|
|
|
|
|
Embargoed,
00.01 am, 23 November 1999
The Health and Safety Executive and Michael Meacher
M.P. before Environment Select Committee on Tuesday
23 November 1999
The Centre for Corporate Accountability has provided
MPs from the Select Committee proposed questions to
ask the the HSE and the Minister
Question for the HSC and HSE
- Is it acceptable
that the HSE fails to investigate?
- 90% of major
workplace injuries
- including 60%
of amputations
- Do you recognise
that - whatever the reasons for this failure - it
has serious implications?
- HSE inspectors
can't ensure that any dangerous conditions that
may have led to the major injury are rectified;
- companies and
their senior officers who have acted recklessly
or negligently escape any form of investigative
scrutiny and the possibility of prosecution.
- Why do you not
inform the Government that with the current level
of resources, it is inevitable that thousands of
companies and directors escape prosecution for serious
offences - simply because you cannot investigate
reported incidents?
- How do you account
for the huge disparities in investigation and prosecution
rates from one part of the country to another and
one industry to another?
- Five times more
likely that a farm worker will have his/her injury
investigated than a worker involved in mining
and other extraction work
- twice as likely
for a injury in London and the South East to be
investigated than one in Yorkshire and the North
East.
- Your enforcement
policy talks strongly of "consistency"
in relation to companies; shouldn't workers also
expect consistency from HSE inspectors?
- Only 10% of
major injuries investigated result in a prosecution.
Do you think, in light of all your studies that
indicate that 70% of workplace deaths are the result
of "management failure" that in only 10%
of major injuries investigated, there is sufficient
evidence to prosecute?
- Why, despite
yourown rhetoric and your own enforcement code,
does the HSE prosecute so few directors?
- In 1998/9, HSE
only prosecuted 11 directors/Managers. In the
same year it prosecuted the same number of workers
[This is for all offences not just those relating
to injury and death]
- In 1996-8, there
were over 47,000 major injuries and over 500 deaths,
but it appears that not one director or manager
was prosecuted by the HSE for a health and safety
offence? Surely it is inconceivable that in none
of these cases, there was no evidence of any "neglect"
on the part of a director or manager
- Do you think
that explicit legal safety duties should be imposed
upon directors?
- It is already
implied by HSE guidance, so it would only be clarifying
the current situation
- "financial"
duties are already placed upon directors, why
not safety duties.
- Why do HSE inspectors
prosecute their own cases in the magistrates court?
o Neither Local Authorities nor the Environment
Agency allow it?
- What competence
and training to HSE inspectors have in fighting
a legal case against large corporate law firms
- Isn't it a
waste of HSE's inspectors time for them to be
preparing the case and arguing the case in court?
Questions For Michael
Meacher M.P.
- Do you think that
the low levels of investigation acceptable?
- Are you going to
Provide the HSE with funds so that:
- it investigates
a very significantly increased number of injuries
- has an evidence-based
prosecution policy
- The HSE has a third
of the budget of the Environment Agency (180mil
v £580 million)
- In opposition you
stated that safety duties should be placed upon
directors - are you going to legislate for this?
Link
to Select Committee Documents |
|
|
|
|
