In the United Kingdom over the last decade at least five under-19s have been killed at work every year – a shocking and shameful state of affairs in anyone’s book. Over that same period we have had politicians (including the current prime minister and justice secretary) declaring war on the ‘health and safety culture’, pressing for Europe to reduce levels of protection for workers employed by small and medium enterprises, and of course removing the threat of safety inspections to whole swathes of industry.

The 31 July was the 40^th anniversary of one of the most important and successful pieces of workplace legislation. On that day in 1974 the Health and Safety at Work Act received royal assent, and since then the number of workplace fatalities has fallen by 85 per cent and the number of injuries at work by 77 per cent. A very significant improvement certainly, although not all of it can be put down to the success of the Act as a short-sighted programme of deindustrialisation has arguably played its part. It stands to reason that if you are going to close down many of the most dangerous workplaces in mining, shipbuilding and heavy engineering, then injury and fatality figures will fall dramatically. Even so, it is estimated that about half of the fall can be attributed to changes brought about by the Act.

The Health and Safety at Work Act has been effective in large measure because of its simplicity. It puts the responsibility for securing the safety, health and welfare of employees and the public rightly on to the employer. The Act also placed cooperation and partnership between employers and employees at the heart of dealing with health and safety issues. Employers were required to consult with their workforce and trades unions could appoint safety representatives to ensure that employers complied with their obligations. Any new regulations had to be approved by a commission where employers and unions had an equal number of seats, and so any new regulations had to have the support of both sides of industry.

The Act meant that for the first time we had universal coverage for everyone, which became the model for many other countries and eventually throughout the European Union with the 1989 framework directive borrowing heavily from the UK Act. Furthermore, the Act is still just as relevant today as it was 40 years ago and was recently commended by both the Young and Lofstedt reviews.

The political consensus around the Act has been vital to its enduring success. It was conceived by a Labour government, developed and drafted by the Conservatives and then enacted by Labour again. But let us be clear, that consensus is now breaking down and we must not let the 40^th anniversary celebrations obscure the fact that the Act and its principles are under attack. This Tory-led government is seeking to remove what made the Act so effective – its universal coverage and its simplicity – by removing many thousands of workers from its protection.

If the government has its way we will be left with a complex system where some workers will be covered while others will not, and where some undertakings will be covered in certain circumstances while others will be exempt. The Act will no longer offer the complete straightforward coverage that its creators intended and this will create huge challenges for employers, workers and regulators.

So yes, let’s celebrate the Act on its 40^th anniversary, but at the same time let’s be ready to defend it. And in defending the Act we must recognise that, despite its own consultations endorsing the UK health and safety system as fit for purpose, this government is committed to dismantling the settlement that has protected our workers these past 40 years. This is a matter of life and death; we desperately need a change of direction and that means securing a Labour victory in May.

———————————

Robert Sneddon is health, safety and environment officer at Community – The Union for Life

———————————

Photo: Elliott Brown