Risk Perception Leading to Risk Taking Behaviour Amongst Farmers in England and Wales

HSE Health & Safety Executive

Risk perception leading to risk taking behaviour amongst farmers in England and Wales

Prepared by ADAS Consulting Ltd for the Health and Safety Executive

CONTRACT RESEARCH REPORT 404/2002 HSE Health & Safety Executive

Risk perception leading to risk taking behaviour amongst farmers in England and Wales

Dr David J Knowles BA(Hons), PhD, Dip,O.H.S ADAS Consulting Ltd Woodthorne Wergs Road Wolverhampton West Midlands WV6 8TQ United Kingdom

This report details research carried out looking at the perception of risk amongst farmers in England and Wales and whether risk taking behaviour is linked. The overall aim was to gather information on possible future initiatives to assist the Health and Safety Executive in its future strategy for preventing farm accidents This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive. Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the author(s) alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.

First published 2002

ISBN 0 7176 2251 7

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

ii CONTENTS

Pages

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH 2-3

3.0 METHODOLOGY 4-6

4.0 SURVEY RATIONALE 7-9

5.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS – STRUCTURAL 10-18

6.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS – HUMAN: ORGANISATIONAL 19-27

7.0 DISCUSSIONS OF RESULTS – BEHAVIOURAL 28-53

8.0 CONCLUSIONS 54-63

Appendix 1a: Questionnaire Sent to Farms 64-68

Appendix 2: Responses to Open Questions 16 & 17 69-87

Appendix 3: References 88

Appendix 4: Question 14 Charts 90-103

Appendix 5: Question 12 and Cross Tabulations 104-149

iii TABLES

SECTION 5 Table 1 Land owned and/or farmed Table 2 Tenure, England and Wales 1996 Table 3 Total farm size breakdown and number of survey holdings Table 4 Percentage distribution of holdings in England and Wales (1997) and this Survey (2000) Table 5 Holdings by area England and Wales (1997) and this Survey (2000) Table 6 Comparison of larger farms (100+ ha) between England and Wales and Survey Table 7 Average size of enterprise by structure 1997, compared with survey 2000 results Table 8 Cropping areas in Survey 2000 Table 9 Stocking Table 10 Livestock numbers 1992-1999 Table 11 Employment structure on survey farms in England and Wales Table 12 The use of contractors

SECTION 6 Table 1 Role on the farm Table 2 Age of respondents Table 3 Age structure of survey 2000 with fatal accidents Table 4 Age of children Table 5 Fatal injuries to employees, self-employed and children in agriculture 1986/87 to 1997/98 Table 6 Number of years farming Table 7 Educational attainment Table 8 Current attitude to farming by farm type Table 9 Agricultural workforce 1992 to 1999 Table 10 General health Table 11 Health problems

SECTION 7 Table 1 Significant hazards recorded by respondents Table 2 Evaluations of Responses to Q12 Table 3 Typical killers in agriculture in the UK Table 4 Hazards, perception of risk and fatal accidents Table 5 Over-estimates of risk Table 6 Under-estimates of risk Table 7 Theoretical risk taking behaviours on farms in England and Wales Table 8 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours Table 9 Comparison of Responses: those selecting hazards A/those not B Table 10 Risk management Table 11 Proposed actions Table 12 Risk management items

iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report details research carried out (a) to look at the perception of risk held by a large sample of farmers in England and Wales; (b) to look at risk taking behaviour admitted by the farmers, and (c) to draw conclusions on future possible initiatives which may be considered by HSE in the future to reduce farm accidents.

The report looks at previous work carried out in this field in the UK and in North America. It concludes that reliance on accident data for formulating future strategy is problematical and it recommended that a behavioural approach is adopted, in line with human factors approaches adopted elsewhere towards successful health and safety management.

The methodology adopted to gather the bulk of information was the formulation and administration of a postal questionnaire to a large sample of farms in England and Wales. This report discusses in detail the methodology and survey rationale.

Results from the survey are discussed in three sections: Structural, Human: Organisation and Behavioural. The interrelationships between the three are highlighted within the report. All the results showed that the survey was representative of agriculture in England and Wales and that the methodology adopted was a successful way of gathering relevant information.

In the conclusions to this report possible future initiatives/interventions are discussed in the light of the structural, organisational and behavioural information gathered in this work. Recommendations are made bearing in mind the likely success of initiatives. An essential point made is that the split between advisory and enforcement roles of HSE should be critically examined.

The study concludes with a call for further answers to questions (i) as to why farmers act and behave unsafely even though they know that it is wrong, (ii) how their attitudes and perceptions can be misplaced so as to leave them exposed to elevated risk and (iii) how attitudes can potentially be modified and behaviour changes as the result of interventions in order to reduce the human tragedy and economic burden caused by farm accidents.

1 INTRODUCTION

The original title in the detailed proposal for this study was:

“A Study Of Risk Perception Leading To Risk Taking Behaviour Amongst Farmers In Great Britain And How Future Regulations May Amplify/Alter Such Perceptions”

A proposal was made to carry out the study in response to the HSE document “Main Stream Research Market 1998/99, where at Page 22, under the heading “Behavioural and Social Sciences”, and “Organisational structures and management methods” the areas of interest stated are firstly:

S the influence of risk perception on risk taking behaviour in the workplace and secondly:

S the identification of those factors most likely to lead to amplification or alteration of perceptions of risks to health and safety and how regulations can take account of them, particularly in ways they communicate about risk.

The possible scope and content of the study was discussed with HSE. The proposal document reflected the discussions and made detailed proposals. Within the proposal there was the opportunity to further develop the research as time progressed to ensure that all the needs of HSE were met. The proposal included update meetings for agreements to be made during the life of the study.

The scope of the study was subsequently changed to look at a wider range of initiatives than those originally envisaged in the original detailed proposal, made in response to the Main Stream Research document detailed above. The study has thus expanded its aims and was conducted to look at other initiatives as well as future Regulations. The thought was that restricting the research to how Regulations may amplify/alter perceptions of risk was too narrow and a host of measures could be canvassed in the study.

This report details the background to the research, the research methodology, the survey rationale, discussion of results and finally draws conclusions from the results and from the chosen methodology for its efficacy in helping to shape future strategy.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM

Much has been written on risk and risk assessment since the Royal Society produced its book on the subject in 1982, much of which has proved to be of limited use for policy makers, employers and employees alike. The Royal Society said in one of its main conclusions that there

“was a need for better estimates of actual risk based on direct observation of what happens in society.” (p.18).

Whilst a behavioural approach has been called for few studies have been undertaken at this scale of analysis. John Adams of University College London published a major work titled “Risk” in 1995. The work of Adams seems to lead the way forward. He says “The future is uncertain and inescapably subjective; it does not exist except in the minds of people attempting to anticipate it.”(p.30). There is therefore the need to attempt to understand what is in the minds of people who will expose themselves to risk in their working life. Adams goes on to say “Our anticipation’s are formed by projecting past experience into the future. Our behaviour is guided by our anticipation’s. If we anticipate harm, we take avoiding action.”(p.30). The problem is that harm is not always accurately anticipated and we do not know enough about how this process works.

2.2 PREVIOUS WORK

A literature search of OSH-UK CD ROM System and other databases on “risk perception” and “risk taking behaviour” provided some references but none of direct relevance to the agricultural context. The major literature review was undertaken by HSE in 1998 (Human Factors Group).

There is little work being undertaken in the UK at the farm scale though others have recently published research findings from their study of farmers in the USA (Green, 1999; Hodne et al, 1999; Rhodes et al, 2000).

2.3 HUMAN FACTORS APPROACH

HSE in the recent past have stressed the importance of a “human factors” approach to understanding health and safety performance both at an individual level and at an organisational/management level (see HS(G)65, HS(G)48 and HSE Contract Research Report No 45/1992 for examples). This study critically examined the some of the literature, particularly at the design stage, and some of the concepts were used in this study.

2.4 ACCIDENT HISTORY

There are still a high number of agricultural facilities despite the continuing decline in the agricultural workforce (both self-employed and employees). The RIDDOR statistics seriously underestimate the number of accidents in the agricultural/rural industry context and therefore any preventative campaigns may not be relying on this data hitting the true incidence of accident and ill-health. HSE have strongly recognised the influence of “human

factors” in successful (or otherwise) health and safety management but the RIDDOR data is not refined or comprehensive enough to assist in the development of this field of research.

Caution must be expressed on to heavy a reliance on non-fatal accident data for formulating future strategy,

“Accident rates therefore cannot serve, even retrospectively, as measures of risk; if they are low, it does not necessarily indicate that the risk was low. It could be that a high risk was perceived and avoided.”(Adams, p.30).

There are two main benefits of a behavioural approach to looking at risk. The first is the opportunity this type of study offers to speak individually to farmers about what they see as the problem areas. Such problem areas might not result in an accidental loss (as Adams suggests as the result of good anticipation), these will be the real perceptions of risk which farmers have and which may hold clues to the communication of other risks. The second benefit from this type of approach will be to enable an assessment of the role of the HSE itself as a provider of information about risks. HSE are part of the process of risk perception amongst farmers to a greater or lesser degree. An assessment of the role of HSE will be possible.

Recommendations will be made that are based on sound behavioural principles that can be shown to be practical. If the study finds that such recommendations can be made, then they will stand a better chance of success than initiatives that have been developed in the past which have relied heavily on accident statistics as the measure of relative risk.

Recommendations in the light of the individual behavioural attributes found will be made to help change perceptions of risk in and should give ideas for the future development of Regulations. The aim will be to provide better communication of risks in Regulations and/or advice/guidance issued by HSE.

An opinion on the likely success of the recommendations will be given, drawing on the practical health and safety management of experience of ADAS Consulting Ltd on information gathered from farmers.

Section 3 discusses the methodology adopted to place this work in its theoretical context.

3 METHODOLOGY

Discussions with HSE started the research into Farmer’s Perception of Risks and Risk Taking Behaviour, with a view to establishing future options for the development of strategy to prevent farm accidents.

At the outset, agreement was reached on a behavioural approach to the research whereby individual farmers would be surveyed via a postal questionnaire.

A literature search conducted using national and international database sources revealed very little usable material that had been published to assist the design of this particular research, but with some exceptions.

Some of the theoretical work of Adams was a useful summary of the role of perception of risk, which can and should be used for the development of government policy. This erudite work is based in the field of road safety. This report is not able to provide a full critique of the work but it commends the work of the reader who wishes to pursue further research into the subject. Suffice it to say, however, that the theory of risk compensation is used in this work, and was useful to this study. He says:

“This theory accords primarily in the explanation of accidents to the human propensity to take risks. The theory postulates that we all come equipped with “risk thermostats” and suggests that safety interventions that do not affect the setting of the thermostat are likely to be frustrated by behavioural responses that reassert the level of risk with which people were originally content. My research noted that there were large variations in the settings of individual thermostats, but had little to say about why this should be”. p. ix (Adams) 1995

Further work by others (Thompson, et al, 1990) has shown that risk can be seen to be culturally constructed. Cultural theory does not lend itself to precise measurement or deterministic rationality, it is more based on probabilistic rationality where often there are no hard and fast rules, leading to debate on the influence of the theory; as Adams puts it:

“- indeed, cultural theory warns that everyone will never agree about risk”. p. xi

And he continued:

“Everyone is a true risk “expert” in the original sense of the word; we have all been trained by practice and experience in the management of risk. Everyone has a valid contribution to make to a discussion of the subject”. (Adams, p.1).

This research aimed to put the individual as the “unit of measurement”, very much in line with ideas postulated by others such as the Health and Safety Executive, where a human factors approach has been called for in a variety of settings as was referenced in Section 2.

Agriculture seemed to lend itself to a human factors approach, where much other work has been done on culture and farming as a “way of life”. Because agriculture is so culturally rooted, some of the risks taken by farmers, despite “interventions” are as the result of the “risk thermostats” being wrongly set perhaps. The aim of the study was not to delve into the depths of the psyche or culture of farmers, but to see if the risk thermostats might be set wrongly and if so what were the options for new initiatives or interventions and to what

extent might they be able to reset the risk thermostats so that risk-taking behaviour might be modified down to prevent farm accidents.

Other published work, particularly in the US has adopted this type of approach, particularly the work of Murphy, Aherin and Westaby, but they say:

“There is little direct research in the field of farm safety to accurately guide injury control efforts”. (Aherin, et al, p.2, 1992)

they continued:

“Behavioural change and persuasion research is a field of study that shows some promise to provide empirical valid methods for defining effective injury control intervention methods”. p. 3

Albeit written in a North American setting, their work seems to support the type of approach agreed upon for the conduct of this survey research. Time (or lack of it) prevents a detailed critique of their work, but reference will be made to some of their conclusions within this report.

The Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, published in the US is an inter-disciplinary journal that publishes articles to “bridge the following disciplines in addressing agricultural health and safety issues one of particular interest: engineering, occupational safety, industrial hygiene, public health, social psychology, education and public policy” Jnl. Ag. Safety and Health Vol 6. No. 4 (2000). There is no counterpart in the UK, but there is a need for this type of vehicle for discussing issues within the profession. The quote at 2.10 supports this assertion.

There are other journals published in the UK but, the literature search produced few references to agricultural health and safety, other than basic discussion of the types of hazards encountered in the industry or very specific scientific papers relating to occupational issues such as dust, noise or chemicals, or engineering issues such as ROPS and tractor safety.

The published annual Fatal Accidents reports were used extensively in this study, as were some MARCODE summarises provided by HSE for this research in an unpublished form.

The Digest of Agricultural Census Statistics for the UK (1997 edition) was used for structural information (MAFF, 1997).

The Farm Management Pocket Book by John Nix, published annually by Imperial College at Wye was used for other management and structural information (Nix, 1999 and 2001).

Earlier studies conducted by ADAS Consulting Ltd were also utilised to design the structure of postal questionnaires. For example, Question 9, “attitudes to farming” was adapted for this work from earlier research (ADAS, 2000).

Issues and concepts were discussed with HSE as sponsors of the research.

The Department of Geography at Lancaster University were consulted, particularly about sampling frames and the design and wording of questions.

A postal pilot questionnaire was developed and sent to a random stratified sample of 500 farms in England and Wales, from records held on the ADAS database of holdings. The responses to the pilot survey were encouraging and little change was made to the questionnaires, which ultimately became the survey proper.

Informal meetings and discussions with farmers and farm workers helped formulate the questionnaires, this undoubtedly added to the success of the responses returned.

The full postal survey took place during November, December 2000 and into January 2001. The timing was critical to avoid some of the busiest periods of harvest and autumn cultivations etc. 7,000 questionnaires were distributed, again using a stratified random sampling framework utilising the ADAS database of holdings. Responses continued to be received, particularly over the Christmas season even though the questionnaires went out in November, suggesting that the holiday period was used by respondents to complete and return their questionnaires.

Discussions amongst all of the ADAS farm managers as a collected “focus” group took place, particularly on the perception of risk which they had in respect to the items contained in Section 3 “Hazards in Farming” of the final questionnaire. The conclusion drawn that as a group their perception of risk was very close to what happened in reality. This should not be entirely surprising in that ADAS have produced individual written Codes of Practice for each of its farms, there are on-farm health and safety committees, risk assessment and COSHH assessment is by-and-large up-to-date, HSE literature, publications (priced) and videos are available and used on the farms, and the managers have all been trained in health and safety by the author, the full-time health and safety manager. These company interventions have shaped perceptions of risk and accident rates are below the national average in ADAS (unpublished sources).

The effort put into managing health and safety is in direct line with HS(G)65 and whilst no organisation is perfect much has been done to create a positive culture for health and safety in the past 8 years in ADAS.

From the practical expertise of the author within ADAS the risk-taking behaviours listed in Question 14 are “seldom occurrences” at worst on the ADAS farms. This again has a good deal to do with the perception of risk displayed by the managers. Many of the initiatives discussed in this report have been tried, tested and adopted on the ADAS farms to good effect, underlining the point that if there is a will there is a way to reduce farm accidents through these measures.

Pilot results were added to the main survey responses, giving a usable response group of 925 farms.

Discussion now turns to the rationale of the questions in the postal questionnaires, establishing the theoretical base for discussing the results in detail and for making the conclusions at the end of this report.

4 SURVEY RATIONALE

The Questionnaire was structured to elicit information on five main areas: Section 1 dealt with Farm Details; Section 2 with Personal Details of the farmer/respondent; Section 3 with Hazards in Farming, including those on the individual farm; Section 4 with Risk Management and options for change and finally Section 5 about Farm Accidents.

The rationale for Section 1 was fairly simple, it was deemed necessary to establish whether the respondent farms were typical or representative of the national picture. Responses would then be used to validate the study, to see if the results could be used to look at options for change in a national context. With the reported decline in the total workforce in agriculture (Nix, 2001), the use of contractors has become more widespread. The responses to Question 5 “use of contractors” could be used to establish their importance as (a) a means of offsetting risk to others, and (b) as a measure of volume and type of work, which contractors did for the respondent farms, again a valuable picture could be guaged from this survey it was hoped.

The Questions on Land Ownership (1), Cropping (2), Stocking (3) and Workforce (4) were adapted from other studies carried out by the ADAS market and policy research team.

Section 2 Questions were aimed at establishing personal profiles of the respondent farms. Life cycle and satisfaction indicators are important cultural aspects potentially affecting the perception of risks.

The position held on the farm is important in shaping risk management, and an indication of the role of respondents would be used to draw conclusions about possible different risks between farms.

With reference to HSE reports, accidents (and in particular) fatals in agriculture do not conform to a standard distribution on age. There are peaks in early career and late career. The responses to Question 7 would be useful to profile the response set.

Details of education background were asked for in Question 8. When looking at publications and literature to reduce farm accidents, the educational profile of farmers is important if messages are to be successfully received by the community.

The work experience an individual has influences the perception of risk and Question 8 asked how long the respondents had been farming as a result.

Attitudes to farming are crucial to risk management. Farming has had its recent calamities over the past few years and confidence is not high. When this is the case investment in health and safety and training tends to be reduced. The overall confidence of the response set and responses to open questions about the future of farming would be used to assess the potential success or failure of future initiatives to reduce farm accidents.

The health of individuals was also thought by this study to be an important factor shaping attitudes and opinions, tying in with the above question on attitudes to farming. The self- assessment of health by respondents would give a profile of general health for all in agriculture by aggregating the survey results into a national scale.

Similarly, the responses to Question 11 would be useful to guage the occupational health of individuals if respondents entered agriculture soon after education, a good deal of long-term

ill-health problems could be associated with working in agriculture. Again the responses to this question could be used to draw a national picture.

Section 3 started with Question 12 by asking respondents to record the three most significant hazards on their farm, they were also asked to indicate if they had the potential to be: killer, cause serious injury or only minor injury. This open question offered the opportunity to look directly at the identification of hazards by individuals. The responses would then be a direct measure of the perception of risks of individuals, and collectively could be used to draw conclusions about where farmers saw risk on their own farms. The results should be studied closely in this respect.

Question 13 asked in a tabulated format about the perceived relative risks of death or major injury, according to the broad classification adopted by HSE in the annual publication of “Fatal Injuries in Agriculture” (HSE, 2000). The pilot survey contained the HSE breakdown under each of the main headings such as “Contact with Electricity” was sub-divided into “Hand Tools”, “Overhead Lines”, “Industrial Plant” and “Domestic Type Equipment”. The responses were confused and it was decided to use the compressed format of eight causative agents. The question ties in somewhat with the previous open question on hazards on individual farms, but it was thought that there may be a mismatch between what people think of their own farm and about agriculture as a whole. It would be interesting to test the idea that farmers perceive risk generally but think that it won’t happen to them locally. Refining or matching the perception of the national picture and the individual farm profile would then be a major task in the development of future initiatives.

Question 14 turned attention to risk-taking behaviour and asked respondents to honestly state whether a series of actions had taken place on their farms. Some actions carried higher degrees of seriousness of potential injury had the actions caused accidents or resulted in accidents. Respondents were asked to state whether they had “Never”, “Seldom”, “Sometimes” or “Frequently” carried out a practice such as “Chainsaw used without full protective equipment”.

The responses could be used to assess the individual's propensity to take risk or be used to assess the national potential. HSE could use the results to target areas of concern in the future. This has to be a more refined approach than relying on RIDDOR data it is argued. From the responses to this question it should be possible to highlight potential bad practices of risk-taking behaviour. An interesting study would be to compare the results of this question to the prosecutions profile or Notices issued. This could then be used to determine if HSE enforcement activity is in line with the admissions of farmers of actions all of which could be prosecution or Notice issue cases. The responses to Q12 will be matched to the risk- taking behaviour responses, here in Q14. Answers to the question of whether if one positively identifies a hazard on the farm, then one exhibits less risk-taking behaviour associated with that hazard were needed. Clearly, if future campaigns are to focus on raising awareness of hazards, then it would be useful to show that awareness of a hazard translates itself into risk management. The identification of a hazard is the first step towards risk assessment and thus risk management; evidence whether the latter two follow on from the first is sought.

Section 4 then looked at aspects of risk management to see to what extent risk was being “managed” on the farms in the survey. The question was tabulated to a certain extent by the use of 9 action points (plus “Other”) thus “Workplaces/buildings”, “Machinery” or “Diseases” for example. If there had been no action respondents were asked to record No Action. It was hoped that the responses, if possible would show items that were reasonably

practicable perhaps. Clearly if respondents had acted on these points they must have (a) perceived a risk and/or (b) thought the costs associated with the action to be worth the money or a necessary draw on the business. If responses were negative and it could be shown that little had been done in certain areas, then this could indicate a mis-perception of risk.

Questions 16, 17 and 18 were designed to look into the future. Question 16 asked about improvements that could be done by individuals on their farms. The degree of potential self- help could be guaged from the responses to this question, and future strategy could tie in with the potential for self-help.

Question 17 on the other hand asked in an open format what others should do in their area to make farms safer, HSE and MAFF were given in the questionnaire as examples. This was as much about satisfaction with existing arrangements as about future actions, therefore the results could be taken to be an assessment of the role played by outside agencies in improving farm safety, with resultant indications for the future. The question tied in directly with Question 18, which gave eleven possible future interventions to improve health and safety on farms. These may have influenced the responses to the earlier Question 17 but if they did it would be a positive influence, guiding respondents to think about future options.

Question 19 asked whether risk management “tools” such as written risk assessments or “Written work instructions” were (a) complete on the farm and (b) whether they were up-to- date. This was designed as a simple measure of paperwork activity. From the results a national picture could be postulated and conclusions drawn about the relative effectiveness of legislation that has fairly recently impacted (or not as the case may be) on the agricultural industry.

Finally Section 5 called “Accidents happen” asked respondents to list major and minor accidents that had happened on their farm in the past few years. The question thus aimed to see to what extent an individual farm had had major and minor accidents because of the relative paucity of information about risks that can be gleaned from RIDDOR records. The proportion farms responding to the two questions could be used to guage the incidence of major and minor accidents.

The questionnaire was long which had an effect on the response rate and this came out of face-to-face discussions and the pilot survey before the survey proper. However, the level of detailed information, which could be produced from the questionnaire, was such that the decision was made to use the questionnaire in its entirety and not to reduce the survey to a more superficial level.

Discuss of the results follows in Sections 5, 6 and 7.

SECTION 5

RESULTS

STRUCTURAL POINTS

5 RESULTS - STRUCTURAL POINTS

LAND FARMED

Table 1 Land owned and/or farmed (Question 1)

Mean Lower Upper Total Land No. % quartile quartile (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) Owned and farmed by you 774 84 155 50 199 120,211 Farmed by you under an 422 46 131 23 160 55,333 agricultural tenancy Farmed by you under a cropping 175 19 77 12 80 13,382 agreement or grazing license

Percentages are based on all respondents (925)

The results show that 84% were owner occupiers., that 46% rented some land and 19% of respondents had some cropping agreement or grazing license.

The average size of owner/occupier farm was 155 ha, the average size of tenancy was 131 ha, and for land in and/or a cropping agreement/grazing license the average size was 77 ha.

The total owner/occupier farmed land was 120,211 ha, the total rented land was 55,333 ha, and the total cropping/license land was 13,382 ha, giving a total of 188,926 ha covering in this survey.

Given that there were approximately 8,800,000 ha total crops and grass in England and Wales, then around 1.9% is represented in this survey. (Nix, (1999) p. 214)

Of the 165,800 holdings in England and Wales, 4.5% of all holdings were sampled in this survey, and 0.56% of all holdings responded as a result. (Nix, (1999) p.214)

Turning to owned land, Nix, 1999 (p.215) states that there was 5,184,000 ha in 1996 of wholly owned land. Responses to the survey show that 120,211 ha were owned by respondents. Therefore, the farms in this survey represented 2.32% of wholly owned land in England and Wales.

In this study, rented land means wholly rented plus mainly rented land. According to Nix 1999 (p.215) there was 3,119,000 ha of rented land in England and Wales in 1996. Therefore, 1.77% of wholly rented and mainly rented land was represented in our survey.

The figures used are for the year 1996, which over-estimates the true number of farms due to a declining industry since 1996.

The results show that over 2% of land wholly owned in England and Wales was farmed by people who responded to the survey.

Looking at land tenure, recorded as being “wholly and mainly” rented. 55,333 ha were farmed by respondents to the surveys, representing 1.77% of the total amount recorded in England and Wales in 1996 (3,119,000 ha).

The land which was owned was fairly tightly compacted in spread of size of holdings from 50 to 199 ha (a range 150 ha); for tenanted land the spread was from 23 to 160 ha (a range 137 ha) and for cropping agreements/grazing licenses the spread was from 12 to 80 ha (a range of 68 ha).

This shows that within the land ownership classifications there are differences in farms/unit size, this is a significant conclusion when we move on to the next results of the research, when respondents recorded total farm acreages.

Looking at the breakdown of tenure in England and Wales in 1996 the following is given by Nix (1999) (p.215).

Table 2 Tenure, England and Wales1996 (Source Nix, 1999)

Number of % Area % Area % Holdings Owned % Rented Wholly owned ) 115,948 (66.7) 5,184 (48.3) - - Mainly owned ) 19,398 (11.2) 1,678 (15.6) 429 4.0 Wholly rented 24,817 (14.3) - - 1,998 18.6 Mainly rented 13,565 (7.8) 327 (3.0) 1,121 10.4 173,728 (100) 7,189 (67.0) 3,548 (33.0)

From the results of the survey 774 out of 925 respondents owned and farmed the land, representing 84% of the total. Combining the ownership categories above (wholly and mainly) 77.9% of the total number of holdings in England and Wales was reported by Nix.

Reference to the national figures for England and Wales above shows that 22% or so of holdings were not owned, as opposed to 16.3% of the survey respondents.

By taking 151 farms from 422 responses to the tenancy agreement category gives 271 farms that rented some land, thus there were over 500 holdings or 54.3% of total respondents who wholly owned the holdings, which they operated. The national England and Wales figures shows 66.7% for 1996, so the tenure of the survey holdings is again slightly different to the national England and Wales picture.

This has some implications for this research, the most significant being that the overall control of the land farmed in the survey holdings could be argued to be less than that of the national England and Wales picture, where it is argued that 66.7% of holdings (those which were wholly owned) would not be the subject of other persons/parties investment/spending plans for the land.

Results of Question 1 were classified and size categories derived. The results are shown below.

Table 3 Total farm size breakdown and number of survey holdings

Total farm Holdings Area size (ha) No. % Ha % Under 20 ha 38 4 334 <1 20 to 99 ha 291 31 18,349 9 100 to 299 ha 394 43 67,806 35 300 ha and over 180 19 102,436 52 Not stated 22 2 - - Total 903 100 195,733 100

Figures were gathered from the Digest of Agricultural Census Statistics, 1997 and comparisons made to see if the sample respondents were representative of the national picture. Tables 4 and 5 were generated as a result.

Table 4 Percentage distribution of holdings in England and Wales (1997) and this survey (2000)

England and Wales Survey (2000) (1997) % Ha (% of GB) <20 35.7 4.0 20-100 33.8 31.0 100-299 11.9 43.0 300+ 2.5 19.0

(Source: MAFF:1997 and Survey Results)

FARM SIZE

Table 5 Holdings by area England and Wales (1997) and this survey (2000)

England and Wales Survey (2000) Ha N N % <20 73,525 8 0.05 20-100 69,434 291 0.42 100-300 24,547 394 1.60 300+ 5,208 180 3.46 172,714 903

(Source: MAFF: 1997 and Survey Results)

In shear numbers, for holdings <20 ha, 0.05% of the national (England and Wales) total were represented in this survey, similarly for 20-100 ha, 0.42%, for 100-300 ha, 1.6% and for those 300+ ha, 3.46% of the national total.

The representation of size groups from the analysis of respondents shows that the larger the size of the farm the more responses were received, with over 60% of responses being from

farms over 100 ha (247 a) and of this 10% of respondents farms being over 300 ha (741 acres).

Contrasted with this, only 4% of responses were under 20 ha in size (49.4 a). However, all sorts of farms were sampled and the geographical size is not always a good judge of how big an enterprise is. Poultry and Horticultural units responded and for some of these businesses 20 ha is a large unit in area terms.

For farms over 100 ha the national proportion was 17.2% in 1996; and for farms over 300 ha only 3% in national terms (Nix D. 214 (c)). Therefore, the farms, which responded in the survey, did not mirror the national distribution of holdings on size categories.

Table 6 Comparison of larger farms (100+ ha) between England and Wales and survey

England and Wales Survey (2000) (1996) % Ha (% of GB)

100-300 14.2 43 300+ 3.0 19

17.2% 62%

(Source: MAFF: 1997 and Survey)

ENTERPRISE STRUCTURE: CROPPING

Table 7 Average size of enterprise by structure 1997, compared with survey 2000 results

1997 Ha Survey Ha Cereals 48.5 139 (combinable crops) Sugar Beet 20.9 35 Potatoes 9.3 30 Tillage and Grass 50.2 68 (permanent grass)

For those crops for which there is a direct comparison (Nix, (p.214)) it appears that the survey holdings were growing significantly larger areas of crops than the national England and Wales picture.

The full responses to Question 2 are given in Table 8.

Table 8 Cropping areas in survey 2000

Crop No. % Mean Lower Upper quartile quartile (ha) (ha) (ha) Combinable crops 629 68 139 40 169 Fruit 20 2 73 3 29 Temporary grass 390 42 68 13 70 Permanent grass 688 74 68 15 80 Forage 191 21 47 10 50 Field vegetables 52 6 42 7 45 Legumes/pulses 171 18 36 12 40 Sugar beet 131 14 35 12 38 Potatoes 136 15 30 10 36 Fruit 20 2 73 3 29

(Percentages are based on all respondents)

Combinable crops were clearly the largest area size of all (139 ha mean) tillage and grass categories, with 68% of respondents listing them as on their holdings.

Permanent Grass and Temporary Grass average values were the same at 68 ha, recorded by 74% and 42% of holdings respectively.

Potatoes were recorded by 15% of respondents, Sugar Beet by 14%.

Forage crops were given by 21% of respondents and the mean area was fairly high at 47 ha, with a small inter-quartile range from 10 to 50 ha.

There were small numbers of holdings recording fruit and vegetables as crops, 2% and 6% but the mean areas covered by these crops were significant at 73 ha and 42 ha.

The highest ranking on the highest mean area was “combinable crops”, with lowest ranking for “sugar beet” and “potatoes”.

STOCKING

In Question 3, respondents were asked to provide details of their current stocking.

Table 9 Stocking

Stock No. % Mean Lower Upper quartile quartile Dairy cows 305 33 139 75 165 Dairy followers 295 32 96 36 100 Beef cows 285 31 74 20 100 Finishing beef* 366 40 86 20 91 Ewes 302 33 401 110 585 Lambs* 281 30 534 174 776 Sows 59 6 433 10 350 Finishing pigs* 73 8 3,514 750 5,500 All laying hens 62 7 5,529 12 2,100 Table poultry* 25 3 137,508 425 330,000

Percentages are based on all respondents *The numbers of stock given are based on the number sold in the year, whereas the other numbers are based on the farmers concept of herd/flock size.

A third of respondent numbers held dairy cows, including followers. The average herd size was 139 dairy cows and 96 dairy followers.

40% of respondents held finishing beef animals with a mean herd size of 86.

A further third of respondents held ewes (33%) and lambs (30%), with mean flock sizes of 401 ewes, 524 lambs.

Less than 10% of respondents had sows and finishing pigs (6 and 8% respectively).

Similarly, less than 10% of respondents held laying hens (7%) and table poultry (3%).

Table 10 Livestock numbers 1992-1999 (E&W)

1992 1994 1997 1999 Dairy cows 62 67 66 73 Beef cows 23 24 26 27 Breeding sheep 224 223 245 246 Breeding pigs 65 71 81 92 Fattening pigs 294 414 489 513 Laying fowls 999 1,319 1,134 1,403 Broilers 30,333 40,587 33,869 50,789

(Source: Nix: 2000, p.230 and Nix: 1999, p.214)

In 1999 the average herd of dairy cows was 73; the average herd of beef cows was 27; the average flock of breeding sheep was 246; breeding pigs 92, finishing pigs 513; laying fowls 1,403 and broilers 50,789. (Nix: 2001 p.230 T.6). The results show that the survey farmer held considerably more stock than the national (E&W) averages of livestock numbers.

EMPLOYMENT

In question 4, respondents were asked to give the number of people who work in the farm business, broken down into family, employees, self-employed and full-time/part-time basis.

Table 11 Employment structure on survey farms in England and Wales

Workforce Type Total Average/Farm Persons Persons Full Time Family 1190 1.28 Part Time Family 544 0.59 Full Time Employee 1505 1.63 Part Time Employee 761 0.68 Casuals 4000 4.32 Self-Employed 276 0.29

Source: survey responses

In total there were 1,700 family labour covered by the study and over 2,200 employees. There were also 4,000 casual staff working on the farms according to the results.

There were 474 farms, which did not employ full-time labour or around 48% of the respondents. If the average per farm including those who did not employ labour is calculated then an average per farm of 1.63 persons is found to be the survey result. However, if the farms without full-time labour are taken out of the calculation, then the adjusted average, which is more of an accurate reflection, as a result gives a figure of 3.3 employees per farm is found.

The full-time workforce (family and employees) covered in the study was 2,695 persons. There were only 97 farms that did not hold any full-time labour, therefore the vast majority did, 828 in total. The adjusted average full-time staff numbers was found to be 3.25, very similar to the adjusted average for farms, which did employ full-time employees.

There were 5,305 part-time and casual staff used on the survey farms, giving a total workforce on the respondent’s farms of 8,000 persons. Bearing in mind that 7,000 questionnaires were sent out, from those that responded they were the workplace of 8,000 persons in one form or another, a significant result it is argued.

With a close to 50:50 split between full-time labour employing and non full-time labour employing, and over 50% of the total workforce recorded being casuals, there is a good range of employment patterns which have emerged from this study.

CONTRACTORS

In Question 5, respondents were asked to indicate whether they had used contractors in the previous year. Responses are given in Table 12.

Table 12 The use of contractors

Work Used in the last year No. % Complete crop (stubble to stubble) 50 5 Ploughing/cultivation 169 18 Drilling/planting 211 23 Spraying 259 28 Manure handling/spreading 247 27 Harvesting 268 29 Silage making 394 43 Hay making 106 11 Milking 39 4 Livestock husbandry 36 4 Hedge trimming 434 47 Drainage 162 18

Percentages are based on all respondents

Approaching 50% of respondents used contractors to trim hedges.

Silage making was undertaken by contractors on 394 farms responding or 43% of the total.

Harvesting was the third rank activity performed by contractors, accounting for 29% of the total.

Similar proportions for spraying and manure handling/spreading were recorded.

At the other end of things, only 4% of respondent farms used contractors for livestock husbandry or milking.

There were only 5% of respondents that used contractors for complete crop work/management.

There are significant conclusions that can be drawn from the results on the implications of using contractors and health and safety performance. These will be discussed later.

Discussion now turns to information on human and organisational issues gathered in the survey.

SECTION 6

HUMAN/ORGANISATIONAL ISSUES

6 HUMAN: ORGANISATIONAL ISSUES

Section 2 of the questionnaire asked for details about the individual. Question 6 asked the role of the respondent on the farm.

Table 1 records the responses.

Table 1 Role on the farm

Role No. % Farmer 601 65 Partner 222 24 Manager 67 7 Other 29 3 Not stated 6 <1 Total 925 100

The vast majority classed themselves as farmers, with a further 24% reporting they were partners. This could be that spouses/”partners” were also completing the questionnaires, as is often the case, female spouses complete the paperwork and this is their role in the partnership.

Only 7% of respondents were farm managers. The small number of “others” were people like company secretary or estate owner.

As far as decision-making is concerned the high proportion of farmers and managers (72%) suggests that the sample is very much made up of people who have hands-on practical experience.

Question 7 asked for the age of respondents and for the ages of any children they had. Table 4 records a summary of the results.

AGE

Table 2 Age of respondents

Age Range No. % Under 30 20 2 30 to 39 118 13 40 to 49 274 30 50 to 59 260 28 60 to 69 165 18 70 and over 64 7 Not stated 24 2 Total 925 100

The age distribution of respondents seems to be skewed to the older end of the age spectrum, with few respondents under the age of 30 years (2%). However, the distribution itself is fairly normal with peak groupings being 40 to 49 (30%) and 50 to 59 (28%) years. There were 64 respondents who were over 70 years old.

Table 3 Age structure of survey 2000 with fatal accidents

This Study Fatal Accidents 2000 1986/87 to 1997/98 Self-Employed Persons <30 2% 22.9% 16-34 30-39 13% 15.8% 35-44 40-49 30% 16.7% 45-54 50-59 28% 21.9% 55-64 60-69 18% 21.6% 65+ 70+ 7%

(Source: HSE, 2000 and Survey)

It is noted that the respondent group is significantly different to the age structure of those who suffered fatal injury from 1986/87 to 1997/98. It would appear that the fatalities age group 16-34 years is large compared to the under 30 group of this study, who represented 2% of these respondents.

There is some similarity between the percentage of older respondents and the percentage of older persons suffering fatal injury, we can say that the older respondents probably run the same life risk of being killed as the general agricultural population.

CHILDREN

The second part of Question 7 asked for the ages of children if respondents had any.

Table 4 Age of children

Age Range No. % Under 5 134 15 6 to 10 217 24 11 to 15 278 31 16 to 20 287 32 21 to 25 242 27 26 and over 554 61 Number with children 907

The picture is that of respondents having a range of children, 46.5% over 21 years and 63.2% over the minimum school leaving age – 98% of all respondents had children, so this is a significant result in terms of the numbers of children that are living and have lived on farms in this study.

A finding of major significance was the figure of 36.6% of farms, which had children still at school – with 7.8%, or so having children of pre-school/reception class age. According to HSE from 1986/7 to 1997/8 43.2% of fatal accidents to children occurred in the under 5 group, 26.9% in the 6 to 10 years group; and, 29.9% in the 11 to 15 age group. Children under 16 represented 10.7% of fatal accidents 1986/7 to 1997/8. placing this in a wider context, Table 5 shows the age range of all fatals from 1986/7 to 1997/8.

Table 5 Fatal injuries to employees, self-employed and children in agriculture 1986/7 to 1997/98

Age Range No. % 1-5 29 4.6 6 to 10 18 2.9 11-15 20 3.2 16-19 37 5.9 20-24 46 7.4 25-34 99 15.9 35-44 88 14.1 45-54 87 14.0 55-64 108 17.3 65 or over 84 13.5 Not Known 7 1.1

(Source: HSE, 2000)

On 36.6% of respondent farms were children under 16 years old. The table above shows that over 10% of fatal accidents occur in this age group, therefore over a third of the respondent farms were potentially at risk of such tragedy on their holdings.

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE

Question 8 was a composite question, which asked about experience and educational attainment. Table 6 records the number of years the respondents had had in farming. Table 7 lists the educational attainment of respondents.

Table 6 Number of years farming

No. % 10 years or less 32 3 11 – 20 130 14 21 – 30 252 27 Over 30 years 436 47 Not stated 73 8 Total number 925 100

The results of this question simply show the wealth of experience amongst respondents. Approaching half (47%) with over 30 years will have seen the introduction and gradual growth of legislation in agricultural health and safety from the late 1950’s to the present day. Over a quarter had more than 20 years up to 30 years experience, so they have seen the development of legislation and the role of HSE in their working lives.

The distribution is skewed towards the older age groups, but this in itself is seen as not problematical per say. It is possible to say that respondents had more experience of working in agriculture than a normal population age distribution, therefore their thoughts are rich in experience, they have seen and responded to many changes, economic, technological and legislative. If respondents had been predominantly younger age groups, then their life/occupational experience would be different. This may negate the comment at paragraph 6.9 above.

Table 7 Education and attainment

Education level No. % O level/GCSE/CSE 159 17 A level 48 5 National diploma 204 22 HND 82 9 Degree 95 10 Post graduate 28 3 Not stated 309 33 Total 925 100

A third of respondents did not state their educational attainment either because they did not have any or they were reluctant to disclose this information to the study.

Over 10% of those that responded were graduates.

Approaching a quarter of respondents had a National Diploma, which is the expected qualification most students attain if they attend agricultural college.

Education does not always mean formal, taught courses, indeed to focus entirely on formal education misses a big group if similar education attainment perpetuates throughout all the industry.

A CHANGING WORLD

External Influences

As part of the literature review, Agricultural and other policy documents were read, in an attempt to place the structural changes on farms in the survey, at the micro level, with developments at the macro level.

Four important publications were reviewed:

(1) Agenda 2000: CAP Reform: A New Direction for Agriculture, Dec 1999; (2) Strategy for Agriculture: An Action Plan for Farming; (MAFF, 2000); (3) Our Countryside: the future (White Paper, Cm 4909, November 2000); (4) The State of the Countryside 2001, Countryside Agency 2001.

In terms of changes in the future from (1) it would appear that there is likely to be a realignment of incomes, with “small farms doing relatively well (and large farms correspondingly less well) and “overall, around half of farms are likely to gain revenue and a half are likely to lose revenue”. (P.4)

In (2), the Strategy for Agriculture recognised that agriculture in Britain is in crisis, and it announced “financial relief for the hardest-hit sectors and help ease the process of change that they must face” (P.1). It stated that exchange rates and the fall in community prices had driven down prices and support and driven up costs, but it also stated

“But the crisis also reflects underlying structural problems in British farming”. (P.1)

So, on top of financial relief for the hardest hit sectors, encouragement was to be given to assist in helping farmers to work with Government and the food industry to find ways to improve profitability in the industry. Four important initiatives could have potential for future health and safety development on farms: first, farm assurance schemes, secondly help for farmers “to develop better business practices through tailored business advice”, thirdly, the Strategy is for the encouragement of the use of IT among farmers and fourthly, funding for Lantra to promote the economic benefits of training and to analyse the training needs of 20,000 farm businesses.

All of these could impact in health and safety terms, as will be discussed in the conclusions section. The Government White Paper (3), outlining the vision for the countryside in England also recognised that farming is going through is most difficult time since before the Second World War. The New Direction for Agriculture, and in the Action Plan for Farming, are produced to implement the Strategy. Although there is no specific mention of health and safety advice, there is a commitment for promoting business advice from a Small Business Council, through a Rural Personal Business Adviser, this could be developed to include health and safety issues, therefore there is a potential benefit.

The State of the Countryside 2001 (4) publication, gives a snapshot in time for 2000, and it also documents the crisis in agriculture. It shows that confidence within the industry was not high on a national scale. The document goes on to show the decline in farm incomes since 1991-2 and in employment terms since 1987. Farm diversification is shown as a response to the crisis, but it says that options like this

“… may not be available to the majority, and surveys reveal increasing despondency among farmers regarding the future of their businesses”. (P.6)

“Farming is in severe recession. Farm incomes have declined, as has agriculture’s contribution to the national economy…..In 1999, for the first time, agriculture’s contribution to the UK’s total economy GVA fell below 1%…..The industry has responded to pressures of recent years in a number of ways…..These opportunities are, nevertheless, limited, and do not provide options for the majority”.

(The State of the Countryside 2001, P.56)

The picture thus painted by is not great and this has serious implications at the farm or micro level for individuals as will be shown in this study.

The macro, external influences may take some considerable time to impact, and may only do so in a very limited way for health and safety. In the short term they will probably be unimportant to the health and safety of farm business.

The Farmer’s Voice survey of 2,697 farmers in England and Wales in 2000, ADAS (2000) found that farmers are profoundly worried about the future of their businesses and livelihoods.

Mirroring this other work, in Question 9, respondents were asked about their current attitudes to farming using the same questions. This tied in with the desire to adopt a behavioural approach to this study. Discussion has taken place on the role of culture in shaping behaviour. The general feelings of the farmers are important to risk-taking behaviour, this is clearly supported by open response Questions 17 and 18 later.

The results from this survey and the ADAS 2000 show a remarkable similarity, thus once again validating this survey as consistent with findings elsewhere.

Table 8 Current attitude to farming

Statements This Survey Results from No. % ADAS (2000) Survey % Farming has no future - I intend to give it up 74 8 7 Farming has a limited future - I need to diversify 170 18 21 I see my future in farming and I want to increase the size 179 19 21 of my farm business I am happy to stay farming as I am now and for the 142 15 14 foreseeable future I am worried about my future in farming but I don’t know 152 16 22 what else I can do I see my future in farming but I expect that I will have to 185 20 23 change my farming practice Not stated 23 2 5 Total 925 100

A small percentage did not complete this question, which still left just over 900 respondents who did. It was thought at the outset that if there was a very marked dissatisfaction with agriculture then this could have severe implications for future health and safety on farms.

In practice, this research found that 8% of respondents opted for “Farming has no future – I intend to give it up”. There were thus, 74 farmers of this opinion. Whilst the total number of agricultural workers fell by 33,400 or 12.6% of the 1992 total in 1999, the total number of employers and partners actually rose by 1.1% from 1992 to 1999 (see Table 9 below).

Table 9 Agricultural workforce 1992 to 1999

1992 1997 1999 Total workers 265,200 243,300 231,800 Employers and partners 356,600 362,000 360,800

(Source: Nix (1999) and (2001) p. 212 and p.228 respectively)

Clearly, if 8% of respondents, who were in the vast majority employers, had an intention to leave the industry then this was above the national trend. In practice a statement of intention is one thing, the actual move out of agriculture is another.

It is possible to use some of these results of the study, by aggregating them to draw conclusions about national risks as a result.

If a conservative estimate of say 5% are very unhappy farming the potential at risk in terms of holdings in real terms might be as many as 8,200+ holdings in which might fall into this grouping (Source Nix (2001) p.230). This is a frightening statistic and one, which must predict that despite a sharply declining total workforce in agriculture since 1992, there will be more fatalities and serious injuries without a concerted effort to raise awareness. Times are extremely hard in agriculture at the present, but for a number of farms, times will get even harder if the prediction of more fatalities and serious injuries is realised.

All was not gloom in the respondents to this study, and nearly a fifth thought that they would want to increase the size of their farm because they saw a future in agriculture. There has been shown that there is some evidence that some of the “drivers” pushing farmers are: (1) a desire to build up the farm; (2) to improve their farm, and (3) to leave it to their offspring (Knowles, Unpublished, PhD thesis) in good shape. These imply a limited satisfaction with what they have got and an unfinished job of increasing the size of the business to pass on. The respondents to this survey, in the vast majority of cases had children, so we can assume that this would be a desire of a good number of them. As a potential to improve health and safety standards33333 tapping into this overall desire to increase/improve the farm business seems to have great potential for future strategy to reduce risk. Farming bigger, better or more smartly should equate with farming more safely and with reduced risks to health.

The role of farm assurance schemes in the future could be very important for some, if farms grow or diversify then many will inevitably need to join such schemes, and therein lies a potential for improving standards in health and safety.

20% of respondents knew that they saw their future in farming but recognised that they would have to change their farming practice. This group could also improve their health and safety standards as a result of changing farm practice.

A further 16% responded that they were worried about the future but did not know what else they could do. This group are perhaps next door to the farming has “no future” group, and the “don’t know what to do” group could easily slip into the “no future” group if things do not get better in the short and long term in agriculture. There is thus even more potential for standards in health and safety to slip if those in this group move into the “no future” group.

HEALTH

Questions 10 and 11 were asked to guage the general fitness of the responding farmers as perceived by themselves. Table 10 records general health and Table 11 records long-term health problems.

Table 10 General health

No. % Very good 298 32 Good 359 39 Average 209 23 Poor 44 5 Very poor 6 1 Not stated 9 1 Total 925 100

It is clear from the results that respondents rated their general state of health as at least average, with 71% selecting good or very good as their personal rating. However, 50 farmers responded that their health was poor at best (44) and very poor at worst (6). The combined shows that 6% of the sample were on their own admission suffering general health problems.

Table 11 Health problems

No. % No 591 64 Seldom 86 9 Sometimes 140 15 Frequently 32 3 All the time 52 6 Not stated 24 3 Total 925 100

The next question asked about long-term health problems and the results were illuminating. 64% reported that they had no such problems, nearly 25% said that they seldom or sometimes suffered from a long term problem, whilst 9% said that they frequently or all of the time suffered.

From an health and safety point of view those that responded that they had general poor health and they suffered long-term health problems on a frequent or worse basis may offer some indication of the health generally amongst farmers in England and Wales. With extrapolation it can be shown that (using the results of this study with national totals of employers and partners in agriculture) that of the 360,800 in 1999, 21,600 may be of poor, or worse health, and that up to 32,400 may suffer from long term health problems on a frequent or permanent basis.

The study did not ask for details, for reasons of brevity, but the evidence from this research suggests that large numbers of persons in agriculture may suffer general poor health or from long-term health problems. Of course, all will not be occupationally related, but for the sake of argument if only 10% are, then there are 2-3,000 people in agriculture that are not able to function properly and this may have significant implications for their future safety (and health)

What is to be done about ill health when one is self-employed and occupationally immobile as has been shown in this study? For those that are presently suffering there may be little other than killing pain or offering palliative treatment. For those that presently do not suffer, then this research shows that the HSE’s drive to improving occupational ill health is timely, if the numbers of sufferers in agriculture extrapolated from this research are reliable.

There are two cautionary notes to be mentioned though. First, it has been seen that these respondents were of an older age structure and as such the proportion of ill health amongst the group may be higher than the national average. Secondly, it must also be borne in mind that the respondents were largely farmers and there nearly as many employees as employers, often employees can be more exposed to hazardous substances at work than their employers, therefore the full ill-health in agriculture could be as much as double that which has been suggested in this report.

SECTION 7

BEHAVIOURAL

7 BEHAVIOURAL

Question 12 asked respondents to record the 3 most significant hazards on their farm, and Question 13 attempted to arrive at a perception of risk associated with “killers” in agriculture in the UK, and Question 14 asked about risk-taking behaviour, or the propensity to do certain things.

This was an open question was designed to search for typical hazards on individual farms, as perceived by the respondents. The results are presented as separate categories in Table 2, where there were 2 or more respondents who gave similar hazards.

There were 45 hazards recorded by respondents, by far the largest groups were “Livestock” and “Machinery”, with 41% and 40% of respondents listing these are one of the three major hazards on their farm.

The full responses to the questions (given in Table 1) are interesting when compared with the responses to Question 13 (given in Table 3) that asked for a perception of risk on farms in the UK, and with Question 14 on risk taking behaviour. There is a more detailed discussion of this later

Table 1 Ranked significant hazards recorded by respondents

Rank Hazards Total No % 1 Livestock 380 41.0% 2 Machinery 372 40.0% 3 Chemicals 162 17.5% 4 Electricity 127 13.7% 5 Dust 115 12.4% 6 Tractors/ fork lift trucks 110 11.9% 7 Slurry stores 84 9.1% 8 Miscellaneous 73 7.9% 9 Falling from heights/ladders 68 7.3% 10 PTO shafts 67 7.2% 11 Roads/ being run over 60 6.5% 12 Bales 53 5.7% 13 Chainsaws 46 5.0% 14 Steep ground/hillsides 40 4.3% 15 Spraying 38 4.0% 16 Tiredness 36 3.9% 17 Stress 32 3.5% 18 Grain stores 25 2.7% 19 Uneven/ slippery floors 24 2.6% 20 Falling objects/ trees 21 2.3% 21 Workshop maintenance 20 2.2% 22 Unsafe buildings 19 2.1% 23 Lifting 20 2.1% 24 Bureaucracy/Penalties etc 17 1.8% 25 Impatience/ carelessness 15 1.6% 26 Power tools 15 1.6% 27 Lack of income 13 1.4% 28 Strain injuries 12 1.3% 29 Ponds and reservoirs 11 1.2% 30 Working alone 10 1.1%

31 Human error 9 1.0% 32 Silaging 8 0.9% 33 Children 8 0.9% 34 Dipping 8 0.9% 35 Poison 7 0.8% 36 Filling in forms 4 0.4% 37 Infectious disease 4 0.4% 38 Hedge cutting 3 0.3% 39 Corn dryer 3 0.3% 40 Fire 3 0.3% 41 Combinable crops 2 0.2% 42 Power harrow 2 0.2% 43 Rotary cultivator 2 0.2% 44 Ditches 2 0.2% 45 Zoonosis 2 0.2%

Table 2 Evaluation of responses to Q12

% of Total % of Total code Description First Second Third TOTAL Farms Responses 1 spraying 16 9 13 38 4% 1% 2 machinery 169 126 77 372 40% 13% 3 livestock 146 121 113 380 41% 14% 4 chemicals, pesticides 39 74 49 162 18% 6% 5 bales 13 23 17 53 6% 2% 6 stress 17 4 11 32 3% 1% 7 bureaucracy and red tape 6 3 8 17 2% 1% 8lack of income 256 131%0% 9 steep ground/hillsides 21 14 5 40 4% 1% 10 slurry stores, towers 55 17 12 84 9% 3% 11 filling in forms 0 1 3 4 0% 0% 12 electricity 33 48 46 127 14% 5% 13 dipping 1 4 3 8 1% 0% 14 dust 52 33 30 115 12% 4% 15 heights, ladders 14 23 31 68 7% 2% 16 pto shafts 36 23 8 67 7% 2% 17 tractors/ forklifts 48 44 18 110 12% 4% 18 roads, moving vehicles 24 19 17 60 6% 2% 19 tiredness 18 12 6 36 4% 1% 20 vaccines 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 21 silaging 0 5 3 8 1% 0% 22 unsafe buildings 4 10 5 19 2% 1% 23 chainsaw 16 13 17 46 5% 2% 24 lifting heavy objects 3 6 11 20 2% 1% 25 poison 0 2 5 7 1% 0% 26 falling objects, e.g. trees 4 5 12 21 2% 1% 27 workshop maintenance 2 8 10 20 2% 1% 28 human error, ignoring safety precautions 3 5 1 9 1% 0% 29 grain stores 5 9 11 25 3% 1% 30 combinable crops 0 1 1 2 0% 0% 31 impatience, carelessness 4 3 8 15 2% 1% 32 hedge cutting 2 0 1 3 0% 0% 33 children 4 4 0 8 1% 0% 34 uneven or slippery floors 6 8 10 24 3% 1% 35 water e.g. ponds, reservoirs 2 5 4 11 1% 0% 36 strain injuries 2 6 4 12 1% 0% 37 corn dryer 2 0 1 3 0% 0% 38 power harrow 1 1 0 2 0% 0% 39 rotary cultivator 1 1 0 2 0% 0% 40 infectious disease 1 1 2 4 0% 0% 41 working alone 2 2 6 10 1% 0% 42 power tools 1 6 8 15 2% 1% 43 ditches 0 1 1 2 0% 0% 44 zoonosis 0 1 1 2 0% 0% 45 fire 2 1 0 3 0% 0% 99 miscellaneous other 16 24 33 73 8% 3%

* No Reply 132 194 297 623 67% 22%

Total Response 2775 Total Farms 925

% of farms not replied 14% 21% 32%

The question of whether a hazard listed in top 3 is a hazard because it is inherent on that farm, therefore there will be risk-taking behaviour associated with the presence of the hazard; or, is a hazard listed because it exists, and despite the identification of it as a top 3 hazard on the farm, the farmers are still displaying risk-taking behaviour, and conclusions will be drawn later on this. Therefore their perception of risk is not suitable and sufficient.

Table 3 Perception of typical killers in agriculture in the UK

Estimated proportion of death or major injury by respondents Hazard Mean % Contact with electricity 12 Being struck by a moving vehicle 15 Being injured by an animal 14 Being struck by a moving/falling object 10 Asphyxiation/ drowning 8 Trapped by something collapsing 10 Contact with machinery 25 Falling from a height 10

Percentages based on 814, as 111 respondents did not answer this question

Comparing the results of Question 12 and Question 13, contact with electricity came out as responsible for 12% of deaths and major injuries on farms in the UK, whereas electricity was listed as a potential hazard by 13.7% of respondents, a very similar result.

Being struck by a moving vehicle was thought to account for 15% of deaths and major injuries, whereas only 6.5% said that roads/being run over was a hazard on their farms.

Being injured by an animal was perceived as being responsible for 14% of deaths and major injuries as an average, but 41% recorded livestock as one of the three main hazards on their farms.

It is more difficult to compare the next hazard type “being struck by a moving/falling object” as the groups of responses are not exactly the same, but we can compare with the open responses “falling objects/trees”. For the farmer, the average of 10% of deaths and major injuries was selected by respondents but only 2.3% recorded the falling objects/trees in the open responses from Question 12.

Looking at “asphyxiation/drowning” with “slurry stores” and “ponds and reservoirs” shows that on average respondents thought that 8% of fatals and major injuries were due to the former, whereas 10.3% said that the latter were hazards on their farms.

Being trapped by something collapsing or overturning were thought on average to be responsible for 10% of fatals and major injuries, by combining “bales”, “steep ground/hillsides” and “unsafe buildings” for comparison, 12.1% of farms had these three hazards on their holdings. The similarity of response is striking.

Contact with machinery was perceived to be responsible for 25% of accidents involving death and major injury, the highest average. 40% of respondents had significant machinery hazards, so there is something of an under-estimate comparing the two. Additionally, power harrows

and rotary cultivators were identified by a further 4 farmers as specific hazards, and 15 farms listed power tools as hazards.

The category “falling from a height” was responsible for 10% of fatals and injuries, 2.3% listed “falling from heights/ladders” as a local hazard. There is an element of under- perceiving the risk by respondents. Chemicals were recorded as a hazard by 17.5% of respondents, electricity by 7%, dust by 12.4% very surprisingly and PTO shafts by 7.2%. Around 5% saw chainsaws as a hazard on their farms and bales were listed by 5.7% of respondents as a hazard. “Steep ground/hillsides” was noted by 4.3% of farms and “tiredness” and “stress” by 3.9% and 3.5% respectively. Spraying was listed as a hazard by 4.1% of farms. The lower percentages are perhaps the most interesting if it can be shown that there are real hazards on farms but that very few respondents have recognised them as being important on their farm.

The re was a small number of farms, which recorded “children” as a hazard, only 8 farms out of 925 total responses or 0.9%. However, as was seen in Question 7 (Table 4), the vast majority of farms had children, and those with children under 16 years of age accounted for 3% of this total.

Human error and impatience/carelessness were other hazards not endorsed by many respondents 9 and 15 (1.0% and 1.6%) respectively. As has been stated earlier the human factors approach has made gains in improving health and safety, but few farmers in this study cited their own errors or omissions as potential hazards on their farms.

Further discussion of Question 13 follows, comparing the responses of farmers with the experience of fatal accident reports from 1986/7 to the present.

Table 4 Hazards, perception of risk and fatal accidents

Proportion of death or major injury Hazard < 5% 6-20% 21-50% > 50% Mean Fatals E&W % % 1986/7 to 1998/9 Contact with electricity 28 62 7 0 12 8.8 Being struck by a moving 16 64 15 1 15 18.4 vehicle Being injured by an animal 26 59 12 1 14 5.8 Being struck by a 31 61 3 0 10 13.3 moving/falling object Asphyxiation/ drowning 48 41 2 0 8 6.3 Trapped by something 34 57 1 <1 10 13.5 collapsing Contact with machinery 3 52 39 5 25 13.1 Falling from a height 31 60 3 0 10 15.8 95.0

Percentages based on 814, as 111 respondents did not answer this question

The list of categories of fatal accidents as used (to analyse and present the information) by HSE, were adopted in this research. The aim of the question was to assess the goodness of fit of the perception of respondents by the classification of importance compared with the

published figures for fatal accidents to employees and self-employed in agriculture, 1986/7 to 1998/9.

Table 4 records the percentages selected by respondents for the proportion of death or major injury and the proportions of various levels of accidents, which caused fatal injuries from 1986/7 to 1998/9. There is a mixed picture emerging if the mean score for each kind of accident is compared with the 1986/7 to 1998/9 fatals figures.

On average respondents over estimated the proportion of some fatal accidents (Table 5)

Table 5 Over-estimates of risk

Type of Accident/Fatal Injury % Contact with electricity +3.2 Being injured by an animal +8.2 Asphyxiation/drowning +1.7 Contact with machinery +11.9

The under-estimated risk is given in Table 6.

Table 6 Under-estimates of risk

Type of Accident/Fatal Injury % Being struck by a moving vehicle -3.4 Being struck by a moving/falling object -3.3 Trapped by something collapsing/overturning -3.5 Falling from a height -5.8

The over-estimate group is somewhat less worrying than the under-estimate group, farmers seem to be over-estimating the risk caused by contact with machinery by as much as 11.9% and being injured by an animal by as much as 8.2%. This should make them more cautious of these two hazards, but it has been seen that significant proportions of farmers displayed risk- taking behaviour in the recent past on these two hazards.

The under-estimates varied less than the over-estimates from the fatal accident figures, but 5.8% under-estimating the risk of fatal accident from a fall from a height (classed as anything over 2m) in agriculture generally could mean that nationally over 8,000 farmers not grasping the potential for harm. The 4 over-estimates could form the basis for a future strategy to reduce the risk of fatal accidents, in total they accounted for 15.8 + 13.5 + 13.3 + 18.4 = 61% of all fatals 1986/7 to 1998/9.

Question 14 was designed to guage the level of risk-taking behaviour that respondents might adopt or admit to. The results were striking and much can be gained from a close analysis. Appendix 4 records the hazard occurrence or risk-taking behaviour on the respondent farms in graphical form.

Discussion on the relationships between Q12 and Q14 will follow shortly.

From the results, the “Frequently”, “Sometimes” and “Seldom” categories are combined, then this gives a picture of the propensity of respondents to expose themselves to a whole series of hazards, some of which will have higher risks associated with them than others.

The highest score was for working off a ladder that was not “footed” with 79% saying that they had done this in the last year to some extent. This is a worrying statistic. It appears that the risks associated with this work were perhaps not fully appreciated by respondents. One person per year in agriculture dies as the result of falling from a moveable ladder (from 1986/87 to 1998/99 figures). It is argued that the fall from a ladder is not perceived to be a killer, not in the same way a fall from a fragile roof would be perceived, yet the fatal accident totals are similar (12 for ladders, 16 for fragile roofs 1986/7 to 1998/9 figures). Most ladder jobs are quick fixes around the farm, there is a blocked gutter or a loose pan or tile which need sorting out, little planning or thought goes into these types of jobs, resulting in the track record of the past few years.

Turning to the category “An ATV driven without a helmet”, 36% of respondents said that they had done this frequently or sometimes during the last year. The surprising thing about these results are that most people did not respond in this way. With 44% saying that they never drove an ATV without wearing a helmet this is a significant proportion and it is argued to be non-typical for some reason.

Turning to personal hygiene, then 64% said that they frequently, sometimes or seldom did not wash their hands before eating or drinking on the farm. There are obvious practical difficulties in washing hands on the farm, so the responses were not that surprising. Other than Weil’s disease, there is often a marked ignorance of other Zoonoses, which are occasionally present on the farm. As the only effective control measure for a majority of them is personal hygiene, it is safe to say that the non-washing of hands is indicative of the lack of knowledge about diseases which can be contracted on the farm.

“Sprays applied without personal protective equipment and clothing” was admitted by 9% who “frequently” acted so and by 22% who sometimes acted so. The regulation of chemical usage has a relatively long history in health and safety terms. Whilst individual farmers can rarely quote the requirements of any health and safety regulations in any great detail, there is a general awareness that PPE and clothing should be utilised when using sprays. Therefore, only 41% were taking heed of requirements and using PPE.

There was a high proportion of respondents who said that they allowed children to play in the immediate farmyard, adjacent to the house, 10% on a frequent and 18% on a sometimes basis, with 16% on a seldom basis. 52% said that they never allowed children to play in the farmyard. It has already been shown that the vast majority of farms in the response group had children, so the potential for accident is significant.

Staying with a transport theme, 40% of respondents said that someone who was not certificated had driven a forklift truck. 12% did not respond, we can assume that FLTs were not held on some respondent’s forms. 14% said that frequently non-certificated people drove FLTs, this was the highest response next to the ATV being driven without a helmet (25%). The risk of fatal injury from being struck by an FLT is small, only 8 cases of employees and self-employed from 1986/7 to 1998/9. It is not possible from the data that was available to separate out the number of children killed by FLTs from the 19 fatalities to children that occurred due to being struck by a moving vehicle (1986/7 to 1998/9).

Most people who work in agriculture know that machinery accidents and one involving PTOs in particular, account for considerable numbers of fatal and serious accidents. There can be nobody who works in agriculture who is not aware of the potential for PTOs to cause harm or kill. The responses to this survey show that 56% of respondents admitted to using a machine in the previous year without the PTO being fully guarded. As a test of risk-taking behaviour

this question is unambiguous. Regulators have to accept that there are people who will not heed advice or learn from the mistakes of others and they continue to farm at unnecessary increased risk than others. Despite wide knowledge about the hazard, and the consequences of meeting with the hazard, people will operate machinery that is not as safe as it could be.

A similar proportion of respondents said that they would enter an occupied bullpen single handed (8%) on a frequent basis; but 55% said that they would never do this. The problems of livestock handling and in particular bulls are well known to all stock farmers yet 8% responded that they would enter a pen single-handed. The reason probably lies in the farmer’s opinion as to the threat posed by his bull. An animal that has been reared from a calf on the farm, has been handled/moved on a regular basis, is a beef breed (as opposed to a dairy breed), has regular contact with cows and heifers is often regarded as a “safe” bull. Couple this with the point that most stock farmers pride themselves on their own “ability” to safely handle their own animals, then there is a big potential for mis-perception of the risk associated with entering a pen alone.

Turning to the last two risk-taking behaviours to be discussed and similar numbers of respondents said that they would never (a) carry out electrical repairs on a fixed installation and (b) carry out maintenance on a machine or equipment that was not turned off or isolated (53% and 55%).

Only 3% said that they frequently carried out electrical repairs; and only 1% said that they would frequently carry out maintenance on a machine not isolated or turned off. In a national sense (see Table 8) this could still mean nearly 5,000 farms and over 1600 could be involved in risk-taking behaviour. Both these maintenance tasks have killed in numbers in the past. From 1986/7 to 1998/9, 13.1% of people were killed as the result of contact with machinery or material being machined (which is the closest HSE categorisation) and 8.8% were killed from contact with electricity or electrical discharge.

Looking at the final risk-taking behaviour, 75% said that they would never carry irrigation pipes below OH HV power lines, less than 1% said that they did frequently. From the national figures from 1986/7 to 1998/9 31 out of 52 or 60% of all “contact with electricity” fatals were as the result of contacting OH power lines, many of these will have been irrigation pipes. The evidence from this survey is about right, less than 7% displayed any risk taking behaviour, 75% none at all.

Table 8 has been calculated to determine how many holdings in agriculture might be taking the same risks as the respondents. It has been assumed that there are 164,900 holdings in England and Wales (Nix, 1999).

Table 8 Theoretical risk-taking behaviour on farms in England and Wales

Hazards Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never Machine used without the PTO being 8245 31331 52768 69258 fully guarded Sprays applied without personal 14841 36278 41225 67609 protective equipment and clothing Sprays applied within 5m of an overhead 8245 13192 19788 112132 high voltage power line Chainsaw used without full protective 19788 47821 46172 46172 equipment and clothing Fork lift truck driven by someone 23086 19788 23086 79152 (including self) who is not certificated Work done off a ladder that was not 21437 57715 51119 31331 “footed” by someone/ something Children allowed to play in the immediate 16490 29682 26384 85748 farm yard, adjacent to the house Hands not washed before eating or 14841 42874 47821 56066 drinking An ATV driven without a helmet 41225 18139 6596 72556 An occupied bull pen entered single 13192 19788 11543 90695 handed Electrical repairs carried out on a fixed 4947 24735 34629 87397 installation Irrigation pipes carried below overhead 1649 3298 6596 123675 high voltage power lines Carried out maintenance on a machine or 1649 16490 51119 90695 equipment that was not turned off or isolated *

* Not asked in the pilot survey, therefore based on 823 who answered the question

For the work of an unfooted ladder, there could be as many as 120,000+ holdings where this may take place in England and Wales.

Over 40% said that a chainsaw had been used either frequently or sometimes during the last year without full PPE and clothing being worn. From Table 8 there could be over 65,000 farms in England and Wales where this bad habit is practiced.

HAZARD RECOGNITION AND RISK TAKING BEHAVIOUR

An analysis of hazards recognised by respondents and their stated actions on risk taking behaviour was carried out using responses to Q12 and Q14 respectively (Appendix 5 gives the results).

As has been previously shown and discussed there were over 45 different hazards recorded by respondents (see Table 1). Other hazards included Chainsaws (13th), Spraying (15th), Tiredness (16th) and Stress (17th).

The list of risk taking behaviours given in Appendix 4 earlier were studied, clearly there may be relationships between hazards which are identified in open questioning earlier on in the questionnaire, to the admitted risk-taking behaviour given in response to Question 14.

There are two ways to look at the relationships between the two sets of data.

First, the identification of hazards is (rightly) seen as the first step towards risk assessment and ultimately risk management, or the reduction of risk taking behaviour.

It would be useful to see from the data collected if one can establish a relationship between hazards identified and the avoidance or exhibition of risk-taking behaviour. This might be viewed as an inductive technique, whereby from the individual hazards identified it can be shown that there is general avoidance (or the corollary, exhibition of) risk-taking behaviour.

If people carried out risk management it would be reasonable to assume that if they identified a hazard they would take steps to reduce the risk associated with the hazard and not exhibit risk taking behaviour. The perception of risk would determine their behaviour, it can be argued.

On the other hand, if a hazard were not regarded as significant then one would expect the farmer to exhibit more risk-taking behaviour, because by not identifying a hazard they were not carrying out risk management.

In reality, life is not as simple as that, and some people are good at identifying hazards when they site down to think about them but are not good at implementing a personal set of control measures to reduce risk to themselves. Some of the results to follow will show this.

LIVESTOCK

For those farms that listed livestock as a hazard (Code 3) up to 39% exhibited known risk- taking behaviour by saying that either frequently 10%, sometimes 12%, or seldomly 17% entered an occupied bull pen single handedly, only 9% that listed livestock said that they never entered such a bull pen.

Interestingly, there was a much lower proportion of farmers that did not list livestock as a hazard, that entered such a pen so those who said frequently (8%), sometimes (12%) and seldom (7%) accounted for 27%, this leads to a conclusion that those that listed the hazard “livestock” possibly take more chances, than those that did not. This is not borne out by all hazards though.

PTO SHAFTS

PTO shafts were ranked 9th in the list of hazards identified by 67 respondents. Of those 67, nobody has used a PTO unguarded frequently, but 10% had sometimes and 30% had used one unguarded “seldom”, never 36%.

On the other hand, of all respondents 3% said that they had frequently used a PTO shaft unguarded, 19% had sometimes and 32% had “seldom”. The conclusion is that those that did not list PTO shafts as a hazard, had “frequently” used an unguarded PTO shaft.

CHAINSAWS

Turning to another specific hazard that was identified, that had a specific risk taking behaviour listed (in Q14), chainsaws were listed by 46 respondents in total (5.0% of the sample), or ranked 12th in the list.

Nobody used a chainsaw without full PPE and clothing on a frequent basis, though 30% did sometimes and 28% recorded “seldom” use, and 22% never. Compare this to the full response set to Q14 where 12% frequently, 29% sometimes, 28% seldom and 28% never used a chainsaw unprotected.

The same conclusions can be drawn as for PTO shafts above.

MACHINERY

The second ranking hazard was “machinery” with 372 or 40% of respondents listing this generic item; as such some caution needs to be expressed in analysing these results. However, turning to the specific risk-taking behaviour of “carried out maintenance on a machine or equipment that was not turned off or isolated”, comparisons can be drawn.

Of those stating “machinery”, 95 said that they frequently exhibited the risk-taking behaviour, notably “sometimes” and 12% said seldom, with 31% saying that they never carried out maintenance on a machine not turned off or isolated.

Looking at all respondents, 1% frequently, 10% sometimes, 31% seldom and 55% never, carried out such maintenance. The results are similar to those of livestock.

CHEMICALS

Chemicals were ranked as the 3rd place on sheer numbers of hazards stated by respondents, 163 or 17.5% of responses. Of those stating chemicals, 2% frequently, 7% sometimes, 21% seldom and 36% never applying sprays without PPE and clothing. Turning to the full response set, proportions of 9%, 22%, 25% and 41% were returned respectively.

LADDERS

Falling from heights/ladders came out as the 8th most noted hazard. None of the respondents who stated ladders as a hazard used unfooted ladders on a frequent basis, 22% said that they sometimes did, 37% “seldom” and 26% said they never used an unfooted ladder. However, from the full response set 13%, 35%, 31% and 19% proportions (respectively) were found in the results.

It would appear that from the scores – those that listed a hazard were on the whole less likely to record that they “frequently” displayed the associated risk-taking behaviour.

And they were also less likely to record that they “never” indulged in the associated risk- taking behaviour, than the full response group. This shows that if you identify a hazard you are less likely to expose yourself to it on a frequent basis, but you are also less likely to completely avoid the associated hazard.

One has to be wary about reading too much into the non-stating of a hazard for 2 reasons:

(i) the opportunity was to list only 3 hazards; and

(ii) some farmers did not have some hazards at all on their farms eg: no livestock and their responses are lumped together with those that had livestock, but did not list them as a hazard.

It is clear that the identification of a hazard does not mean that risk assessment or risk management necessarily follow.

Does this have implications for attempting to raise awareness of hazards – raise awareness does not automatically mean safer workplace – it might actually mean the opposite from these results.

A solutions based policy for the provision of information, based on enforcement may be useful. The police adopt this approach to errant drivers who are required to attend driver improvement courses.

Table 9 Comparison of responses: those selecting hazards A/those not B with risk taking behaviour

Hazard stated Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never Q Number Livestock A 10 12 17 9 14 J B 8 12 7 55 PTO Shafts A 0 10 30 36 14 A B 5 19 32 42 Chainsaws A 0 30 28 22 14 D B 12 29 28 28 Machinery A 9 0 12 31 14 M B 1 10 31 55 Chemicals A 2 7 21 36 14 B B 9 22 25 41 Ladders A 0 22 37 26 14 F B 13 35 31 19 Children A 13 25 50 0 14 G B 10 18 16 52

One can also look at risk taking behaviour across all the examples given and relate those to specific hazards stated by respondents.

If one takes an arbitrary +10% responding frequently to the risk-taking behaviours, some interesting patterns emerge. So for those that listed strain injuries, all risk-taking behaviours were scored between 17%-50% on frequently adopting these behaviours (except sprays applied within 5m (8%) and work done off a ladder (8%).

This probably shows a misunderstanding of what a hazard is, as defined, but it does perhaps show that those farms that have strain injuries have a propensity to take a whole range of risk- taking on a frequent basis and as a result suffer injuries such as strains?

Those that listed beaurocracy and red tape were also significant risk takers, ranging from 12- 29%, except very interestingly lower scores on frequently adopting – unguarded PTOs, work done off unfooted ladder, and carried out maintenance on powered machine, which might be viewed as the real killers on the list.

A similar response set was seen for “lack of income” as a hazard.

Those that listed “children” as a hazard had high propensity to frequently indulge in risk- taking behaviour.

RISK MANAGEMENT

Question 15 asked about risk management in terms of what had been done on farms to reduce risks to health and safety. Table 10 tabulates the numbers of respondents taking action.

Table 10 Risk management – Past Action

% taking action Machinery 67 Chemicals 64 Protective clothing and equipment 63 Dusts 60 Workplaces/buildings 59 Training 44 Information for workers 41 Work equipment (not machinery) 39 Diseases 31 Other 9

The most interesting way to start to view this data is to look at what farms have done the least on in the past few years. Bottom are “Diseases”. The general feeling of the researchers is that because the contraction of a Zoonosis is a rare event, caused by a micro-organism that is not visible, then the perception of risk posed by diseases is low. Most farmers’ perception of what diseases can cause harm is restricted to Weil’s disease or maybe Bovine TB. Others such as ringworm, orf or psittacosis are not commonly regarded as serious and it is doubted whether any action would be taken to combat such diseases as a result. Anthrax, E. coli and tetanus are such rare events and there is little that can be done to establish an accurate perception of risk.

Work equipment (not machinery) was the second lowest rank, with 39% listing that they had taken action on this front. Unfortunately, we cannot tell what the actions were, but they should have been non-machinery as this was a separate category.

Interestingly “Information for Workers” (41%) and “Training” attracted similar response numbers. There is clearly a potential to build on this from both the point of view of those farms that have provided little or no action on these points or from the point of building on information and training already given on over 40% of the farms responding. There is scope for education to play a more significant control. Responses to the open questions 16 and 17 support this and are regarded as a fundamental need in the future.

There had been action on workplaces/buildings to reduce risks to health and safety. The Workplace Regulations came into force on 1 January 1993 for new build and extensions, existing buildings had until 1998 to comply with the legislation. The main survey took place in 2000 and it is thought that the Regulations will have had little impact by this time. Undoubtedly, some farms will have improved lighting in buildings and around yards, but temperature requirements for example impinging for the first time will have had a limited impact.

There have been few advances in workplaces/buildings design in the past few years. However, CDM may have a bigger impact in the future, particularly with the requirement to be able to use and maintain a building or workplace safely. Health and safety at the design stage of construction is now of more concern to designers of agricultural buildings; so

“engineering” and “enforcement” are coming together in agricultural buildings design and construction.

Action taken on dusts will mean one of 2 types: (1) enclosure of some dusty processes such as tipping wet grain into reception pits or enclosures built around dusty operational/tasks such as on the grading lines; or (2) Local Extraction Ventilation (LEV) which has been installed in mill/mix units or cabbed combines being fitted with higher efficiency air filtration systems, for examples.

All these examples are not cheap, some constituting significant expenditure, showing a perception that dust is a health and safety problem, which was hitherto perhaps not fully appreciated a generation ago. The industry may be advancing against this pernicious hazard. However, action on dusts might also mean the provision of respiratory equipment and not building or engineering controls.

Action on PPE was recorded by 63% of respondents. This underlines the opinion that there is a heavy reliance on PPE in agriculture, particularly for physical hazards, which affect eyes, ears, hands, legs and feet. In one sense the high response is welcome, in another it is not so in that other control measures are not considered before the decision to issue PPE as a control are made. COSHH principles of protection seem to have had little effect in prioritising actions.

However, the significant numbers relying on PPE can be a function of the growth in terms of choice and technological development, which the PPE market has seen, in the past few years. Traditionally PPE for farms meant ear defenders and welding masks obtained from local agricultural merchants. Whilst these are still preferred suppliers, the range of products, which they now carry, and the growth of mail order shopping and online Internet shopping has given the farmer more choice.

Turning to action on chemicals, nearly 2 out of 3 (64%) said that they had taken some action on this front in the recent past. It is thought this is a reflection of the impact of COSHH. The results from Question 19 show that 57% of respondents had a COSHH assessment in place and of this number, 58% said that they were up-to-date.

Does this show that original COSHH assessments highlighted the need for action on chemicals? This study believes it does. Combine this with the external requirement for COSHH to be fully addressed as part of accreditation or assurance schemes, then it is thought that the findings of this survey will mirror the national picture. If so, then on the downside there could be up to one-third of farms that have done little or nothing on chemicals or COSHH. Whilst 100% coverage is pie-in-the-sky a target of 75% of farms addressing these areas could be a realistic strategy for the future.

FUTURE ACTIONS

Question 16 asked “What more could you do to improve health and safety on your farm?

The open question was used to tease out any options that had been missed in other sections of this survey. The analysis of such information is not an easy task, especially when there were 571 comments and ideas about what could be done to improve safety on farms. There were a number of themes that emerged from the responses; they can be listed as follows:

Incomes/profitability Training/raise awareness Time/hours worked Discussions with staff Assessment Common sense Give up farming More labour available Cutting corners Hardware improvements PPE and other safety equipment provided Vigilance Change attitudes Use consultants Carry out checks/monitoring.

One of the biggest hurdles to improving health and safety would appear to be the lack of profitability in agriculture in general. (The full list of comments is contained at Appendix 2 of this report.) A significant number of comments were made that to improve safety the respondent would give up farming. As was seen in the responses to Question 11 about current attitudes to farming, 74 respondents or 8% of the total response set selected the option – “Farming has no future – I intend to give up”. This was backed up by responses to this open question. Clearly there will be further reductions in the number of farms and the workforce and these changes will affect health and safety.

So, contrary to some popular belief, agriculture is not cash-rich according to this survey, whilst there is an element who will ultimately leave the industry, some in this survey may well “retire” as opposed to leave agriculture altogether, the responses to Question 11 also show that there is big occupational immobility in the industry. 20% thought that they saw their future in farming but recognised that they would have to change their farming practice, and a further 16% responded that they were worried but they did not know what else they could do. Health and safety must suffer in times like these.

The lists of voiced opinions about incomes and profitability adversely affecting health and safety standards are given in Appendix 2.

Comments such as subject 432 said:

“We need a fair return for the food we produce then more could be spent on health and safety” and

Subject 351 said that they were:

“Very concerned for the health and safety of employees. However, farm finances are in such a desperate state that we cannot afford to take proper precautions”.

The theme of “cutting corners” was linked with the financial situation further.

“When margins are low, people cut corners, safety will suffer in the next few years”. (Subject 83)

As another put it:

“With supermarkets screwing all farm prices down to the 70’s level most farms have had to cut back on staff. Remaining farmers and staff are cutting corners on health and safety to get the work done to stay in business and jobs”. (Subject 512)

Farmers are taking risks that they might not otherwise take because of the economic circumstances. Subject 737 put it succinctly:

“Higher income would reduce stress and tiredness caused by working long hours and lessen the need to cut corners or take risks”.

Subject 831 alluded to this as well:

“Most accidents occur through rushing and as every farmer is under pressure, more accidents will happen”.

It seems clear that things will only improve on a number of farms if higher incomes were to be realised. Undoubtedly health and safety standards are raised in more buoyant times:

“Within reason we do the best we can. If financial returns were to improve, investment – then possible with improved safety a spin-off”. (Subject 484)

The most positive note which was struck was in response to the question on what could be done more on the individual’s farm, there was support for further training and raising awareness.

Self-help was a re-occurring theme in comments,

“Best way is for people to be fully aware of the consequences of a particular work operation, to see the accident before it happens and amend or do not carry out these operations” (Subject 12 ) or briefly

“Improve awareness of risks”. (Subject 562) and the old adage:

“Learn from mistakes made and keep staff informed so they can share concerns before problems happen”. (Subject 571) were voiced.

Formal training was suggested by a good number of subjects. Comments suggested that this was an option on their farm rather than something to be cut back on as usually occurs in harsh economic times in most industries. For example, Subject 666 said:

“More training to install awareness in employees” or

“Improved training for staff, so they acknowledge the potential dangers”. (Subject 837) and

“Spend more time on training courses”. (Subject 841)

Other useful ideas coming from respondents were instigating more discussions with farm staff or giving staff specific responsibilities for health and safety. So as Subject 790 said:

“More regular meetings or discussions with staff”; or

“Appoint one employee as safety officer to liase with farm fitter to identify problems and remedy them”. (Subject 725)

Assessment of risks was mentioned by others as a potential to reduce risks in the future.

Subject 77 said that they would carry out:

“Continuous assessments. Know the level or risks, update staff of risks/health and safety”; and

“Reduce work loads, use risk assessments”. (Subject 262) or

“Complete risk assessment”. (Subject 424) and

“Full risk assessment”. (Subject 712) or

“Assess risks more thoroughly”. (Subject 812)

There was some knowledge of risk assessment as a process to be used in managing health and safety, the results from Question 19 will show that 35% of respondents had written risk assessments and 57% had COSHH assessments on their farms, so the assessment legislation can be said to be having some impact within agriculture it would seem.

Other themes to improve health and safety included many references to improving machinery, equipment and buildings, (Subjects 348; 360; 368; 382; 468; 566 for example, and providing more PPE and safety equipment, Subjects 450; 554; 363; 545 are good example quotes).

The use of external agencies to help with managing health and safety, particularly assessments came through as an option, so responses such as:

“Considering having a 5 yearly outsourced report done”. (Subject 397)

“The provision of a two yearly consultants visit there to help and advise”. (Subject 492)

“Spend time with staff and outside adviser/consultant”, and finally,

“Employ consultant”.

Farmers are gradually beginning to see that health and safety has to be managed in the same way that other business functions have to, and for the larger farms, the use of consultants is often the preferred option. This trend will grow as requirements become more complex or time-consuming.

Common sense was listed as a future option by a number of respondents from a simple quote of:

“Use common sense”. (Subject 333) to

“Be aware of anything that seems to be dangerous, use common sense, it goes a long way”. (Subject 536)

Common sense does not always go far enough to rely solely on it; this is borne out by some of the misperceptions of risk that have been discussed earlier. Successful health and safety management is not just common sense, but involves a common understanding or perception of risks and how to control them through reasonably practicable means.

The final 2 actions involve doing nothing, but the risks are very different as one subject said:

“Everything is contracted”. (Subject 710) therefore the risk is minimised, and two who openly said:

“Not a lot”. (Subject 531), and

“At the moment nothing. We have no money for anything” (Subject 525) where the risks must be overtly greater than those farms that are at least going to try some of the options discussed above.

Question 17 asked in an open style what more can or should be done to help the agricultural industry to improve its poor health and safety track record. This question attracted a significant number of responses, many of which ran to short paragraphs. The question was completed more fully than any of the other open questions in this survey. It was asked to guage opinions of the responding farmers about potential future action from Agencies, Departments and others to further health and safety on farms in the future.

As with the previous Question (16) analysis is not easy, suffice it to say that there were over 420 responses, roughly 50% of respondents answering the open question. The responses are all given in Appendix 2 that lists the full quotes, verbatim provided by subjects or respondents. The types of responses were grouped together in a classification drawn up, so that there were 15 “initiatives” or potential “initiatives” identified for action by external bodies. The more notable responses are listed under each initiative for ease of reference in reading the results of the question. Thus, the initiatives can be grouped so:

HSE Initiatives Usable Responses Publicity (printed) (38) Inspections (30) Visits (23) Advice (26) Talks and Demonstrations (23) HSE Changes Needed (9)

MAFF/Government Action Less Red Tape (10) Grants and Subsidies for H&S (21) Profitability (18) Legislation (4)

Training Providers More Training (targeted) (34) Child Education/Action (6)

Independent Bodies Advice (5)

Others Manufacturers (7) Insurance Companies (1) Members of the Public (5) Fire Brigade (1)

This shows that there was a diversity of opinion from the respondents, which generated 15 separate areas, resulting in at least 100 initiatives or interventions, which could take place. This study will focus on the HSE Interventions and those dealing with providing training, though MAFF/Government potential actions will be discussed on their merits according to health and safety, as there is very limited practicality in a good deal of the suggestions made by the respondents.

The intervention/action of “others” is of limited significance so there will be no discussion of these results, but the responses are recorded in full in Appendix 2 for completeness.

The classification of responses follows very closely the options given in Question 18, which followed this Question 17. The two were put side by side as an internal consistency check for the survey. Question 17 was asked to gather a range of options; Question 18 was asked to guage the depth of feeling about the potential options for action in the future.

Detailed discussion on the options is contained in the following section dealing with responses to Question 17. So when looking at the potential for more HSE inspections the references below show that Subject 53 said:

“Inspections on a bi-annual basis, free literature” (from Appendix 2)

Or as Subject 830 said:

“Regular unannounced inspections by HSE”

Should be carried out on farms in the respondent’s area.

Two items of note, which put more detail on the conclusions to Question 18, were the production of health and safety posters and the running of farm health and safety demonstrations. These are discussed in the conclusions to this report.

Farm posters were produced in the early 1980s by HSE for topics such as PTO shaft guarding, designed for farm workshops and a schematic poster showing personal protective equipment for using specified substances, later updated with the introduction of COSHH. Such posters were well received, but HSE ceased producing them by the late 1980’s/early 1990’s. They were obviously remembered; indeed some will still be on the walls of workshops, rest rooms or chemical stores today. The evidence is that the re-introduction of posters would go down well, something perhaps for AIAC to consider. Topics might also be gleaned from the other results of this study, particularly responses to Question 12.

The second item of note was farm demonstrations. As will be seen later ADAS have run such an event with great success, involving local communities and schools as well as farmers and farm workers (Question 19). Farm Open Days with a health and safety theme were called for. The practical experience and research findings lead to the conclusion that these would be 2 excellent “publicity” initiatives.

Discussion now turns to the responses to Question 18. Table 11 records the proposed actions that “others” should be taking to improve health and safety on farms.

Table 11 Proposed actions

Question 18: The following are possible actions that might be taken to improve health and safety on farms. What do you think about these proposals? Proposed actions Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Not agree disagree stated % % % % % Free literature should be sent to farmers 34 52 6 2 6 The EU should provide funds to help 39 43 10 3 6 farmers with health and safety Health and safety should be taught in 41 51 5 <1 2 all schools Manufacturers should provide safer 25 54 14 2 6 machines The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) 16 58 18 2 7 should give more advice The HSE should carry out more 7 38 37 11 8 inspections The HSE should prosecute more 4 29 43 15 8 businesses who do not meet H&S legislation Better legislation should be passed 6 34 38 11 12 Legislation should be reduced 16 35 31 8 10 Subsidised consultancy help should be 23 45 16 4 12 made available to all farmers Farmers should involve employees 29 61 6 1 3 more in assessments to reduce risks *

Percentages based on 892, as 33 respondents did not answer this question. *Not asked in the pilot survey, therefore based on 812 who answered the question.

The question was designed to see to what extent the help or interventions of outside agencies would meet with agreement of the respondents. The HSE questions were written with the express aim of guaging opinion about the activities of HSE and what changes in the future might be acceptable.

With such a large sample of farms and a good response rate, there can be store put in the responses.

The responses have been grouped into types:

education/information funding engineering legislation employees HSE actions

EDUCATION/INFORMATION

There was strong agreement of 34% and total agreement of 86% that free literature should be sent to farmers. In discussions with farmers, it is apparent that they are not fully aware of the literature which is available free of charge. If they do not make it to an HSE stand at an agricultural show they are not likely to pick up free leaflets.

However, the actual content of the free literature may need some revisiting. In discussions with farmers, the old AS leaflets seem to have been better received than the AISs. The AS leaflets were fairly succinct; the AISs are very good for someone with a better grasp on health and safety management. Employees find the AS style accessible whereas the AISs are not in a format that they warm to.

A big response to health and safety being taught in schools was received. 92% in total agreed or strongly agreed with the idea.

The “Fit for Tomorrow” publication is good for its audience but there is no complimentary publication for secondary schools. Agricultural health and safety in rural schools can be woven into the national curriculum; there are opportunities for science, geography, art and English to use health and safety as a teaching example. Health and safety is taught in one Science and Technology School/Technology College and lessons at both primary and secondary schools in the past using some of the HSE video materials have been taught.

Involving schools should be encouraged in rural communities. Within ADAS an open evening for schools and families was run in an attempt to explain hazards to children and parents arising out of children playing/visiting farms. Discussion will return to this initiative later in looking at responses to open questions and comments added to questionnaires.

It is fair to say that education/information was seen to be an acceptable possible future action amongst respondents.

FUNDING

There was agreement that funds from the EU should be provided to help farmers with health and safety (82% agreed/strongly agreed with the statement).

Whilst the questionnaire could not ask what the EU funds would be spent on (for brevity reasons) in discussions with farmers, it is clear that they would upgrade or introduce new facilities such as bull pens or sheep dips, or buy safety equipment/clothing. This suggests that there may be an element of cutting back on these costs when times are hard. There may never be funds made available, but if they were there would be a fair level of uptake.

ENGINEERING

79% of respondents stated that manufacturers should provide safer machines. With 16% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing there is obviously a proportion that thinks that machines are produced safe to use.

EMPLOYEES

The involvement of employees in assessments to reduce risks met with the strongest agreement from respondents, 90% thought so, with only 6% disagreeing and 1% strongly disagreeing with the statement. It is clear that the perception of respondents was that farmers did not already involve employees in assessments to reduce risks.

LEGISLATION

Interesting results were collected in response to the two statements:

(a) Better legislation should be passed; and (b) Legislation should be reduced.

For (a) 6% and 34% strongly agreed or agreed respectively; for (b) 16% strongly agreed or 35% agreed that legislation should be reduced. The corollary for (a) was that 49% disagreed or strongly disagreed and for (b) 39% disagreed/strongly disagreed that legislation should be reduced.

It was thought at the outset that the proportions in agreement with the two statements would be much higher than those collected. The arguments for maintaining a status quo is supported to some extent, there was a majority for change but it was not overwhelming. This may be a spurious result but the legislation changes since 1993 have been significant for agriculture, with many of the old prescriptive requirements now consigned to history. There will be numbers of farmers who are still not aware that there have been these legislative changes within the last 10 years.

HSE ACTION

There were 3 HSE options for future change given to respondents, all 3 attracting responses, with only 7-8% not giving a response. Most favoured was the statement that “HSE should give more advice”. 74% agreed or strongly agreed with this, with 18% disagreeing and only 2% strongly disagreeing. This is a clear message that this was the preferred option from this large group of farmers.

At the outset, it would be useful to target areas highlighted in this study, as perhaps not well perceived by farmers, or those which have caused significant numbers of fatalities in the recent past such as access and work at height or livestock handling. ADAS with the HSE could play an advisory role for their existing customers.

There were initiatives run by HSE during 2000 known as Regional Agricultural Safety Awareness Training Events were run during 2000/2001 in an attempt to “improve safety awareness in the agricultural industry. The safety awareness days involve members of the agricultural industry in hazard identification exercises to increase their ability to carry out risk assessment. The exercises are also to be used to illustrate practical risk reduction methods, for given scenarios, that can be adopted or adapted to aid risk reduction in the individual holdings”. (HSE Sources)

There were on average 350 people attending each of the 14 events held in 2000/2001, however, there was an element of coercion employed by HSE to get people to the events. Whilst attendance was “voluntary”, if a business that was invited to attend declined than they were informed that they would subsequently be visited by an inspector to carry out a preventative inspection, albeit they said “in the normal way”! Other organisations sponsored the events such as NFU Mutual and Lantra NTO could that be for vested interests, as both stand to gain from the events.

The format of the day was similar to the earlier ADAS event held in mid-Wales for ADAS families, friends and neighbouring farms and schools. There were seven scenarios of good and bad practice, based on the top ten accident causes in agriculture. Qualified training providers were on hand to discuss the scene and “to draw out the systems of work that should be adopted to avoid common risks. An inspector works with each group [of farmers] to

ensure that key messages relating to HSE’s expectations and legal requirements are properly covered”. (HSE Sources)

Whether the events have had significant impact will need to be tested. Of course, attendance at the event did not prevent Inspectors visiting their premises, but the events could have had a negative impact in that farmers may well think that attendance was a good trade off for the “promise” of being left alone for a while, and indeed the event could thus have fostered a complacency that HSE would not be bothering them in the near future and therefore they might be tempted to do little in the short-term to improve matters.

The events may be viewed as another form of enforcement activity rather than a training event, and as such may not have enhanced HSE’s reputation any.

However, the evidence from this research is that the initiative should be well supported, and would fill a gap in terms of producing information and getting it to its intended audience.

Responses to the proposal that “HSE should carry out more inspections” were enlightening, 45% were in agreement and 48% in disagreement. It was hypothesised that there could be a natural reticence amongst farmers to involve HSE in more inspections and approaching 50% did not agree with the proposal, but 45% did. The proposals were drawn up from discussions with farmers and many regard the role of HSE as supporting agriculture, these results tend to support this claim. 45% of respondents thought that more HSE inspections would improve health and safety on farms. 15% of respondents strongly disagreed that “HSE should prosecute more businesses who do not meet health and safety legislation”, with 43% generally disagreeing with the proposal. However, 33% agreed with the proposal and similarly it may be possible to say that these respondents would be the better performing farmers in health and safety terms, the residual proportion of farmers that are about right in their management of health and safety. There were thus a third of respondents who thought that prosecution would improve health and safety in agriculture.

The three questions relating to proposals for legislation changes and different HSE action show that there is some agreement that both have an important role to play in improving health and safety, and the introduction of greater activity would not be universally scorned by the agricultural community. The opportunities for legislation changes are limited, therefore the work activities of HSE in the future will stand a better chance of improving matters.

Combine these responses with the open question responses (16 and 17) and it is clear that action should be taken by both the farmers themselves, with greater involvement of employees and increased activity from external agencies/bodies. A synergy of effort is required and there is no room for complacency, but opportunities to change perceptions of risk leading to changes in behaviour patterns exist, from the results of this study.

RISK MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

Question 19 asked which of the following from a list of risk management practices, the farm had in place and to what extent they were up to date. Table 12 lists the responses.

Table 12 Risk management items

Completed Kept up-to-date No. % No. % Written safety policy statement 305 36 194 23 Written risk assessments 295 35 182 21 COSHH assessments 481 57 279 33 Pesticide records 565 67 450 53 An accident book 487 57 334 39 Written work instructions 130 15 79 9

Percentages based on 849 as 43 respondents did not answer this question.

The aim of this question was to quickly establish on very simple measures how up-to-date the respondents were. Whilst the responses are open to dishonesty saying that the item was in place, the questionnaires were totally anonymous and respondents could not be traced in any way, so the hope was that the responses would be given in good faith. It is assumed that the responses were given honestly.

With the legislative requirement to produce certain documents comes the additional duty to up-date as appropriate, hence the two parts to the question.

The oldest requirement is for an accident book to be kept, the majority of respondents had an accident book (57%) but only 39% said that it was kept up-to-date.

A similar number of farms said that they had COSHH assessments (again 57%). The requirement for COSHH assessment goes back to 1988, so the industry has had over 15 years to complete an assessment, but under 2/3 of farms in the survey had done so. If the results are extrapolated nationally, then one-third of 164,900 holdings = 55,000 holdings might have no COSHH assessments at all.

Over 2/3 or farms said that they had pesticide records but 79% of this total number of respondents said that their records were not up-to-date.

Similarly, with Risk Assessments, 35% of the survey said that they had written risk assessments which if extrapolated would give a total of over 59,200 holdings having no assessment for their farms. A very similar figure would be generated for those with written safety policy statements (both requiring 5 or more employees before a statutory requirement is in place).

Written instructions were available on only 15% of respondent holdings, and only 61% of these available were up-to-date.

Section 8 details the final conclusions of this report.

8 CONCLUSIONS

The literature review showed that little work had been carried out in the agricultural context looking at perception of risk and risk taking behaviour, that which had was interesting but dealt with small scale studies at regional level, particularly in the US.

With over 900 responses across a range of farm size and enterprise types, the study can be argued to be large scale and generally representative, particularly of farms at the larger end of the structural spectrum, and for non-labour employing farms. Whilst responses were not high, the methodology of using postal questionnaires has produced a study with meaningful results.

The level of response to the questionnaires, which were distributed, was good considering the size and complexity of the questionnaire. A reminder letter could have boosted the response rate but this would have added a considerable cost to the project. Analysis of the 925 responses showed that there would be little gained by attempting to secure a higher response rate. It was thought that the main thrust of the study would not be affected.

The questionnaires were completed well; very few were spoilt giving sample sizes in excess of 900 for most questions. As a result, much information was collected, some of which could be used over again or some re-worked to search for trends or ideas not raised in this report. Therefore, not all the data was utilised nor was it fully worked out. The data thus represents a considerable resource, which can be used at a later stage.

The postal survey represents value for money in terms of the amount of information, which was collected and analysed.

Because it was anonymous it is felt that the responses were honest. Comments were freely added to the questionnaire providing insight into the thinking of the respondent.

The questionnaire took as long as 30 minutes to complete, this might have been the longest period of concerted/focused time farmers had spent on thinking about health and safety on their farm and whilst the majority of questionnaires were not returned those that were show that some farmers cared enough or were interested enough to spend their own time in completing the questionnaires. Not all were positive respondents though and there were respondents that were disparaging about health and safety, some regarding it as an unnecessary, beaurocratic burden on their business, this suggests that the survey was not purely “preaching to the converted” and serious detractors were moved to join the survey and make their voice heard. Similarly, the responses also showed that the farmers were not a happy group, satisfied with their way of life, many were not and were even considering leaving farming altogether. The survey obviously hit a note and interesting results were gathered accordingly.

Individual results showed a degree of variance of structural, behavioural of risk-taking behaviour and ideas for the future. However, as an aggregated group much could be learnt by extrapolating from the response set to the national scale. An indication of risks being run in the industry was thus derived.

STRUCTURE

The farms in the survey were shown to be bigger than average.

There are a number of reasons why this might be so.

(i) The research used ADAS Database of holdings, whilst it is very extensive it is not as full as the Agricultural Census database, however, the Census Database contains many holdings that are not as active as the holdings held on the ADAS Database, it is argued. This has important implications for this research on the positive side. The Census database holds information on extremely small, some would say unviable or “hobby farm” units. There are also “holdings” on the Census that are nothing more than grass keeps or glebe fields run by other farms/holdings. The ADAS Database consists of farms that are active and as such are customers of ADAS. The work activity on these units is significantly higher than on some holdings held on the Census database. Whilst in research terms this is a potential “skew” of results, in practical terms, for the aims of this research, those units, which were more occupationally active, were contacted by the use of the ADAS database.

(ii) There may be a propensity for larger units to respond to the questionnaires because they may be more adept at handling documentation, perhaps through holding differently educated personnel on these units. From the evidence in Question 8 later, there is a good level of educational attainment amongst respondents and , if one looks at the age structure of respondents then it is clear that the respondents were not typically younger persons which one would expect to have higher educational attainments than an older person, so caution must be exercised with sweeping statements.

This could have implications for this research in that the larger areas clearly mean longer or more operations are necessary on the survey farms as opposed to the England and Wales picture. It could be argued that there may be a higher degree of risk on the survey farms than the national England and Wales holdings. However, the survey farms may use contractors more due to the larger areas and thus the risk may be offset to others as a result.

The respondents were significantly bigger than any/all of the national average sizes. This obviously ties in with the larger than average area size of the respondent farms. On the positive side it means that we are dealing with commercial units rather than smaller units that may not employ the same labour or have the same levels of work activity. However, the smaller the unit can create significant health and safety problems, with a lack of manpower resulting in corner cutting, so one has to be somewhat wary of drawing too many conclusions about the relative degrees of risk depending on farm size.

For a future study it might be interesting to contrast the largest and smallest enterprise units, to compare and contrast results, to see if there is anything to support the notion that approaches to health and safety management are size dependent. Many farmers believe that health and safety as a big management issue is one for the larger farms, agri-businesses or “factory farms”. Many still believe that because they employ no full-time labour that regulations do not apply to them.

CROPS

There was seen to be a varied cropping pattern amongst respondent, and hence there would be a variety of hazards associated with this. The significant acreages of potatoes and sugar beet are given as an example. Both crops that have significant pieces of machinery, which have to work in difficult conditions, often to tight deadlines, with attendant risks to health and safety.

An interesting analysis elsewhere could be the incidence of fatals/RIDDORs relating to different crop types. It would be useful to see if there is a correlation nationally between the size/area of crop growth and any accident/incidents occurring on farms with such crops if this could be elucidated from HSE records. This would lead to a conclusion that regional initiatives should take place

It might be possible to classify each farm using the “Weavers Least Squares” analysis as utilised by Coppock on a national basis for a holding-by-holding classification of farm type – this would also involve the utilisation of livestock data. He basically mapped the UK and showed farm types relating to geographical location. This may enable one to predict, on a purely physical basis the propensity or relative risk that a certain farm type classification may have, by its physical enterprise structure. The interaction of the various tasks according to enterprise structure is suggested by this study to play a significant role in the successful running of farms, where success equates with the avoidance of accidents/incidents, or where one would like to think that health and safety is “managed”. Future research would be needed to substantiate the claim.

LIVESTOCK

Bearing in mind the potential to cause harm exhibited by animals (and the very small proportion of farms using contractors for husbandry and milking) it was expected that either

(a) accidents involving livestock will figure on these farms; or

(b) they would be perceived to be a significant hazard amongst respondents, if they have a clear perception of what goes wrong on such farms, bearing in mind the high proportion of farms which carried livestock (of one sort of another).

This was borne out in the hazards recognised by respondents when over 41% listed livestock, this was the largest population of respondents. In terms of future strategy, livestock should be given some priority. The existing guidance, particularly the video Livestock Handling is significantly dated and is in need of revision.

EMPLOYMENT

The results from this add weight to the conclusion that the survey attracted farms at the larger end of the employment scale. A figure of 3.3 full-time employees per farm is significant. On the other hand, with 48% of farms not employing full-time labour there does seem to be a balance in the results, which is good for the study.

From the results the respondents were small scale enterprises, employing less than the number required for written safety policy statement or documented risk assessments. However, responses to the risk management actions (Question 19) 36% and 35% said they had in place (respectively) suggesting that over a third of respondents had some formal risk managements “tools” in place.

The results showed that there was a high dependence on casual labour; this has health and safety implications. Despite the legislation applying to all categories of employment, there is a tendency for casual staff not to receive the same level of health and safety management practice as full- or even part-time employees. For instance, on a simple level basis PPE is often not provided for casual staff. Employers seem to see casuals as not their problem, indeed in some areas farmers prefer to use gang masters who employ casual staff themselves so that they do not have to bear some of the “employers” responsibilities, including health and safety. The results from this survey show that over 95% of respondent farms used casual staff, and the adjusted average workforce of such as 4.54 persons.

With the well documented decline in the agricultural workforce, the use of contractors and what would appear from this study to be a high usage of casual labour, changing employment patterns have implications for health and safety management, these factors must be taken into account when formulating future strategy.

As a control measure, the use of contractors offsets the risk to others. It would be interesting to look at the fatal or RIDDORs reported as involving contractors to see if there are significantly more problems associated with one operation than another. From this study we can say that nearly 50% of farms were using contractors, so the volume of this activity must be significant.

A future question should be “Does the use of contractors make the whole industry safer as a result?” We do know that significant numbers of respondent farms used outside/specialist contractors/labour for whatever reason. The investment in expensive tackle is the main reason given for using contractors, but it may have a knock-on of making the industry safer, especially at harvesting (29% in our survey or 268 farms) when high numbers of accidents occur.

The use of contractors is thought to be on the increase, it would be worthwhile looking at them as a sub-group or target audience if it is thought that they are at more significant risk than farmers. It is appreciated that many contractors are farmers in their own right, but they are also much more experienced in some operations, therefore their level of risk may be different than that of regular farmers.

AGE AND EXPERIENCE

As a future initiative it may be possible to target effort at certain experience age groups, if it is thought that experience plays a significant role in perceptions. A future study to look at those with the least experience and those with the most (that is those with <5 years and those with over 35 years) could show some useful comparisons and contrasts that may have implications for any future actions/interventions.

Looking specifically at older farmers, as many commentators have said, the deep cultural roots of farmers, is a factor against change and this has a part to play in determining future strategy to reduce risk in agriculture.

There have been specific campaigns aimed at reducing the numbers of accidents to children and young persons, a specific campaign for the older operative in agriculture should be considered. There are significant numbers of older respondents in this study of randomly selected farms.

CHILDREN

There were high numbers of children on the respondent farms it was found. If the survey is representative of the wider agricultural community, then the potential number of children “at risk” is significant. However, it was seen that 10% of fatal accidents on farms still occur with children under 16 years old.

A continuing campaign of reducing accidents to children on farms would be pertinent to the farms in this survey where there were 629 children under 16 years old on 907 which had children, that is 2 out of 3 farms with offspring had children under the school leaving age.

EDUCATION

Formal education had been undertaken by significant numbers of respondents to this study.

Recent trends have meant that a number of colleges are now associated with or are part of universities and therefore the opportunity to go on from Diploma to degree should increase. An important fact from the responses of National Diploma, HND, Degree and Post-Graduate qualification holders is that 44% of all respondents could/should have been exposed to some formal agricultural health and safety training, as their courses would be of a vocational nature it is thought. If the present trend of more youngsters entering tertiary education continues in the agricultural and allied sectors then there is a golden opportunity to educate in order to reduce risks created by everyday and novel hazards through good management practice taught in colleges and universities. Education should persuade individuals to voluntarily behave in a safe and without risks to health way. Much more can be done in formal education to introduce the concepts of hazard and risk. The “Fit for Tomorrow” work should be extended to fit national curriculum and thus prepare students who go on to tertiary education of a vocational nature.

Non-formal education also has its role to play; the study showed that up to a third of respondents had not achieved any formal qualifications. There has to be a non-formal education/training strategy to increase perceptions of risk and reduce risk-taking behaviour in agriculture.

HEALTH AND HEALTH PROBLEMS

The final human factor affecting health and safety studied in this work was health and health problems.

The major conclusion coming out of this work is that the farmers’ in this study did not enjoy universal good health and a number suffered longer-term specific ill health. The mental health of farmers was not questioned, but the work of rural stress help lines and others such as the Samaritans show that there are significant numbers of people who need help in times of severe financial hardship. General ill-health can itself cause further stress on an individual and a business, leading to corner cutting, cost cutting or sheer risk-taking behaviour in an attempt for the farm to keep its head above the water. Further regulation and bureaucracy are the last things needed by these people, and a sensitivity to the mental health of the agricultural community is required by enforcement agencies.

GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION

Turning to the macro-level, leading on from the last point about sensitive intervention, national Government in the UK recognises that agriculture as an industry is in turmoil. Agricultural policy needs to be re-aligned to help with the problems caused by changes to the structure of the industry and a concern for the stewardship of the countryside as a whole.

The Rural White Paper and other strategy documents plan to give help in terms of business advice, to assist farmers in producing conditions and products which are wanted, to high standards of safety (food that is). Within the strategy for change there could be some help for health and safety on the farm, but it is not specifically mentioned in the Rural White Paper. Agriculture is seen by HSE as a high priority area so there needs to be some high level bidding for funding some of the initiatives mentioned in this report, and particularly those suggested by the farmers/respondents themselves.

The whole role of HSE in providing advice to farmers needs to be critically examined. A ‘Chinese” wall could be constructed in HSE between advisory functions and enforcement functions. Alternatively the advisory functions should be taken out of HSE and operated within a Rural Business Advisory Service, much as ADAS did years ago, perhaps delivered through consultants.

HSE have not got their split roles established to such an extent that the industry wants to seek advice for fear of attracting too much attention. The SAD project underlines this approach, where coercion has been used to “enforce” farmers to attend events for fear of being inspected.

Why are farmers frightened of being visited? Because they are unsure of the standards that HSE require of them, they are meeting the “police” and they do not know what will happen on a visit, as they are such rare events. Therefore, the provision of information about the work of HSE must be improved and delivered

The Roving Safety Representatives in Agriculture work being sponsored by HSC and being run by ADAS, has proved that farmers will join in a scheme that offers health and safety advice. ADAS had no trouble in recruiting participants when they offered free and impartial advice on health and safety management in a practical sense. This work underlines the conclusions above, free advice is wanted, it will be taken up, and is broadly in line with Government policy stated in the Rural White Paper and elsewhere.

The decision to adopt a behavioural approach was made early on in the proposal stage of this work. The idea of putting the individual at the heart of the study was the much-preferred option. Many decisions and conclusions are made from aggregated, almost anonymous data sources that often mask cultural or personal factors that ultimately guide or inform personal behaviour. In health and safety terms, all individuals are skilled and experienced risk managers, the instinct to survive or minimise pain and other losses is inherent in everyone. The thoughts of individual (risk managers) need to be heeded.

There have been many different methodologies adopted in the physchology/sociology literature. Many have attempted to replicate scientific enquiry in the natural sciences and have postulated hypotheses to be tested by empirical data with the hope of establishing a model that can predict behaviour, in response to various inputs. This was not the aim of this research, which wanted to focus on risk perception that might lead to risk-taking behaviour (or not as the case may be, and look at the the identification of those factors most likely

(though not exclusively) to lead to amplification or alteration of perceptions of risk and how regulations (or other actions) can take account of them, particularly in ways to communicate about risk.

Hence, the questions on hazard identification, national accident/incident data and risk-taking behaviours were studied closely. The results show that most of the respondents were willing and capable of identifying 3 main hazards and apportioning a degree of importance to them. This may have been the first time that they had thought about the hazards on their farm. Whilst the individual responses were enlightening, the usefulness of the question on its own rests in the range of hazards given. If the identification of hazards is the first step to risk assessment, then those that were listed tell much about the perception of them by a group of farmers that has been argued to be representative of the wider agricultural community.

Looking at the perception of risk associated with certain accidents which happen in agriculture it was shown clearly that there are under and over estimates of risk when farmers are asked to think about the relative risk attached to certain incidents which occur on a frequent basis according to the annual HSE published fatal/non-fatal accidents details, usually launched at the Royal Show.

The findings show that the individual does not necessarily act in line with their own perception of risk. It is suggested that this behaviour could be changed by a “stop and think about it” strategy. On the other hand, under-estimation of risk is perhaps more of a fundamental problem. If the perception is of a lower risk than that actually occurring the question remains, how do you get this message across in order to look for a behaviour modification?

The two big over-estimates of risk (from contact with machinery and being injured by an animal) accounted for only 18.9% of all fatal accidents to employees and the self-employed. This suggests that it would be wise to leave the misperceptions where they are because (a) relatively speaking they account for less than 20% of all fatals and (b) an over-estimate of risk is perhaps not such a bad thing after all.

Perception of risk is not as simple as hazard identification, and this was shown in the joint discussion of Questions 12 and 14. A quandary exists. If a hazard is identified by a respondent does this mean that it is inherent or unavoidable on that farm and therefore there will be risk-taking behaviour associated with that hazard (because it is there) or is a hazard recognised because it exists but the risk from the hazard is not managed to an acceptable level (because the real risk is misunderstood) causing risk-taking behaviour? There were shown to be mismatches between the identification of a hazard and the stated frequency of risk-taking behaviours that underline this point. The identification of a hazard may lead to its acceptance as an “occupational hazard” requiring no further action, or the real risk associated with the hazard may not be perceived in line with reality.

This leads to two firm conclusions for shaping future strategy. First, the identification of hazards is crucial to risk assessment and risk management, but it should not be the overriding aim of information/advice providers. This study shows:

(i) that with knowledge of a hazard, risk-taking behaviour (to an acceptable level) will take place as often as “frequently” and

(ii) those that don’t list a hazard on their farm can be shown to exhibit less risk-taking behaviour than those that do (familiarity and contempt?) and could be argued to be

controlling risks better. The recognition of a hazard does not necessarily equate to better risk management.

The second important conclusion leading on from this is that risk associated with hazards is not well enough understood by many individual farmers for them to implement “suitable and efficient” risk assessment. Therefore, this study has shown that the perception of risk by farmers can (negatively) lead to risk-taking behaviour.

At the macro-level, one can be sure that agriculture has a poor record as many commentators have documented. HSE produce the annual statistics for fatal and other serious accidents, Press Releases highlight the carnage, yet accidents still happen. The results from this survey need to be studied carefully.

The natural non-commitment of this is that the communication of real risks should be critically examined. Respondents asked for more information about real risks and for HSE to be less of policemen and to be more of advisers in the future. As Adams put it “the risk thermometers of individuals” needed re-setting but that re-setting could be inhibited by cultural constraints. The communication of real risks needs to be done in the correct cultural setting for agriculture and more regulation would not be acceptable, but better regulation and more advice would be.

The survey has shown that farmers wanted HSE to be more advisory in function, to import knowledge through visits to farms. The second point of Coles’ is important as well. HSE inspectors should be or should impart the information about “human models” and should influence through parables or stories of good practice, which tends heavily towards the advisory function.

The role of the inspector is also to be supported by better literature, which is literature that lasts longer and makes a deeper impact than some, which has been produced over the recent years. The production of much of HSE information is too academic for the majority of farms and is regarded thus, as not being practical. Farmers in this survey wanted posters, these last much longer than leaflets or broadsheets and what is more they are much more likely to be read by employees as well as family farm labour. This suggests that simple solutions are most likely to work for major problems rather than academic possibilities.

Selling health and safety is not an easy task, HSE have produced many of the arguments for pro-active health and safety management but the message is largely academic, for example HS(G)65. In its own right an immensely useful document, but one, which is out of the reach of many businesses. The language and content is drafted at an inappropriate level for farms. It is fine for researchers and full-time health and safety professionals. Potentially it is of great importance to agriculture, where it can be seen that there is little pro-active health and safety management if the responses to this survey are indicative of the whole national picture in agriculture. However, the important messages are lost in the presentation of the information for a big proportion of the agricultural sector. The lessons are to be taught in a more culturally acceptable manner.

The results show that the HSE advice is regarded as useful; otherwise the farmers would not want more of it in the future! Unfortunately, it was not possible to ask what type of advice should be provided for brevity reasons. So we do not know whether they meant on-farm advice, published materials or other initiatives such as farmer talks/presentations. However, in discussions with farmers, and the point was made earlier, the HSE advice could do with being critically reviewed if this has not already been done or is planned. It is not thought that

“more of the same” advice is necessarily the right course of action, indeed the responses to open questions have shown that advisory meetings/open days would be well received, not involving printed matter.

The message is clear, upping inspection rates is perceived by a good proportion of farmers as beneficial to health and safety on the farm. For those that strongly disagree; 11% they are probably not happy with any inspection, therefore there is little that one can do to convince them that health and safety is important on a management task. Whether this is a proportion of residual hard core of farmers is difficult to say definitely, but that conclusion is drawn by this research.

When all else fails the ultimate solution is to enforce “standards” or adapt or change unsafe behaviour by prosecution, the exercise of statutory functions by inspectors. There is evidence from this survey that more prosecutions could be taken, a proportion of farmers thought that authorities should take stiff action for the persistent offenders but whether this would change attitudes is not clear. On the downside this could reinforce some of the cultural tales that relate to HSE as being a “police force” as opposed to providing information that can help farms. This could “… support established biases” (Adams, p.81) affecting the potential for change, in risk management terms on the farm. It seems from this survey that the HSE approach is about right with regard to prosecution, a bit more might go down well in some quarters.

Prosecution is a vital tool in the armoury, but it is only one form of enforcement. Greater use of other enforcement tools such as Notice Procedures would improve working conditions. From discussions with farmers greater use of Notices for management issues, such as requiring risk assessments are seen as a beaurocratic means to get farmers to do things which they may see as a paperwork burden. No research has been carried out to look at the different impact of enforcement measures, so comments are to be qualified by this gap in research. This study recommends that such research be considered, the evidence from this work is that there is some latitude in agreement to take further prosecutions but as a future strategy the impact of increased enforcement activity by HSE should be studied for acceptability and efficacy. The areas of risk-taking behaviour might form the basis of an enforcement strategy as was seen earlier.

Turning finally to the legislation itself, which was the primary reason for this work as a concept for research, there is little evidence to suggest that additional regulations would accomplish more, indeed they may well cause more harm than good. Better by far would be good explanation of why the existing regulations are drafted, backed up by case studies, and examples, or pro-active risk management seen or experienced at first hand, the “stories heard, stories lived, stories told” of Cole.

Practically, the options for changing legislation are limited, but any such changes to reduce the amount and for bettering its content would be largely supported by farmers in England and Wales. Beaurocratic requirements and drafting would not be well received.

From all discussions and responses a picture emerges that farmers are not complacent about current standards and they agree that there should be future initiatives. Many more initiatives could have been suggested in the questionnaire, but it is felt that the range of proposals was wide enough to encompass options from a range of external agencies. The overall picture is one of high numbers of farms that do not carry out any formal risk management. If they have

not carried out assessments then their perception of what might cause harm, or simple hazard recognition will not be practiced on their farms.

Future enforcement strategy might bear fruits to focus on producing assessments. The HSE video on risk assessment is usually well received on agricultural health and safety courses but other publicity material is not. The 5 Steps to risk assessment is not well received, nor is the COSHH in agriculture video. When the arguments for pro-active risk/COSHH assessments are discussed then practical examples are seen at first hand, farmers tend to appreciate the importance and role which assessment can have in improving their health and safety performance through the identification of hazards and the reduction of risks through practical risk management. Combining the other documentation as part of the risk management package, and presenting this to the industry would be helpful. There is a big need to synthesise all the individual requirements such as COSHH, Risk, Safety Policy Statement and written instructions into a risk management “tool box” approach, where the individual tools and the need for them comes together in a comprehensible manner.

Risk assessments at the minute, are often seen as obstructions or beaurocratic constructions which on top of all their other paperwork places a burden on the business, some of the responses to the open questions reflect these attitudes and opinions.

This study hopes to have increased an understanding of: why farmers act and behave unsafely even though they know it is wrong; how their attitudes and perceptions can be misplaced so as to leave them exposed to elevated risk; and how attitudes can potentially be modified and behaviour changed as the result of interventions in the agricultural context.

As a closing comment Ahern, Murphy and Westaby say

“The contemporary and emerging behavioural psychological theories and concepts related to analysis, prediction and modification of behaviour have the potential to positively effect injury control efforts in agriculture. This would be accomplished by providing a more definitive understanding of the safety behavioural issues associated with farm work. These theories can be utilised in developing a more complete understanding of the causative factors, identification of appropriate intervention methods, and as program evaluation tools for behaviours associated with farm safety issues. Agricultural safety professionals and those involved in agricultural safety research and education should familiarise themselves with these concepts and test them among farm populations”. p.39

This study asks almost as many questions as it gives answers. The track record of this industry and its continued changing nature calls for further answers, to reduce the human tragedy and economic burden caused by farm accidents.

APPENDIX 1

Preventing Farm Accidents Survey

Section 1 - Farm details We do not expect you to look up records to complete this Section. A broad picture of your farm will be extremely useful to the study.

1 Land owned and/or farmed - Please provide the following details of the land you own and/or farm. Owned and farmed by you ha Farmed by you under a cropping agreement ha Farmed by you under an agricultural tenancy ha or grazing license

2 Cropping Please give your Combinable crops ha Fruit ha cropping areas. This Legumes/pulses ha Forage ha helps us determine Sugar beet ha Temporary grass ha potential risks. Potatoes ha Permanent grass ha Field vegetables ha

3 Stocking No. of animals No. of animals Please provide details Dairy cows Number of lambs sold of your current Dairy followers Sows stocking. Beef cows Number of finishing pigs sold in last year Number of finishing beef sold in last year All laying hens Ewes Number of table poultry sold in last year

4 Workforce Please give the number of people who work in the farm business. Full time employees Remember to include yourself. Part time employees Full time family Casuals Part time family Self employed

5 Use of contractors - Please indicate whether you have used contractors for any of the following in the last year. Complete crop (stubble to stubble) Silage making 1 1 Ploughing/cultivating Hay making 1 1 Drilling/planting Milking 1 1 Spraying Livestock husbandry 1 1 Manure handling/spreading Hedge trimming 1 1 Harvesting Drainage 1 1

Section 2 - Yourself What is your role on the farm? Farmer Other 6 1 Partner 2 Manager 3

65 ADAS 2000 Oct 2000 7 Please give your age. If you have children, please 1 3 5 give their ages. 2 4 6

Please give details of your farming experience O level/GCSE/CSE HND 8 1 1 and education. A level Degree 1 1 National diploma Post graduate 1 1 How long have you been farming?

Please tick the one statement Farming has no future - I intend to give it up 9 1 which best reflects your current Farming has a limited future - I need to diversify 2 attitude to farming. I see my future in farming and I want to increase the size of my farm business 3 I am happy to stay farming as I am now and for the foreseeable future 4 I am worried about my future in farming but I don’t know what else I can do 5 I see my future in farming but I expect that I will have to change my farming practice 6

How would you rate your general health over the last year? Very good Poor 10 1 4 Good Very poor 2 5 Average 3

Do you suffer from any long term health problems? No Frequently 11 1 4 Seldom All the time 2 5 Sometimes 3

Section 3 - Hazards in farming 12 Please record the 3 most significant hazards on your farm. Do you think that these are potential killers, could cause serious injury or minor injury only? Serious Minor Hazards Killers injury injury

1 2 3

13 On farms in the UK, what do you think is the proportion of death or Contact with electricity % major injury arising from each of the following? Being struck by a moving vehicle % For example, if you think that contact with electricity is responsible Being injured by an animal % for 20% of all deaths or major injuries, then write 20 in the box. Being struck by a moving/falling object % Asphyxiation/drowning % Trapped by something collapsing % Contact with machinery % Falling from a height %

100 %

ADAS 2000 66 14 During the last year how often have the following occurred on your farm? Please record your responses honestly. Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never Machine used without the PTO being fully guarded 1 2 3 4 Sprays applied without personal protective equipment and clothing 1 2 3 4 Sprays applied within 5m of an overhead high voltage power line 1 2 3 4 Chainsaw used without full protective equipment and clothing 1 2 3 4 Fork lift truck driven by someone (including self) who is not certified 1 2 3 4 Work done off a ladder that was not “footed” by someone/something 1 2 3 4

Children allowed to play in the immediate farm yard, adjacent to the house 1 2 3 4 Hands not washed before eating or drinking 1 2 3 4 An ATV driven without a helmet 1 2 3 4 An occupied bull pen entered single handed 1 2 3 4 Electrical repairs carried out on a fixed installation 1 2 3 4 Irrigation pipes carried below overhead high voltage power lines 1 2 3 4 Carried out maintenance on a machine or equipment that was not turned off or 1 2 3 4 isolated

Section 4 - Risk management 15 In the last few years, what have you done to reduce health and safety risks on your farm? Please record your actions for each of the following or tick no action. No action Give details of what you have done (if any)

Workplaces/buildings 1

Machinery 1

Work equipment (not machinery) 1

Protective clothing and equipment 1

Training 1

Chemicals 1

1 Dusts

1 Diseases

1 Information for workers 1 Other

16 What more could you do to improve health and safety on your farm?

67 ADAS 2000

17 What more could be done on farms in your area to make them safer (e.g. by HSE, MAFF)?

18 The following are possible actions that might be taken to improve health and safety on farms. What do you think about these proposals? Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly agree disagree Free literature should be sent to farmers 1 2 3 4 The EU should provide funds to help farmers with health and safety 1 2 3 4 Health and safety should be taught in all schools 1 2 3 4 Manufacturers should provide safer machines 1 2 3 4 The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) should give more advice 1 2 3 4

The HSE should carry out more inspections 1 2 3 4 The HSE should prosecute more businesses who do not meet H&S legislation 1 2 3 4 Better legislation should be passed 1 2 3 4 Legislation should be reduced 1 2 3 4 Subsidised consultancy help should be made available to all farmers 1 2 3 4 Farmers should involve employees more in assessments to reduce risks 1 2 3 4

Complete Kept up-to-date 19 Which of the following do you have on your farm? For those which you have, are they Yes No Yes No complete/kept up-to-date? Written safety policy statement 1 2 1 2 Written risk assessments 1 2 1 2 COSHH assessments 1 2 1 2 Pesticide records 1 2 1 2 An accident book 1 2 1 2 Written work instructions 1 2 1 2 Section 5 - Accidents happen Sometimes things go wrong. Would you please give details of any accidents/incidents that have happened on your farm in the past few years? 20 Major accidents (those causing injuries requiring hospital treatment, please indicate treatment for example, broken arm, partial amputation of finger etc.).

21 Minor accidents (first aid only treatment and less than 3 days off work as a result of the accident).

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Please return it in the envelope provided to: ADAS Market & Policy Research Team, FREEPOST, 6 Lanark Square, Glengall Bridge, London E14 9BR

68 ADAS 2000

APPENDIX 2

Responses to Open Questions 16 and 17 Appendix 2

subject Question 16 Question 17 1 More info to workers and training Improve profitability of farming Please remember when a business is running at a loss or choose to stop going 2 bankrupt is priority, common sense prevails A profitable business and education for young farmers 3 Ongoing task - its not too difficult - bearing in mind agriculture the problem could 4 be a lot worse About right now. Most farmers are giving it their best shot. 5 6 Having time Go to manufacturers and make the things safe, i.e. guards before they come onto the farm. Make it so that if you have to service something it is 7 easy to do. 8 Give up farming No idea 9 Removing electric poles and over head cables. Improved profitability to fund improvements to buildings and storage 10 areas Because we are losing money we are trying to reduce costs and spend no money 11 this puts pressure on everything and everyone. Free courses on correct use of equipment and safe operation of all farm 12 machines and fixed equipment Best way is for people to be fully aware of the consequences of a particular work operation, to see the accident before it happens and amend or do not carry out Difficult with fewer workers and more work (current economics). Local 13 these operations. seminars/courses.

14 Better profits to enable businesses to invest in safer and new equipment 15 Ongoing assessment 16 Continuing publicity of dangers 17 Spend more money but can't afford it. 18

19 A lot, but on these profits (losses)! Help restore profitability

20 Purchase protective clothing for chain saw, improve fence around slurry pit. More awareness of dangers Free first aid and other safety courses. Funds are not available whilst 21 farming is operating at a loss.

22 Always try to apply common sense which can be a bit scarce with the educated. Question 16 Question 17 23 Improve funded training 24 Ensure profitability so that necessary repairs to machinery are done 25 Reviewing COSHH currently properly 26 Continue to be diligent Provide some incentive to farmers 27 Supply more expensive protective clothing Free safety equipment 28 Current legislation is adequate 29 Less paper work so we have more time for safety. 30 Continually reassess work practices. Keep up to date with H&S info. Continue 31 with more training. Regular up dates of information. Free yearly H&S course (refreshers) 32 Don't know what happens on any other farms. 33 Update COSHH. Do some more courses. Deregulate and cut down on all these farm inspections. Sometimes two inspectors 34 at a time for whole day, thus four times a year. 35 36 37 More training made freely available. 38 39 Have a farm inspection. Compulsory inspection. Spend more money on old machinery and buildings but it is not available i.e. no 40 profit 41 Have all electricity safety checked. Discourage unsafe practices by informing people. More visits by HSE to talk to employees to let them know what I am trying 42 Always improving. Tidiness is safer and more efficient. to achieve is better for them. 43 More training. Free COSHH assessments.

The hardest thing to fight complacency. To fight the urge to skip safety/protective We have not been visited by a safety inspector for years. A visit always 44 equipment because the job will only take a few minutes. produces something we had overlooked. Mechanical mixing of feeds (reduce grain dust). Secure ladder to climb onto silage pit. Extra power points to reduce need for extension cables especially Inspections of machinery and working practices. Advice of potential 45 outside. hazards. Warning of prosecution if no remedy/repair taken. A clearer, understanding, attitude to the financial problems that we face 46 To be able to do more would need substantially more income. currently. Question 16 Question 17

Reduce cattle numbers and handling of cattle i.e. go organic, use contractors Ban 3 wheel ATV's. Need a driving licence for an ATV and helmets. 46 more. Children banned from work areas - nursery subsidies available if required.

70 Responses to Open Questions 16 and 17 Appendix 2

Reduce the pressure on workers to always be in overdrive if the financial pressure 49 was not so great therefore being able to employ more staff. Same, more money. 50 Training courses. 51 Posters rather than leaflets for staff. 52 Extra staff More staff. No a lot, as we believe we are very careful. Machinery and equipment are all well 53 serviced and in good order. Inspections on bi-annual basis, free literature. 54

55 More training, emphasis importance, budget. Training courses. Improve, check on untidy farms. 56 Make people aware of dangers that could occur. Inspections by HSE.

57 58 59 60 61 Regular meetings. Negligence is the biggest error and often it is the employee at fault because 62 Just be careful and attentive. they think they know best. 63 Up to date training Better maintenance Lots. Need to get back to profitable trading so funds would be available for 64 improvements and more staff. Farmers need help to bring their machinery up to a safe standard. Safer if PTO shafts were more affordable and more durable. Problems travelling Difficult as everyone is doing up to 3 jobs, people become tired and 65 on hillsides during ever increasing rainfall. careless. Definitely not more paperwork. 66 67 Be alert to potential dangers. Motivate everyone to follow safety procedures at all time. Ensure everyone knows 68 what is required. Remain cool and calm at all times. HSE are doing a fob already. Carry on being courteous and helpful. 69 Use common sense Question 16 Question 17

70 71 Spend. Having to do less work. 72 Take more holidays. 73 Adequate is provided. Make enough money to employ more workers then we could be like government. 74 We could employ man or woman to look for problems. 75 Reduce staff? Less experts. 77 Continuous assessments. Improve profitability. Know the level or risks, update staff of risks/ H&S. Obtain first aid training and 78 attend COSHH course. Would like notification of training available from these bodies.

79 If extra financial aid was available then the cattle crews could be improved. 80 Ive done everything to get farm assured. Farm assured. 81 82 83 Monitor safety.

84 When margins are low, people cut corners, safety will suffer in the next few years. 85 More HSE advice give, help to produce policy and risk assessment, give 86 Reduce bureaucratic stress, no more paperwork to complete. help before prosecution. 87 More signs, more speed restrictions. More visits announced. 88 Update safety awareness on a routine basis.

89 Enforce good practice. Grants for large projects such as fitting dust extraction systems. 90 Change low regarding children in tractor cab. It is the safest place for a child to 91 be. If we could make some money.

92 Encourage employees to plan work and not rush or take short cuts. 93

94 Reduce the very long hours that we as a family work in excess. Reduce the mental strain of excessive form filling and financial worries. Question 16 Question 17

95 96 Sell all livestock. Grants available to buy good handling equipment for livestock. 97 Regular checks on all aspects.

98 Use common sense. More money for our produce to spend on safer modern machinery. 99 Attend training days and put it into operation on farm. More training and awareness days.

71 Responses to Open Questions 16 and 17 Appendix 2

Increase staff awareness of risk and use of equipment/techniques. Make coursed 100 as relevant and interesting to them as possible. Helping training courses, large posters. 101 102 103 Policing to stop vandals Give farmer a fair price for produce so that it can be invested in labour & 104 Keep aware of hazards and make changes if necessary new machinery 105 More people employed in agriculture would reduce pressure of work and therefore reduce risks from cutting corners and taking chances when 106 Improve grain handling system working alone. 107

Cannot bargain for the unexpected, farms will always be dangerous places. 108 Less rushing about and a more cautious approach would save more lives. 109 110 111 112 113

Keep as many untrained people away from the farm as possible as they appear to 114 have little appreciation or perception of potential dangers. Farms are only as safe as the people who operate them. 115 Regular training and awareness Farm visits to give advice rather than fines. 116 Keep instructing all concerned on all safety aspects. HSE. 117 Question 16 Question 17 118 Keep visitors away. Stop old person driving on slopes. Always point out to visiting children that there is danger when large tractors come Train children to be aware of the dangers. Hold more courses for young 119 into the yard. farmers. 120 121 122 Convert the sometimes and seldoms into nevers. Decrease in profitability puts added strain on reduced workforce - one person trying to cope with too many rules and regulations and trying to 123 make a living. 124 No extra money to beable to keep up with the times. Grants for safety 125 126 If I had the time, I'd do a lot more. Seminars and workshops - compulsory attendance. 127

We are constantly vigilant - keeping all buildings and machinery in good order. 128 Also employ mature workers who have been in farming for over 30 years. Can't comment, have no involvement outside own farm. 129 130 Make information on dangers more available. I learnt my knowledge at 131 college.

132 Full protective clothing for chainsaw operation. Advisory visits. Grants to assist paying for training/ improvements.

133 134 Nothing without spending money we are not earning and do not have.

135 Make sure that short cuts are not taken. More official testing of farms. 136

137 There is a danger of familiarity. 138 Give good advice. HSE should be more constructive with advice not threats of court action and big fines. A lot of accidents are not reported because HSE will only Make staff more aware. Use protective equipment at all times, even for small prosecute. Keep paperwork to a minimum, have not time to keep up with 139 jobs. it. Question 16 Question 17 140 141 142 Invest in modern equipment when funds allow. Not do any other work - not meant to be glib - there seems little time to cope with Lobby for tax allowances or grants for increased safety training and safety 143 all the H&S issues as they comes out. equipment. Put in place a monthly audit sheet for each operation that has particular hazards to Demonstrations/ open days on farms to point out ideas and potential 144 ensure checks are made and followed up. hazards. Cheap ideas to help with costs.

Have more time to do things. I'm afraid we are all driven to getting more Don't think that I could do any more. I don't want injured meant I could find it and more out of everything we are doing. Too much pressure MAFF 145 difficult to manage if one was off for a long injury. needs to educate the government. Prevent suicide.

72 Responses to Open Questions 16 and 17 Appendix 2

146 Extractor fans in grain stores. Less crowded working areas. 147

148

149

150 Employ more labour if the if the state of the Agriculture improved to finance it. 151 152 153 154 HSE road show should be available to employee 155

156 Make people aware and use their common sense by not taking chances More information on posters. 157 Not a lot 158 Take more time to do jobs. Pay for more help if could afford. Warn general public of dangers when trespassing, i.e. falling in ditches, 159 Doing all possible. ponds, etc. 160 161 With more profit, could buy better machinery, equipment, etc. Set standards laid down. Question 16 Question 17 162 163 164 More publicity.

165 Further work on machine guards, training, change stacking method. 166 Work shorter hours. Degree in common sense. Written work instructions are impossible to do for a stock rearing farm. HSE are not consistent with implementing instructions, in fact they are 167 pretty useless. It is up to each farmer to carry out the necessary maintenance on 168 All is being implemented. machinery and buildings.

169 Funding made available for training in many different farming situations. 170 Make more money. Better profits. 171 172 173 More training and information for workers. 174 Already attend regular courses and updates. Checks. 175 176 177 Work less hours and beable to employ staff. 178 More training. 179

I am not familiar with practices on other farms. Experience, awareness 180 and common sense are most effective in preventing accidents. Very difficult to cope with all paper work, forms, inspections and red tape, 181 Less work, etc. etc. A reduction would help. 182 Discourage children from being on farm unattended but difficult with public 183 footpath running through. Signs, etc, where public rights of way run through the farm. 184 Informative visits. 185 Question 16 Question 17 186 Increase of profits would mean keeping better equipment and hence less 187 accidents. By being less negative about farm accidents. 188 Work less.

Not a lot. Most farms and farmers have good staff and machinery to work 189 with and are responsible people. Very few appear to be taking risks. Much if farming were in a better state. Financially, it is only just possible to maintain a status quo. Low morale causes stress, which surely contributes to 190 accident statistics. Were friendly H/S officers. By this I mean working closer with them for 191 Spend more time checking around the farm. the benefit of staff and farm in general. 192 Education. 193 Room for improvement, but I think my farm is reasonably safe. More advice form HSE.

73 Responses to Open Questions 16 and 17 Appendix 2

Protection of grain pit. Better maintenance of farm gates. Ensure all machinery is 194 operated with adequate protection. Don't know.

195 Move to level ground.

196 We need new implements instead of patching up the old. Get a new tractor. 197 Training. Free basic courses. 198 More safety equipment and better stock handling. 199 Could MAFF arrange for Poly and silage poly to be taken off farms. 200 Group training courses. A lot could be done in any situation, but it is down to individuals and attitude. 201 Think about your actions. 201 203 Attention to detail on safety matters.

204 Have less bureaucracy and paper work and let farmers get on with farming. Better prices for our produce so we are not working on such a tight budget. More 205 money, more safety. 206 Better farm equipment. 207 Reduce workload. 208 209 Be more tidy. 210

211 212 Keep the prices for farm produce lower and lower then there will be no 213 farmers, so they will all be safe then. 214 215 Give up.

216 More frequent visits. 217 218 219 220 221 Stop farming. Return farms to profit. Think ahead and plan operations carefully. Common sense and more haste and 222 less speed. Use more common sense. 223 Constant attention to detail. Constantly make staff more aware and training. 224 Safety training. Staff training. 225

226 Spend more time training people. More spot checks.

Many farms are short staffed or 1 man operations. It is not always easy to 227 Modernise some of the electric's. abide by HSE guidelines e.g. ladders and chainsaws. 228 Make farming profitable. 229 Fit bleepers for reversing machines. A more profitable business would mean less 230 time working alone with livestock. Less red tape from MAFF, 231 232 233 234 Better lighting, reduce head height obstacles. More information how deaths are caused and the same mistakes could be 235 avoided. 236 Sell up. 237 Keep aware and vigilant at all times and constantly assess and minimise all The new practical seminars seem to be working well and seem to be well 238 potential risks. received in the area. Better fencing and replacing worn out equipment - all of which require a bigger 239 income. I am sure there is a great deal that could be done to reduce risks. Farms are 240 inherently dangerous to the unaware. Give the industry more money to replace old worn machinery with fully guarded 241 new ones, instead of repairing and making do. Give direct funding for safety equipment. Farm incomes cannot maintain 242 Satisfied that most risks are under control. everything. 243 Spend a lot of money. Spend a lot of money.

244 More visits from HSE.

74 Responses to Open Questions 16 and 17 Appendix 2

Better farm prices as safety equipment investment would be greater if 245 Better respiratory equipment for use when working in the dryer. farming was more profitable. Corners would not be cut. 246 247 248 If time and money were more available quite a lot, but corners do get cut Carrot not stick mentality in these difficult times. Stress free farms are 249 unavoidably and regrettably when the above are in short supply. safer farms. 250 Nothing more. To be careful.

I think we could do more, but it takes time and money. We always seem to be Perhaps more safety talks and films, seeing films of accidents certainly 251 short on both. makes you think what more you could do yourself at home.

Have less forms to fill in in the evenings after a hard days work, need more time to 252 relax then maybe see things with a sharper eye when refreshed. Group meetings on a given topic which is relevant. 253 Improved income prospects would stop people cutting corners instead of being Reduced farm incomes are making people think twice about anything not 254 able to fund correct repairs and maintenance. generating income being funded. Whatever you do in life involves risk, all that can be done is to help reduce 255 Stop farming. risks by a down to earth, common sense manner. 256 Take great care, take no risks. Cannot account for other farms. 257 Farmers generally would love to abide by all the safety rules, but the economic situation means we have to cut corners where possible. We're Provide better access to grain bins. Update to more modern equipment BUT can't trying to keep afloat so for the time being don't push us in difficult 258 afford to. circumstances.

259 Going on a first aid course, and informing our children of all risks etc on farms. 260 Frequent inspections by H&S personnel. More could and would be done if farm income improved although care is always 261 taken. Make new machinery safety guards and inspection covers easy to use and from good materials. Not cheap plastic that cracks and is hard and 262 Reduce work loads, use risk assessment. difficult to replace. 263 More courses e.g. first aid. More verbal advice. 264 Give up! Allow common sense and good working practices to prevail. 265 New equipment and machinery. Better guards on machines and maintenance. 266 Use more common sense. 267 Perhaps more regular information. 268 Cash. Talks by HSE to groups of farmers and workers on the most dangerous 269 operations. Education and awareness. 270 MOT on tractors. 271 272 273 Impress constant vigilance and thought before action. 274 275 276 Point out dangers to us. 277

278 Earn more money. Regular HSE visits and road shows. 279 Attend first aid refresher courses. 280 281

282 283 More investment. Safety costs money and when money is tight corners are cut. Farmers 284 Spend more, difficult at present. must be reminded that this must not happen. 285 Keep checking everything. Keep checking. 286 Free advice is taken on board more readily than threats of prosecution. No 287 Afford the time to do things properly. one asks because it just brings hassle. 288 289 290 Regular meetings with staff on H&S issues. Independent advice, auditing of farms.

292 More awareness in the media. 293 Training of young staff. Better bull pens if more money available. Advertising safety campaign. Grants for safety investment. Consider plenty is done - most is a matter of common sense and 294 Think! awareness. 295

75 Responses to Open Questions 16 and 17 Appendix 2

296 More training. Already too much bureaucracy, any more will be counter productive. 297 Nothing - life carries risks! Common sense must be allowed to prevail. Keep dog under control on footpaths, allow farmers to charge the public to 298 use footpaths. 299 PTO guards, ladders locked to walls, double wheels secure when not in use (not to Make farmers aware of high risks areas - where people have been injured 300 topple). or killed in previous years.

301 Increased profits needed to further reduce risks. 302 As margins get higher the temptation to cut corners becomes greater. Regular help and advice, with possibly financial help to put problems right 303 Give more information on potential risks. and free practical training. 304 Better dust extractors in dryer. Shorten working hours.

305 Remain alert and employ common dense. Maintain visits by local inspectorate. When avoidable accidents occur 306 307 Keep up with present legislation. 308 309 310 Better returns would enable another employee to be employed leaving time to Enough done already - maybe a promotion to draw attention to 'topical' 311 ensure that all these matters are kept up to scratch. areas.

312 Increase level of awareness by training at the workplace. 313 314 Education visits. 315

316 Could establish safety repair team and make available to farmers at cost.

317 318 Not a lot sensibly; but we can all go OTT. Close them all down.

Nothing but without the income from visitors the time and money spent on safety 319 would not be possible. Free training in safety issues. 320 Make children aware of the dangers on farms. 321 Labour force has been reduced to 1 harvest student. Alter the right to roam law, especially 10-18 year olds, over which I have no 322 control and suffer much abuse.

323 Keep children away from farm yard. Run on farm training courses. Provide wall posters for farm office. Make employees more accountable for accidents caused by their own 324 Keep all machinery guards better maintained. negligence and not blame employers all the time. 325 More farm visits to view systems/equipment openly to encourage 326 improvements. 327 Very little.

Less red tape and heavy handed approach. This causes more stress and 328 Always review and improve practices on the farm. frustration resulting in mind not on jobs, resulting in accidents. Question 16 Question 17

329 Safety helmets for quad. More awareness with publication of accident statistics. 330 Never become complacent. Educate in a down to earth way.

331 Feel that we are very aware and try never to take risks. Its an individual thing, common sense is more important than anything.

Educating ramblers to respects cows with young calves, and horned ewes 332 with young lambs. Horses can bite and kick one another and children.

333 Use common sense. Send safety information - yearly! 334 Keep COSHH assessments up together. Regular visits to appraise farm and encourage training. 335 Very little without buying new equipment. More training at a lower cost. 336 Just be careful. Just be careful.

337 Next update of risk assessments done spring 2000. 338 First aid training. Education.

339 Try to improve staff awareness. Education. 340 Visit more. 341 More protective clothing. Things are okay. 342 343 Employ more staff to reduce work load. Make farming more profitable.

76 Responses to Open Questions 16 and 17 Appendix 2

Get rid of Mr Blair. Allow small children to ride in tractors they are more at risk 344 running around yard. Give more money for our produce. 345 More frequent inspections but not here thankyou.

HSE do not have enough staff to cope with accidents and information 346 Maintain vigilance and maintain more frequently. received and are therefore unable to visit on routine basis to advise.

347 Full training for all staff and use modern equipment. Send out relevant details of accidents experienced by other farmers.

Minimise the amount of time spent filling in forms and adhering to red 348 tape regulations. So allowing farmers time to make practical adjustments. Extractor fan over dryer at moment only open at end of shed to give draught - 349 dust. Most accidents can be seen before event if thought about first. Question 16 Question 17 350 Always on the look out. 351

Very concerned for the H&S of employees. However farm finances are in such a desperate state that we cannot afford to take proper precautions. We work alone 352 all the time and therefore the temptation to cut corners is a danger. Publicity campaign. 353 Last year a safety house was organised at the Great Yorkshire Show Ground - very very good day - could be useful for all farm staff to have 354 Try to be more tidy - junk can cause accidents. chance to attend. 356 357 358 Take more holidays. 359 360 Implements could be made more safe. 361 Not much. 362

363 Wear a helmet when riding quad bike. No knowledge on which to judge. 364 Result of COSHH assessment showed many areas, some valid some not, we are 365 addressing as many as possible. 366 Tidy up more. 367

368 I think I provide a safe work place and farm. Less form filling. Continuous adverts in the farm press showing photos. If funds were available, more modernisation of grain and potato stores for dust 369 extraction.

370 No idea. Work no more than 12 hours per day. Think before doing any operation. I can't remember hearing of a serious accident on a farm around here. 371 Present situation is fairly good. Keep children out of farm yard unless supervised and from riding on 372 tractors and farm bikes.

Question 16 Question 17 The HSE needs to appear to be more approachable for advice without the worry of being penalised. Accidents will increase in future if investment 373 Prosperity and investment will maintain, improve safety. decline.

Many farms are running to keep their heads above water. Corners will be 374 Employ nobody. cut. Very disheartened industry gives low priority to extras. 375

376 377 Very little. More warnings on equipment. 378 Put up more information in the form of posters and notices. Try to improve general awareness. Fire brigade should have a liaison officer who should spend time on farms 379 More training given to key staff, and first aid course. offering advice. 380 Very little but be aware of potential hazards. Not my concern. 381 Maintain keeping children out of the yard. Always more farm open days in area. Offer free farm inspection without 382 Invest in more modern machinery. threat of prosecution. 383 384 More safety inspection. 385 386 Can only cope with so much, do take employees interest seriously and limit their exposure to risk. We are under unremitting pressure to do it down to a price 387 regardless of costs. 388 Be more aware, don't take short cuts. Demonstrations?

77 Responses to Open Questions 16 and 17 Appendix 2

389 Without huge costs - very little. 390 Keep fold down on roll bar up more. Enforce helmet wearing on ATV. 391 392 393 394 Make farming more profitable to allow us to reinvest in more efficient and 395 Keep informed of health risks and use common sense. safe machines and facilities on the farm. Question 16 Question 17 396 Improve hygiene facilities and tidy up storage areas. More HSE visits.

HSE and MAFF should do a 5 year visit and set up signs, accident report 397 Considering having a 5 yearly outsourced report done. systems, and arrange on farm training. 398

399 Regular updates.

Provide better safety equipment, don't take any chances, take more time when 400 busy on dangerous jobs. More inspections, more information, videos, etc.

401 Continue to use machinery with care to take care when working with livestock. Make employees continuously aware of their responsibility and the consequence 402 of bad habits. Not much. 403 Just make sure any workers realise the risks involved with each job. 404 Give consistent advice. Create a strong profitable industry so more funds are available for 405 investment in safety. 406

407 If I knew we would do it. Reduce paper work and stress on all farmers and farm workers. 408 409 By using common sense. 410 411 Meetings. 412 Not much. 413 HSE

414 More help for people suffering from stress or depression in farming.

415 Give up. 416 More time made available for general upkeep and tidiness. 417 Higher income. 418 Keep general public out. Stop interfering by HSE & MAFF. 419 Question 16 Question 17 420 421 Be more diligent. 422 423 Little. Regular liaison without fear of prosecution. 424 Complete risk assessment. 425 retire. 426 More general awareness of dangers involved in work. More regular inspection (pro-active)

427 Quite a lot of things if farming was profitable.

428 Work less hours - tiredness is a major hazard and contributes too many accidents. Increase farm incomes so that safety is more affordable. Encourage common sense, don't just dream up ever more regulations from 429 Give up farming. behind a desk.

Re-introduce 'martindale' dust masks (aluminium type with replaceable filter Cut paperwork and use common sense. Don't need EU to tell us what to 430 gauzes). Others are rubbish and steam up specs if worn. do. 431 Less pressure. More help and advice without the pressure of legal action. 432 Less work, more money, more leisure and less stress.

433 We need a fair return for the food we produce then more could be spent on H&S. Give all farms a fair income. 434 435 436 437

438 439 Better maintenance on machinery. Common sense. 440 Not much. Stop children riding on tractors and machines.

78 Responses to Open Questions 16 and 17 Appendix 2

More HSE inspections possibly on informal basis. Lack of inspections As a farm that has regular school visits we continuously have to assess the risks, allow problems and work practices to build up until they may become 441 probably more so than most. lethal or prosecutable (or both). 442 Day courses.

Question 16 Question 17

Unannounced spot checks with heavier fines for offenders which should 443 Try and instil a responsible attitude into the contractors that we use. be ploughed back in to funds, to support H&S constancy. 444 Not much, but I still quit. Make farming profitable enough to allow funds to be allocated to extra 445 Always point out hazards and need to issue protective clothing to contractors. safety restrict the right to roam. 446 447 448 Nothing comes to mind. I have little knowledge of these issues on neighbouring farms. 449 450 More investment for protective clothing and equipment. A local meeting hosted by HSE. 451 Spend both more time and money. Both are difficult to find. Grants for H& S measures. 452 Less red tape, so more time to farm. continue with careful handling of machines, animals and medicines, spray User friendly literature, possible seminars. Avoid inspections and 453 chemicals, etc. attitudes that get farmers backs up. 454 455 Need to tighten procedures. Seminars for all employees. The provision of a two yearly consultants visit there to help and advice, adaptable 456 computer safety and COSHH programs. 457 458

459 Implement audit fully. More visits. 460

461 Retire. Visits by HSE inspectors.

Get public/govt policy changed so that a reasonable profit can be made. Other They could start by recruiting staff from within the agricultural industry 462 issues (including H&S) then follow naturally from a profit base. who know their stuff first hand - rather than having just read about it. 463

464 Retire. Less paperwork allowing more time for safety and not running around. Farming to become more profitable so we could afford extra labour and upgrade machinery. A tired worn down farmer is a liability to himself and there are lots of 465 them at the moment. Question 16 Question 17 466 Give up.

Risk physical health could be slightly reduced at expense of mental health only Make farming more viable to decrease pressure and stress on farming 467 solution stay in bed. community. 468 Practice what I know is correct procedure. Keep advertising horrendous accidents. Improve cattle handling facilities. Make sure protection e.g. when chainsawing is More spot checks on farms. Training in compiling COSHH assessments 469 worn. etc.

470 Replace farm machinery more often. Increase prices of goods sold. Have a better relationship with HSE.

471 Exterminate all land agents and those who are pushing share farming 472 Sell all machinery and farm with horses. agreements. (not a joke) 473 Do not carry out tasks alone. Give me time to work out a H&S policy - I am working approx. 84 hours each 474 week. 475 Increase profitability of farming - money for investment. 476 477

478 Have had electricity wires raised. Ensure all overhead electricity cables are above minimum clearance. Free help and recommendations by MAFF or HSE that does not involve 479 Update safety appraisals regularly. more paperwork or unnecessary administration. 480

More free advice and actual help because accidents often happen because 481 Have the time not to rush everything and to do training courses. the farmer hasn't got the time to sort everything out himself.

482 Increase training. Daily visit by HSE. 483 484 Within reason we do the best we can. Advice not legislation is the preferred option. If financial returns were to improve, investment then possible with improved 485 safety a spin-off. 486

79 Responses to Open Questions 16 and 17 Appendix 2

487 With higher income we could renew ageing equipment. Enforce pollution control. Question 16 Question 17 488

489 Check that employees are always carrying out best practice. Inspections on a regular basis.

490 Have more frequent tidy ups. Have a more practical view of solutions to risk reduction. Working closer with farmers before any accidents happen rather than 491 prosecute afterwards. 492 Spend more time on it. Area or group talk. Are always careful and use common sense, and NFU risk assessment team in 493 soon. 494

495 Buy or hire a cherry picker for maintenance and repairs to buildings. Issue a pamphlet on accidents on farms for distribution by farmers to Encourage employees to be less complacent and more aware - and to use their employees detailing types of accidents that occur, stressing the need for 496 common sense more often. awareness. 497 498 499 Give more attention to detail. 500 Continue to be watchful. Bring more security into the market, get people off our back when we are trying to 501 scratch a living, who has made the countryside what it is? Give us time and space.

See an adviser more often who would point out dangers but not fine or 502 Lots. warn you. I think more people would bring in advisors in these conditions. Close public footpaths through buildings i.e. re-route them around field 503 Be alert and use common sense. edges. 504 505 Tiredness is a major cause of accidents with machinery so less hours worked would help, but employees want overtime and there is tremendous financial 506 pressure to get the most out of all everything. Limit total hours worked per week by individuals. 507 Stay vigilant. Inspections on a regular basis.

508 Further training. Making staff aware of the risks. Legislation on use of ATVs e.g. helmets. Question 16 Question 17 509 Spend less time farming. Carrot not stick policy. Carry out more checks, improve awareness. Very hard to change habits of older 510 employees. 511 Stop farming.

512 Spot check inspections. 513 Think before you do anything and read instructions. 514 Buy new tractors and machinery. 515 516

517 Loss of profits add to increase of risks taken.

Employ more staff. With supermarkets screwing all farm prices down to the 70's level most farms have had to cut back on staff. Remaining farmers and staff are HSE to recognise what nil profits having on farmers and workers rushing 518 cutting corners on H&S to get the work done to stay in business and jobs. jobs leads to risks being taken and lives being lost. Improve farming profitability to allow farmers to afford more reliable 519 Sell it. equipment. Reduction of paper work (stress). 520 Educate the public.

521 Transfer the danger to contractors and sack staff. Make it profitable so that we cut less corners. 522 Make people think safety.

523 Increase income to reduce overload and stress on me and my staff. Reduce bureaucracy. Increase income, farmers would not be so tired. 524 I think my farm is very safe. No more than they do now.

525 At the moment nothing. We have no money for anything. Cost of guards are too much money. We need a MAFF funded scheme. Far too many forms to fill in, leaving less time to do the work. Working 526 under pressure is a hazard. 527 528

No help when HSE expects us to know all the legislation just because that’s the case in other industries. We need to be told. Newsletter with 529 new regulations and when they come into force. 530 Raise awareness. Question 16 Question 17 531 Not a lot.

80 Responses to Open Questions 16 and 17 Appendix 2

532

533 Safety awareness event at local location with leaflets to read afterwards. 534 535 Drive more common sense into some workers.

536 Organise advice area at events etc. Friendly not shocking and frightening. Be aware of anything that seems to be dangerous, use common sense, it goes a 537 long way. Just keep people informed about new regulations.

538 Better communication, more methodical work methods. Less stress. 539 540 541 More training for employees. Videos etc. 542 Use more common sense. 543 A more prosperous farming would mean less risks and more time to do our job in 544 a practised manner. Information and training is priority.

545 Wear helmet for ATV. Regular visits without threat of action if something's aren’t up to standard. 546 Ban visitors and close the footpath. Oppose the freedom to roam legislation. A lot but cost is a very big issue at the moment and probably for the foreseeable 547 future.

Because of poor financial time, farmers now use less equipment, don’t train, less Who's going to be farming in 20 years time? Large investments, poor 548 money to spend so less done on buildings, etc. returns, you may have town people moving in and needing training. 549 Stop children playing on and around the farm buildings unattended. Slow things down. 550 Lots of things. Less interference. Get traffic lights for cattle crossing busy road. Proving very difficult even after Farm Assurance goes a long way to making people aware of dangers, e.g. 551 consistent lobbying of councillors, etc. stockhandling, etc.

HSE should stop their current advertising campaign and publish top 10 552 At 18p a litre we can't comply with anything properly, at 22p we might. accidents on farms annually and tell you how they happened. Question 16 Question 17 553 554 Protective clothing. Inspections on a regular basis. Fair deals level playing field with other countries. Much better education Many risks would not be taken if more in workforce. Can't be afforded and also of public. Especially in public awareness that food is what's subsidised 555 too much red tape to employ casuals. Unbearable stress. world wide not farmers. We know we can't afford to take risks we can't have anyone not working so we do our best to keep farm yard tidy. Equipment up together and take care with animal Less red tape by MAFF so reduction of stress levels on farmers. So there 556 handling. is less temptation to cut costs and corners. 557 558 Keep tidy and people off implements etc. Inspections and advice. 559 Little now. More inspections. 560 Within reason nothing. More inspections. Wear proper chainsaw equipment more often. All of us could take more care 561 driving all vehicles. More staff. 562 Improve awareness of risks. 563 More training.

564 If anything wants improving, I make sure its done. Occasional visits giving helpful advice. Everything has a danger - from Stanley knife to mud on a step. Its how a person assesses that danger. Just because a tractor doesn't have a guard More money would enable us to buy and replace equipment. What you can't doesn’t mean its dangerous, but if you go near it is. So its down to 565 afford you can't have even though you know it would be an improvement. foresight and what grey matter is in Important not to send young inexperienced workers to do jobs without 566 Better cattle handling facilities. pointing and the dangers. 567 No more. Inspection.

568 Improve incomes. Reduce bureaucracy. Increase income, farmers would not be so tired. Put a neck holder on cattle crush to stop head going up and down, Need better You people are book worms and not practical enough, too official and not 569 buildings. efficient. 570 Constant reminders of dangers and how to avoid them. Regular reminders and information on a seasonal basis.

If advisors went round and advised people but there was no threat of Place hand rails on or near steps. Check machinery more regularly. Insist that prosecution. If people needed financial help to make the workplace safer 571 safety clothes are worn. Make sure children are aware of all the dangers. then to give people advice how to access funds to do so.

Question 16 Question 17 Less confrontational approach by inspectors and helpful attitude to Learn from mistakes made and keep staff informed so they can share concerns overcome problems, no more advice would be sought before problems 572 before problems happen. occur without the fear of being done. 573

Lack of financial resources is the biggest drawback to improving safety, taking Go into schools and inform children of the dangers of trespassing on 574 short cuts and trying to manage to do all the work oneself can lead to accidents. farms, i.e. bulls in fields etc.

81 Responses to Open Questions 16 and 17 Appendix 2

575 576 577 578 More training.

Much more can be done, but there are no financial resources to carry any more HSE must become realistic and cooperate with practical and sensible 579 out. Farming requires sufficient profits to allow continued safety improvements. solutions. Also requirement for staff to be responsible for their actions. 580 581 Grants to improve buildings and slurry store.

Some problems result from people enjoying the countryside but not understanding the hazards on farms. With less working on the land these 582 Pay attention to detail. days, farmers are busy people who can't afford time to guide them around. Try to educate staff. Lack of profit = lack of labour = lack of time = rushed work 583 = danger and carelessness. Local on farm demos and advice of farmers and staff. 584 Continue to update as new measures are required. Don't know what others are doing. 585 Improve a lot more to improve access to machinery. Grants to improve buildings and slurry store.

Increasing manpower so that nobody is working alone or taking unnecessary risks 586 especially with cattle. This would require an increase in profitability. Increase profitability.

Make farming more renumerative, and allow us to employ more people to aid each MAFF could make improved facilities and funds to allow greater rural 587 other about the farm, more eyes to spot danger and less working alone. employment. 588 Regular servicing of tractor and lighting systems. 589 590 Common sense. 591 Slow down and think more. Question 16 Question 17 Get the Govt to admit that OP's affect the health of farmers and reduces their resistance to chemicals and diseases. It causes drowsiness, instability 592 and lack of concentration. 593 Ban smoking. Little. 594 Reduce the work load for us all. PTO guars are a chronic problem particularly on older machinery seldom used. 595 Make sure securing chains in place. Staff awareness talks. 596 Keep on improving standards.

597

598 Revise from safety rules and COSHH assessment. 599 600 601 602 Maintain PTO guards, more handrails Unannounced farm visits. Many accidents are caused through the need for haste especially during 603 If finance was no object no doubt some additional safety measures could be taken. harvest and bad weather. 604

605 Have more time and money for training. 606 More vigorous attitudes. Better maintenance and recording. 607 Make the men do as they wee told more. Result no men. Introduce a funding program, to pay for help in achieving this. 608 A fair return for our labour would ensure money was spent on 609 Corners are being cut because there is simply no spare time on money. improvements and repairs. 610 Try to increase employee awareness of dangers. Reduce stress, increase safety awareness. 611 Retire! 612 Not much. Posters and circulars to erect in offices, workshops, etc. Less paperwork i.e. MAFF. Have shorter courses e.g. 1/2 day, more 613 practical. I require honest information on chemicals, not mollycoddled info. Any improvements involves lower overheads. The situation will worsen if people are 614 pushed too far. Question 16 Question 17 615 If farmers were recognised and appreciated for the hard work and pathetic 616 Reduce the need to work 80-100+ hours a week. returns received. 617 618 Attend more training courses and not be in so much of a hurry. Seasonal awareness campaigns. 619 Always. More signs. I feel that an income of zero is now making spending on safety aspects is 620 becoming almost impossible. Subsidise safety. As far as we are concerned adequate information is put out on a regular 621 A safety conscious system is operated. basis. 622 Isolate machinery into work areas.

82 Responses to Open Questions 16 and 17 Appendix 2

Less paperwork so we don’t have to rush doing important work. Ensure manufacturers of machinery make guards to frequently used areas (e.g. shear New design of PTO guards are practically unusable because they are so bolts) are easy and so will be replaced each time rather than stupid bolt fittings safe. Advise on back and skin problems. Helpful advise not 'pocket Hitler 623 which will tend to be left o attitude' sometimes encountered. 624 Retire. More inspections. 625 Better cattle handling equipment. Less MAFF inspections on the same cattle every year. 626 Encourage staff to work safely. Common sense. 627 Sell it. 628 Nothing. Make people aware of potential dangers. I wish I could afford a part-time worker to share the work load so I would always 629 be 100% alert when working alone. All farmers are working longer hours. Less paper work would help.

630 Being in a rush or stupidity causes accidents. Nothing.

631 632 Attended the HSE work study held recently and learned a lot more. 633 Common sense. Training, awareness, common sense. 634 Stop working altogether. Let me do all their work for them. Educate the public that farms are dangerous places and not a public play 635 Educate people to use common sense. area. 636 Plenty, but most things would cost too much and slow down. Cut out red tape to allow more time for work. 637 A lot if the price of milk rises. A grant to repair roofs - slates/tiles. Better PTO guards. Question 16 Question 17 638 Satisfied with what's done.

639 Spend time with staff and outside advisor/ consultant. Visits. 640 Could do further improvements if farming was profitable. Contractors will be 641 used more, with less of our own equipment. Financial Aid. 642 643 644 Improve awareness of farm workers. 645 Sell up. It is so much more difficult these days to find time and money to go forward but 646 fewer employees are less risk. More cheap or free signs to meet most circumstances. 647 More money - newer machinery. Rural curriculum in schools. 648

649 Replace split or broken powershaft guards sooner if they were more affordable. We don't know what we should be doing half the time. Never sent 650 Lots if we had basic information which is useable and not more bureaucratic junk. anything useful in post. HSE, in my opinion, should mail regular safety leaflets, and updates to farms and their employees. We often do not know the changes in H&S 651 Become more aware of risks, and keep improving the safety routines. law. 652 653 Employ consultant. More regular inspections. Grants for safety equipment , dust extractor, etc. While there is no profit 654 to re-invest. 655 Sell the farm. Cut down on bureaucracy and let us get on with it. With a better return in profits better and safer machinery could be purchased. 656 Buildings could be maintained to a higher standard. 657 Increase building maintenance. 658 659

The design of new machinery could be much improved. I.e. guards easily HSE needs to examine machinery before it goes on farm i.e. at dealer yards 660 removed/replaced for maintenance. or at manufacturers and identify problem areas, such as PTO that stick. Question 16 Question 17 661 Have more income to invest in safety. Less officials and more finance to keep the places safe. 662 663 Make more money, more time and money spent on safety, less of a rush to do most More information about the most significant hazards on different types of 664 jobs and less work done alone. farms. Less paper work so farmer can relax a bit and have more time to do their 665 I am a very fussy and clean sort of person it also keeps kit in top condition. job? Better prices so we don't have to do two jobs.

666 More training to install awareness in employees. Regular visits by safety experts without fear of prosecution. 667 668 Not work under pressure (at spend) Cut down on paper work to make more time for repairs etc. 669 Fence off ponds. 670 The economic and meteorological climate does not lend itself at present, but staff More routine 'farmer friendly' visits by HSE. Greater awareness of 671 meetings definitely are a help. prosecutions.

83 Responses to Open Questions 16 and 17 Appendix 2

672

673 Modernise my drying plants. Stop using small bales of hay and straw. More HSE officers to carry out spot checks on farms. 674 675 Secure ladders better. Safety officer visit more often. 676 677 All the work is done by contractors.

Don't know. My employee and I work together 95% of the time so are able to 678 keep an eye on each other.

I feel silage trailers should by law have a safety device to stop them coming adrift. This must have happened on umpteen farms across the 679 Make agriculture more viable in order to take on self employed staff. country with no admission unless an accident occurred. 680 Keep training courses available and published. 681 More awareness, training and caution. Increase income. 682

Individual advice for risk assessment/ setting up paperwork after HSE inspect8ions and follow up to help comply with legislation requirements Improve/ renew concrete yards, renew layer cages/equipment. Not possible due to regarding paperwork. Local farm open days for families - competitions 683 lack of profit. Possible EEC restrictions for cases. and prizes?

684 Not much, accidents are often simple, and its very easy to be wise after the event. 685 686 More money for produce to invest in up-to-date machinery, to maintain and trade in regularly (like car ownership in this country).To have time to 687 Supply face clothing and safety wear if income was sufficient. yourself and work less hours. 688 Further training. Risk assessment - HACCP introduced. 689 Stop farming. 690 more courses. Help to make more profitable so newer machinery is used. 691 Make a profit so that we could spend more on safety. Attend HSE exercises. 692 693 Keep it more tidy. 694 695 696 697 Update chainsaw safety clothing. 698 699

700 Further training. More inspections, better training and support. 701 Training and dust elimination. More advice and consultation. Contact awareness is the key to minimise the occurrence of accidents, especially 702 fatigue. More meetings and general awareness. 703 704 705 Cut out red tape, far too time consuming.

706 Improve employees awareness of other workers whilst using machinery etc. More training for employees. Question 16 Question 17 Inform machinery makers that guards etc should allow easy access for Better fence on slurry lagoon. Many guards and PTO covers make maintenance greasing and maintenance or be easy to remove and easy to replace and 707 difficult and covers get left off. Keep tractor brakes in better order. more substantial. 708 Insurance companies insisting on training as a pre-requisite of providing cover HSE to hold more or even some local safety workshops - sending 709 Don't go to work. leaflets is not sufficient. 710 Everything is contracted out. I have no men and no machinery. Short of great extra costs, in terms of bringing everything inside a building its 711 difficult to see what could be done. Greater awareness by farmers and workers of risks. Clearer means of issuing current guidelines and regulations, as it is difficult to keep abreast of ever changing rules. Farming press okay but 712 Full risk assessment. should come more direct from authorities. Ensure that employees are fully aware of potential dangers and trained 713 accordingly. 714 I am very safety aware, 98% solo on farm so have to be aware. 715 Keep up to date. 716 Talks and demos on the dangers. 717 Can always do more. 718

84 Responses to Open Questions 16 and 17 Appendix 2

Make sure children under 10 stay in tractor cab, on passenger seat provided. So 719 we know where they are safe and well. Free rat and mouse bait.

Improve general attitude to H&S. Increase awareness. Training courses, local. Provide more advice. e.g. free low cost advisor who can point out where 720 Obtain information. improvements can be made without the perceived heavy handed approach. 721 Stop farming.

722 You can always do more but the state of farming means you will do less. 723 Retire. 724 Keep tidier and more warning sign. 725 Try to improve our outlook towards safety. Regular safety checks. Appoint one employee as safety officer to liase with farm fitter to identify 726 problems and remedy them. 727 Retire.

Question 16 Question 17 Large print on medicine bottles, so that the directions should be read 728 Not a lot. easier. Free HSE information packs. Free first aid demonstrations. MOT for 729 Its not always practical to change things. tractors.

Better returns from farming would allow us to finance a new driver and also 730 possible change from small bales fodder to big square or round to reduce lifting. More HSE visits and advice.

731 Not to be complacent. Update by HSE. 732 Give up farming. Advise and meetings. 733 Close the gate. 734 Give funding for safety gear. Probably wear breathing mask when feeding dusty hay and better handling system 735 for cattle. 736 Feel that HSE and MAFF should point out risk factors involved in greater 737 public access to farm land. Higher income would reduce stress and tiredness caused by working long hours 738 and lesson the need to cut corners or take risks. Law improved against criminals, intruders. Education. 739 Go bankrupt. Stand over them or do the job myself. Spend thousands of pounds, which we haven't got. 740 Few things if only price of our produce was right. More organised discussion groups and films.

741 Not much as financially is impossible to improve everything on the farm. Tired, overworked and people making no money are accidents waiting to 742 When you are losing money how can you do the utmost in H&S aspects. happen. 743 744 If there was a better return on capital we would update. 745 746 Sell up. 747 748 keep employers aware. 749 We feel we are walking hand in hand with the times. In my knowledge, everyone seems to act out of awareness. 750 Spend less time working. MAFF needs to work with farmers and not against farmers. Question 16 Question 17

751 752 Give up farming. Compulsory training. 753 Employ more labour and have more time to carry out farm tasks. 754 Spend more money on it. 755 Lots but it costs money which I have not got. Make PTO shaft covers stronger. 756 Spot checks.

Have area group meetings to discuss safety issues and if possible help each 757 Instil that safety is more important than time scale. Think before action. other. 758 Possible more dust extractors. Just make sure they are aware of the dangers. 759 Lock up everything, concrete yards. But you need cash. 760 Be aware of risks. 761 762 Provide using to use simplified check lists and brochures to be left in 763 Annual check list. workshop. 764 Give up farming. 765 766

767 Risk assessments. MAFF could provide more grants to make farms safer. 768 Stop work.

85 Responses to Open Questions 16 and 17 Appendix 2

Repair broken concrete in yards. Upgrade electrical installations. Upgrade old Improve awareness of safety issues but emphasis the how and why aspects 769 tractors. rather than forming partnership rather than prosecutions.

I think we do as much as we can with the restrictions of having to make do with 770 elderly machinery and buildings. Guarding PTO shafts and other moving parts. 771 We have done what is practical and necessary. More frequent checks. 772 Increase use of training courses.

Continued training. Better courses - encourage full team involvement. Use of Continued H&S promotion. More use of video library, more advisory 773 videos. farm visits, more pressure on manufacturers of machinery. Question 16 Question 17 774 Nothing. 775 Continued reference to risk assessment. 776 No idea of other farming situations. 777 Use more dust masks and protective equipment. Risks rise with depression as maintenance declines. 778 Modernise the farm. More instructions. 779 Build a system for handling cattle. Think neighbours are very safety conscious. Have more money and less paperwork, so less pressure on at work and not 780 so tired. 781 Education. Safety awareness posters/advice. HSE should carry out more inspections agriculture annually rather than 782 just reacting to accidents.

783 Modernise buildings. Massive injection of capital. Make East Riding Council aware of the dilapidated state of their holding.

784 Have more and better buildings to house cattle improved PTO guards. 785 Stronger PTO guards. Better stock handling facilities. Education. Workshops for all. Information to be passed on to all. Farm visits are very 786 Insist on better safe practice. worthwhile and usually practical. 787 Very little. On going advice and monitoring.

Employ staff to relieve me of the excessive work load that financial pressure is Subsidised protective clothing, guards and safety equipment would help to 788 preventing. prevent cost cutting in present financial crisis in agriculture. 789 Additional courses. Risk assessment. Posters and literature sent to farms for all to read. 790 More regular meetings or discussions with staff. Small posters to pin up on farm, including them with other post. 791 More bulk feed bins. Free constancy. 792 Farms are safe, it is momentary lack of concentration which causes 793 Use of common sense. accidents, no more legislation required. 794 Give up. Cut red tape. 795 Try and improve condition of litter and perch areas in poultry houses. 796 More time. The Government and EU should value farmers and enable to earn a decent Slurry pit needs improved fencing. Will be done in near future as now have young living. So farmers are not always tire and fatigued so had time to care for 797 family. themselves and workers. Question 16 Question 17 How about a monthly circular focusing on a specific area with guidance, a checklist, sources of further info etc. e.g. January - chainsaws - what protective clothing is required, have you got it, tips on safe usage, who 798 Devote more time to it. runs training courses, etc. Make a profit (miracles sometimes happen) then use it to do what you think I 799 should do. Get off our backs.

800 Retire. Mainly up to individual on any farm. Never to be off guard or relax concentration 801 especially with machinery. When HSE last contacted me I told them of 2 hazards, nothing has been 802 Give up. done to the makers of the machines to warn workers. Safe farm use is being put in jeopardy by the lack of profitability and the inability 803 to pay for enough farm staff. 804 Rush less. More attention to detail, less cutting of corners. Return back to better incomes so that machinery is not kept too long and gets 805 neglected and becomes dangerous.

806 Most things were changed or altered if need be before the last few years. Up to date information. 807 Nothing without more money. 808

809 Improve mental attitude of staff to safety aspect on the farm. Safety is only as 810 good as staff make it. 811 Have a risk management done.

812 Assess risks more thoroughly. Better education, and possibly free training sessions. 813 Shut down. do the same as we have. 814

86 Responses to Open Questions 16 and 17 Appendix 2

More posters around the farm (free). Stop public walking through farm, re- 815 Be as careful as can be. route path around the farm yard. 816 817 818 Try to make staff aware of the dangers. More information leaflets. 819 Work somewhere else. More information. Free training to encourage participation. Question 16 Question 17 Stop public from throwing employ cans over hedges into fields and 820 Not have unarranged visits. Casual walkers during hedging and cutting. dumping builders rubbish in lanes and gateways. We try to avoid accidents by being vigilant where animals and machinery are concerned but try to discourage children on farm this is where problems occur Tell children farms are not play areas. Children play on straw stacks and 821 when you are driving round yard. round bales which are dangerous. HSE and MAFF should liase with BHS many new livery yards are 822 As livery yard operator highlight dangers to clients - very difficult, very stubborn. dangerous. As long as one takes due care and does not do something stupid, through lack of 823 concentration, one should be okay. 824 825 Reduce speed limit at entrance to farm. 826 Have more money, can't do more without money. Give us more money - got to use savings to buy food. 827 827

829 More awareness to employees. Look at safety on farm and give report.

830 Educate workforce. Ensure proper use of protective clothing at all times. Regular unannounced inspections by HSE. Full protective equipment for chainsaw use. Dust extraction equipment for grain 831 store. Quite simply legislation, policies etc to relieve the pressure on farmers to Most accidents occur through rushing and as every farmer is under pressure, more achieve more and more on their own in a shorter time span, so enabling 832 accidents will happen. them to take more core.

833 More money, more time. 834 I suppose more educational visits from HSE, MAFF, this would by 835 discussion educate and raise awareness. 836 Be aware of possible dangers and be observant. 837 Not a lot.

838 Improved training for staff, so they acknowledge the potential dangers. Bring to attention the biggest dangers in the industry for our area.

839 Mobile phones are the best thing when working alone. Better training. 840 841 Spend more time on training courses. Farm demonstrations. Question 16 Question 17 842 843

Nothing by HSE or MAFF because we have too many inspectors such as milk officers, milk buyer, farm assured, fawl, fabl, farm milling. Most of Not a lot. Most of H&S risks are no problem if owner and staff use common them are failed farmers or have no idea how to farm. There are too many 844 sense. living off the backs of farmers. 845 Update of law changes and advice. 846 847 Read all information as it changes.

APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 3 - REFERENCES

Adams, J. Risk. 1995 UCL Press. ISBN 1857280679.

Aherin, R. A.; Murphy., D. J; Westaby, J.D. Reducing Farm Injuries: Issues and Methods, 1992 Am. Soc. of Ag. Engineers. ISBN 0929355350.

Found, W. C. A theoretical approach to rural land-use patterns. 1971. Edward Arnold. ISBN 071315599X

Green, K. L. Farm Health and Safety: Rural Couples’ Beliefs and Practices. Jul. of Ag. Safety and Health. 1999. Vol. 5. No 1. Pp 83-96.

Harvey, J. H.. National Safety Council: National Safety News 1960, 81(4).

Hodue, C. J.; Thu, K.; Donham, K. J.; Watson, D.; Roy, N. Development of the Farm Safety and Health Beliefs, Jul. of Ag. Safety and Helath. 1999, Vol. 5 No 4 Pp395-406

Successful Management of Health and Safety. HS(G)65. HSE Books 1992, Suffolk. ISBN 0717612767.

Risk Perception and risk taking behaviour at work: a review of literature. HSE (Human Factors Group). 1999, R65.129.

Risk Perception and risk communication: a review of literature. HSE, 1999. Contract Research Report No. 248/1999

Fatal Injuries in Farming, Forestry and Horticulture. 1999-2000. 2000, HSE, Stoneleigh

Knowles, D. J. The CAP and Lancashire Dairy Farmers, Some Structural and Behavioural Consideration. 1987. Lancaster University. Unpublished PhD. Thesis.

Murphy, D. J. Safety and Health and Production Agriculture. 1992. Am. Soc. of Ag. Engineers. ISBN 0929355326.

Nix, J.. Farm Management Pocket Book. 1998. Wye College Press. ISBN 0862660599.

Nix, J.. Farm Management Pocket Book. 2000. Wye College Press. ISBN 0862662557.

Rhodes, D. A.; Hupcey, J. E. The Perception of Farm Safety and Prevention Issues Among the Old Order Amish in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Jul. of Ag. Safety and Health. 2000. Vol. 6 No. 3 Pp203-214

Risk Assessment: A Study Group Report. Royal Society. 1983. ISBN 0854032088.

Thompson, M. The aesthetics of risk: culture or conflict – in Societal Risk assessment: how safe is safe enough? Schwing, R. C., Albers, W. A. (eds.) 1980. 273-85, New York: Plenum. ISBN 0306405547.

APPENDIX 4

Q14 A - Machine used without the PTO being fully guarded

80 70 60 50

% 40 30 20 10 0

r nt s e d e om v te ue im ld a t Ne t eq e S r me S t F o S No

91 Q14 B – Sprays applied without personal protective equipment and clothing

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

nt s m r d e o ve te u ime ld a q t Ne St e Se t Fr me So No

92 Q14 C – Sprays applied within 5m of an overhead high voltage power line

80 70 60 50

% 40 30 20 10 0

r nt s e d e om v te ue im ld a t Ne t eq e S r me S t F o S No

93 Q14 D – Chainsaw used without full protective equipment and clothing

% 40

er mes dom ev el N eti S Frequent om ot Stated S N

94 Q14 E - Forklift truck driven by someone (including self) who is not certificated

80 70 60 50

% 40 30 20 10 0

om ld ever N etimes Se Frequent m ot Stated So N

95 Q14 F - Work done off a ladder that was not “footed” by someone/something

% 40

er d ent om d ev times el N e S Frequ om ot State S N

96 Q14 G - Children allowed to play in the immediate farm yard, adjacent to the house

80 70 60 50

% 40 30 20 10 0

t er d te uen dom ev a imes l N t et e S req m S F o ot S N

97 Q14 H - Hands not washed before eating or drinking

% 40

t er mes ldom ev e N Stated meti S t Frequen o o S N

98 Q14 I - An ATV driven without a helmet

% 40

t er en om v imes e t N e Seld t Stated Frequ o Som N

99 Q14 J - An occupied bull pen entered single handed

% 40

s om ed uent me d at q i Never t re Sel t S F Somet No

100 Q14 K - Electrical repairs carried out on a fixed installation

80 70 60 50

% 40 30 20 10 0

ldom ever tated N S metimes Se t Frequent o S No

101 Q14 L - Irrigation pipes carried below overhead high voltage power lines

% 40

r e ent om v ted d times Ne ta me Sel t S Frequ o o S N

102 Q14 M – Maintenance of a machine or equipment whilst turned on or not isolated

% 40

t r n s m e e e o v ted u im ld ta q t e Ne S re S t F me o So N

103

APPENDIX 5

Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 1 or spraying

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 0 0 1010026394 Sometimes 1 2 1 3565262000 Seldom 7 15 3 13 6 8 7 11 55815 Never 10 8 4 10 8 15 8 13 445011 No Reply 20 13 30 11 19 8 18 12 21 21 22 28 18

Wasn't listed as Issue 887 887 887 887 887 887 887 887 887 887 887 887 887

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 3% 0% 0% 5% 16% 8% 24% 11% Sometimes 3% 5% 3% 8% 13% 16% 13% 5% 16% 5% 0% 0% 0% Seldom 18% 39% 8% 34% 16% 21% 18% 29% 13% 13% 21% 3% 13% Never 26% 21% 11% 26% 21% 39% 21% 34% 11% 11% 13% 0% 29% No Reply 53% 34% 79% 29% 50% 21% 47% 32% 55% 55% 58% 74% 47%

1005 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 2 or machinery

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 6 10 18 10 30 6 9 5 48 55 22 55 33 Sometimes 20 32 25 40 53 42 33 32 96 34 9 0 1 Seldom 74 76 33 106 46 134 66 103 41 38 62 10 45 Never 128 106 43 107 58 118 70 109 17 27 83 18 113 No Reply 141 145 250 106 182 69 191 120 167 215 193 286 177

Wasn't listed as Issue 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 2% 3% 5% 3% 8% 2% 2% 1% 13% 15% 6% 15% 9% Sometimes 5% 9% 7% 11% 14% 11% 9% 9% 26% 9% 2% 0% 0% Seldom 20% 21% 9% 29% 12% 36% 18% 28% 11% 10% 17% 3% 12% Never 35% 29% 12% 29% 16% 32% 19% 30% 5% 7% 22% 5% 31% No Reply 38% 39% 68% 29% 49% 19% 52% 33% 45% 58% 52% 78% 48%

1006 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 3 or livestock

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 5 16 23 7 44 6 10 4 42 35 23 58 34 Sometimes 17 36 12 48 39 52 44 40 108 44 10 0 2 Seldom 79 74 26 116 43 137 74 104 38 62 55 4 41 Never 128 90 41 115 47 106 56 112 13 34 87 10 115 No Reply 136 149 263 79 192 64 181 105 164 190 190 293 173

Wasn't listed as Issue 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 1% 4% 6% 2% 12% 2% 3% 1% 12% 10% 6% 16% 9% Sometimes 5% 10% 3% 13% 11% 14% 12% 11% 30% 12% 3% 0% 1% Seldom 22% 20% 7% 32% 12% 38% 20% 28% 10% 17% 15% 1% 11% Never 35% 25% 11% 32% 13% 29% 15% 31% 4% 9% 24% 3% 32% No Reply 37% 41% 72% 22% 53% 18% 50% 29% 45% 52% 52% 80% 47%

1007 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 4 or chemicals, pesticides

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 3 3 4 6 15 2 6 3 32 35 8 34 18 Sometimes 7 11 14 11 23 16 14 14 38 6301 Seldom 27 34 16 48 27 53 29 44 22 18 24 4 21 Never 47 58 29 51 29 60 33 45 6 11 34 10 40 No Reply 77 55 98 45 67 30 79 55 63 91 92 113 81

Wasn't listed as Issue 764 764 764 764 764 764 764 764 764 764 764 764 764

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 2% 2% 2% 4% 9% 1% 4% 2% 20% 22% 5% 21% 11% Sometimes 4% 7% 9% 7% 14% 10% 9% 9% 24% 4% 2% 0% 1% Seldom 17% 21% 10% 30% 17% 33% 18% 27% 14% 11% 15% 2% 13% Never 29% 36% 18% 32% 18% 37% 20% 28% 4% 7% 21% 6% 25% No Reply 48% 34% 61% 28% 42% 19% 49% 34% 39% 57% 57% 70% 50%

1008 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 5 or bales

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 1 3 3 08010953105 Sometimes 1 5 3 58554164000 Seldom 18 11 6 24 8 25 9 16 5 15 8 1 3 Never 16 10 4 13 9 12 13 15 117115 No Reply 17 24 37 11 20 11 25 18 22 28 35 41 30

Wasn't listed as Issue 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 2% 6% 6% 0% 15% 0% 2% 0% 17% 9% 6% 19% 9% Sometimes 2% 9% 6% 9% 15% 9% 9% 8% 30% 8% 0% 0% 0% Seldom 34% 21% 11% 45% 15% 47% 17% 30% 9% 28% 15% 2% 6% Never 30% 19% 8% 25% 17% 23% 25% 28% 2% 2% 13% 2% 28% No Reply 32% 45% 70% 21% 38% 21% 47% 34% 42% 53% 66% 77% 57%

1009 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 6 or stress

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 1 3 3 361337104102 Sometimes 3 5 3 66817104401 Seldom 4 4 4 1 4 11 6611716 Never 9 7 1 11 475703717 No Reply 15 13 21 11 12 5 17 9 14 14 10 20 16

Wasn't listed as Issue 893 893 893 893 893 893 893 893 893 893 893 893 893

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 3% 9% 9% 9% 19% 3% 9% 9% 22% 31% 13% 31% 6% Sometimes 9% 16% 9% 19% 19% 25% 3% 22% 31% 13% 13% 0% 3% Seldom 13% 13% 13% 3% 13% 34% 19% 19% 3% 3% 22% 3% 19% Never 28% 22% 3% 34% 13% 22% 16% 22% 0% 9% 22% 3% 22% No Reply 47% 41% 66% 34% 38% 16% 53% 28% 44% 44% 31% 63% 50%

110 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 7 or bureaucracy and red tape

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 1 2 3 3512353251 Sometimes 1 0 4 1342252100 Seldom 2 3 1 5242322102 Never 3 4 4 3045101611 No Reply 10 8 5 574685971113

Wasn't listed as Issue 908 908 908 908 908 908 908 908 908 908 908 908 908

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 6% 12% 18% 18% 29% 6% 12% 18% 29% 18% 12% 29% 6% Sometimes 6% 0% 24% 6% 18% 24% 12% 12% 29% 12% 6% 0% 0% Seldom 12% 18% 6% 29% 12% 24% 12% 18% 12% 12% 6% 0% 12% Never 18% 24% 24% 18% 0% 24% 29% 6% 0% 6% 35% 6% 6% No Reply 59% 47% 29% 29% 41% 24% 35% 47% 29% 53% 41% 65% 76%

111 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 8 or lack of income

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 1 2 2 2512242231 Sometimes 0 0 0 2034152100 Seldom 2 3 0 1242313101 Never 3 3 1 3120400203 No Reply 7 5 10 55353367108

Wasn't listed as Issue 912 912 912 912 912 912 912 912 912 912 912 912 912

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 8% 15% 15% 15% 38% 8% 15% 15% 31% 15% 15% 23% 8% Sometimes 0% 0% 0% 15% 0% 23% 31% 8% 38% 15% 8% 0% 0% Seldom 15% 23% 0% 8% 15% 31% 15% 23% 8% 23% 8% 0% 8% Never 23% 23% 8% 23% 8% 15% 0% 31% 0% 0% 15% 0% 23% No Reply 54% 38% 77% 38% 38% 23% 38% 23% 23% 46% 54% 77% 62%

112 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 9 or steep ground/hillsides

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 2 2 3 1721285275 Sometimes 3 7 1 64275124001 Seldom 7 10 1 11 3 16 11 12 57712 Never 15 10 3 17 5 15 7 11 263011 No Reply 12 10 31 4 20 4 13 9 12 17 27 31 20

Wasn't listed as Issue 886 886 886 886 886 886 886 886 886 886 886 886 886

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 5% 5% 8% 3% 18% 5% 3% 5% 21% 13% 5% 18% 13% Sometimes 8% 18% 3% 15% 10% 5% 18% 13% 31% 10% 0% 0% 3% Seldom 18% 26% 3% 28% 8% 41% 28% 31% 13% 18% 18% 3% 5% Never 38% 26% 8% 44% 13% 38% 18% 28% 5% 15% 8% 0% 28% No Reply 31% 26% 79% 10% 51% 10% 33% 23% 31% 44% 69% 79% 51%

113 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 10 or slurry stores, towers

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 1 5 7 4 13 3328961312 Sometimes 6 10 1 16 9 11 19 4 32 11 3 0 2 Seldom 18 17 2 30 7 31 17 24 7 11 10 0 5 Never 32 17 6 17 3 20 9 25 3 5 20 2 22 No Reply 27 35 68 17 52 19 36 29 34 48 45 69 43

Wasn't listed as Issue 841 841 841 841 841 841 841 841 841 841 841 841 841

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 1% 6% 8% 5% 15% 4% 4% 2% 10% 11% 7% 15% 14% Sometimes 7% 12% 1% 19% 11% 13% 23% 5% 38% 13% 4% 0% 2% Seldom 21% 20% 2% 36% 8% 37% 20% 29% 8% 13% 12% 0% 6% Never 38% 20% 7% 20% 4% 24% 11% 30% 4% 6% 24% 2% 26% No Reply 32% 42% 81% 20% 62% 23% 43% 35% 40% 57% 54% 82% 51%

114 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 11 or filling in forms

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 0 0 0000000000 Sometimes 0 0 0 0000010000 Seldom 0 1 0 0110000000 Never 1 0 0 3110100100 No Reply 3 3 4 1224334344

Wasn't listed as Issue 921 921 921 921 921 921 921 921 921 921 921 921 921

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Sometimes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% Seldom 0% 25% 0% 0% 25% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Never 25% 0% 0% 75% 25% 25% 0% 25% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% No Reply 75% 75% 100% 25% 50% 50% 100% 75% 75% 100% 75% 100% 100%

115 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 12 or electricity

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 1 3 3 5 11 1 0 0 19 23 8 16 9 Sometimes 3 5 7 10 15 14 11 9 26 8501 Seldom 33 34 13 38 25 53 24 43 12 13 25 3 13 Never 42 40 23 35 22 39 24 37 6 5 32 13 49 No Reply 48 45 81 39 54 20 68 38 64 78 57 95 55

Wasn't listed as Issue 798 798 798 798 798 798 798 798 798 798 798 798 798

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 1% 2% 2% 4% 9% 1% 0% 0% 15% 18% 6% 13% 7% Sometimes 2% 4% 6% 8% 12% 11% 9% 7% 20% 6% 4% 0% 1% Seldom 26% 27% 10% 30% 20% 42% 19% 34% 9% 10% 20% 2% 10% Never 33% 31% 18% 28% 17% 31% 19% 29% 5% 4% 25% 10% 39% No Reply 38% 35% 64% 31% 43% 16% 54% 30% 50% 61% 45% 75% 43%

116 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 13 or dipping

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 1 1 0201011121 Sometimes 0 1 0 3220030100 Seldom 2 2 3 1233123101 Never 3 1 0 4020311003 No Reply 3 3 4 0214413563

Wasn't listed as Issue 917 917 917 917 917 917 917 917 917 917 917 917 917

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 13% 13% 0% 25% 0% 13% 0% 13% 13% 13% 25% 13% Sometimes 0% 13% 0% 38% 25% 25% 0% 0% 38% 0% 13% 0% 0% Seldom 25% 25% 38% 13% 25% 38% 38% 13% 25% 38% 13% 0% 13% Never 38% 13% 0% 50% 0% 25% 0% 38% 13% 13% 0% 0% 38% No Reply 38% 38% 50% 0% 25% 13% 50% 50% 13% 38% 63% 75% 38%

117 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 14 or dust

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 1 2 3 4 17 0 2 1 21 22 4 22 11 Sometimes 7 15 4 9 23 13 13 14 32 8402 Seldom 29 28 13 36 16 40 19 28 10 12 21 4 12 Never 38 29 15 34 19 46 24 37 7 12 24 6 39 No Reply 40 41 80 32 40 16 57 35 45 61 62 83 51

Wasn't listed as Issue 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 810

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 1% 2% 3% 3% 15% 0% 2% 1% 18% 19% 3% 19% 10% Sometimes 6% 13% 3% 8% 20% 11% 11% 12% 28% 7% 3% 0% 2% Seldom 25% 24% 11% 31% 14% 35% 17% 24% 9% 10% 18% 3% 10% Never 33% 25% 13% 30% 17% 40% 21% 32% 6% 10% 21% 5% 34% No Reply 35% 36% 70% 28% 35% 14% 50% 30% 39% 53% 54% 72% 44%

118 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 15 or heights, ladders

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 3 2 4 16010711792 Sometimes 6 12 4 11 16 15 4 8 13 3100 Seldom 13 18 7 19 10 25 15 16 3 4 12 4 14 Never 20 11 8 18 5 18 14 20 2 2 20 1 19 No Reply 26 25 45 19 31 10 34 24 43 48 28 54 33

Wasn't listed as Issue 857 857 857 857 857 857 857 857 857 857 857 857 857

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 4% 3% 6% 1% 9% 0% 1% 0% 10% 16% 10% 13% 3% Sometimes 9% 18% 6% 16% 24% 22% 6% 12% 19% 4% 1% 0% 0% Seldom 19% 26% 10% 28% 15% 37% 22% 24% 4% 6% 18% 6% 21% Never 29% 16% 12% 26% 7% 26% 21% 29% 3% 3% 29% 1% 28% No Reply 38% 37% 66% 28% 46% 15% 50% 35% 63% 71% 41% 79% 49%

119 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 16 or pto shafts

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 1 1 2520110106127 Sometimes 7 5 7 10 13 13 7 8 15 4101 Seldom 20 20 3 23 11 23 11 15 64809 Never 24 20 11 14 12 24 15 23 1 5 21 2 23 No Reply 16 21 45 18 26 5 34 20 35 44 31 53 27

Wasn't listed as Issue 858 858 858 858 858 858 858 858 858 858 858 858 858

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 1% 1% 3% 7% 3% 0% 1% 15% 15% 9% 18% 10% Sometimes 10% 7% 10% 15% 19% 19% 10% 12% 22% 6% 1% 0% 1% Seldom 30% 30% 4% 34% 16% 34% 16% 22% 9% 6% 12% 0% 13% Never 36% 30% 16% 21% 18% 36% 22% 34% 1% 7% 31% 3% 34% No Reply 24% 31% 67% 27% 39% 7% 51% 30% 52% 66% 46% 79% 40%

120 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 17 or tractors/ forklifts

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 2 2 4 4 17 0 6 0 15 23 7 22 14 Sometimes 3 10 2 14 6 11 13 11 39 12 2 1 1 Seldom 19 25 9 32 9 42 16 28 9 11 14 0 3 Never 37 22 10 31 16 39 14 31 4 9 23 1 37 No Reply 47 49 83 27 60 16 59 38 41 53 62 84 53

Wasn't listed as Issue 817 817 817 817 817 817 817 817 817 817 817 817 817

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 2% 2% 4% 4% 16% 0% 6% 0% 14% 21% 6% 20% 13% Sometimes 3% 9% 2% 13% 6% 10% 12% 10% 36% 11% 2% 1% 1% Seldom 18% 23% 8% 30% 8% 39% 15% 26% 8% 10% 13% 0% 3% Never 34% 20% 9% 29% 15% 36% 13% 29% 4% 8% 21% 1% 34% No Reply 44% 45% 77% 25% 56% 15% 55% 35% 38% 49% 57% 78% 49%

121 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 18 or roads, moving vehicles

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 2 2 0603189295 Sometimes 1 3 4 26565133300 Seldom 10 12 4 15 8 20 11 15 12 8643 Never 19 16 11 19 13 22 10 19 5 2 18 5 20 No Reply 29 26 38 23 26 12 29 19 21 37 30 41 31

Wasn't listed as Issue 866 866 866 866 866 866 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 3% 3% 0% 10% 0% 5% 2% 14% 15% 3% 15% 8% Sometimes 2% 5% 7% 3% 10% 8% 10% 8% 22% 5% 5% 0% 0% Seldom 17% 20% 7% 25% 14% 34% 19% 25% 20% 14% 10% 7% 5% Never 32% 27% 19% 32% 22% 37% 17% 32% 8% 3% 31% 8% 34% No Reply 49% 44% 64% 39% 44% 20% 49% 32% 36% 63% 51% 69% 53%

122 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 19 or tiredness

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 2 4 3 4812276485 Sometimes 2 5 3 36942144200 Seldom 9 7 3 7 4 14 7446313 Never 11 14 6 10 3 7 3 15 02938 No Reply 12 6 21 12 15 5 20 13 11 18 18 24 20

Wasn't listed as Issue 889 889 889 889 889 889 889 889 889 889 889 889 889

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 6% 11% 8% 11% 22% 3% 6% 6% 19% 17% 11% 22% 14% Sometimes 6% 14% 8% 8% 17% 25% 11% 6% 39% 11% 6% 0% 0% Seldom 25% 19% 8% 19% 11% 39% 19% 11% 11% 17% 8% 3% 8% Never 31% 39% 17% 28% 8% 19% 8% 42% 0% 6% 25% 8% 22% No Reply 33% 17% 58% 33% 42% 14% 56% 36% 31% 50% 50% 67% 56%

123 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 20 or vaccines

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 0 0 0000000000 Sometimes 0 0 0 0000000000 Seldom 0 0 0 0000000000 Never 0 0 0 0000000000 No Reply 0 0 0 0000000000

Wasn't listed as Issue 925 925 925 925 925 925 925 925 925 925 925 925 925

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Sometimes #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Seldom #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Never #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! No Reply #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

124 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 21 or silaging

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 0 0 0000000011 Sometimes 0 2 0 2213121000 Seldom 3 0 1 3141212301 Never 2 2 1 3021300101 No Reply 3 4 6 0513255475

Wasn't listed as Issue 917 917 917 917 917 917 917 917 917 917 917 917 917

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 13% Sometimes 0% 25% 0% 25% 25% 13% 38% 13% 25% 13% 0% 0% 0% Seldom 38% 0% 13% 38% 13% 50% 13% 25% 13% 25% 38% 0% 13% Never 25% 25% 13% 38% 0% 25% 13% 38% 0% 0% 13% 0% 13% No Reply 38% 50% 75% 0% 63% 13% 38% 25% 63% 63% 50% 88% 63%

125 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 22 or unsafe buildings

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 0 0 0100012022 Sometimes 0 1 0 5384341101 Seldom 2 6 0 4443652514 Never 8 3 3 5353302215 No Reply 9 9 16 5829791211157

Wasn't listed as Issue 906 906 906 906 906 906 906 906 906 906 906 906 906

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 11% 0% 11% 11% Sometimes 0% 5% 0% 26% 16% 42% 21% 16% 21% 5% 5% 0% 5% Seldom 11% 32% 0% 21% 21% 21% 16% 32% 26% 11% 26% 5% 21% Never 42% 16% 16% 26% 16% 26% 16% 16% 0% 11% 11% 5% 26% No Reply 47% 47% 84% 26% 42% 11% 47% 37% 47% 63% 58% 79% 37%

126 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 23 or chainsaw

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 0 2 0301069295 Sometimes 2 5 1 14 8936172200 Seldom 6 13 2 13 8 18 6667603 Never 17 11 3 10 4 13 7 13 0 2 11 0 16 No Reply 21 17 38 9 23 6 29 21 17 26 25 37 22

Wasn't listed as Issue 879 879 879 879 879 879 879 879 879 879 879 879 879

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 0% 4% 0% 7% 0% 2% 0% 13% 20% 4% 20% 11% Sometimes 4% 11% 2% 30% 17% 20% 7% 13% 37% 4% 4% 0% 0% Seldom 13% 28% 4% 28% 17% 39% 13% 13% 13% 15% 13% 0% 7% Never 37% 24% 7% 22% 9% 28% 15% 28% 0% 4% 24% 0% 35% No Reply 46% 37% 83% 20% 50% 13% 63% 46% 37% 57% 54% 80% 48%

127 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 24 or lifting heavy objects

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 1 1 2 1212123232 Sometimes 2 1 2 4624252000 Seldom 7 8 1 5272510202 Never 6 5 4 6272600639 No Reply 4 5 11 4 8 3 10 6 12 15 10 14 7

Wasn't listed as Issue 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 5% 5% 10% 5% 10% 5% 10% 5% 10% 15% 10% 15% 10% Sometimes 10% 5% 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 10% 25% 10% 0% 0% 0% Seldom 35% 40% 5% 25% 10% 35% 10% 25% 5% 0% 10% 0% 10% Never 30% 25% 20% 30% 10% 35% 10% 30% 0% 0% 30% 15% 45% No Reply 20% 25% 55% 20% 40% 15% 50% 30% 60% 75% 50% 70% 35%

128 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 25 or poison

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 1 1 0100012020 Sometimes 0 0 1 2002021000 Seldom 1 1 0 2021201001 Never 4 2 0 2220200203 No Reply 2 3 5 1434343553

Wasn't listed as Issue 918 918 918 918 918 918 918 918 918 918 918 918 918

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 14% 14% 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 14% 29% 0% 29% 0% Sometimes 0% 0% 14% 29% 0% 0% 29% 0% 29% 14% 0% 0% 0% Seldom 14% 14% 0% 29% 0% 29% 14% 29% 0% 14% 0% 0% 14% Never 57% 29% 0% 29% 29% 29% 0% 29% 0% 0% 29% 0% 43% No Reply 29% 43% 71% 14% 57% 43% 57% 43% 57% 43% 71% 71% 43%

129 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 26 or falling objects, e.g. trees

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 1 0 4 0411142342 Sometimes 1 2 1 1212331100 Seldom 4 2 2 5 2 11 8932413 Never 5 9 2 7362502519 No Reply 10 8 12 8 10 2 8 3 11 14 8 15 7

Wasn't listed as Issue 904 904 904 904 904 904 904 904 904 904 904 904 904

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 5% 0% 19% 0% 19% 5% 5% 5% 19% 10% 14% 19% 10% Sometimes 5% 10% 5% 5% 10% 5% 10% 14% 14% 5% 5% 0% 0% Seldom 19% 10% 10% 24% 10% 52% 38% 43% 14% 10% 19% 5% 14% Never 24% 43% 10% 33% 14% 29% 10% 24% 0% 10% 24% 5% 43% No Reply 48% 38% 57% 38% 48% 10% 38% 14% 52% 67% 38% 71% 33%

130 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 27 or workshop maintenance

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 0 0 0101010112 Sometimes 0 1 1 1361143101 Seldom 3 4 3 5472425001 Never 7 7 2 9369712619 No Reply 10 8 14 59178121012187

Wasn't listed as Issue 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 5% 0% 5% 0% 5% 5% 10% Sometimes 0% 5% 5% 5% 15% 30% 5% 5% 20% 15% 5% 0% 5% Seldom 15% 20% 15% 25% 20% 35% 10% 20% 10% 25% 0% 0% 5% Never 35% 35% 10% 45% 15% 30% 45% 35% 5% 10% 30% 5% 45% No Reply 50% 40% 70% 25% 45% 5% 35% 40% 60% 50% 60% 90% 35%

131 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 28 or human error, ignoring safety precautions

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 1 1 0100123011 Sometimes 1 0 2 2322120100 Seldom 1 1 1 3032120001 Never 3 4 0 2131400201 No Reply 4 3 5 2414236686

Wasn't listed as Issue 916 916 916 916 916 916 916 916 916 916 916 916 916

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 11% 11% 0% 11% 0% 0% 11% 22% 33% 0% 11% 11% Sometimes 11% 0% 22% 22% 33% 22% 22% 11% 22% 0% 11% 0% 0% Seldom 11% 11% 11% 33% 0% 33% 22% 11% 22% 0% 0% 0% 11% Never 33% 44% 0% 22% 11% 33% 11% 44% 0% 0% 22% 0% 11% No Reply 44% 33% 56% 22% 44% 11% 44% 22% 33% 67% 67% 89% 67%

132 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 29 or grain stores

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 0 0 0010122233 Sometimes 1 3 2 1420193000 Seldom 5 5 3 5366830502 Never 6 6 3 9 6 11 5622228 No Reply 13 11 17 10 12 5 14 9 9 18 16 20 12

Wasn't listed as Issue 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 4% 8% 8% 8% 12% 12% Sometimes 4% 12% 8% 4% 16% 8% 0% 4% 36% 12% 0% 0% 0% Seldom 20% 20% 12% 20% 12% 24% 24% 32% 12% 0% 20% 0% 8% Never 24% 24% 12% 36% 24% 44% 20% 24% 8% 8% 8% 8% 32% No Reply 52% 44% 68% 40% 48% 20% 56% 36% 36% 72% 64% 80% 48%

133 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 30 or combinable crops

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 0 0 0000000000 Sometimes 0 0 0 0000000000 Seldom 0 1 0 1010111000 Never 0 0 0 0000000000 No Reply 2 1 2 1212111222

Wasn't listed as Issue 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Sometimes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Seldom 0% 50% 0% 50% 0% 50% 0% 50% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% Never 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% No Reply 100% 50% 100% 50% 100% 50% 100% 50% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100%

134 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 31 or impatience, carelessness

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 1 1 0301024030 Sometimes 1 3 1 3271230000 Seldom 2 4 0 3113620003 Never 5 5 0 4342110615 No Reply 7 2 13 563867119117

Wasn't listed as Issue 910 910 910 910 910 910 910 910 910 910 910 910 910

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 7% 7% 0% 20% 0% 7% 0% 13% 27% 0% 20% 0% Sometimes 7% 20% 7% 20% 13% 47% 7% 13% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% Seldom 13% 27% 0% 20% 7% 7% 20% 40% 13% 0% 0% 0% 20% Never 33% 33% 0% 27% 20% 27% 13% 7% 7% 0% 40% 7% 33% No Reply 47% 13% 87% 33% 40% 20% 53% 40% 47% 73% 60% 73% 47%

135 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 32 or hedge cutting

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 1 1 1100000111 Sometimes 0 0 0 0000010000 Seldom 0 0 1 0110101000 Never 0 1 0 2020201110 No Reply 3 1 1 0103021112

Wasn't listed as Issue 922 922 922 922 922 922 922 922 922 922 922 922 922

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 33% 33% 33% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 33% 33% Sometimes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% Seldom 0% 0% 33% 0% 33% 33% 0% 33% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% Never 0% 33% 0% 67% 0% 67% 0% 67% 0% 33% 33% 33% 0% No Reply 100% 33% 33% 0% 33% 0% 100% 0% 67% 33% 33% 33% 67%

136 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 33 or children

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 1 1 0101012231 Sometimes 2 2 0 0122321000 Seldom 1 0 0 3134212102 Never 2 2 1 4130100202 No Reply 3 3 6 1401243353

Wasn't listed as Issue 917 917 917 917 917 917 917 917 917 917 917 917 917

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 13% 13% 0% 13% 0% 13% 0% 13% 25% 25% 38% 13% Sometimes 25% 25% 0% 0% 13% 25% 25% 38% 25% 13% 0% 0% 0% Seldom 13% 0% 0% 38% 13% 38% 50% 25% 13% 25% 13% 0% 25% Never 25% 25% 13% 50% 13% 38% 0% 13% 0% 0% 25% 0% 25% No Reply 38% 38% 75% 13% 50% 0% 13% 25% 50% 38% 38% 63% 38%

137 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 34 or uneven or slippery floors

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 1 1 2 0313132352 Sometimes 3 3 1 5531222000 Seldom 4 6 2 5 5 12 4522503 Never 8 6 6 6170410628 No Reply 8 8 13 8 10 1 16 12 16 18 10 17 11

Wasn't listed as Issue 901 901 901 901 901 901 901 901 901 901 901 901 901

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 4% 4% 8% 0% 13% 4% 13% 4% 13% 8% 13% 21% 8% Sometimes 13% 13% 4% 21% 21% 13% 4% 8% 8% 8% 0% 0% 0% Seldom 17% 25% 8% 21% 21% 50% 17% 21% 8% 8% 21% 0% 13% Never 33% 25% 25% 25% 4% 29% 0% 17% 4% 0% 25% 8% 33% No Reply 33% 33% 54% 33% 42% 4% 67% 50% 67% 75% 42% 71% 46%

138 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 35 or water e.g. ponds, reservoirs

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 0 1 0100013111 Sometimes 1 0 1 0030031000 Seldom 2 3 1 4133531011 Never 5 3 3 1146211213 No Reply 3 5 5 6812435886

Wasn't listed as Issue 914 914 914 914 914 914 914 914 914 914 914 914 914

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 0% 9% 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 9% 27% 9% 9% 9% Sometimes 9% 0% 9% 0% 0% 27% 0% 0% 27% 9% 0% 0% 0% Seldom 18% 27% 9% 36% 9% 27% 27% 45% 27% 9% 0% 9% 9% Never 45% 27% 27% 9% 9% 36% 55% 18% 9% 9% 18% 9% 27% No Reply 27% 45% 45% 55% 73% 9% 18% 36% 27% 45% 73% 73% 55%

139 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 36 or strain injuries

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 2 2 1 2412255263 Sometimes 2 3 1 2451422101 Seldom 1 1 2 2131221401 Never 3 3 3 0020101022 No Reply 4 3 5 6318333545

Wasn't listed as Issue 913 913 913 913 913 913 913 913 913 913 913 913 913

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 17% 17% 8% 17% 33% 8% 17% 17% 42% 42% 17% 50% 25% Sometimes 17% 25% 8% 17% 33% 42% 8% 33% 17% 17% 8% 0% 8% Seldom 8% 8% 17% 17% 8% 25% 8% 17% 17% 8% 33% 0% 8% Never 25% 25% 25% 0% 0% 17% 0% 8% 0% 8% 0% 17% 17% No Reply 33% 25% 42% 50% 25% 8% 67% 25% 25% 25% 42% 33% 42%

140 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 37 or corn dryer

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 0 0 0000000000 Sometimes 0 0 0 0100010000 Seldom 0 1 2 1020100000 Never 2 2 0 2102001201 No Reply 1 0 1 0111222132

Wasn't listed as Issue 922 922 922 922 922 922 922 922 922 922 922 922 922

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Sometimes 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% Seldom 0% 33% 67% 33% 0% 67% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Never 67% 67% 0% 67% 33% 0% 67% 0% 0% 33% 67% 0% 33% No Reply 33% 0% 33% 0% 33% 33% 33% 67% 67% 67% 33% 100% 67%

141 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 38 or power harrow

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 0 0 0000000000 Sometimes 0 0 0 0000000000 Seldom 0 2 0 1000100001 Never 0 0 0 0111000000 No Reply 2 0 2 1111122221

Wasn't listed as Issue 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Sometimes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Seldom 0% 100% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% Never 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% No Reply 100% 0% 100% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50%

142 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 39 or rotary cultivator

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 0 0 0000000000 Sometimes 0 2 0 0000000000 Seldom 0 0 0 0021110000 Never 1 0 0 2100100001 No Reply 1 0 2 0101012221

Wasn't listed as Issue 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Sometimes 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Seldom 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 50% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% Never 50% 0% 0% 100% 50% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% No Reply 50% 0% 100% 0% 50% 0% 50% 0% 50% 100% 100% 100% 50%

143 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 40 or infectious disease

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 0 0 0100001000 Sometimes 1 1 0 1001112000 Seldom 3 0 0 1130300100 Never 0 1 0 2100000003 No Reply 0 2 4 0113031341

Wasn't listed as Issue 921 921 921 921 921 921 921 921 921 921 921 921 921

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% Sometimes 25% 25% 0% 25% 0% 0% 25% 25% 25% 50% 0% 0% 0% Seldom 75% 0% 0% 25% 25% 75% 0% 75% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% Never 0% 25% 0% 50% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 75% No Reply 0% 50% 100% 0% 25% 25% 75% 0% 75% 25% 75% 100% 25%

144 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 41 or working alone

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 0 0 0101022231 Sometimes 0 2 1 0341021100 Seldom 2 3 0 3141211101 Never 2 4 1 3122500213 No Reply 6 1 8 4405356465

Wasn't listed as Issue 915 915 915 915 915 915 915 915 915 915 915 915 915

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 10% 0% 20% 20% 20% 30% 10% Sometimes 0% 20% 10% 0% 30% 40% 10% 0% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Seldom 20% 30% 0% 30% 10% 40% 10% 20% 10% 10% 10% 0% 10% Never 20% 40% 10% 30% 10% 20% 20% 50% 0% 0% 20% 10% 30% No Reply 60% 10% 80% 40% 40% 0% 50% 30% 50% 60% 40% 60% 50%

145 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 42 or power tools

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 1 3 4 1301025032 Sometimes 1 1 1 2331150110 Seldom 4 3 0 6172220202 Never 2 1 1 2332500625 No Reply 7 7 9 45297610696

Wasn't listed as Issue 910 910 910 910 910 910 910 910 910 910 910 910 910

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 7% 20% 27% 7% 20% 0% 7% 0% 13% 33% 0% 20% 13% Sometimes 7% 7% 7% 13% 20% 20% 7% 7% 33% 0% 7% 7% 0% Seldom 27% 20% 0% 40% 7% 47% 13% 13% 13% 0% 13% 0% 13% Never 13% 7% 7% 13% 20% 20% 13% 33% 0% 0% 40% 13% 33% No Reply 47% 47% 60% 27% 33% 13% 60% 47% 40% 67% 40% 60% 40%

146 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 43 or ditches

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 0 0 0000000000 Sometimes 0 0 0 0011001000 Seldom 0 1 0 0000210010 Never 1 0 0 0110000101 No Reply 1 1 2 2101011111

Wasn't listed as Issue 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Sometimes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% Seldom 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 50% 0% 0% 50% 0% Never 50% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 50% No Reply 50% 50% 100% 100% 50% 0% 50% 0% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

147 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 44 or zoonosis

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 0 0 0001011010 Sometimes 0 1 0 0000010000 Seldom 0 0 0 1000000110 Never 1 1 1 1020200002 No Reply 1 0 1 0201001100

Wasn't listed as Issue 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923 923

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 50% 50% 0% 50% 0% Sometimes 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% Seldom 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% Never 50% 50% 50% 50% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% No Reply 50% 0% 50% 0% 100% 0% 50% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0%

148 Cross Analysis of Q12 Hazards with Q14 Risk Taking Behaviours

Question 12 - Code 45 or fire

Q14-A Q14-B Q14-C Q14-D Q14-E Q14-F Q14-G Q14-H Q14-I Q14-J Q14-K Q14-L Q14-M Frequent 0 0 0 0000000000 Sometimes 0 0 0 0100110000 Seldom 1 0 0 1101011000 Never 1 1 0 1020000201 No Reply 1 2 3 1112212132

Wasn't listed as Issue 922 922 922 922 922 922 922 922 922 922 922 922 922

As Percentage of Identified Risk Frequent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Sometimes 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 33% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% Seldom 33% 0% 0% 33% 33% 0% 33% 0% 33% 33% 0% 0% 0% Never 33% 33% 0% 33% 0% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 67% 0% 33% No Reply 33% 67% 100% 33% 33% 33% 67% 67% 33% 67% 33% 100% 67%

149 Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive C30 1/98 Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive C1.25 04/02 ISBN 0-7176-2251-7

CRR 404 £20.00 9 780717 622511