I had lots of plans for this column, but I have just abandoned them. There is only one issue on my agenda today: health and safety. The news that, despite the industry鈥檚 best efforts, the number of fatal accidents on construction sites has risen to 86 in the past year 鈥� an increase of some 20% on the previous year 鈥� has focused everyone鈥檚 attention on this issue, and rightly so.
John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, is holding urgent talks with the Health and Safety Executive, and the unions are calling for a safety summit with ministers. Swift action is being demanded, which is quite understandable. Every fatal or serious accident on site is a tragedy 鈥� first and foremost for the victim and their immediate family, but also for their employer, their workmates and everyone connected with that project. But in the rush to 鈥渄o something鈥�, it is worth pausing briefly to make sure we do the things that will actually make sites safer places.
I don鈥檛 have all the answers, but I would make a few suggestions. We should focus our efforts where they will make the most difference. And since more than half the fatal accidents were caused by falls, working at height seems a good place to start. Do we really need to do so much of it? More prefabrication and more work at ground level are obvious ways to reduce the risks. This probably sounds like Janet and John to a health and safety specialist, but I do detect a tendency to try to make what we do safer, rather than avoiding hazardous activities in the first place.
That will require the co-operation and active involvement of every member of the team, including designers and clients. The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations made valiant efforts to engage clients and designers in health and safety. With some honourable exceptions, they have singularly failed to do so, and that has to change. If architects and clients behave as though safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor, we stand little chance of making a step change.
If architects and clients act as though safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor, we stand little chance of making a step change
We also need help from the people who work on site. They need to take part of the responsibility for their own safety and that of the people who work around them. That means a change in site culture 鈥� it should be irrelevant whether the individual is a direct employee, a subcontractor or an agency worker.
On an emotional subject such as this, the government needs to set an example by taking a rational approach to the legal regime for health and safety, particularly to penalties.
Any lawyer will tell you that a penalty can be designed to have a range of effects, including deterrence, rehabilitation and retribution. The retributive element comes to the fore too often in this debate. Punishing someone may bring momentary satisfaction, but what counts is ensuring that a similar accident never recurs. That requires a clear, comprehensible system that operates as an incentive to good practice and is evenly and fairly enforced. We may also need a few more HSE staff 鈥� 150 inspectors for some 200 000 active sites is unlikely to be enough.
