Response from Thompsons Solicitors – March 2007

Response from Thompsons Solicitors

Thompsons is the UK’s most experienced trade union and personal injury law firm. It has a network of offices across the UK, including the separate jurisdictions of Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Thompsons only acts for trade union members and the victims of injury, never for employers or insurance companies. We act for many individuals seriously injured and killed in workplace accidents where the HSE has been involved. The firm represented victims of disasters such as Piper Alpha, Zeebrugge, Hillsborough, The King's Cross Fire and the Clapham and Paddington rail crashes. We acted for the train drivers’ union ASLEF in relation to the Ladbroke Grove inquiry.

The firm participates regularly in government consultations on legislative issues, and has previously responded to HSE and HSC consultations.

Questions

Question 1 – Do you agree with our proposals for merging HSC and HSE into a new single authority for regulating health and safety at work in Great Britain?

Yes, if it removes the current confusion that exists over the roles of the respective organisations. However, the new merged body must be properly resourced in order to ensure adequate numbers of inspectors. The new merged body must retain its independence as a prosecutor.

Question 2 – Do you agree with the overarching governance principles for a new merged health and safety authority?

Yes but there should be a specific requirement for members to be drawn equally from worker and employer representatives. There should also be representation from the devolved regional assemblies and local authorities.

Question 3 – Do you agree that the governing body of the new merged health and safety authority should consist entirely of non-executive directors?

If this is the way to ensure that the new body is independent and the commissioners are seen to be authoritative and respected then Thompsons supports this proposal.

Question 4 – Do you agree that the governing body should have the scope to increase in size to 11 independent members should the need arise in future?

Yes, but see answer to Q2. Devolution means that it should include seats for representatives from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and it should have a specific representative for local authorities. The local authority commissioner would, in the interests of ensuring they are independent, authoritative and respected, be selected on the basis of their authority’s record of investigations, prosecutions and fines. The seat would be a rolling one.

Question 5 – We would welcome your views on whether we should be doing more to enhance our relationship with stakeholders

Question 6 – Do you agree that prosecution and individual enforcement decisions within a merged health and safety authority should continue to be taken by officials?

For Thompsons the over-riding concern is the continuing lack of resources which has led to too few inspectors, too few prosecutions and inadequate enforcement.

We regularly see personal injury claims on behalf of workers who have been injured, or worse,  at work where the employer has an existing enforcement notice against them with which they have not complied.

So while we agree that prosecution and individual enforcement decisions should continue to be taken by officials we would want reassurance that any costs saved as a consequence of this merger are ring-fenced and used solely for the purpose of increasing inspections, prosecutions and enforcement.

We would also want to see evidence that the roles of policy, implementation and monitoring  are  properly defined and assigned. There must be clear lines of demarcation in these roles.

Question 7 – Do you agree that the merged body should be known as the Health and Safety Executive?

No. In order to avoid confusion with the former body and its functions, the new merged body should have a new identity. Thompsons would favour the Health and Safety Authority.Â