AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

2. An outline of the new law

30th May 1975, Page 52
30th May 1975
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 52, 30th May 1975 — 2. An outline of the new law
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

by John Darker, AMBIM

MORE THAN 20 years ago I had personal knowledge of a specific hazard to employees in a road haulage business at Bedford which had been nationalised under the 1948 Act.

The maintenance workshop of the acquired company had a tiled roof ; a very heavy roof which, over the years, had assumed a pronounced sag. Everyone who worked at The premises and everyone in executive authority who Visited Bedford to weigh up the risk of deaths and injury should the roof collapse, was agreed that the workshop appeared to be far from safe. No technical expert in the building or civil engineering business was able to give the roof a clean bill of health or, indeed, say firmly that it would not collapse within a measurable period.

The employees at the depot concerned would have been less than human had they resigned themselves to a possibly most unpleasant end while striving to keep vehicles in a serviceable condition. Their representative raised the issue of the aagging roof month after month after month at the local joint committee established under the nationalisation statute, If my memory serves, the wretched roof continued to preoccupy employees, trade unions and management for at least two years (a) because capital expenditure was tightly controlled, and (b) because no one in management was prepared to say that whatever the cost and inconvenience the obviously risky roof should be replaced by corrugated iron sheets, or whatever.

Immediate action

Today, under the Health and Safety at Work Act, it seems highly probable that an inspector responsible to the Health and Safety Commission would issue to the employer concerned either an improvement notice or a prdhibition notice, the latter compelling immediate action, possibly the closure of the premises. The relatively insignificant case of the sagging roof—which could perhaps be compared today to the many schools and public buildings closed at the drop of a hat because of faulty design or the use of certain materials —can probably be paralleled at hundreds of premises in road transport throughout this country. But even if all premises are wholly adequate to their function the nature of the road transport business suggests that employees and other users of the premises may be exposed to avoidable risks from cluttered gangways, uncovered pits, manual lifting and carrying, falling objects, fires and explosions, electric shock and so on.

An adrdirable Safety Training Manual produced in 1971 by the Road Transport Industry Training Board and soon to be updated, shows that in motor vehicle repair premises alone accidents increased from 4,084 in 1963 to 8,220 in 1969.

An accident analysis showing the make-up of how these 8,220 accidents occurred revealed the following : Manual lifting and carrying 2037 Fall of persons 1332 The vehicle 1038 Hand tools 969 Machinery 755 Falling objects 559 Persons Striking against objects 508 Fires and explosions 180 Electric shock 42 Miscellaneous 800 In the introductory article to this series I touched on the famous inquiry "Safety and Health at Work," under Lord Robens' chairmanship, which reported to the Secretary of State for Employment in 1972. lit may be useful here to set down a brief general summary of the findings of this highly qualified committee (Robens Report, page 151).

Reforms

"We need a more selfregulating system of provision for safety and health at work. The traditional approach based on ever-increasing, detailed statutory regulation is outdated, over complex and inadequate. Reform should be aimed at creating the conditions for more effective self-regulation by employers and workpeople jointly.

"The efforts of industry and commerce to tackle their own safety and health problems should be encouraged, supported and supplemented by up to date provisions unified within a single, comprehensive framework of legislation. Much greater use Should be made of agreed voluntary standards and codes of practice to promote progressively better conditions.

"This broader and more flexible framework would enable the statutory inspection services to be used more constructively in advising and assisting employers and workpeopie, At the same dime it would enable them to be concentrated more effectively on serious problems where tighter monitoring and control might be needed.

" A single centre of initiative is needed to replace the present heavily fragmented administrative arrangements, A national Authority for Safety and Health at Work should be established."

All political parties were agreed that action should be taken to implement the Robens Report. A Bill was introduced by the Conservatives in January 1974 but was lost when Parliament was dissolved the following month. A 'similar measure, though with significant additions, was introduced by the present Government as their second piece of legislation. It received Royal Assent on July 31 1974, The Act has been described as the most significant statutory advance in the Health and Safety at Work field since Shaftesbury's Factory Act of 1833.

Perhaps the most significant feature of the Act is that it is what is termed an enabling instrument whose foundation is a general duty of care concept for most people at work— including five million or more people (some in road transport and the self employed) never previously subject to this kind of legislation.

Flexibility

The Act, as the Department of Employment has stressed, does not seek to cover every eventuality nor does it try to spell out rules for each and every work situation. "Its very flexibility . . will mean that on the Statute Book there is a piece of legislation capable of being changed, expanded and adapted to cope with risks and problems in industry for generations to come." Of course, some people would say this puts industry into a bureaucratic straitjacket—'a nightmarish prospect!

In essence, the Act provides for an inter-action of responsibility for the individuals and organisations associated with work or touched by its consequences. From April 1 1975 employers have had a duty to employees in relation to safety and health matters, and employees have had a duty one to another. Self-employed people have had a duty to other employed workers and to the general public. There is no longer any need for confusion about fine distinctions over contracts of employment or the definition of premises covered by Factories Act or similar leg is•iaitlion.

This does not mean that existing safety and health legislation can be ignored. For the time being previous legislation Will continue in force but the new Act Will eventually replace wholly or mainly such Acts as : The Explosives Acts 1875 and 1923; The Alkali etc Works Regulations Act 1906; The Boiler Explosions Acts (1882 and 1890) ; The Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Act 1926; The Public Health Act 1961; The Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928; The Revenue Act 1909; The Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Act 1952; The Mines and Quarries Act 1954; The Hours of Employment (Conventions) Act 1936; The Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act 1956; The Factories Act 1961; The Petroleum (Transfer of Licences) Act 1936; The Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963; The Mines Management Act 1971 ; The Employment of Women, Young Persons and Childrens Act 1920; The Employment Medical Advisory Service Act 1972.

Two significant advances extend the spirit of previous legislation. The general public will be entitled to a duty of care in terms of safety and health by people engaged in work activities. This means that an employer must not only ensure that his workers are safe, but also that members of the public who might be affected by any hazard from his work activities are protected. And the legislation enables regulations to be introduced at a future date requiring an employer carrying on an inherently dangerous business, or one that is a threat to health if something goes wrong, to inform not only his employees but also the local population.

Take guard

Another innovation, operative from April 1 1975, requires importers, manufacturers, designers and suppliers of any machinery, plant or substance to make sure that it will be safe when properly used. Even so, an employer purchasing a machine delivered inadvertently without a guard on it would still be responsible—ignoring the supplier's responsibility— because of the general duty of the employer to ensure that his workshop equipment is safe.

It is fairly common for major legislation to come into force gradually and this was the routine with the Health and Safety at Work Act. A Commencement Order activating the Act established the Health and Safety Commission on October I 1974, and fixed two other operational dates ; January 1 1975 and April 1 1975.

The Health and Safety Executive, responSible to the Commission, became operational on January 1. In recent months the staffs of the main health and safety inspeCtorates and of the Employment Medical Advisory Service have been transferred to the new Executive.

Initially, the safety inspectors will continue to administer existing provisions, such as the Factories Acit, but they will use the powers and procedures provided under the new Act. Inspectors now have power to issue improvement and prohibition notices not generally available before. Dangerous prenlises or processes can attract the equivalent of an immediate prohibition notice under the Road Traffic Act.

It must be stressed that there is no tradition in this country for government safety inspectors 'to issue drastic notices, requiring immediate action by employers, in a cavalier fashion. Persuasion is preferred to painful arm-twisting. Section 24 of the Act provides for appeals to industrial tribunals against the issue of an improvement or prohibition notice. But in the last resort an employer may be prosecuted for offences under health and safety legislation and if convicted on indictment will be liable to an unlimited fine, imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both.

Underlining the point made above about the restrained use of powers, S.19 of the Act provides for each inspector to be given written auth'ority, saying which of the powers he may use. " This," says the DofE "is intended to ensure that the more stringent powers are always exercised by experienced inspectors, and only in relation to hazards for control of which these more stringent powers are appropriate."

Sweeping powers

In the introductory article, last week, I noted that the terms of reference of the Robens Inquiry ruled out discussion of specific transport matters, despite their obVious relevance to safety. In Schedule 3 attached to the Act, outlining the subject matter of Health and Safety Regulations, the Health and Safety CommisSion is given sweeping powers to prohibit or regulate the transport of articles or substances of of any specified description.

Next week : The responsibilWes of employers.


comments powered by Disqus