Deaths in the workplace

In common with recent years, these statistics are no longer published alongside detailed enforcement statistics, so it is hard to get a measure of the effectiveness of HSE’s enforcement activities but there are some key takeaways:

Headline numbers have fallen 126 compared with 128 last year, though HSE are quick to point out that this is an improvement from 20 years ago (217), more so from back as far as 1981 (495). How much this decline represents improvement rather than decline and change in industry focus remains an open question. 

Perhaps more surprising is the figure for what HSE class as ‘people who were not at work’ (it’s not clear if this is mere bystanders or if it reflects the sort of situation that might give rise to a potential charge under section 3 than section 2 - e.g. subcontracted labour). Whatever the distinction, 104 people lost their lives in circumstances where they likely had little or no control over the risk they faced. 

The causes are unsurprising: again, gravity features highly: 31 fatal falls - and no doubt a proportion of the 21 deaths attributed to being ‘struck by moving object’. Vehicles (24) and machinery (10) also feature high up the list. 

The spread of sectors is largely in line with previous years: in order, construction, agriculture, manufacturing, transportation and storage and an aggregate of wholesale, retail, motor repair, accommodation and food make up the top five. The sense of the latter grouping is unclear. 

More surprising is the spike in construction deaths: a near 50% increase, from 25 last year to 37 this year. ONS report far more modest increases in activity in the sector over the same period so this is not a mere reflection of more being done - on the face of it, it is suggestive of more or less the same level of activity being done well, less safely. It is hard to draw any meaningful conclusion as to a link with enforcement activity in the absence of detailed stats, although it is notable that in last year’s annual report, HSE acknowledged that they had not hit their own target regarding increased enforcement activity when reporting back on its own KPIs. 

Another spike is noted in relation to workers over 60 - 30% of fatalities arising from a group that makes up just 12% of the workforce. To put it another way, on the basis of last year’s stats, workers over 60 are 2.5 times as likely to suffer a fatal accident as against the workforce as a whole. No detail is provided as to why this might be: is it attributable to behavioural differences or does it suggest that older workers may suffer greater harm simply as a matter of biology?

Risk assessments are expected to accommodate different groups, but it is rare to see factors of this level of granularity included. Computation on harm tends to be done on an across the board basis. Perhaps these statistics give pause for thought: should we consider not just risk of harm but harm to specific groups based on the actual workforce?

HSE suggests at one point that the statistics show that the UK is one of the safest places to work, but elsewhere note that the statistics are not suitable for international comparison on account of recording differences - so, small comfort at best. 

It’s hard to draw direct actions from such broad statistics - they are very ‘high level’ and lack the specificity to serve as a useful guide save as a reminder of the key sources of harm. Perhaps the best lesson is that these are not just statistics. It is trite but true to say that every number was a person and the harm they suffered will have spread far wider than these raw numbers, across friends, families and workplaces.

If it wasn’t obvious already, safety matters.