TUC response on Local Authority Code

Consultation on proposals for a National Local Authority Enforcement Code - CD247

Response by the Trades Union Congress

The TUC wishes to respond to the consultation on the introduction of a National Code on Local Authority Enforcement.

While the TUC supports a risk and evidence based approach to enforcement, this proposal will simply reduce levels of enforcement and put workers even more at risk of injury or illness.

The proposal is clearly not intended to improve health and safety, or even to provide consistency. It is an attempt to stop local authorities from inspecting a wide range of activity which lead to injury or occupational illnesses such as musculoskeletal disorders and stress which between then account for over 75% of all work-related sickness absence.

For health and safety laws to be effective employers must know that if they do not obey the law they could face prosecution which is why the TUC has supported a mix of proactive inspections and reactive inspections. Overall proactive inspections should be targeted at those areas where they would be most effective, but no workplace should be free from the possibility of an unannounced inspection.

In March 2011 the Government issued instructions to the Health and Safety Executive to stop all proactive inspections in a wide range of industries including postal services, transport (including docks), education, electricity, light engineering, textiles, health and social care. The reason that they gave, in most cases, was that the premises are 'low risk'. In fact many of the sectors identified have much higher levels of ill-health caused by work than those that are still to be inspected. The government also told local authorities to stop most of their pro-active inspections. It is already estimated that, prior to the introduction of the National Code, for 2012/13 local authorities will have reduced their pro-active inspections to 16,400. This is a reduction of 86% in just three years. These have been both in premises that the government considers 'low risk' and those where they have been designated 'high risk' or 'Category A' where the number of proactive inspections has fallen by 43%.

There is clear evidence that proactive inspection is an effective method of reducing injury and ill-health. In the UK, convincing evidence of the impact of inspection was produced by researchers who made 41 visits to small hairdressing firms in six geographical areas. They found that Local Authority inspections improved compliance with electrical safety requirements. Such inspections will be prohibited under the proposed National Code.

Research by the TUC has also shown that inspections work. In a survey of over 1,800 health and safety representatives, 53% stated that their employer make improvements to their health and safety practices because of the possibility of a visit by an inspector.

In respect of the specific questions the TUC would respond as follows:

Q1. Do you feel that the measures outlined in the Code and Annex will effectively deliver the Government's commitment to stop Local Authorities from proactively inspecting low risk businesses on health and safety grounds?

No. It will stop local authorities proactively inspecting premises which the HSE determines are not in the list of activities or sectors currently in Annex A. That is completely different.

Those not on the list are not 'low risk' and the consultation document has done no analysis of actual risk to justify this approach. Many premises and activities not on this list have extremely high levels of risk. Some of those are detailed in our response to Question 5, but in practice most Local Authorities will find that they are restricted to proactively inspecting only a tiny proportion of premises in their area. While reactive inspections will still be permitted the vast majority of occupational diseases are never reported so employers will be able to continue to break the law with impunity. An example would be in premises such as some finance and IT companies where there are huge levels of stress caused by long hours and high pressure. Most of these are never reported through RIDDOR so could only be identified through pro-active inspections.

Q2. Is the scope of the National Code sufficiently defined?

No

Please provide comments in support of your answer.

We believe that there are currently inconsistencies in enforcement between Local Authorities in respect of employers where there is a Primary Authority and this was identified by Professor Lofstedt in his recent review. The Code does not do enough to ensure that local authorities follow up on recommendations on a specific employer from the Primary Authority for that employer, or that Primary Authorities act on issues identified by other local authorities. This should be included in the Code.

Q3. What are your views on the risk based approach proposed?

The TUC supports risk based and evidence based enforcement. This however is neither. The aim of the proposal is not to maintain the current level of inspections and ensure that they are properly targeted to where the risk is. Instead it is a blunt attempt to reduce the number of inspections and stop Local Authorities inspecting businesses that may be putting their workers health at risk, in particular through occupational diseases.

Q4. What are your views on the proposal for HSE to publish a list of the higher risk sectors (and key activities) appropriate to be targeted for proactive inspection by LAs (the example list at Annex A)?

The TUC would welcome guidance to local authorities on those areas that they should target based on actual risk of harm (both long and short term) so that local authorities can plan their inspection activities based on the local circumstances. We do not however support a list such as Annex A which means that only those areas can be proactively inspected.

Q5. What are you views on the contents of Annex A?

While many of those activities and sectors on the list pose a significant source of risk of occupational disease or injury, it is in no way comprehensive and covers only a tiny proportion of those cases of injury and illness identified through the various reporting schemes. Slips and trips and MSDs are totally ignored as are the causes of depression and anxiety such as stress and bullying. Even asbestos is missing, despite it being the largest single cause of death in the local authority enforced sector. Other diseases such as dermatitis are excluded, despite its prevalence in wide sectors of the LA enforced sector such as hairdressers and nail bars. Even where risks are mentioned in annex A the sectors identified for 'proactive' inspection are too narrowly identified and there are a whole range of inconsistencies, such the fact that workplace transport relates to high volume warehouses only it also excludes car hire depots and the risk from vehicles. Bakeries are not included under asthma. This is not intended to be a comprehensive list but simply an indication that Annex A is completely inadequate in identifying either the main risks or those that could be most effectively targeted through inspection activity. Nor does it have any relation to specific local circumstances

Q6. What are your views on the assurance measures proposed for LAs on meeting the requirements of the Code?

The assurance scheme is primarily a measure to see whether local authorities are complying, rather than a way of assessing impact. This in itself will be of limited use although we welcome the requirement on Local Authorities to provide the data in Para 49.

Q7. Will the Code require regular review in the future?

It is regrettable that, should the concerns of the TUC prove to be justified, it will prove necessary to review the code as a result of the inevitable increase in injuries and illnesses that will result from this retreat from enforcement.

Further general questions

Q16. Do you have any other comments on the ideas and proposals explored in this document?

The document does not address whether the proposed system meets the requirements of the ILO in respect of inspections for industrial premises, or whether the UK will be in breach of any other international obligations on the implementation of EU or other directives or conventions.

Q17. Is there anything you particularly like or dislike about this consultation? Please provide comments.

The TUC is concerned that the consultation seeks the specific views of employers and their representative bodies (questions 13-15) but not of workers and their representatives. Regulation is there to protect workers, not for the benefit of employers and the TUC believes that it is wrong to put special emphasis on the views of those that create the risk but not those who are likely to be the victims should these proposals be agreed.