CCA Response to Draft HSEDocument

Dear David,

The Centre for Corporate Accountability has the following comments to make about the draft of the Guidance on "Health and Safety in Annual Reports"

A number of these points were made at the meeting organised by RoSPA held at John Laing's PLC on 20 February 2001.

1. It is our view that this sort of guidance should be put on a statutory footing. Enclosed with this note is information about a Private Members Bill that was drafted by the Campaign for Freedom of Information. In our view reform along these lines is necessary.
   
   
2. What is the rationale for this guidance to effect only organisations that employ more than "250 people"? The number seems to have been plucked out of the air by both the DETR in its "Revitalising" strategy Statement, and now again by the Commission.
   
   This needs to be explained. In our view this guidance should be extended to a much wider range of organisations employing far fewer than 250 people. It should be noted that the Private Members Bill referred to above applied to companies:

   "where the average number of persons employed by the company in each week during the financial year exceeded 10"

3. The Centre is concerned about the wording of the paragraph 5. This states that:

   "You should include appropriate health and safety information in your published reports on your activities and performance. This demonstrates to your stakeholders your organisation's commitment to effective health and safety risk management. It shows that you are alert to the need to monitor and improve your health and safety performance."

   It is our view that this paragraph needs to be articulated in more "neutral" language. Not all organisations who follow this guidance has a "commitment to effective health and safety risk management" and nor are they all "alert to monitor your health and safety performance".

   The Centre understands that the reason this paragraph was worded in this fashion is to try and give companies a positive reason to follow the guidance. We feel however that the paragraph could be worded differently, whilst continuing to achieve the same goal. For example, the second and third sentences could read:

   "This will allow your stakeholders to assess your commitment to effective health and safety risk and how alert you are to the need to monitor and improve your health and safety performance."

   Whilst this wording might not be quite as positive as your version - it comes close, whilst at the same time using a fare more appropriately neutral language, which in our view is important.

3. In relation to paragraph 7, we suggest that:

• there should be an additional item stating that "the names of any directors with particular responsibility for health and safety should be given".
  
  
• In relation to the sub-para heading titled"provide data on your health and safety performance including":
  
  

  • the second sentence of the first paragraphs should state that:

    "This data should distinguish between fatalities, major injuries, over-three day injuries ..... To help with comparison against revitalising targets, as well as giving the numbers in the above categories, it should also be presented as the rate of injuries ...."

  • the send para should state:
    
    "brief details of the circumstances of any fatalities and non-fatal major injuries, and of the actions .... and of any enforcement notices imposed in relation to these incidents.
    
    
• the fifth paragraph should state:
  
  "the number of enforcement notices (separated out into improvement and prohibitions notices) and information ..."
  
  

• the sixth paragraph should state:

  "the number and nature of each conviction for health and safety offences, stating whether it is against the company/organisation or a manager or director ...

4. This guidance is intended for those companies employing more than 250 people. There is no recognition that many of these "companies" - particularly those in the "top 350 companies" which the guidelines are intended to initially effect - are "corporate groups" within which there are many wholly owned "companies". The guidance however does not give any information on how corporate groups should provide safety information in their reports.

   In our view, the guidance should clearly state that where an annual report is concerned with the activities of a number of companies within a corporate group, details of deaths, injuries, enforcement notices, prosecutions etc (i.e. that information referred to in paragraph 7 under the title: "provide data on your health and safety performance, including") should be given by each company within the corporate group.

I hope that this is helpful

Your sincerely,

David Bergman
DIRECTOR

cc: John Grubb, DETR
Stephen Benton, DETR