The killing fields: what can be done?

One in every hundred people works in agriculture, but it accounts for one in five fatal injuries in the workplace. This is just one of the chilling headline statistics from the Health and Safety Executive’s recent report: Health and Safety in Agriculture in Great Britain, 2014. The good news for 2013/14 is that fewer peopled died than the year before. However, that does not detract from the fact that 27 people did die, four of them members of the public, and nearly half of them were farmers. Fatal injuries in farming were at 8.8 per 100,000 workers last year. Parallel figures from the Ministry of Defence show that the overall rate of deaths due to hostile acts in the armed forces are 22 per 100,000, a rate pulled up by the Army, whereas in the Royal Navy the rate is six and in the RAF seven. In other words, a farmworker is more likely to meet his death at work than a sailor or aviator is to be killed by an enemy. Work-related ill health The human toll of the industry is not restricted to fatal accidents. Work-related ill health stands at 2.5 times the average for all industries, rising to four times the rate for musculo-skeletal disorders. Ninety deaths a year are associated with occupational carcinogens (mainly older insecticides) and while agriculture only employs 1% of the workforce, it accounts for one in 10 cases a year of cancer caused by solar radiation. Fatal injuries to members of the public have been running at an average of six a year since the start of the century. One-third of these victims were aged under 16 and another third over 65 years old. Construction has done better Construction has done much better than farming in the past 20 years. From an almost comparable position then it now loses fewer days to work-related injuries, and is proportionately a lot safer than farming. For example, there were two fatal injuries per 100,000 workers compared with farming’s 8.8 last year and long-run average of 9.9.  An everyday tale of country folk Tony Archer’s recent mauling by his bull on The Archers is all too typical. Grandson Henry entered the bull pen, the bull started to become flustered and grandfather Tony bravely put himself in harm’s way to save the child. Tony seems certain to be incapacitated, the family is traumatised and the farm still needs to function from day to day. However, animals are not the biggest cause of fatal injuries, even though they do account for more than one in 10. This dubious distinction goes to accidents involving vehicles and machinery (30%), closely followed by falling from a height or being hit by a falling object (29% together). Asphyxia due to slurry gases was the cause of a terrible tragedy on a Northern Ireland farm last year, killing a father and two sons in the same incident. However, in Great Britain this remains a relatively minor cause of fatalities at 5%. Quite apart from the human cost in small businesses and close communities, the financial cost is estimated at £200m for 2012/13 (2012 prices). Where is farming falling short? Two questions stand out from these terrible statistics. How has construction managed to do so much better, and what does all this mean for the investor in farming? Working practices have been transformed in the construction industry. Sites are far more secure, commitment to safety is clear, personal protective equipment is worn and woe betide anybody who is not properly kitted out. Contrast a building site or a haulage depot with a typical farmyard. The family home overlaps with the workplace, there are few, if any, obvious signs of commitment to safety, little evidence of personal protective equipment, no indication of safe walking or vehicle manoeuvring areas, poor lighting and little provision for the needs of lone workers in isolated areas. Add to this long working hours, night-time machinery operations, public access and sometimes irascible livestock. Professionalism? Farming has been keen to improve its professional image in recent years, both to attract the talent the industry needs in future and to enhance public confidence in home-grown food and environmental management. The health challenge offers an excellent place to start, by ensuring that farmyards look like modern workplaces with well equipped staff clearly identifiable by the clothing and equipment they wear and use. Farming needs a few Eddie Stobarts to tidy up its image and sharpen its approach. Investment perspective The investment owner of farmland will, to some extent, be insulated from the impact of agricultures’ poor safety record. Nevertheless, it is worth considering the extent to which tenancy or other agreements address this issue. Should agreements be more specific on the requirements for competence, risk assessments and safe working practices? Morris Marshall and Poole, mid-Wales’ oldest estate agent, found itself faced with a £75,000 fine plus costs in Chester Crown Court for the death of 79-year-old Roger Jary of Welshpool. Mr Jary was a self-employed maintenance contractor who fell two metres to his death from the roof of a car port. Although Mr Jary was self-employed, the firm was found to have failed on two counts. The agent had not checked that Mr Jary was competent to undertake the work on let property it managed, and neither had it satisfied itself that he was adopting safe working practices. These findings are relevant and important to managing agents for any type of property. The challenge So here is the challenge. What can the industry do to ensure that agriculture becomes as safe a place to work as it is to invest? Eddie Stobart and the construction industry may have the answer. Charles Cowap is a rural practice chartered surveyor