Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The Health & Safety at Work Act gained Royal Assent on 31 July 1974. It may be much criticised and sneered at, but it has undoubtedly saved numerous lives over the years and we should be grateful to Barbara Castle, who set up the original enquiry that led to the act.
The Health & Safety at Work Act gained Royal Assent on 31 July 1974. It may be much criticised and sneered at, but it has undoubtedly saved numerous lives over the years and we should be grateful to Barbara Castle, who set up the original enquiry that led to the act.
Agreed. During my 40 years in the power industry there were many times jobs took much longer to do than they could have been done due to ‘Elf ‘n Safety’ rules. However looking back this undoubtedly prevented many injuries or worse.
My Dad was at a factory inspector at the HSE from the 60s (at whatever the predecessor was) to the 90s. He had to deal with a lot fewer fatalities and amputations at the end of his career.
The Health & Safety at Work Act gained Royal Assent on 31 July 1974. It may be much criticised and sneered at, but it has undoubtedly saved numerous lives over the years and we should be grateful to Barbara Castle, who set up the original enquiry that led to the act.
It amazes me why anyone would want to get rid of health and safety, but there are plenty of people who would like to do so.
Long may it continue though.
It literally scares me when I see builders & other workmen using pneumatic drills and grinders etc with no face masks, no ear defenders and no eye protection. They really have no regard for their own health & safety.
It literally scares me when I see builders & other workmen using pneumatic drills and grinders etc with no face masks, no ear defenders and no eye protection.
that is not correct. I would suggest reading the Act. IRC this act defines the structure and authority for the regulation and enforcement of workplace health, safety and welfare within the UK. It established the HSE ( who you REALLY don't want to mess with) along with enforcement activities including criminal sanctions - this isn't a personal injury type situation.
When I was doing my engineering course some 30+ years ago, we were required to undertake practical experience at the local college; our instructor was keen to point out that "vibration white finger" was an issue, while making a suitably misogynist comment at the same time...
As part of the same course, we were treated to a visit to Peterhead Power Station; we were provided with suitable ear defenders, but none of us could hear a word that our guide said!
I'll raise a glass to the "HASAWA" (Health and Safety at Work Act); fewer dead people is a thing to be celebrated.
The joke passed you by, i've always been very in favour of the HASAW act, but its a common (if tedious nowadays) meme folks against it say its mad when they arn't allowed to fire fireworks out of their pants or something.
The joke passed you by, i've always been very in favour of the HASAW act, but its a common (if tedious nowadays) meme folks against it say its mad when they arn't allowed to fire fireworks out of their pants or something.
Or when they are prevented from doing something that is a trivial risk, because someone took it as an absolute prohibition on anything that might be considered risky by someone. Or because that someone was afraid of being sued.
The joke passed you by, i've always been very in favour of the HASAW act, but its a common (if tedious nowadays) meme folks against it say its mad when they arn't allowed to fire fireworks out of their pants or something.
As part of the same course, we were treated to a visit to Peterhead Power Station; we were provided with suitable ear defenders, but none of us could hear a word that our guide said!
I worked for 40 years in a coal fired power station. Yes parts of it, the turbine house, coal milling bay, compressor house for example were extremely noisy. After working there for a while you became quite good at lip reading.
If you needed to spend quite a long stretch in a very noisy area you needed both ear plugs and ear defenders. Somewhere in the H&S Rules there is probably a section where it states that you can only spend ‘x’ time in an abnormally loud environment. However in certain instances there has to be allowances made to enable the process to continue. To tell maintenance that they can’t repair a steam leak as it’s too noisy is not really an option.
However in certain instances there has to be allowances made to enable the process to continue. To tell maintenance that they can’t repair a steam leak as it’s too noisy is not really an option.
Out of interest, I would imagine the footplate of a steam locomotive at speed is quite a noisy environment. Are the footplate crew required to wear ear protection, and more to the point, do they actually wear it? Also do they need to wear safety spectacles? The chances of getting foreign bodies in the eyes must be quite high.
For those of us who’ve worked in industry, we’ve all encountered those who for whatever reason complain about having to comply with H&S Regulations. For example, uncomfortable, hinderance, harder to do the job. I’m sure some footplate crew fall into this category. Who is there to check?
I worked for 40 years in a coal fired power station. Yes parts of it, the turbine house, coal milling bay, compressor house for example were extremely noisy. After working there for a while you became quite good at lip reading.
If you needed to spend quite a long stretch in a very noisy area you needed both ear plugs and ear defenders. Somewhere in the H&S Rules there is probably a section where it states that you can only spend ‘x’ time in an abnormally loud environment. However in certain instances there has to be allowances made to enable the process to continue. To tell maintenance that they can’t repair a steam leak as it’s too noisy is not really an option.
Those sort of rules aren't laid down in the Health and Safety at Work Act, indeed it superseded many specific rules that were set out in law.
The Act simply sets out the principle that the employer has to assure the safety of their workers, and the workers have to do their part too, all subject to a test of reasonableness. It is up to the employer to define reasonable rules to achieve this for their own particular operations and environment, and if someone disagrees on what is reasonable then that is ultimately up to the courts. Reasonableness is a concept well understood by courts, not least because the threshold for finding someone guilty is "beyond reasonable doubt".
This openness to interpretation is a disadvantage and the ultimate reason for the "health and safety gone mad" trope, but it's difficult to see how it could be avoided. Laying down lots of very specific rules for different industries isn't really a job for the government, they would inevitably go out of date or end up catching activities that they shouldn't, and other activities might end up not being covered by any sort of rule. There are now very few specific legal rules on health and safety, but following industry-specific standards and codes of practice is one way for an employer to show they are doing what is reasonable.
The Health & Safety at Work Act gained Royal Assent on 31 July 1974. It may be much criticised and sneered at, but it has undoubtedly saved numerous lives over the years and we should be grateful to Barbara Castle, who set up the original enquiry that led to the act.
A little bit of historic background may add to the above.
A committee under the chairmanship of Lord Robens (Chairman of the National Coal Board) to inquire into workplace health and safety was commissioned at the end of Wilson Labour Government term in June 1970. On 18th June a Conservative Government under Heath was elected.
The Committee issued a report June 1972 setting out various recommendations. These Recommendations were substantially enacted in the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974, which received Royal Assent on 31 July 1972 - in other words it became Law - however it did not come into force until 1974.
In January 1973, the Health and Safety Commission was set up and following which the Health and Safety Executive whom were designated as the enforcement body was set up.
On 28 January 1974 with this structure in place William Whitelaw the Secretary of State for Employment placed a Bill before Parliament to enact the HASAWA however this was overtaken by the General Election. The HASWA was finally enacted on 31st July 1974 by the new Wilson Government
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It has gone mad for two reasons, firstly very few employers understand the concept and application of risk assessment and fail to identify and control risk properly or alternatively they set out controls measures that are way and beyond what is appropriate so creating an environment where there is poor compliance.
For example CEGB introduced a safety helmet requirement that resulted in them being required to be worn indoors ! Similarly Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance introduced a blanket requirement for safety helmets to be used at all times when on the railway even when there was no risk from falling objects which resulted in me having to wear a safety helmet when tamping and doing TQ, and my blockroadmen having to wear them when laying and removing detonators.
Many employers introduce the sort of control measures described above that are not necessary simply because it is easier to enforce by safety practitioners. The truth of it is that they are not managing but damaging health and safety because in my long years of experience most people will comply with PPE requirements when they understand the reason for them and that they are necessary. Arse-covering requirements simply turn people off and diminish respect.
To the above you then have to add into the mix the legal ambulance chasers and the fear of employers of being sued so resulting in ridiculous things such as fruit trees being cut down because of the "risk" from a falling fruit hitting someone and the likelihood that some form of Sue, Grabbit, and Runne low-life will go for a no-win no fee claim.
It literally scares me when I see builders & other workmen using pneumatic drills and grinders etc with no face masks, no ear defenders and no eye protection. They really have no regard for their own health & safety.
The Health & Safety at Work Act gained Royal Assent on 31 July 1974. It may be much criticised and sneered at, but it has undoubtedly saved numerous lives over the years and we should be grateful to Barbara Castle, who set up the original enquiry that led to the act.
No it hasn’t. Short termism by government, trade unions and managers combined to cause this. Done properly health and safety can reduce costs as someone who is safe is generally more productive.
and/or when people used it as an excuse for not wanting to put in place proper procedures, or not wanting to pay for the right equipment to do the job properly, or simply wanted a convenient excuse for avoiding doing something.
She did enough damage to the railways, closing the greatest proportion of the rail network despite Labour's pre-election promise not to do so.. Similar to promises to reverse Privatisation in 1997. Expect cut-backs to rail under this latest manifestation of the so called working man's Government.
