Research suggests pandemic will drive the public from planes, trains and buses
THE Covid-19 pandemic may have long-term repercussions for the use of public transport in Scotland, a new study by Edinburgh Napier University suggests.
A survey found far fewer members of the public anticipate using buses, trains and aeroplanes after the country emerges from lockdown.
The Impact of Covid-19 on travel behaviour, transport, lifestyles and location choices in Scotland report was produced by the University’s Transport Research Institute with backing from the Scottish Funding Council.
Nearly 1000 (994) Scottish residents completed a detailed survey, designed to inform understanding of how Covid-19 might alter travel choices in the near future and guide appropriate policy responses.
Steps were taken to ensure age and gender were broadly representative of the wider population. More than a fifth (21 per cent) of respondents lived in households without access to a car, while 29 per cent lived in households with two or more cars.
The survey found 45 per cent of respondents expected to walk more, 29 per cent expected to cycle more and 25 per cent expected to drive their car more in the post-Covid future than they did before the pandemic.
However, in stark contrast, 42 per cent anticipated using aeroplanes less, 36 per cent using buses less and 34 per cent using trains less.
The most common reasons given for using public transport less in the future were the possibility of getting infections from other passengers, lack of cleanliness/hygiene on board and overcrowding.
Dr Achille Fonzone, Associate Professor of Transport Analysis and Planning at Edinburgh Napier, said: “Although part of it may be due to current overexposure to discussions about infective diseases and so be transient, such lack of confidence in public transport is not good news for the industry.
“It is not good news for Scotland either, considering the importance of public transport to ensure an equitable and sustainable mobility.”
Dr Greg Fountas, from the University’s School of Engineering and the Built Environment, said: “A shift to private cars post-pandemic would hamper the efforts to drastically reduce the carbon footprint of the transport sector.
“That is alarming for Scotland, where transport constitutes the largest source of greenhouse emissions – more than one third of the country’s total emissions in 2018, according to the Scottish Government.”
Dr Fonzone added: “Reducing inequalities and the impact on the environment are the two top priorities of the National Transport Strategy of the Scottish Government.
“The potential loss of demand for public transport must be understood better and suitable actions must be taken as soon as possible.”
The report’s lead author Lucy Downey, from the School of Engineering and the Built Environment, highlighted the finding that walking and cycling are among the lockdown behaviours likely to remain popular in the post-Covid future.
She said: “The findings are positive for active travel, which seeks to promote healthy journeys and offer viable alternatives to the private car or public transport for short journeys and an opportunity for exercise.”
In other findings, over half of workers (54 per cent) expect to work from home more in the post-Covid future than they did before the pandemic and 64 per cent stated that they will use technology more to communicate with colleagues, customers or clients. Over half (52 per cent) of respondents expect to use technology to communicate with family and friends more.
When asked about their anticipated future shopping habits, 45 per cent expected to do more online non-grocery shopping in the future and 36 per cent anticipate using home delivery for supermarket shopping more.
Covid may affect the housing market as well, increasing the number of those considering relocating. Respondents who indicated that they expect to move from their current accommodation were asked where they would like to move.
The majority (57 per cent) would like to stay in the same local area, but move to different accommodation, 33 per cent would like to move from their local area but stay in Scotland and 10 per cent would like to move away from Scotland.
Edinburgh Napier’s Transport Research Institute, Scotland’s largest and longest established transport research group, celebrates its 25th anniversary this year.
An open Timeline event this Thursday (29 April), in the form of an online webinar, will chart its inception and development, and offer a glimpse of future plans.
This report examines the progress made by the Government in the implementation of the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Financial Exclusion in its 2017 report Tackling Financial Exclusion: A country that works for everyone?
In the Liaison Committee’s report Review of House of Lords Investigative and Scrutiny Committees: towards a new thematic committee structure published in July 2019, the Committee recommended that the Liaison Committee (on a case by case basis) could hold follow-up evidence sessions on a former special inquiry committee’s recommendations, followed by the publication of a report.
This is the third occasion on which this new procedure has been utilised.
The inquiry found that over half of the population are classed by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as having characteristics of financial vulnerability.
This issue has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic with 14.2m people in the UK now estimated to have low financial resilience – characterised by over-indebtedness or with low levels of savings or low or erratic earnings.
Types of financial exclusion can include: not being able to open a bank account, not being able to access financial services due to bank branch and ATM closures, not being able to access affordable credit.
The report recommended that a clear Government strategy and increased FCA powers are brought forward in order to stop people experiencing financial exclusion.
The report calls on the Government to introduce a requirement for the FCA to establish a statutory Duty of Care that banks and other financial services providers must operate toward their customers. This should replace the current insufficient requirement to ‘treat customers fairly’.
Other recommendations in the Committee’s report, Tackling Financial Exclusion: A country that works for everyone? follow-up report are:
The proposed legislation to protect access to cash should be brought forward without delay.
The Government should publish the timescale and details on the no-interest loan pilot.
The powers of the FCA to mitigate the trends in bank branch and free ATM closures should be reviewed and enhanced.
The Government should continue to work with the Post Office and UK Finance to roll out a public information campaign about the banking services that the Post Office offers.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield, who was Chair of the Select Committee on Financial Exclusion, said: “It’s time for the financial services industry to recognise they have a fundamental duty to ensure that banks act in their customers’ best interests and that products and services are fair by design.
“That duty of care should now be established in law and overseen by the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure greater consumer protection and prevent banks and others from profiting from their customer’s vulnerability.
“The COVID crisis has laid bare the extent of financial exclusion across the UK. We continue have more than a million adults in the UK without access to a bank account and more than half the country now have characteristics of financial vulnerability.
“It is now more important than ever that Government come forward with a comprehensive financial inclusion strategy that will ensure access to cash, protect the public and end the scandal of the poorest being overcharged for financial and other services. The Government should publish that strategy within 12 months and allow Parliament to assess it and hold them to account for its delivery.”
Gareth Shaw, Which? Head of Money, said: “Millions of people rely on cash as they are not ready or able to take advantage of digital payments. However, rapid closures to the cash machine and bank branch networks in recent years mean that many of these consumers risk being abandoned by their banks.
“Our research has shown that people in some deprived areas have seen significant cuts to free ATMs in recent years, while a domino effect of bank branch closures has taken place without enough regard to whether suitable alternatives are in place.
“The government must urgently set out its vision for the future of cash, including its promised legislation to protect access to it. This should include putting the FCA in charge of the cash system so that it can take the steps that are needed to ensure cash remains a viable payment option for as long as it is needed.”
Over the past decade and particularly since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic we have seen increasing use of digital technology in service provision by third and public sector organisations.
But with this increasing use comes challenges. The development and use of these technologies often outpace the organisational structures put in place to improve delivery and protect both individuals and organisations.
Digitally Kind is devised to help bridge the gaps between digital policy, process and practice to improve outcomes, and introducing kindness as a value to underpin an organisational approach.
Based on workshops with over 40 practitioners and frontline staff, the report has been designed as a starting point to support organisations open up conversations around their use of digital in delivering services.
Digitally Kind explores a range of technical, social and cultural considerations around the use of tech when working with individuals covering values and governance; access; safety and wellbeing; knowledge and skills; and participation.
While the project predominantly focused on the experiences of practitioners and organisations working with young people, many of the principles hold true for other sectors.
The research also highlights a short set of considerations for funders, policymakers (including regulators) and online platforms.
A plain text version of this report is also available here.
The pandemic has shown that access to the internet is essential for individuals and communities. Vital services such as education, social security, health and work are now online meaning data poverty affects opportunities and deepens existing inequalities.
By data poverty, we mean those individuals, households or communities who cannot afford sufficient, private and secure mobile or broadband data to meet their essential needs.
We heard of many people who were struggling to get online, but we found a lack of detailed information to quantify the scale and depth of data poverty.
This report seeks to fill that gap.
With the help of Survation, Nesta commissioned demographically representative polling of over 2,000 people in Scotland and Wales in late January 2021.
Using telephone interviews, we asked a representative sample of adults in each nation about barriers to going online and whether they were experiencing data poverty.
We then interviewed people in Wales and Scotland struggling to afford the data access they needed, adding the human story to the survey findings in a series of case studies.
This is the first study that we know of to attempt to describe the depth and extent of data poverty.
Key Findings
One in seven adults in Scotland and Wales are experiencing data poverty: Nearly a million adults in Scotland and Wales struggle to afford sufficient, private and secure access to the internet.
Data poverty widens inequalities: Not going online impedes life chances, increases social isolation, impacts on wellbeing and limits economic opportunities.
Connected but compromised: Individuals’ and families’ needs for data are often not adequately met. One in ten people with monthly mobile contracts regularly run out of data before the end of the month and larger households struggle to meet very high data needs.
Financial and data literacy compounds data poverty: Only about half of the people we spoke to felt they were able to shop around for the best data deals. People with low digital and financial literacy and weak purchasing power may not realise that better deals are available to them. Our case studies highlight the high costs of exceeding contract allowances.
The City of Edinburgh Council has unveiled its draft plan to become a net zero organisation by 2030.
On Tuesday (20 April), councillors will consider a draft report outlining some of the first steps the Council could take in its own operations, to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change.
The draft plan commits the Council to:
Ensuring that all new council operational buildings are constructed to the highest energy criteria and using alternatives to gas boilers for heat as a standard.
A £0.6m investment in scoping and planning for the retrofit of existing Council buildings so they can meet the highest energy efficiency standards.
A plan for electrifying all Council car and van fleets.
An immediate improvement to school recycling facilities.
Investing in the organisations funding capacity and expertise.
Investing in a programme of staff training to develop climate knowledge and skills.
The draft Council Emissions Reduction Plan follows on from the Council signing the Edinburgh Climate Commission’s Climate Compact in December 2020 where it committed to make changes to its operations, transport and buildings to reduce its emissions footprint and support the city’s target of net zero by 2030.
Councillor Adam McVey, City of Edinburgh Council Leader said: The Council’s carbon emissions have fallen by 62% since 2005/06, well above the 42% target we were aiming to hit by 2021. We’ve made particular progress in recent years, with a 51% reduction since 2017/18.
“This ambitious plan aims to build on that success and sets out some of the first steps we’ll need to take across our major emissions sources, to become a net zero organisation by 2030.
“Although the Council’s own emissions only account for 3% of Edinburgh’s total emissions, we need to lead by example in our own work to show others what’s possible.
“The journey to net zero emissions will undoubtedly be difficult, but we have a track record of delivery and firm commitment to deliver on our responsivities to future generations.
“By taking action on climate change and committing to a 10-year strategic approach to deliver a net zero organisation, we’ll not only deliver environmental benefits but deliver wider health, economic and welling benefits for the whole city.
“Becoming a more energy efficient Council; encouraging sustainable travel choices and reducing the amount of waste we produce will positively impact on all of us and help to unlock opportunities to reduce inequalities as we build back better and greener.”
Depute Council Leader, Councillor Cammy Day said: “Edinburgh’s net zero ambition is embedded in a number of our strategies and programmes currently being developed. These will have an impact on both the city and the Council’s emissions footprint.
“Our commitment to only build to net zero or Passivhaus standard wherever possible is an important preventative measure. Investing in the knowledge, skills and capacity to decarbonise and retrofit our Council estate is an important priority to unlock future plans to deliver change.
“We all have a part to play in reducing citywide greenhouse gas emissions. This report shows the Council’s leadership and a commitment to action as well as a culture shift in how the organisation thinks about and plans for climate change.”
According to the most recent emissions footprint calculations for the Council, buildings make up 63% of the organisation’s emissions. Other energy consumption is 16%, fleet 9%, waste 8%, business travel 3% and water 1%.
And, as well as suggesting actions that the Council could take to reduce its impact on the environment, the Emissions Reduction Plan report also highlights opportunities to invest in skills and maximise external funding coming to the Council and the city.
A new report by the Scottish Futures Trust (SFT) reveals that the workforce of the future – predominantly those who have been office based – will want to make informed choices of where and how to work most productively and more beneficially for their wellbeing.
Post the pandemic, organisations should consider the three ‘Hs’ of working – from Home, a nearby hub or local location, where employees can meet clients or have time to concentrate on projects, or the HQ and head office, where people can gather to socialise, brainstorm ideas or collaborate face-to-face.
Shona Adam, SFT’s associate director of Workplace Change and co-author of the report, said: “This exciting future is about allowing both employer and employee to make an informed choice of where they want to work from, on any given day, that is going to best achieve the outcomes that need to be delivered by both the employee and the organisation.
“As a result of the pandemic, we know that people have benefited from the lack of the daily commute and that the majority of office-based roles can be done remotely. However, some people are struggling with mental health and isolation problems. Each organisation will have to assess the preferences of their workforce as well as explore the impacts, and weigh up the longer-term benefits and risks.”
Working in conjunction with an SFT-led group comprising of public, private and third sector ‘smarter working’ professionals, a variety of opportunities for the future have been identified.
Analysis of a sample of public sector organisations from the Working Group identified employees’ preferences and found 88% wanted to work at least one day a week from home, with 24% happy to continue to work full-time from home, while only 10% preferred not to work from home.
Shona Adam, went on: “Smarter working isn’t just about the physical place. It’s about understanding the people aspect, and this will be the future focus. This is a social revolution, accelerated by the pandemic. It’s not a static situation where we simply return to old ways.
“As a result, the reoccupation of physical office space requires radical rethinking and one of the most common questions that the group is now receiving is about how organisations reorganise the physical office spaces that have been used in the past. Organisations need to understand ‘the purpose’ of physical workspace in the future and how they will use it.”
Ms Adam said the culture of ‘presenteeism’, where employers and managers expected to see their colleagues sitting in the office, is being swept away: “What the pandemic has demonstrated is that we have gone from the head office or HQ, to hundreds and thousands of offices in homes. We have a dispersed workforce working on the basis of trust to get the job done.”
However, home working for prolonged periods is having an impact for some people on their mental health and in certain cases, causing social isolation. Acknowledging this, the report explains how employees could continue to go to the Head Office to socialise, integrate with colleagues, cooperate on ideas and strategy, innovate products and services and to share the culture.
Neutral ‘Hub’ locations, such as a café or a digitally connected public library, could also become part of the flexible working solution, allowing face-to-face meetings or research to be undertaken away from home.
SFT hopes organisations embrace the opportunity driving the momentum for change, with the report pointing out that there will be clear differences between organisations depending on their purpose and function and how supportive employers are to the concept.
This will require different thinking around Human Resources and Organisational Development functions such as employment contracts and leadership structures while monitoring of mental health and wellbeing will be crucial to everyone in the evolving situation.
Summing up, Shona Adam said: “Collectively, across both public and private sectors, we need to use the experience we’ve had during the pandemic in a positive way, to dispel presenteeism and consign it to the past.
“Workers can be located anywhere provided they undertake the activities they are paid to do. This is a tremendous opportunity to explore a distributed network for delivering outcomes.”
The Scottish Parliament will today commend the work of churches throughout the pandemic in a debate on the Stories of Hope report, published in December 2020 by the Evangelical Alliance and Serve Scotland.
The report calculated that churches across Scotland had delivered 212,214 acts of support during the first lockdown and that these acts were delivered by 3,212 volunteers and impacted 55,671 beneficiaries.
The motion, which has been submitted by Jeremy Balfour and will be held at the Scottish Parliament on the first anniversary of the UK COVID-19 lockdown, acknowledges that: “churches in 180 locations across Scotland worked in partnership with key stakeholders, including supermarkets, community councils, NHS boards, food banks, voluntary support groups and charities, to deliver services to support vulnerable groups, including older, homeless and young people; recognises the important role that it considers churches and charities play in communities across Scotland, including in the Lothian region, and praises all those involved in delivering these services during the pandemic.”
The report found churches across Scotland had developed support networks and established projects to support the most vulnerable and isolated in their communities.
Projects were active across the country from the Highlands to the Borders, across the breadth of denominations and in partnership with a number of charities including CAP Scotland, the Bethany Trust, and Glasgow City Mission.
Kieran Turner, Public Policy Officer for the Evangelical Alliance in Scotland said: “Often the work of churches in the community goes under-reported and as a result government and parliament are not aware of the role of the church in wider society.
“We are grateful to Jeremy and to all the MSPs who are supporting the debate for the opportunity to show how the church spreads hope and the impact that has been made at a national level during the pandemic.”
The report also highlighted the importance of churches partnering with local businesses and other agencies as more than two-thirds of the projects identified were delivered in partnership to provide support to those in need.
Supermarkets, community councils, businesses, NHS boards, housing associations, voluntary support groups, and food banks have all worked with churches on the ground in these projects. In addition, 11 local authorities were identified, sometimes by multiple projects, as providing emergency funding for weekly support costs.
Keiran Turner continued: “Having the Scottish Parliament debate the report and commend these churches will raise awareness and challenge perceptions of what the church is and what the church does in Scotland.
“The church is a force for good in Scotland and operates at a scale of national significance meaning it must be a core part of the government’s rebuilding plans post pandemic.”
The parliamentary debate has been welcomed across the political spectrum and is being supported by Michelle Ballantyne, Miles Briggs, Donald Cameron, Peter Chapman, Alex Cole-Hamilton, Maurice Corry, Murdo Fraser, Kenneth Gibson, Rhoda Grant, Jamie Greene, James Kelly, Liam Kerr, Bill Kidd, Gordon Lindhurst, John Mason, Stuart McMillan, Pauline McNeill, Margaret Mitchell, Anas Sarwar, Elaine Smith, Stewart Stevenson, David Stewart, Alexander Stewart, Annie Wells and Brian Whittle.
To find out more and download the full report go to:
With the approach of Scottish Parliament elections in May, the country is at a critical juncture, having spent the last year confronting COVID.
The Scottish Government has a strong pre-existing commitment to the achievement of ‘Fair Work’ – defined as that which offers opportunity, security, fulfilment, respect and effective voice – and a dedicated Fair Work Convention acts as an independent source of advice and scrutiny on Scotland’s progress towards becoming a ‘Fair Work Nation.’
However, COVID-19 has significantly altered the context in which that Fair Work agenda is being moved forward. The pandemic has severely impacted lives and livelihoods – but has also seen labour market interventions and business innovations that were previously unimaginable, and given rise to calls to build back a better labour market.
Our report considers the progress of Scotland’s Fair Work agenda so far, and sets out our recommendations about how Fair Work can continue to be advanced in a way that is responsive to the significant challenges and opportunities presented by the pandemic.
While many different actors -employers, public bodies, trade unions, and wider civil society –influence the achievement of Fair Work, our recommendations are focused on the government in Scotland, looking ahead to what actions can be advanced in the next parliamentary session.
The Scottish Government’s existing commitment to and programme of Fair Work activities provides a strong foundation for Scotland to adapt to the challenges and opportunities exacerbated by COVID-19.
Our report makes 18 recommendations about how progress can be sustained and Fair Work expanded to many more people, including that Scottish Government should:
Increase support to grow ‘Fair Flexibility’ in Scotland.
Continue to articulate the compelling business case for Fair Work, starting with a ‘Fair Work in the Recovery’ campaign targeted at employers.
Support the delivery of a ‘Living Hours’ programme in Scotland.
Dedicate resources towards a renewed focus on work-related health and safety.
Continue to improve how Fair Work is measured in Scotland.
We would be delighted to hear your views on the ideas in the report.
You can get in touch with us on Twitter @CarnegieUKTrust, using the hashtag #FairWork, or you can let us know your thoughts by emailing the report author, Gail Irvine, Senior Policy and Development Officer, on gail.irvine@carnegieuk.org
The public will have a greater say in how major decisions around health and social care services are delivered in Scotland.
New guidance will ensure NHS Boards, Integration Joint Boards and local authorities uphold their legal duty to consult and engage with local communities about major planning decisions.
This will guarantee people with real experience of using local services will be able to shape decision making at a local and national level, from building or rebuilding hospitals, to transferring health and social care services into the community.
This ‘forward thinking’ approach will ensure lessons are learned from the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic by giving people with lived experience a say in the future of NHS Scotland and the reshaping of Adult Social Care. It will also help ensure services are effective, safe, value-for-money and meet individuals’ needs.
Health Secretary Jeane Freeman said: “Community engagement and participation is vital as we look to reform health and social care services, ensuring they are fit to meet the needs of the public as we deal with the long term impact of the pandemic.
“This guidance will help ensure people have a greater say in decisions which affect the care they receive.
“Our collective response to the pandemic has shown the strength of our public services and how we can come together to address challenges. Since the start of the pandemic we have been delivering services differently and have engaged with communities to ensure they are involved in decisions that affect them. This guidance captures that learning and seeks to ensure we all benefit from it.
“The Scottish Government will continue to listen to the views of people who use health and social care services and actively involve them in re-shaping how we deliver care as we re-mobilise beyond the pandemic.”
COSLA Health and Social Care Spokesperson Cllr Stuart Currie said: “Planning with people promotes real collaboration between NHS Boards, Integration Joint Boards and Local Authorities.
“It sets out the responsibilities each organisation has to community engagement when services are being planned, or changes to services are being planned, and it supports them to involve people meaningfully.
“Fundamentally, good engagement means that services are developed which are effective, safe and value-for-money. And there is no doubt that greater participation brings better outcomes for communities all round.
“So, we encourage people in communities across Scotland to read this guidance and find out what they should expect when it comes to engagement about care planning. Ultimately, it is their experience that will be the real measure of what impact it is making.”
New research from think tank, the Institute of Employment Rights (IER), has found the risk of Covid-19 transmission in the workplace remains significant and is being dangerously downplayed by the UK government’s light-touch approach.
HSE and Covid at work: a case of regulatory failure is written by 11 specialists in occupational health and safety and labour law, including academics conducting empirical research into workplace risk factors throughout the pandemic.
The team, from England, Scotland and Wales, carried out a comprehensive review of the latest data on workplace transmission and the response of the government and Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to mitigating that risk. Their report identifies a serious mismatch between the risk to workers’ health and the government’s claims to make workplaces “Covid-secure”.
The role of work in transmitting the disease was recognised from the outset of the pandemic. In May 2020, the Office for National Statistics identified 17 high-risk occupations and ‘clusters’ of cases quickly emerged in a wide range of sectors from public services to food processing and retail.
Public Health England (PHE) figures have since revealed the highest-risk workplaces were offices, which accounted for more outbreaks in the second half of 2020 than supermarkets, construction sites, warehouses, restaurants and cafes combined.
Workplace infections account for a significant proportion of all Covid cases. An analysis of PHE data conducted by Professor Rory O’Neill, one of the co-authors of HSE and Covid at work, revealed that 40% of people testing positive for Covid-19 reported prior ‘workplace or education’ activity.
Meanwhile, a survey of call centre workers by co-author Professor Phil Taylor revealed that over one in three (35.4%) were seated less than two metres away from their colleagues in contravention of social distancing rules. This is despite a warning from the government’s own SAGE advisors that reducing social distancing to one metre rather than two could increase transmission ten-fold.
In May 2020, the government declared workplaces “Covid-secure” and reassured workers that this would be enforced through a £14m package for HSE ‘spot checks’. But IER’s analysis found strong evidence that risk was not sufficiently mitigated in workplaces because Covid-19 rules were not adequately enforced.
The IER’s analysis of the government’s strategy reveals an underfunded, light-touch approach through an understaffed agency which failed to regulate the risk to workers and, by logical extension, to communities, including carers, pupils and students in education and their parents.
The magnitude of this risk has since been tragically borne out by large workplace outbreaks such as that seen at the DVLA’s Swansea offices, while the government’s underwhelming response is reflected in the complete absence of prosecutions of employers known to be breaking Covid rules.
Andy McDonald, Shadow Secretary for Employment Rights and Protections, said:“In a time of national crisis it is more important than ever that the government’s actions are held up to scrutiny. The findings of this report are deeply concerning – if health and safety laws and Covid-19 rules are not enforced, they are not worth the paper they are written on.
“When a deadly disease sweeps the country we need worker protections more than ever, yet the government has effectively shielded employers from prosecution even while coming down hard on individual citizens who break the same rules. We have seen the tragic results of under-regulated workplaces in outbreaks across the country, including at the DVLA offices in Swansea.
“The workers affected – and those in our emergency services and NHS who fought to save their lives – deserve answers as to how this was allowed to happen.”
Professor Phil James, Professor of Employment Relations at Middlesex University and editor of the report, said:“When the pandemic was declared on 11 March 2020, the government had to decide how it would balance the protection of public health with the protection of the economy. A year later, our analysis suggests it got that balance wrong. Our jobs are among the most important features of our lives, but they are not worth our lives, nor are they worth the lives of colleagues, family and friends.
“This light-touch approach to the regulation of businesses during the worst pandemic we have seen in 100 years must now be subject to a major independent public inquiry to understand what went wrong and how we can do better. It is vital that we learn from the failings of workplace regulation over the last year, because this pandemic proves that workers’ health is also public health – it benefits us all.”
Lord John Hendy QC, Chair of the IER and a co-author of the report, said:“Something has gone very badly wrong when enforcement action has been taken against over 40,000 members of the public and holidaymakers are threatened with ten years in jail but employers known to have put thousands of people at risk are getting off scot free.
“There has been health and safety legislation on the UK’s statute book for over 200 years. The current regulations are well known and could have been reasonably and effectively applied to protect workers. They were not.
“Had employers been reminded of their legal duties and these laws enforced through robust inspections and effective penalties, workplaces could have been made a lot safer than COVID-19 has shown them to be.”
Carolyn Jones, Director of the IER, said:“The government and HSE has neglected perhaps the richest resource at their fingertips in their exclusion of the UK’s nearly 100,000 trained trade union health and safety representatives from their ‘Covid-secure’ strategy.
“Several comparative economies have adopted a co-enforcement approach whereby the State and trade unions work together to ensure the health and safety of those at work and the models that work well internationally should be considered in building a similar approach in the UK.
“In the second stage of our health and safety project, we will take evidence from representatives across the economy and society to understand how better cooperation between all concerned can make a difference in the future.”
Key factors identified in the report
Severe lack of resources
Inspectors were themselves locked down when ‘spot checks’ were announced. Demonstrating the severity of the risk to workers, the HSE barred Inspectors from making workplace visits because of the danger to them of making such visits. As a result, ‘spot checks’ were conducted by phone despite 67% of people in a YouGov survey favouring random in-person checks.
Austerity. Following a 58% funding cut over the last 10 years, which forced the HSE to reduce its staffing levels by 36%, there were too few inspectors to perform ‘spot checks’ on the nation’s 5.5m health and safety dutyholders. The £14m of extra funding barely made a dent in the nearly £1000m lost by the HSE during 10 years of government austerity and covered just 0.5% of HSE activity.
A decline in workplace inspections even as risk increased
Workplace inspections fell rather than increased during the pandemic. The number of workplace inspections completed between May and September 2020 was 40% lower than during the same period in 2019. Even care homes, where the virus presented an extremely lethal threat, were not adequately inspected, with only eight having received a visit by September 2020.
Funding rules forced public money into private hands. The HSE was not permitted to use any of the £14m extra funding to train new inspectors, so more than half of this money was siphoned off to private companies to ‘inspect’ employers. In fact, this was done from call centres staffed by untrained workers who made 15-minute, scripted phone-calls to employers. The ineffectiveness of this strategy was evidenced by the findings of a TUC survey revealing very clear breaches of the law in over a third of workplaces. Meanwhile, the UK’s richest health and safety resource – nearly 100,000 trained trade union health and safety reps – were not invited to participate.
A light-touch approach to employers and the law
No legal standing for “Covid-secure” guidance. In direct contrast to the various emergency laws made in relation to social activities and other forms of pandemic control, the measures employers were asked to take were not backed by the force of law. Instead, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the HSE issued ‘guidance’.
Legal duties to workers consistently downplayed. The IER’s report identifies two Acts of Parliament and seven sets of regulations relevant to the duties owed to workers, but found these were barely mentioned in the guidance given to businesses. As a result, the guidance failed to emphasise the legal obligations of employers to protect the health and safety of workers.
Recommendations
Concluding this initial report, the team made the following recommendations:
The urgent launch of a major independent public inquiry into the future of the regulation of safety and health at work in the UK, with a focus on creating a regulatory system, including an effective regulator, that will better protect the health and safety of all workers in the UK, now and in the future.
A significant increase in investment in the HSE to promote stronger enforcement of legal protections, thereby improving their effectiveness.
A comprehensive review of enforcement strategies employed by the HSE and local authorities, including a critical examination of the – currently rare and diminishing – use of legal sanctions.
Ensure the political independence of the HSE by considering its reconstitution in line with the United Nations’ Paris Principles, which require the involvement of representatives from civil society and the ringfencing of adequate funds to prevent government from imposing its political beliefs through budgetary controls.
Strengthen trade union safety representatives’ rights to access workplaces, undertake preventative work and support the enforcement of the law, such as through the issuing of improvement notices and the bringing of private prosecutions.
Enhance existing safety representative rights relating to the provision of information, consultation, and training (including paid time off to undertake it).
Reform the current statutory framework for health and safety at work to better protect workers in modern, more casualised, forms of employment, including those found in the gig economy.
Reform and enhance current laws permitting workers to stop work in conditions of serious and imminent danger, – provisions derived from EU law and provided under Sections 44 and 100 of the Employment Rights Act,.
Consider adopting international models of co-enforced oversight, that involve State regulators working alongside trade unions and other civil society organisations to monitor and enforce compliance with legal standards.
Explore the value and application of forms of supply chain regulation under which powerful supply chain actors have duties to ensure that they support effective health and safety management and compliance in supplier organisations. This would, for instance, would make fashion retailers buying from dangerous Leicester garment factories partly liable for the dangerous conditions there.
The team behind the report will now establish a Committee of Inquiry that will take evidence from relevant parties to understand how reforms to health and safety legislation could provide better protection for workers in modern workplaces.
