|
|
|
| Select
Committee Report - Levels of Inspections and Investigations |
|
| 143. |
HSC/E’s primary aim is prevention.
Its memorandum explains that this approach
was endorsed in an inquiry into the work
of HSE by the Environment, Transport and
Regional Affairs Committee in 2000, which
also urged HSE to increase investigation
and prosecution rates. The Government accepted
the recommendation and HSE undertook to
increase the number of investigations by
50% from 6.8% in 1999/00 to 10% in 2001/02.
The number of incidents investigated peaked
at 9.4% in 2000/01 and has since fallen
to 5.6%. HSE considers that achieving this
change has ‘created conflict with the
intention to maintain a largely preventive
focus’. The ratio of time on proactive
and reactive work, which had been 70:30
in 1997/98, fell to 50:50 in 2002/03. HSE
explains that this was not felt to be the
best balance taking the time devoted to
each activity as an approximation for the
best mix of the two activities in terms
of preventive impact.’ Accordingly,
it has taken steps to streamline and improve
investigation procedures through revised
accident selection criteria with the aim
of re-establishing a 60:40 time ratio of
proactive to reactive work. |
| 144. |
HSC investigates all fatal injuries. In
2003/04, it investigated 11.4 per cent of
major injuries (see Appendix 2). This is
higher than it was in 1997/8 (6.4 per cent),
but a considerable reduction compared to
15.1% in 2001/02. 5.6 per cent of all incidents
reported under RIDDOR were investigated,
compared to 8.1% in 2001/02. This figure
also has to be seen in the context of underreporting
under RIDDOR (see paragraph 11). The Centre
for Corporate Accountability (CCA) and Unison
estimate that on average, a registered premise
will receive an inspection once every 20
years. HSC/E figures show that 6.4 per cent
of workplaces falling within the jurisdiction
of the Field Operations Directorate were
inspected in 2003/04, up from 5.8 per cent
in 2001/02. |
| 145. |
Analysis by the CCA indicates the serious
nature of some of the incidents HSE is
unable to investigate. It points out that
the 80% of major injuries not investigated
in 2000/01, included ‘16 out of 62
amputations to either hands, arms, feet
or legs and 69 out of 178 major injuries
involving electricity’. It considers
that constrained resources are leading
to a ‘misleading debate about ‘inspections’
versus ‘investigations’ and
said that ‘it is difficult to see
how the ‘balance has gone too far
towards investigations when, despite the
shift, so many serious incidents were
still not being investigated.’
|
| 146. |
In order to achieve the shift towards
proactive work, HSE is piloting new criteria
to reduce the number of incidents investigated.
Under the new criteria, for example, scalpings
are not to be investigated and amputations
of digit(s) past the first joint only
‘where the incident involved potential
for more than one finger or for hand/arm
amputation.’ Inspectors currently
have discretion to investigate an incident
where, for example, they consider there
may have been a serious breach of the
law. This will no longer be the case.
In oral evidence, Mr Steve Kay of Prospect
gave us an example of the sort of accident
that would not be investigated under the
new criteria :
“A
few years ago I investigated an accident
to a man whose hand was caught in the
platens of an injection moulding machine,
a heated injection moulding machine
because it cures the rubber at very
high temperatures. The guards on this
machine were defective; he touched it
and it closed on his hand so he could
not get his hand out and it was effectively
cooking his hand at oven sorts of temperatures.
He could not get his hand out and his
work-mates had to prize the moulds open
using bars, so his hand was in there
for a period of minutes. Under the new
selection criteria that will not be
investigated because burns to less than
10% of the body are not to be investigated,
and that is of serious concern to us….If
an employer has breached the law in
such a blatant way and there is a serious
outcome as a result, that should be
investigated as a moral issue.”
|
| 147. |
A paper to a meeting of the HSE Board noted
that the revised criteria had reduced the
number selected for investigation ‘by
more that was initially intended’ and
that amended criteria were to be piloted
until the end of June 2004 before consulting
with the Commission on how to proceed. |
| 148. |
Asked about the proportion of major accidents
investigated, Mr Timothy Walker, Director
General of the HSE said :
“We would not agree that it is too
low a number. Not all accidents will benefit
from an HSE investigation and we think we
need to concentrate our investigation skills
and experience both on those cases that
are likely to lead to prosecution or where
there is considerable learning involved
either for that company or for other companies.”
|
| 149. |
However, this begs the question as to
how, in the absence of an investigation,
HSE can be confident that a case is unlikely
to lead to prosecution or to have considerable
learning involved.
|
| 150. |
The number of proactive inspections is also
low. HSC/E told us that 6.4% of premises
within the remit of HSE’s Field Operations
Directorate were inspected in 2003/04 .
Ms Mary Boughton of the Federation of Small
Businesses told us that ‘the majority
of small businesses never have an inspection.’
Dr Janet Asherson, of the CBI told us that
‘statistically, enforcement and inspection
across the piece of all British business
is a rare event.’ The Committee
is concerned both at the low level of incidents
investigated and at the low level of proactive
inspections and recommends that resources
for both are increased (see paragraph 82).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
