As noted earlier, the mean score of current use for the strategy of dealing with issues of concern that are raised and complaints was 6.70 whilst for feasibility it was 7.51. This represented an increase in value of 0.81. This was shown to be a significant difference through further analysis where t (77) = 8.63; p < 0.01.
Business perspective
Apprehension of staff members in raising complaints/concerns
There is a current instruction to LAs, (HELA LAC) that details of complainants should not be divulged’ yet in smaller companies with limited workforces it is not difficult to identify the staff member who raised the complaint. Anecdotal evidence from respondents suggested they were aware of certain employees who had been dismissed from the company as a direct result of them making a complaint and being perceived as a ‘troublemaker’ by management staff.
These often arise through inadequate company procedures
It was suggested that legal frameworks are not particularly helpful in these instances especially where formal structures are not appropriate due to the small number of employees. Many employees would rather ‘vote with their feet’ by leaving a company where they felt they were being improperly treated rather than raising a complaint.
Clearly this can perpetuate difficulties and gives rise to the assertion that this type of intervention is sometimes better suited to larger organisations where the complainant can remain anonymous.
Local authority perspective
Dealt with as a matter of policy
There is little to elaborate on here other than that this intervention strategy is utilised as a matter of policy. Similarly to incident and ill health investigation there is a public expectation that this is an area local authorities should be dealing with.
In addition, for those low risk premises which may only receive a visit every five years or so it can help to identify difficulties before their planned inspection.
Conclusions
The potential for increased use of each intervention
There was consistent support from local authority officers for an extended use of all of the interventions examined. The greatest level of support for an increased use was for those interventions that were ranked in the middle for current use. These were Education and awareness, Earned autonomy, Design and supply, Partnership, Motivating senior managers, Sector and industry wide initiatives, Best practice and Intermediaries. The interventions, Inspection and enforcement, Incident and ill health investigation, and Dealing with issues of concern that are raised and complaints were seen as providing less scope for increased use because of their already high usage. At the bottom of the list Supply chain interventions were seen as less feasible for local authorities as was Working with those at risk because safety representatives are rare in the local authority enforced sector.
Favoured local authority interventions
Inspection and enforcement, Incident and ill health investigation and Dealing with issues of concern that are raised and complaints were, not surprisingly, seen as “favoured” local authority interventions both in terms of their current use and feasibility for future use. The local authorities’ preference for these strategies may stem from the historical and traditional enforcement role in local authorities and the way in which local authority members view the function. Several respondents in the research referred to a perception that local authority members regarded visiting duty-holders as the only valid intervention with responding to direct complaints or enquiries as a poor second to this. Other less direct interventions were often regarded as less valid or even, as one respondent put it “an indulgence”. Local authorities’ predilection for inspections and direct forms of intervention may also be reinforced by the culture of food safety law enforcement which is conducted by the same authorities, usually in the same department and often by the same officers as those who conduct health and safety enforcement.
Food safety enforcement work, as prescribed by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), revolves almost entirely around inspection, sampling and the investigation of complaints. There is no parallel in food safety enforcement practice with the range of interventions examined here for health and safety enforcement. This lack of sophistication in food safety enforcement culture may contribute to the simple view of health and safety enforcement that is held by some local authority members and consequently by some senior officers of those authorities.
An example of this, which was often referred to in this research, is the FSA inspection-rating scheme. This requires proactive inspections to be prioritised using a measure of risk determined at the last inspection. It is based upon the HSE LAU priority planning scheme used for health and safety inspection planning but, unlike that scheme, sets fixed inspection intervals the longest of which is five years. The FSA also prescribes in detail how inspections should be done and what should be done at an inspection. There is no discretion to allow officers to concentrate on priority risks
The result of the above is that although the FSA scheme is in many ways inferior to the HSE LAU scheme, in that it is less focussed on risk, it does lock resources into food safety enforcement. In a simplistic example, if a local authority wants to make a 10% cut in environmental health resources it may be told that if it cuts food safety spending by 10% it will not meet FSA inspection targets. It may, therefore, decide not to cut food safety spending but to cut health and safety spending by 20%. Many of the participants in the research were acutely aware of this problem and this may even have reinforced their own preference for the more tangible and measurable interventions.
In any case the fundamental differences in occupational health and safety, and food safety approaches to enforcement appears to cause difficulties for enforcement officers as well as duty holders.
The nature of the local authority enforced sector.
Many of the participants in the research explained their perception that the vast majority of businesses in the LA enforced sector are both small and locally based (often single site) businesses. Although it may be the case that the HSE sector also contains many small businesses, there are fewer large, and more particularly, medium sized employers in the LA sector than in the HSE sector. It is in these medium and larger businesses where many of the interventions examined here are easiest to apply e.g. Partnerships, Intermediaries, Supply chain and Working with those at risk. This is not just because they are easier to arrange for larger businesses, but also because they are more efficient in terms of resource use. This makes many of the interventions were considered less attractive to LAs.
LA officers were not, however, totally dismissive of these interventions. It seemed that they would be willing to be involved in implementing many of them, perhaps by helping in programmes led by HSE.
Local Authority Partnership Schemes (LAPS)
LAPS were regarded by many respondents, (especially LAPS partners), as a mechanism to ensure enforcement consistency for the convenience of a few larger companies rather than as a strategy to promote good health and safety practice. As such they were often seen as a rather expensive exercise contributing relatively little to health and safety. Brand benefit
Many respondents were conscious of the benefits that some larger companies obtain from recognition of their participation in various health and safety initiatives. This may apply to many of the interventions examined here e.g. involvement in partnerships, meetings between their senior managers and members of the HSC, being seen as an example of best practice or earning some autonomy. The respondents felt, however, that this benefit was really only available to companies with a sufficiently strong brand identity to reap the rewards of brand strengthening at a later date. Smaller, local companies with weak brand identities would benefit little from participation. Again this makes these interventions more effective in the HSE sector than in the LA sector.
Some participants argued that brand strengthening rather than health and safety was the major motivation for participation in such initiatives and this was why, even in companies that participated, improvements may not percolate down to branch level.
Trust
While many LA inspectors participated in the study very willingly and wholeheartedly, there were a significant number of responses that expressed a clear mistrust of what was the real purpose of the research. This mistrust was distinct from the general irritation caused by the length of the questionnaire and the short response time. The mistrust seemed to stem from a realization that there may be occasions where the interests of HSE or even of individual officers of HSE are in conflict with those of LAs or LA officers. The common goal of promoting good health and safety practice was not always enough to counter this.
Although this finding is not a direct result of the methods of this research it is, nevertheless, important as the interventions strategy that is finally adopted will have, to be effective, to enjoy the active support of all participants including LAs.
It appears, therefore, that a strategy to produce a true partnership between HSE and LAs is essential to an effective joint interventions strategy.
The LA sector.
It is recognised that many of the conclusions explained here refer to “the LA sector” as it currently exists and that the division of enforcement responsibility may change significantly in the near future. It is likely, however, that LAs will remain responsible for locally based and smaller businesses. The main conclusions here will, if this is the case, remain valid.
General
Our general conclusion is that although many of the interventions examined in this research are currently used much less by LAs than certain other favoured interventions that we have discussed, there is potential for increasing their use. In the case of many of the interventions this may not be by LAs implementing the intervention on their own. Rather it may be by LAs being aware of and supporting HSE led programmes which use the interventions. This may require better and more focussed communication between HSE and LAs. This in turn is also dependent upon convincing LAs that HSE is committed to working with them in a full and equal partnership.