|
|
|
| Select
Committee Report - Inspectors |
|
| Inspector
Numbers |
| 124. |
HSE employed the following number of inspectors
in the years 1995 to 2004:
| As
of 1 April |
Field
Operations
Directorate |
Other |
Total |
| 1995 |
|
|
1478
|
| 1996 |
|
|
1466
|
| 1997 |
780
|
662
|
1442
|
| 1998 |
783
|
654
|
1437
|
| 1999 |
853
|
644
|
1497
|
| 2000 |
898
|
609
|
1507
|
| 2001 |
954
|
580
|
1534
|
| 2002 |
955
|
670
|
1625
|
| 2003 |
962
|
689
|
1651
|
| 2004 |
901
|
704
|
1605
|
|
| 125.
|
According to Prospect, 540 of the 901 Field
Operations Directorate staff employed in
2004 are grade 3 and 4 staff working in
the front-line doing inspection and investigation
work. The remainder are managerial staff,
or in policy or support roles. Some work
on specific sectors, for example, acting
as the main contact point for industry associations,
providing industry specific training or
trying to influence industry practice. |
| 126.
|
The
Centre for Corporate Accountability and
Prospect pointed to the direct relationship
between resources, the number of inspectors
HSE is able to employ and the enforcement
activity it is able to carry out. The
Committee was told that inspector numbers
rose during a period of increased financial
resources (2001/02 – 2003/04) and
fell in 2004 following a freeze on recruitment
as a result of the 2002 Spending Review
settlement.
|
| Does
HSE need more Inpsectors |
| 160. |
The Committee received evidence on enforcement
activity in two of HSE’s priority programme
areas – construction and the health
service. In the context of the construction
industry, the National Audit Office (NAO)
found that there was one HSE inspector for
every 3,333 construction sites. The NAO
described the strategic approach taken by
HSE to maximise the effectiveness of its
work in the construction industry. Steps
taken included working with other stakeholders
in the supply chain (such as clients and
designers), supplementing its usual site
inspections with blitzes concentrating on
particular risks, and initiatives targeted
at workers, such as Safety and Health Awareness
Days. Nonetheless, both employers and unions
in the sector told the Committee they considered
HSE to be under-resourced in terms of being
able to carry out the level of inspections
needed in the industry, The Construction
Confederation, for example, told us that
HSE only had sufficient resources to be
reactive after the event and needed another
50 inspectors to be able to devote more
time to those sites where there was the
highest risk of accidents happening. |
| 161.
|
The NHS Confederation told us that it did
not feel HSE was sufficiently well resourced
to meet its objectives within the NHS. In
2003/04, HSE had carried out 201 inspections
within the health service, where nearly
1.3 million staff are employed in many thousands
of workplaces. Concerns about lack of resources
for enforcement were echoed by the Royal
College of Nursing and Unison. |
| 162.
|
Evidence also suggested that HSE inspectors
were under considerable pressure. Mr Gary
Booton of EEF told us that inspectors
appeared to be ‘under time pressures
not to dig into what has happened…but
simply to say, ‘Right, there is one
more job, one more to tick off.’
Mr Steve Kay of Prospect said that in
order to be able to focus limited resources
on priority areas, inspectors were being
told to ignore other areas unless they
became matters of evident concern. This
pressure on inspectors’ time has
been recognised by the head of the Field
Operations Directorate (FOD), who has
noted that increasing the contact time
inspectors have with duty holders was
a continuing concern in FOD.
|
| 163. |
One of HSE’s responses to this has
been to pilot new approaches, using visiting
administrative staff working alongside
inspectors in frontline roles, to deliver
key health and safety messages. There
are now some 60-70 such administrative
staff and their work enables inspectors
to spend more time targeting the duty-holders
most in need of HSE attention. Prospect,
the union representing HSE professional
staff, was, however concerned at untrained
and unqualified staff having a ‘quasi-inspection
role when what is needed is a trained
and qualified person to exercise their
judgement.
|
| 164.
|
Mr Bill Callaghan, Chair of the HSC, did
tell the Committee that HSC had put a ‘strong
case to ministers for more resources’
in respect of occupational health support
and communications but was more equivocal
when asked whether HSE needed more inspectors.
Mr Gareth Williams of the Department for
Work and Pensions said :
“if you ask the HSE, as you did, had
they more resources, where would they put
them, the answer would not be inspectors,
it would be around the advice and communication
and prevention upfront. Even if you sought
to improve that ratio with the additional
funding to that order of magnitude, you
still would not cover every company, you
would still only inspect them on a limited
number of occasions and the advice would
depend on the day you turned up.” |
| 165.
|
However, the fact that even if the number
of inspectors increased, you would not cover
every company, is not an argument for not
increasing the number of inspectors. The
recent literature review on the effectiveness
of HSE’s interventions found some evidence
that higher levels of enforcement would
prompt organisations to make further health
and safety improvements. Furthermore, evidence
shows that face to face contact is the most
effective way of providing information and
advice, particularly for small firms and
inspectors are ideally placed to do this. |
| 166 |
The Committee believes that the number
of inspectors needs to be increased in
order that HSE can increase the number
of incidents investigated and the number
of proactive inspections. A further question
is what level of increase HSE should be
aiming at. EEF, the manufacturers organisation,
argued that :
“We simply do not know whether the
appointment of say 50 more health and
safety inspectors would lead to improvement
x in health and safety performance and
therefore secure saving y for all concerned.”
|
| 167.
|
A
number of other organisations provided us
with suggestions as to the level of increase
HSE should aim at. Prospect argued that
the number of inspectors should be doubled
so that each workplace can be inspected
at least every five years and so that each
new workplace is inspected in its first
year of operation. It estimates that the
cost of an additional 700 inspectors in
the Field Operations Directorate ‘would
rise to something like £48 million
after 6 to 7 years.’ The Institution
of Occupational Safety and Health suggested
that as the majority of existing inspectors
was focused on safety, additional inspectors
were needed to concentrate on health issues.
It proposes doubling the number of inspectors
in HSE (at an eventual cost of some £77.3
million a year) and employing an additional
150 full-time investigators to concentrate
on work-related road safety (at an estimated
cost of £7.25 million pa.) |
| 168. |
The Centre for Corporate Accountability
suggested that HSE should have sufficient
resources to :
| • |
Adequately
enforce section 3 of the Health and
Safety at Work Act, in relation to
responsibility of employers not to
expose the public to health and safety
risks |
| • |
Investigate
all major injuries falling into certain
categories, all dangerous occurrences,
all cases of industrial disease reported
to it; |
| • |
Inspect
all workplaces in certain hazardous
industries (manufacturing, agricultural
workplaces, for example) at least
once a year and all workplaces at
least once every five years; |
| • |
Investigate
all deaths in a prompt manner; |
| • |
Introduce
independent legal oversight for prosecutions; |
| • |
Employ
a number of family liaison officers
to work with families at the time
of death; and |
| • |
Increase
resources available for monitoring
local authority enforcement activity.
|
|
| 169. |
As previously stated, the Committee believes
that a substantial increase in resources
is needed for inspection (see paragraph
82). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
