|
|
|
| Select
Committee Report - Financial Resources |
|
| 73. |
HSE charges for some aspects of its work
– mainly in relation to regulating
the major hazard industries and through
sale of publications. Otherwise the budget
is set through the Spending Review process.
HSC/E explained that following a period
of modest increase in resources, Spending
Review 2002 set a baseline which rose slightly
in 2003/04 and 2004/05 and drops back in
2005/06. It said that ‘when rising
costs are taken into account, this represents
a significant reduction in spending power.’ |
| 74. |
Spending Review 2004 commits the Department
for Work and Pensions to ‘realising
total annual efficiency gains of at least
£960 million by 2007-08.’ As
part of this, by 2007/08, DWP will reduce
its workforce by 30,000, redeploy 10,000
posts to front-line roles and reduce its
administration budget in real terms by 3.0%
per year. The Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions described this as a ‘challenging
but deliverable settlement’ for the
Department. |
| 75. |
In
oral evidence, the Minister referred to
an opportunity to consider how HSE uses
its funds:
“Whilst
every organisation can do more, and
spending ministers can always use more
money, we can always make a case for
more money, we also have to look at
maximising the value that we are getting
from the money that we are spending
and that is why we strongly support
the HSE’s strategy, because we
believe it very much measures the work
of the HSE and gives us an opportunity
to look at their performance in terms
of the funds that they receive”.
|
| 76. |
A key aspect of HSC’s current strategy,
therefore, is to ‘be clear about our
priorities and focus our activities on our
core businesses and the right interventions.
This means concentrating more on the areas
and interventions where we can make the
greatest impact and developing new ways
to exert influence.’ Some of the evidence
the Committee received agreed that HSE was
not yet sufficiently focused. For example,
EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation,
questioned HSE’s desire to engage in
corporate social responsibility agenda with
‘the great and the good’ when
it should be focusing on the smaller, harder
to reach businesses. Alan Osborne argued
that ‘in the context of the need to
do things differently in the future, it
was difficult to consider whether the budget
needed to increase’. |
| 77.
|
However,
the majority of organisations giving evidence
to the Committee suggested that lack of
resources was having a negative impact on
HSE’s capacity to ensure compliance
with health and safety legislation. The
Construction Confederation said that constraints
posed by a lack of resource, were leading
HSE to concentrate on short-term policing
rather than genuinely trying to help the
industry with a long term strategic improvement
and to HSE delays in issuing important pieces
of guidance. Furthermore, driven in part
by lack of resources, HSE had been increasingly
‘unable to provide sufficient prescription
in regulations and guidance’. The Institution
of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH)
supported increased resources to allow HSE
to ‘adequately discharge its statutory
duties and to establish and implement evidence-based
interventions, ensuring competent stewardship
of an effective occupational health and
safety system for Great Britain.’ |
| 78. |
Concerns about the reductions in HSE’s
in-house expertise (reduced staffing levels
in the Employment Medical Advisory Service
and the abolition of the Chief Medical Officer)
were raised by a number of organisations.
EEF pointed to reductions in the National
Engineering Group, a unit set up to provide
expert advice on difficult or complex engineering
issues to front-line inspectors. This is,
they said, ‘no longer effectively resourced,
which is detrimental to the consistency
of inspection and prevents a strategic approach
being taken by HSE in this sector.’
|
| 79. |
The impact of resources on HSE’s ability
to enforce the legislation was a key concern
for many organisations, including trade
unions and some employers. Organisations
such as the Centre for Corporate Accountability
and Prospect point to a direct link between
HSE’s resources and the number of inspectors.
This in turn, it was argued, was resulting
in a ‘resource driven enforcement strategy’
(see Chapter 9). |
| 80. |
There was some criticism that HSC does not
campaign openly for increased resources.
The Institution of Occupational Safety and
Health, for example, was disappointed to
see an assumption that resources cannot
increase running through HSC’s draft
strategies. The Committee asked HSC/E, if
more resources were made available, what
they would spend them on. Mr Bill Callaghan,
Chair of the HSC, said that a ‘strong
case’ had been put to Ministers for
more resources and that priorities were
occupational health support and communications
(see Chapters 12 and 15). Contrasted with
the evidence we received on the core functions
that are being cut back due to lack of resources,
these demands seem far too modest. |
| 81.
|
The
Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents
argued that HSC/E and HM Treasury should
consult stakeholders ‘on macro economic
‘spend to save’ projections, comparing
additional HSC/E inputs with the savings
that might be achieved as a result of meeting
the agreed targets. It was also argued that
if the Government believed there was a ‘business
case’ for health and safety, this should
apply equally to its own spending plans.
The 2004 Spending Review Settlement, announced
on 12 July, set the Government’s spending
plans for 2006/07 and 2007/08 and confirm
the spending plans which were set for 2005/06
in the 2002 Spending Review (see paragraph
74). |
| 82. |
The Committee received some evidence
that HSE could make better use of the resources
it has and such arguments need to be examined
carefully by HSC/E. However, the overwhelming
view was that HSE is a high quality organisation,
constrained by inadequate resources, seriously
adversely affecting its ability to deliver
adequately core activities such as inspection,
which have a direct impact on ensuring compliance.
We endorse the view of Prospect that the
number of inspectors in HSE’s Field
Operations Directorate should be doubled
(at a cost estimated by them as £48
million a year after 6 to 7 years). We recommend
that substantial additional resources are
needed in the next three years. |
| |
|
| Spending
Review 2004 |
| 20. |
Spending Review 2004 will also have implications
for HSE:
| • |
A
new target was set to improve health
and safety outcomes by 2008 through
progressive improvement in the control
of risks in the workplace. |
| • |
The
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
is to report on a review of the management
of long-term sickness absence in the
public sector by autumn 2004. |
| • |
DWP
is to ‘realise total annual efficiency
gains of at least £960 million
by 2007-08.’ As part of this,
by 2007/08, DWP will reduce its workforce
by 30,000, redeploy 10,000 posts to
front-line roles and reduce its administration
budget in real terms by 3.0 per cent
per year. |
We
recommend that in the context of Spending
Review 2004 the HSE inspectorate be recognised
as a front-line service and protected. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
