health and safety
- Provide more rigorous enforcement; needing more resources for HSE and more inspections which might lead to more enforcement notices and prosecutions.
- Enable a stronger training culture throughout the industry, including accredited qualifications and language training for migrant workers.
We have welcomed this chance to input into the Assembly Scrutiny process and look forward to participating in the public evidentiary hearing on 19th April.
Matt Dykes
Laurie Heselden
SERTUC - April 2005
Briefing document (5,500 words) issued 22 Apr 2005
