In October 1999, the UK's Health and Safety at Work Act is 25 years old. The UK has long been identified as having a good health and safety record. Nonetheless, changes in the labour market and recent court decisions demonstrate that there is no room for complacency and also raise questions about the adequacy of the country's health and safety regulations.
In October 1999, the Health and Safety at Work Act (HASAWA) is 25 years old. At the time of its adoption in 1974, the HASAWA was hailed as a landmark piece of legislation that brought 8 million mainly public service workers within the scope of the law and stimulated greater interest in health and safety amongst employers and trade unions. Although the UK's health and safety record compares favourably with most other EU countries, anniversary celebrations are muted. There is a growing sense that the existing regulatory framework is ill-adapted to the changing labour market of the late 1990s. Whilst employers are anxious about whether they are complying with health and safety requirements, employees and trade unions express concern about the relatively few prosecutions for health and safety offences and the low levels of fines imposed on employers when breaches of the HASAWA are proven.
The 1974 HASAWA simplified a mass of piecemeal regulations and established a unified statutory framework that set out principles for regulating health and safety. A new enforcement agency - the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the executive arm of the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) - was charged with enforcing the Act through the appointment of factory inspectors. The emphasis, however, was on self-regulation in which employers, employees and trade unions had the prime responsibility for ensuring a safe and healthy working environment. The role of trade unions was formalised in 1977 when provision was made for the appointment of trade union safety representatives in workplaces where unions were recognised. Health and safety remains one of the few areas in which genuine tripartism between government, employers and trade unions remains a cornerstone of public policy.
Changes in the labour market and the economy
Since 1974, there have been numerous changes in the labour market and a decisive shift in the balance of power towards employers which have had significant implications for health and safety:
- the growth of employment in small enterprises and self-employment. Small and medium-sized enterprises account for proportionally higher rates for major injuries than larger firms and this has added to the inspection requirements of the HSE. Self-employed workers are twice as likely to be killed at work than employees;
- deregulation. There have been marked increases in temporary and agency employment and an associated increase in subcontracting. These trends can jeopardise health and safety standards because of the difficulties in enforcing standards amongst workers that only have a short-term relationship with an organisation, or because of the blurring of responsibility for safety standards. The privatisation of former nationalised industries including railways and electricity supply has heightened concerns about the effective regulation of health and safety in these industries;
- union membership. Declining union recognition and collective bargaining coverage has resulted in an increasing number of workers having no access to independent health and safety representation. Regulations introduced in 1996 to address this issue have only been partially effective in remedying the problem; and
- occupational health. More intensive working practices, the growth of the service sector and a changing composition of employment has increased concern about problems of occupational health at work. A 1998 Trades Union Congress (TUC) survey of safety representatives revealed that overwork or stress was the most frequently cited concern whilst repetitive strain injuries and violence at work were also prominent. At the 1999 TUC conference, motions were passed expressing concern about stress and bullying at work.
These trends have contributed to over 1 million people suffer a work-related injury each year and more than 250 workers a year suffer fatal injuries at work. The HSE has estimated that the cost to British society of work-related accidents and work-related ill health amounts to GBP 11 billion-GBP 16 billion per year.
Social partners' reactions
Employers are becoming increasingly uncertain about their legal obligations towards their workforce. The most significant influence on health and safety regulation in the last decade has been the European Union: employers are currently getting to grips with UK implementation of the working time Directive (UK9810154F). An additional concern is a series of court cases in which employees have won compensation for poor working conditions, increasing awareness amongst employees of their rights. In July 1999, in a landmark ruling, Birmingham City Council was ordered to pay GBP 67,000 in damages to a former employee after admitting liability for work-related stress. The employee, who had an exemplary work record, had retired on medical grounds in 1997 and cited lack of support and training as grounds for her ill health. It is the first time that that a court has awarded damages for stress rather than there being an out-of-court settlement. The public services trade union UNISON, which represented the individual concerned, has indicated that it is investigating 7,000 similar complaints across the UK.
Trade unions are increasingly focusing on the stress and other health hazards associated with more intensive working practices and the UK's long hours working culture. In addition, more long-standing concerns about the adequacy of existing health and safety law to deal with accidents at work remain prominent. Over the last few years, the trade unions have been critical of the stance of the HSE which investigated less than 10% of accidents and incidents reported to it during 1997-8. This partly reflects a squeeze on HSE resources with a decrease in the number of staff in its main field operations directorate.
There is a more generalised concern about the low levels of penalties imposed by the courts even in serious breaches of health and safety laws. There have been a few well-publicised cases of high fines, notably the GBP 1.7 million levied against construction companies responsible for a series of tunnels collapsing at Heathrow airport. This is the exception, however, and the average fine remains under GBP 5,000. For the most serious offences (concerning work-related deaths) it is possible to bring manslaughter charges which carries a custodial sentence. In practice, the legal obstacles to bringing a successful prosecution have been very great and this is even more the case for the charge of corporate manslaughter which can be used against the company itself.
Commentary
There are currently a number of proposals under consideration to amend the regulation of health and safety. The HSC is considering proposals to increase the obligation on employers to investigate accidents and their causes to prevent similar incidents occurring in the future. At the moment there is no explicit legal duty on employers to investigate accidents. Although many campaigners continue to lobby for a strengthening of the law and the introduction of a new offence of corporate killing, other measures apart from external enforcement and criminal proceedings by the regulatory agencies are being considered. The TUC has been a prominent advocate of measures to make employers' insurers reimburse the National Health Service for the costs of treating the victims of workplace injury and illness. This measure is currently under consideration by the Law Commission. What seems certain is that to maintain high standards of health and safety, the regulatory framework needs to reflect the enormous economic and social changes in the UK over the last 25 years. (Stephen Bach, IRRU)