Questions: The work and pensions committee recently published a report on the role of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), what was your reaction to this report?
We welcomed the comprehensive report of the work and pensions committee into the role of the HSE. The committee makes many valid and important points about the need for more frontline inspections, the critical importance of the HSE receiving adequate funding, and the need for legislation to increase the maximum penalties available for breaches of health and safety law.
We appreciate the committee's call to review the issue of statutory directors' health and safety duties, but three years is too long a timescale for reviewing the effectiveness of the voluntary guidance, especially as the committee itself states that it is 'not convinced' the voluntary approach is effective in prioritising health and safety.
With 241 people killed at work last year, any review must occur sooner if a health and safety culture is to be embedded in every workplace.
Questions: Research recently carried out by the British Safety Council found that 62 per cent of workers received little or no health and safety training from employers. Does this surprise you?
This is certainly a surprising statistic and, since the Health and Safety at Work Act was passed as long ago as 1974, it is also very alarming. APIL campaigns for a health and safety culture to become embedded in every organisation, large or small, as everybody has the right to go to work and come home uninjured.
Companies who do not train their workers in health and safety procedures are, potentially, playing with their employees' lives. This is not even in companies' own interests as a strong health and safety culture contributes to good staff morale, staff retention and company reputation.
Questions: Statistics say 241 people were killed in the workplace last year. What can be done by both employers and government to reduce the number of workplace accidents and deaths?
One of the main planks of APIL's work is helping to prevent negligent incidents in the first place. We believe the time has come for statutory directors' health and safety duties to be introduced. This would mean every company has to have a director responsible for health and safety issues at boardroom level.
Health and safety should be treated with the same degree of seriousness as financial affairs. We call upon the government to bring forward legislation on this issue as soon as possible.
Questions: Should there be greater penalties for employers who commit health and safety offences?
We are strongly in favour of increased penalties for breaches of health and safety law. The organisation supports the Health and Safety (Offences) Bill, currently going through Parliament, which will increase the maximum fines for some offences. We are very pleased the government has publicly supported the Bill so hopefully, it will be passed before the end of the parliamentary session.
We do believe it is important to recognise employers who have a good health and safety record too, and, to this end, we have advocated introducing a 'naming and praising' scheme.
This would be very beneficial to a company's brand and image and should hopefully encourage 'rogue companies' to put health and safety at the top of their boardroom agendas. APIL is also supportive of other innovative penalties, such as adverse publicity orders where a company is 'named and shamed' for its negligence.
Questions: In your opinion, is the media guilty of misleading the public on the issue of health and safety regulation? If so, why is this a problem?
What sometimes happens is that the full facts are not reported. Alarmist headlines, or just a snippet of what is actually a very complex case, can lead to the full story simply not being reported. This can be very misleading, especially when it comes to health and safety.
We have seen many times health and safety issues being ridiculed in some publications – this may be more entertaining for the readers but it makes light of what are usually very serious issues. There are also occasions when stories about health and safety are blown completely out of proportion, which creates the false impression that society is bound by red tape.
It would be refreshing to see more balanced reporting on these issues – people are influenced by the media and it could play a key role in educating people about the myth and the reality.
Questions: Can you tell us about the 'Accident of Negligence' booklet you recently produced? What is its purpose? Who is it aimed at?
Press stories about conkers being banned in school playgrounds, health and safety being taken too far, and hanging baskets being removed have created a false impression of the personal injury system.
Employers and volunteering organisations actually fear unreasonable litigation the most. A recurrent theme is that litigation can take place on any old pretext. This is not the case.
We felt that as a lawyers' association, we were in a position to inform people about their rights and responsibilities in relation to the law on negligence, and we could fill a gap by explaining to councils, volunteering organisations, schools, MPs, and journalists that an organisation or individual cannot be sued for any old mishap. Negligence has to be proven and, of course, the best way to avoid litigation is to avoid negligence in the first place.
Launched at our AGM in 2007, the 'Accident or Negligence?' booklet was designed to tackle common misconceptions about how the law applies when a person has been injured by someone else, and aims to help people understand the difference between an accident and negligence.
Our aim for this year is to ensure teachers, volunteering groups and local authorities are made aware of their rights and responsibilities, which we hope will dispel the fear of unreasonable litigation.
Additionally, as part of our 'agenda for injured people', we are calling for all those with an interest in health, safety, negligence and compensation to engage in serious, rational debate about the issues. The booklet is available from the APIL office and the website at: http://www.apil.org.uk/Campaigns.aspx
Questions: APIL has urged for the government to introduce the Coroner's Reform Bill as soon as possible, what do you hope for from the Bill?
We are very pleased the government included a Coroners and Death Certification Bill in the recent draft Queen's Speech document. We were promised a Bill a year ago and we hope that this time it does appear in the 2008-09 parliamentary session.
We were supportive of the government's recent proposals to strengthen coroners' powers to force those who cause deaths to explain themselves – and spell out what they are going to do to prevent the same thing happening again.
Funding of legal advice for bereaved relatives is a particular concern and we believe the power to award public funding for bereaved relatives should lie with the coroner.
At inquests, bereaved families often find themselves alone in the coroner's court, while other parties usually appear with legal representation. Bereaved people who do not have access to a lawyer are likely to be seriously disadvantaged in such circumstances and there is far less chance that the relatives will be satisfied with the outcome.
Questions: What are the other key areas of work for APIL this year?
We are waiting for the government response to the 'Case tracks limits and the claims process'. This will have a major impact on people injured through negligence, and their families. We are calling for a claims process which focuses on protecting victims' rights to independent legal advice, and in which the small claims limit, and the fast-track limit, remain unchanged. Any reforms should be about the injured, vulnerable person.
The Draft Civil Law Reform Bill, promised in the draft Queen's Speech, will be a major issue for us. This Bill will deal with, amongst others, the crucial issue of the law on damages. We are calling for the government to provide real leadership in an attempt to settle the issue of levels of damages for personal injury victims.
The issue of damages is a main aspect of our 'Agenda for Injured People', which we launched at our parliamentary reception in November 2007. This highlights the fundamental issues of importance to people who have been injured through negligence, such as the need for statutory directors' health and safety duties. We will be publicising this document on ePolitix in the coming months.
Questions: Do you have any final comments for ePolitix.com readers?
As part of our 'Agenda for injured people', we are calling for all those with an interest in health and safety to engage in serious, rational debate about the issues. We therefore welcome comments from other ePolitix stakeholders on this crucially important area for millions of working people.
