|
|
|
| Select
Committee Report - LA/HSE Division |
|
| 199. |
Both CoSLA and the LGA argued that there
were important advantages to having local
authorities involved in health and safety,
including local accountability, strong and
widespread contacts with local businesses
and their ability to use other interventions
such as licensing, planning and building
control, and economic development to influence
health and safety awareness practice. |
| 200. |
The Institution of Occupational Safety and
Health (IOSH) told us that the current division
was a ‘historic anomaly’, based
on organisations that were covered by the
Factories Act on the one hand and the Offices,
Shops and Railway Premises Act on the other.
Mr St John Holt told us that the Royal Mail,
with some of the most advanced mail sorting
operations in the world, was largely enforced
by environmental health officers ‘with
some difficulty in terms of their expertise
to do that.’ CoSLA described the current
divisions of responsibility as ‘counterproductive
and confusing to business.’ |
| 201 |
The current HSC strategy concedes that there
is ‘no lasting logic’ to the current
division of responsibility between HSE and
local authorities, which are complex, confusing
and based on boundaries that suit the needs
of the regulator rather than those of business
or the workforce. In oral evidence, Bill
Callaghan, Chair of the HSC, told us that
the local authority role was ‘fully
recognised’, although in the past they
had been ‘very much the junior partner.’
HSC’s current strategy is to seek to
develop a ‘closer partnership based
on a mutual understanding of the value of
local versus central interventions.’
Organisations representing local authorities
(the LGA and the CoSLA) agree there is a
need for better partnership arrangements.
The LGA and LACoRS (Local Authorities Coordinators
of Regulatory Services) agree that there
is ‘scope for reviewing the EA [Enforcing
Authority] regulations to determine whether
the current division of responsibilities
makes the best use of the joint enforcement
resource.’ CoSLA believes there is
‘potential for maximising that common
resource, through joint planning against
jointly agreed and fully resourced outcome
targets and with equal access to the technical
and scientific resources of the HSE.’
|
| 202 |
Among
both employers and unions, however, there
was some scepticism as to whether an improved
partnership arrangement would make enough
of a difference. The CBI was sceptical that
, a ‘memorandum of understanding’
would deliver business’ needs for ‘consistent
and effective enforcement within a clearly
identified programme of priorities’.
However, it argued that ‘an evaluation
of the effectiveness of current enforcement
arrangements of LAs should be made before
decisions can be taken about transferring
enforcement/inspection responsibility between
HSE and LAs.’ A range of organisations,
including the Business Services Association,
the GMB, the Graphical Paper and Media Union
and the Institution of Occupational Safety
and Health suggested that it might be advantageous
to remove responsibility for enforcement
from local authorities and give those powers
to the HSE. |
| 203. |
The TUC did not support any fundamental
changes to the current regime (although
it did argue that consistency of enforcement
needed to be improved and that more resources
were needed). The STUC was ‘not of
the view that a unitary enforcement body
would provide better results.’ |
| 204. |
The
Committee recommends that the Department
by 1 October 2005 reviews its strategies
to ensure national consistency and rigour
in enforcement of health and safety regulations
throughout Great Britain. If this review
finds substantial support for current criticisms,
it is further recommended that the demarcation
of enforcement activity between HSE, local
authorities and other enforcement agencies
be examined, the case for a unified health
and safety enforcement authority investigated
and the reasoned conclusions thereof be
published by 1 October 2006. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
