HC Deb 20 June 1975 vol 893 cc1925-38

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an immensely important subject which has been largely ignored and which in some respects has been cloaked in secrecy. In June 1974, the Department of Employment proposed that the existing Factory Inspectorate should be reorganised, and that over 100 local offices should be closed and centralised on some 16 area offices. Additionally, it was proposed that the Inspectorate should adopt a consultative rôle rather than a policing rôle.

It being Four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Mr. Cryer

Report No. 1 (Revised) June 1974, which set out the proposals, says: The traditional rôle of the policeman on his cyclical beat, going round every four years to find out what is wrong, is already giving way to a selective approach to factories and management, and these proposals will enable the Inspectorate's rôle to become even more that of the professional consultant dealing with his client. In view of the 800 to 1,000 deaths and the 17 million to 20 million days lost each year through industrial injury, and since the inspectorate has been criticised for lack of urgency in prosecution for breaches of regulations—for example in the years between 1968 and 1973 there were about 50,000 eye injuries each necessitating three or more days off work but which resulted in only some 50 prosecutions—there is a real need for the policing rôle of the inspectorate to be improved and enhanced and certainly in no way diminished. I believe that the reorganisation is being undertaken to reduce the policing rôle and to emphasise the consultancy aspect.

The Factory Inspectorate was not in the first instance consulted about the change and it became so unhappy with the proposals that it refused to implement sections of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 relating to the imposition of improvement and prohibition notices. In January this year a resolution was carried by the Yorkshire and Humberside Factory Inspectorate expressing no confidence in the Health and Safety Executive. In West Yorkshire, the proposals will mean the closure of offices at Bradford, Huddersfield, Halifax and Shipley, with all the inspectors transferred to Leeds. This will mean more travelling time and less inspecting time. This point has been amply confirmed by reports from two trial reorganised areas at Slough and Newcastle.

After I put down a series of Parliamentary Questions I was invited to discuss the proposed reorganisation with the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, Mr. Bill Simpson, and the Chief Inspector. I requested a copy of the Newcastle Report for background information, and this was refused. The Chairman of the Commission has refused to place copies of either reports in the Library of the House.

I would be very willing at all times to enter discussions, but full information is an absolute prerequisite for such discussions if they are to be in any way meaningful, and I would earnestly request the Minister to press for publication of these reports. I am told, for example, that the Newcastle Report was edited by the superintending inspector before submission in order to provide a less representative view—perhaps a more flattering view—of the reorganisation experience. Only publication will offset this sort of claim.

It is to the credit of the Slough area that no editing was apparently done and that the unvarnished observations of those carrying out the experiment are consequently included. On page 7 of that report, it is made clear that accidents have occurred in the food and printing processes which have not been investigated due to the extra burdens of administration placed on the inspectorate. It says: It has been necessary for expediency to cancel investigations of many accidents which ought to have been followed up. Of course, as a result of this inability to carry out their functions, a number of the inspectors in the experimental areas have certainly been dispirited. On page 9, the principal inspector commented I have to say that I have found the Area scheme totally disappointing and almost totally disastrous.… I have to insist that my inspectors (and I) have worked far harder than ever before to achieve a lesser result in terms of effective inspection. I have become increasingly alarmed at the effects on inspectors' health, well-being and morale as the scheme has progressed in time. I have become increasingly convinced at the same time that no one outside the Area cares about this aspect or is willing to listen to argument on this point. A responsible employee of the commission, one assumes not a person given to outlandish statements, is there saying, in effect, that the reorganisation is being forced through with no recognition of valid objections or of the difficulties which have been created. The same principal inspector concludes: 1. My inspectors and I are opposed to the current Area scheme. We found ourselves more efficient (and, possibly irrelevantly, healthier and happier) under the divisional and district scheme. 2. We accept the propounded advantages of specialisation, but only in certain industries, limited in number, which can be identified and debated in future. 3. We deny totally that there is any real benefit in centralisation of offices. Those are the conclusions of one sector of the experimental area, but trade unionists to whom I have spoken all over the country are extremely alarmed that area offices are now to be so remote from many workplaces that inspectors will not be able to visit a factory to inspect an alleged breach on the same day as the report is made in many cases. This will undoubtedly lead to more breaches of regulations, because the ability of shop stewards to telephone a district office where speedy access is frequently available is a powerful deterrent to employers to avoid breaches of the various Acts. That is clearly borne out on page 8 of the Slough report, where an inspector comments: I must make the bulk of my visits by appointment to produce maximum use of my time … Occupiers and employees are concerned at the 'remoteness of inspectors.' On page 2 he says: It is fair to question the concept of a single area office being able to provide the Inspectorate in particular and the public at large with an efficient and immediate service. There is concern that one area office, serving a large geographical area, will not be able to provide the sort of service that has hitherto been provided. I have already made it clear that many of us regard that service as being less than wholly satisfactory.

The basis of the reorganisation is that it is necessary to build up specialist knowledge and information. That, again, is challenged in the Slough Report, where it is pointed out that 85 per cent. of inspectors' work is common to all industries. On page 13 a senior inspector states: Eighty-five per cent. of problems are common to all industries. Therefore the remaining 15 per cent. can be solved by the Field Support Units. An inspector in another group raised on page 21 the question of the difficulties of narrow specialisation, saying: In the district we were all on common inspection, and discussion between ourselves on problems and matters encountered were educational and mutually helpful. I feel we are now breaking down to discussion only within our particular group, which in the long run will lead to a generally narrow field of knowledge individually. It is possible that the versatility of the present inspectors will be lost. Indeed, as specialisation develops there will be no foundation of general experience for inspectors to build on.

The report on the Flixborough disaster, for example, makes it clear that the sort of knowledge required to prevent the design faults inherent in the plant, now falling under Section 6 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, and the subsequent design faults in the repairs, would be far and away more specialised than could possibly be envisaged in any of the proposed area offices. Such knowledge would be so specialised that it could be available only from a special source to supplement the general work of the inspectors.

The Flixborough report also shows that there was a strong emphasis on getting the plant on stream again, which led to a disregard for adequate design and testing. This emphasises the need for the police rôle of the inspectorate, with less emphasis on the consultancy. The claim that, for example, the health of asbestos workers at Southwark and Hebden Bridge was due to lack of specialist knowledge, a claim made by the chairman of the commission in a letter to one of my hon. Friends, is ludicrous. Every shred of evidence in those unfortunate circumstances points not to a lack of knowledge but to a deliberate and persistent ignoring of various regulations and a lack of will by the Inspectorate to undertake prosecutions for breaches. Affidavits have been made to the Ombudsman to the effect that such breaches have been made for many years. This question is now under investigation.

A Law Lord described the Inspectorate's attitude towards such projects as "supine"—but, happily, evidence indicates that that attitude no longer persists. But if reorganisation is persisted in, every opportunity will be given to the Inspectorate to evade its rôle as policemen and to supplement that rôle with the rôle of consultancy.

On average, in each year 250,000-plus visits are made by factory inspectors, let alone about 1,200 or so prosecutions undertaken per year. It is clear that the rôle of policemen should be supplemented rather than diminished. Emphasis is always put on the need to recruit more inspectors, but the Slough Report indicates that under the proposed reorganisation this might be difficult.

On page 20 of the Slough Report an inspector quotes as follows: In my opinion Area South is a dismal failure. I have tried to work to an acceptable level throughout the year and with myself acting as David and monolithic Slough acting as Goliath. I think I'll win, but it's going to be a long struggle. I have from time to time become very despondent and depressed, a feeling shared by many, as to the futility of the way we are having to operate, greatly understaffed, and having to cover over 130 miles daily just to carry out office work. … Other than leaving the Department, I can see no way in which my lot can be improved, as the next six months seem to have only more misery in store for all of us. Although at a time of increasing unemployment, recruiting should not be difficult, the long-term prospects inevitably mean that factory inspectors are forced to accept a reorganisation which they do not want since it involves excessive travelling. I am told that a principal inspector in the South Area covers 26,000 miles per annum. When trade improves those inspectors will move elsewhere, and we are urgently in need of dedicated inspectors to ensure higher safety standards in industry.

The Minister may claim—indeed he has already done so—that the Safety Inspectorate, through its organisation the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, has voted for the reorganisation. But this is only part of the case. The vote was for a package deal which included a pay increase, and a certain alteration of structure, and reorganisation was only one minor part of the deal. A letter from the Institution makes this emphatically clear. The letter says: Since we represent all of the Factory Inspectors we have naturally been following with interest your campaign … on the subject of the Factory Inspectorate and, in particular, the idea of concentration in a fairly small number of centres. We are of course engaging in discussions with the Department on this subject… We certainly do not go along with the view that all will be well if the reorganisation report is implemented. We do not think that it will and we are quite clearly on record that we are not having it implemented as it stands. One of the items of further concern is that the trade unions representing agriculture inspectors can point to the expressions of concern among the Factory Inspectorate and put forward that concern as a reason for opposing the absorption of its members under the Health and Safety Commission. I am keen—I am sure the Minister is, too—that the inspection of agriculture should come under the commission and I am certain that he is as anxious as I am to ensure that the move is harmonious.

Although factory inspectors are employed by the Government, a number of them felt justified in drawing the attention of their members to the grave deficiencies in the proposed reorganisation. One inspector came to see me and made a number of points. I am respecting his confidence since he clearly feels—I believe incorrectly—that his career prospects might be prejudiced by a revelation of his position. He says: One of the advantages of the present organisation is that the general inspector, that is to say the inspector dealing with all industries in a locality, is in a position to relate problems to the overall situation. In short, he can place some order of priority on the problems which exist in his district. It seems clear, therefore, that the Health and Safety Executive's proposals for the reorganisation of the Factory Inspectorate are misconceived. They involve a waste of valuable resources, namely the inspector's time. They almost certainly mean a lowering of the standard of service, both to the employer and the working population, in so far as inspectors will not be as accessible as they have been in the past. And finally, they mean eventually that the Inspectorate will lose its ability to deal with matters on a priority basis. One final question should be asked. Why has the HSE produced such proposals at such a time? Clearly, they want specialisation. Is it because they wish the state, through the factory inspectors, to provide a safety health and welfare advisory service for the larger firms? For this is what their proposals mean. Is this a job that the state, the taxpayers, should be doing for large-scale private industry? Or is it a job that industry ought to take on itself, leaving the Inspectorate to perform its watch-dog or policing role? Thus, there is genuine concern among the inspectorate about the reorganisation. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares that concern and, like me, would wish to reduce the loss of life and limb in industry by improving the efficiency and vigilance of the Inspectorate.

I also recommend very strongly to my hon. Friend that he should press the Health and Safety Commission to halt the reorganisation, particularly as a new and much more comprehensive measure, the Health and Safety at Work Act, is to apply, which makes reorganisation at this time doubly difficult.

Could my hon. Friend institute consultations with the trade unions at district level to see how they feel that the Inspectorate could be improved? Could he encourage further consultations with the Inspectorate so that some of the valuable suggestions contained in the reports can be adopted? The working party on reorganisation is not sufficient, as it is too much committed to the proposals.

If such suggestions were adopted, I am certain that it would please the Inspectorate and the working people who daily face the difficulties and dangers which cause so much suffering in industry and would be a real step towards reducing the loss of life and limb.

Finally, can my hon. Friend press for publication of the two reports for Newcastle and Slough, so that the debate can continue in an informed and intelligent manner before the reorganisation is implemented?

4.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Harold Walker)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the reorganisation of the Factory Inspectorate yet again, as it gives me an opportunity of discussing fully this important and complex subject. The vital questions to ask are, firstly, what it is that the Factory Inspectorate is intended to achieve, and, secondly, is it so organised as to achieve its aims? We must face squarely criticisms of the previous arrangements, but it would be wrong to suggest, as my hon. Friend does, that the factory inspectors of the past have worked other than with energy and dedication. They have made a significant contribution to the safety and health of our work people.

Looking to the future, the answer to the questions I have posed must surely be that we need a Factory Inspectorate which is vigorous in enforcement and authoritative in its advice. To be this, it must be so organised as to reflect its new duties and responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, so organised as to deal with the industrial realities of the mid-seventies, so organised as to make the best use of the resources given to it to raise the standards of health and safety of all at work.

If no improvement can be discerned in the workplace, and if industry does not get authoritative advice, it matters little how many inspections are made, accidents investigated, notices served or offences prosecuted. Our yardstick is the benefit to the worker or his neighbour who may be put at risk by work activities. It was with this aim in mind that the factory inspectors and others who made proposals for reorganisation set about their task.

Let me paraphrase some of the criticisms made in the 1972 Robens Report. The report said that the work of the Inspectorate was based on outworn conceptions of industry and was insufficiently responsive to its changing needs. Modern industrial techniques required a deeper knowledge of specific processes, a readier access to highly qualified specialists and a more closely integrated field structure capable of offering sophisticated administrative, technical, scientific and information support.

Robens therefore recommended that units in the field should be large enough to comprise a wider range of specialisation and skills and to have the status and authority to deal on the spot with difficult problems and organisations, and that the cyclical pattern of routine visits should give way to a programme which concentrated on major problems identified by a more systematic analysis of all available statistical and other data.

Serious incidents such as the explosions at Flixborough, Sheffield and Dudgeons' Wharf, the structural failures at Loddon Bridge and Brent Cross, and the ill-health of asbestos workers in Southwark and at Hebden Bridge, contrary to the assumptions of my hon. Friend, have emphasised the need for a more specialised and professional approach to problems arising from new and sophisticated industrial techniques.

Is it sensible that an individual inspector should be responsible for the advice to be given in 20 or 30 difficult and risky industries? The Mines Inspectorate would not attempt it, and I am sure that several Members of this House would be angry if we tried to make them do so. As my hon. Friend recognises, the present proposals represent a movement away from the "general practitione" factory inspector, dealing with all problems within a given geographical area, towards a greater degree of specialisation by industry.

This involves, first, creating a number of industry teams; secondly, limiting the range of industries which the other general inspectors cover; thirdly, making the specialist support of engineers, chemists, and so on, more readily accessible to the industry teams in the field; fourthly, providing an efficient local information advisory service to both sides of industry; and, lastly, providing adequate administrative back-up for all these activities.

A copy of the report of the Planning Unit set up to make reorganisation proposals is available in the Library. Taking into account the existing manpower of the Inspectorate and the need for units to be sufficiently large to provide the more sophisticated administrative, technical and information support required, the Planning Unit proposed reorganisation, as my hon. Friend said, into 18 areas, a number of which might be increased as the Inspectorate grows larger. I can assure my hon. Friend that there are plans to increase the size of the Inspectorate by about 50 per cent. over the next five years.

As he recognises, before full reorganisation it was decided to test the validity of these proposals on an operational basis. Two trial areas were therefore set up, one in the North-East, based on Newcastle-on-Tyne, and the other in the South based on Slough. These were chosen because they contained widely differing types and concentrations of industry. Inspectors in the two areas were backed by a group of chemical and mechanical and civil engineering inspectors working from Watford.

The trial schemes proved extremely useful in identifying both the advantages of the new method of working and also the operational problems that had to be solved. Certainly there were a number of difficulties, including the location centrally of an area office of adequate size, the recruitment and training of new clerical staff, and the inadequacy of temporary telephone arrangements. But valuable lessons were learned from the trials and they will be taken fully into account as reorganisation goes ahead.

The two main issues which the Inspectorate must face are the increase in travelling time and the closure of certain local offices. Where inspectors have a large area to cover, travel to and from certain factories will take longer than from a local office. This extra travel time has to be balanced against the gain in the quality of the inspection which comes from a more specialised industry approach. Surely an inspector who knows the industry well has seen the best that can be achieved in that industry, and is in touch with developments nationally, is better suited to advise, and more confident to enforce high standards, than an inspector who has not got that depth of knowledge and experience.

The intention to close a number of local offices has understandably given rise to fears that factory inspectors will be less accessible, and therefore that the service provided for that area will be less effective. I am assured by the Health and Safety Commission that the aim of the reorganisation is to enable inspectors to develop more intimate contacts with both sides of the industries they serve and to provide a better service. The provisions of Section 28(8) of the Health and Safety at Work Act on disclosure of information to work people will in any case lead to closer contact between inspectors and representatives of work people. The provision of better executive and clerical support should provide a better response to telephone inquiries and also enable the senior inspectors in the area to spend more time in dealing with industry's problems at the workplace and less on office administration. Employers and workers alike wish to see the inspector not in his office but at the place of work. That is right.

My hon. Friend can be assured that the need for local offices in geographically larger areas has been fully demonstrated by the two trial schemes. These local offices will be fully staffed and equipped. This decision means that more of the existing back-up staff will be offered the prospect of employment with the Inspectorate within reasonable travelling distance of their homes. Negotiations are still going on about the number of local offices needed to support the area offices and the towns in which these should be set up. I can say, however, that 87 of the 126 divisional and district offices are in, or are within reasonable travelling distance of, a town where an area or local office, in which the staff could be employed, is at present proposed.

Although every effort will be made to retain skilled staff from district offices which close it is accepted that in some cases this may not be possible, and in these cases the office will remain open until satisfactory alternative employment within the Civil Service has been found for those members of staff. It should not be forgotten that even under the present system occasions regularly arise where staff have to change offices for purposes of career planning or promotion, and the necessity for this is accepted by staff.

The advantages of the new method of operation were quickly realised in the trial area in the North-East. Inspectors specialising in such industries as chemicals, shipbuilding and iron and steel generally gained greater satisfaction in their work and rapidly became more knowledgeable and more expert in uncovering and in dealing with the problems in these industries. The size of the area office gave improved efficiency and enabled the area director to exercise tighter control over the staff and its work. The difficulties experienced in the South area can be overcome and discussions with the staff are still in progress on the best means of doing this.

One of the most important functions of the new style area director is to establish and maintain closer relationships with both sides of industry. In each of the trial areas the new method of operation enabled him to spend more time than hitherto in consulting trade union officials and senior managers in industry and many expressed satisfaction with the new arrangements.

Before the start of the two trial schemes, copies of the Planning Unit report were sent to the TUC and CBI and informal discussions were held with them. At the end of the trials a paper produced by the executive was also made available for use by the TUC and CBI to consult their members. Subsequently the Commission agreed in principle to the reorganisation proposals but stressed the need, as my hon. Friend asked, for consultation on the details with local trade union and employers' associations. Local consultation was carried out in the two areas where the trial schemes took place.

The staff of the Inspectorate and the staff associations have been fully consulted from the start on all aspects of the reorganisation. Copies of the Planning Unit report were made available to all staff. During the trial schemes a joint working party of the staff associations concerned and members of the Health and Safety Executive met regularly to consider their effectiveness. The report of this working party has now been circulately widely in the Factory Inspectorate. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House and my hon. Friend has received a copy recently. A statement agreed with the chairman of the staff side, fully setting out the position, was issued recently by the Director-General of the Executive. Time prevents me from reading its contents but I will arrange for my hon. Friend to receive a copy.

The Director-General, the Chief Inspector and his senior inspectors, all men of relevant experience, agree that overall the benefits of reorganisation in terms of more authoritative advice, heightened impact and greater personal job satisfaction for many inspectors seem to be real, and with careful forward planning there need be few attendant difficulties.

The Health and Safety Commission, which is strongly representative of trade unions and employers, believes that it is right in adopting this approach to the task of raising the standards of health and safety of all at work in this country. I look forward, as I am sure the House does, to seeing the tangible results of its endeavours.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.