|
Embargoed:
06.00am, 25 April 2007
HSE
prosecutes in only one third of
the cases that it should, internal
HSE audit shows
An
internal audit undertaken by the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE) into enforcement decisions by both
HSE and Local Authority (LA) inspectors found that
inspectors should be prosecuting in three times as
many cases than they currently do.
The audit report, which has been obtained by the CCA
under the Freedom of Information Act, and has until
now not been made public concludes that there is a
“serious gap” in inspectors’ implementation
of HSE's own enforcement guidance. To
download a copy click here.
Although. the HSE has published a short ‘summary’
of the report on its web site, this fails to show
the actual level of enforcement failure uncovered
by the audit team and the serious implications for
the HSE.
David
Bergman, Executive Director of the Centre for Corporate
Accountability said:
“The
report suggests that rather than prosecuting around
700 cases the HSE should be prosecuting close to
2000 cases each year. The HSE should be apologising
for this failure – for the lack of accountability
for bereaved families and injured workers as well
as for undermining the deterrent effect which would
result from effective enforcement. Real improvements
to ensuring enforcement action, in line with HSE’s
own policies, must be made.”
The
release of this report comes at a time when HSE's
own data shows an apparent increase
in the rate of work-related deaths twinned with a
significant decrease in the number
of total prosecutions. Sharp cuts in HSE's budget
were also announced earlier this month.
An
HSE audit team considered a sample of 126 investigations
- 70% of which involved cases investigated by HSE
and 30% by Local Authority inspectors. The incidents
considered mainly involved investigations into deaths,
major injuries and over-three days injuries.
The audit team found that inspectors should have prosecuted
in a total of 19 cases - 12 more than than the 7 cases
that actually resulted in criminal charges. This is
triple the number of cases than were actually prosecuted.
11 of these 12 cases involved the HSE – rather
than Local Authority - investigations. Of the 11 HSE
cases that did not result (but should have resulted)
in a prosecution:
- one involved a death
- six involved major injuries
- two involved over-three day injuries and
- two involved dangerous occurrences
The single case involving a local authority concerned
a major injury
Out of the 12 new cases that should have resulted
in a prosecution:
| - |
in
one case the original investigation had resulted
in “no action” at all being taken
by inspectors; |
| - |
in
five cases, the original investigations had resulted
in only “verbal advice” being given; |
| - |
in
six cases the original investigations had resulted
in only an improvement notice being imposed |
| - |
and
in one case the original investigation had resulted
in only a prohibition notice. |
The
failures were identified throughout Britain –
the report states that there were no geographical
‘hotspots” – and involved inspectors
of differing levels of experience.
“What
is of particular concern is that HSE’s own
Enforcement Policy Statement only allows prosecutions
to take place only in the most serious cases; if
the HSE can’t be trusted to prosecute even
in these cases, what confidence can the public have
in the accuracy of any enforcement action taken?”
asked David Bergman
The
audit report also found that there were six other
cases where harsher enforcement action should have
been taken. One case that resulted in no action should
have resulted in a letter; one verbal advice should
have resulted in an improvement notice, three letters
should have resulted in an improvement notice and
one verbal advice should have resulted in a prohibition
notice.
In total, 18 of the 126 investigations audited –
that represents 16% of the total - had resulted in
more lenient enforcement than should have taken place.
The
report recognises that there was not a single example
of “over-zealous” enforcement.
The
report concluded that:
“there
is a significant gap in following policies and that
incident investigation should be resulting in somewhat
more consistent enforcement activity that is currently
the case.”
The
team could only provide a “limited assurance"
that:
“the system provides an adequate basis for
effective control and is properly operated in practice.”
Limited
assurance is defined as meaning:
“Risk Management, governance or control systems[‘are]
not sufficiently developed or [that] significant
level of non-compliance [have been] identified.”
The
Centre for Corporate Accountability is a human rights
charity advising those bereaved from work-related
deaths, and working on issues of safety, law enforcement
and corporate accountability.
Increase
in number of worker deaths
In the six months between 1 April 2006 to 30 September
2007, HSE statistics published at the end of last
month show that there have been 124 deaths. If this
trend continues, the total annual death toll (248)
will be a 17% increase on last years total of 212
deaths.
To
read HSE's figures, click here
The
HSE have also published statistics showing a 33%
decrease in the number of prosecution taken between
2000/01 and 2004/5. The figures are:
2000/01 - 1025
2001/02 - 1059
2002/03 - 908
2003/04 - 963
2004/05 - 712
To
read HSE's figures, click here
Back
to the top
|
