Am. ocaip- Uyg. VoL 18, pp. 339-342. Pergamon Pren 1973. Printed in Great Brluln
THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. ACT 1974 S. G. LUXON Health and Safety Executive, London
conference is taking place some 15 days after the coming into force of the substantive provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The main purpose of the Act is to provide for one comprehensive and integrated system of law dealing with the health, safety and welfare of workpeople, and the health and safety of the public as affected by work activities. It also extends such obligations and protection to five million or more people who have never before come within the scope of this kind of legislation—including workers in health and educational establishments, and research laboratories, amongst others. It also covers the self-employed. The Act, of course, does not seek to cover every eventuality nor does it try to spell out rules for each and every work situation. It is an enabling instrument whose foundation is the concept of a general duty of care for most people associated with work activities. The general umbrella of the Act provides for an interaction of responsibility between individuals and organisations associated with work or touched by its immediate consequences. The employer now has a duty to his employees with regard to their safety and health, and those employees will have a duty one to another; so, too, the self-employed person will have a duty to other people around him. Of particular importance are the new general obligations of the Act which place duties on everyone at work which are more comprehensive than heretofore. These new obligations will be in addition to the duties of employers and others under existing health and safety legislation. Most of the current health and safety legislation will remain in existence until progressively repealed and replaced by improved and up-dated regulations made under the new Act, and by approved codes of practice. Approved Codes of Practice are a new concept and a word of explanation may be useful. They will not be statutory requirements themselves, but they may be used in criminal proceedings as evidence that a Statutory requirement has been contravened. If a person cannot show either that he observed the provisions of an approved code or that he did something else as effective or better than what the code recommended, he will be held to have contravened the Statutory requirement to which the THIS
339
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Karolinska Institutet on May 25, 2015
Abstract—The purpose and some of the general principles of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 are outlined as background to a discussion of its implications for Hygienists.
340
S. G. LUXON
approved code is relevant, e.g. one of the general obligations. There is a similar relationship between the Highway Code and the Road Traffic Act. The Commission will prepare Codes of Practice or invite other organisations to do so and must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before approving them. While, in future, specific processes or activities are likely to be governed by such regulations or approved codes, the general principles of the legislation will, however, apply wherever people work. The principles of interest to us today are:
(ii) It is the duty of anyone who manufactures, imports or supplies any substance for use at work to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that the substance is safe and without risk to health when properly used. He must carry out such tests and examination as may be necessary to ensure that the substance is safe and free from risk to health. He must provide adequate information about the results of tests and about any conditions to ensure that the substance is safe and without risk to health when properly used. (iii) In addition there is a requirement on any person who manufactures a substance for use at work to carry out any necessary research with a view to the discovery of, and the elimination or minimisation of any risk to health or safety to which the substances may give rise. There are two significant advances which go much further even than the spirit of previous legislation. The general public will be entitled to a duty of care in terms of safety and health by people carrying out work activities, so that an employer, for example, not only will have to ensure that his workers are safe, but also that members of the public are not adversely affected by any hazard arising from work activity. The legislation includes an innovation which may be introduced by regulations at a future date; namely that an employer carrying on an inherently dangerous business or one that is a threat to health if something goes wrong, may be obliged to inform not only his employees but also the local population. In their annual reports to shareholders, directors will be required to give information about what their companies are doing in safety and health matters. On 1 April 1975 the Companies Act 1967 was amended accordingly by Section 79 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. Regulations will be required to prescribe the classes of companies to be covered by the provisions and what information should be given. What is the implication of all this for hygienists? Firstly, their responsibilities will in many cases be expanded so as to cover offices, laboratories and other activities where people are at work but which previously fell outside the narrower definition of the Factories Act. While in the past they may have had some general oversight in respect of such persons, they may now well have a delegated duty in respect of their employer's responsibilities.
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Karolinska Institutet on May 25, 2015
(i) Every employer is required to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that (a) his employees and people not in his employment, including the general public, are not exposed to risks to their health or safety and (b) that the working environment is safe and without risk to health.
The implications of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
341
DISCUSSION Dr D. E. HICJUSH (Ford Motor Co.): Hygienists in general welcome the objectives of the Act, and their concern may be more related to the method of its operation. I have three specific queries: 1. The Act has already resulted in an increase of employee representations to the Inspectorate regarding conditions at work. In dealing with these representations, what account do Inspectors take of the presence of professional hygienists in the factory, and would some form of registration of hygienists facilitate recognition by the Inspectors of their presence and role? 2. The Act refers to the informing of employees with regard to hazards etc. Does this mean that the detailed results of hygiene investigations will in future have to be disclosed to employees? 3. Do you envisage that routine, rather than occasional, sampling will be a feature of future requirements under the Act? If so, this will obviously affect the planning of staff and equipment to enable the Act to be complied with. Mr LUXON: It is to be hoped that as Safety Committees begin to play their full part in health, safety and welfare matters, many such queries will be dealt with in the course of their normal work. I am confident that inspectors will, inter alia, consult professional hygienists when making investigations of industrial hygiene problems. The answer to the second part of your question is, I believe, yes—in the sense that a hygiene investigation may indicate a possible hazard. There is already a requirement for routine monitoring at chrome plating baths and I see no reason why possible future action of this kind should not be taken. Dr J. G. JONES (British Steel Corporation): Mr Luxon has shown that the Act will encourage greater use of occupational hygienists and Dr Roach has described the details of their duties as he sees them in the future. Professor Atherley, however, has underlined the lack of enthusiasm for the employment of hygienists throughout industry in general. Can Mr Luxon tell how he thinks this lack of enthusiasm will be overcome? Mr LUXON: The new Act will, I believe, create a more favourable climate for acceptance of the need for quantification of hazards of all kinds. This must inevitably lead to the employment of Hygienists where health hazards are present on a substantial scale. It may be that part of this need, particularly in the case of small premises, can be filled by chemists or medical officers who have by their own training and experience the necessary expertise.
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Karolinska Institutet on May 25, 2015
The general obligations in regard to the health of persons at work coupled with the new requirements on the tests and examination of plant, must increasingly involve hygienists in the detailed consideration of the design of such plants both before and after they are installed. Monitoring as we understand this word must play an increasing part in all this. The hazards of substances must now be considered before they are used and there will need to be close liaison with suppliers who have responsibilities for providing information on the research and investigation of such hazards. Interpretation of such information must increasingly be part of the professional responsibilities of the hygienist requiring as it will value judgements as to how the substance can be properly used. The statement of company policy in respect of health and safety will require a careful study of industrial hygiene needs and practices and the hygienist will have a direct responsibility for advising management on this. Hygienists will also have an important part to play in advising safety committees on the adequacy of control measures and the justification of the standards by quantification of risk. Perhaps the most important task—one which underlies the whole Act—is to secure the co-operation of all concerned. In this the Hygienist will have increasingly the role of researcher, trouble shooter, mediator and concilliator on health matters. Acceptance of this role will not only help to achieve the object of the Act but will also enhance the status of Occupational Hygiene in the eyes of both workers and management.
342
S. G. LUXON
Prof. ATHERLEY: I read the Royal Institute of Chemistry's Code of Professional Conduct. It seems to say that chemists are the people who should be taking on the specialist function in health and safety at work. There is certainly no mention of chemists* needing advice from occupational hygienists. And chemists are often part of management. This seems to me to indicate that management's enthusiasm for occupational hygienists and health and safety advisers will not increase spontaneously—without some further stimulation. Dr MAGOS (MRC Toxicology Unit, Carshalton) : Is there any comprehensive plan to satisfy the basic requirements for the operation of the Act: increase in manpower and facilities? Mr LUXON: The Health and Safety Commission and Executive have recently been set up specifically to operate the new Act. It has been indicated in Parliament that the number of inspectors will be increased to enable them to meet their new commitments subject to overall manpower considerations.
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Karolinska Institutet on May 25, 2015
THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. ACT 1974 S. G. LUXON Health and Safety Executive, London
conference is taking place some 15 days after the coming into force of the substantive provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The main purpose of the Act is to provide for one comprehensive and integrated system of law dealing with the health, safety and welfare of workpeople, and the health and safety of the public as affected by work activities. It also extends such obligations and protection to five million or more people who have never before come within the scope of this kind of legislation—including workers in health and educational establishments, and research laboratories, amongst others. It also covers the self-employed. The Act, of course, does not seek to cover every eventuality nor does it try to spell out rules for each and every work situation. It is an enabling instrument whose foundation is the concept of a general duty of care for most people associated with work activities. The general umbrella of the Act provides for an interaction of responsibility between individuals and organisations associated with work or touched by its immediate consequences. The employer now has a duty to his employees with regard to their safety and health, and those employees will have a duty one to another; so, too, the self-employed person will have a duty to other people around him. Of particular importance are the new general obligations of the Act which place duties on everyone at work which are more comprehensive than heretofore. These new obligations will be in addition to the duties of employers and others under existing health and safety legislation. Most of the current health and safety legislation will remain in existence until progressively repealed and replaced by improved and up-dated regulations made under the new Act, and by approved codes of practice. Approved Codes of Practice are a new concept and a word of explanation may be useful. They will not be statutory requirements themselves, but they may be used in criminal proceedings as evidence that a Statutory requirement has been contravened. If a person cannot show either that he observed the provisions of an approved code or that he did something else as effective or better than what the code recommended, he will be held to have contravened the Statutory requirement to which the THIS
339
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Karolinska Institutet on May 25, 2015
Abstract—The purpose and some of the general principles of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 are outlined as background to a discussion of its implications for Hygienists.
340
S. G. LUXON
approved code is relevant, e.g. one of the general obligations. There is a similar relationship between the Highway Code and the Road Traffic Act. The Commission will prepare Codes of Practice or invite other organisations to do so and must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before approving them. While, in future, specific processes or activities are likely to be governed by such regulations or approved codes, the general principles of the legislation will, however, apply wherever people work. The principles of interest to us today are:
(ii) It is the duty of anyone who manufactures, imports or supplies any substance for use at work to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that the substance is safe and without risk to health when properly used. He must carry out such tests and examination as may be necessary to ensure that the substance is safe and free from risk to health. He must provide adequate information about the results of tests and about any conditions to ensure that the substance is safe and without risk to health when properly used. (iii) In addition there is a requirement on any person who manufactures a substance for use at work to carry out any necessary research with a view to the discovery of, and the elimination or minimisation of any risk to health or safety to which the substances may give rise. There are two significant advances which go much further even than the spirit of previous legislation. The general public will be entitled to a duty of care in terms of safety and health by people carrying out work activities, so that an employer, for example, not only will have to ensure that his workers are safe, but also that members of the public are not adversely affected by any hazard arising from work activity. The legislation includes an innovation which may be introduced by regulations at a future date; namely that an employer carrying on an inherently dangerous business or one that is a threat to health if something goes wrong, may be obliged to inform not only his employees but also the local population. In their annual reports to shareholders, directors will be required to give information about what their companies are doing in safety and health matters. On 1 April 1975 the Companies Act 1967 was amended accordingly by Section 79 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. Regulations will be required to prescribe the classes of companies to be covered by the provisions and what information should be given. What is the implication of all this for hygienists? Firstly, their responsibilities will in many cases be expanded so as to cover offices, laboratories and other activities where people are at work but which previously fell outside the narrower definition of the Factories Act. While in the past they may have had some general oversight in respect of such persons, they may now well have a delegated duty in respect of their employer's responsibilities.
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Karolinska Institutet on May 25, 2015
(i) Every employer is required to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that (a) his employees and people not in his employment, including the general public, are not exposed to risks to their health or safety and (b) that the working environment is safe and without risk to health.
The implications of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
341
DISCUSSION Dr D. E. HICJUSH (Ford Motor Co.): Hygienists in general welcome the objectives of the Act, and their concern may be more related to the method of its operation. I have three specific queries: 1. The Act has already resulted in an increase of employee representations to the Inspectorate regarding conditions at work. In dealing with these representations, what account do Inspectors take of the presence of professional hygienists in the factory, and would some form of registration of hygienists facilitate recognition by the Inspectors of their presence and role? 2. The Act refers to the informing of employees with regard to hazards etc. Does this mean that the detailed results of hygiene investigations will in future have to be disclosed to employees? 3. Do you envisage that routine, rather than occasional, sampling will be a feature of future requirements under the Act? If so, this will obviously affect the planning of staff and equipment to enable the Act to be complied with. Mr LUXON: It is to be hoped that as Safety Committees begin to play their full part in health, safety and welfare matters, many such queries will be dealt with in the course of their normal work. I am confident that inspectors will, inter alia, consult professional hygienists when making investigations of industrial hygiene problems. The answer to the second part of your question is, I believe, yes—in the sense that a hygiene investigation may indicate a possible hazard. There is already a requirement for routine monitoring at chrome plating baths and I see no reason why possible future action of this kind should not be taken. Dr J. G. JONES (British Steel Corporation): Mr Luxon has shown that the Act will encourage greater use of occupational hygienists and Dr Roach has described the details of their duties as he sees them in the future. Professor Atherley, however, has underlined the lack of enthusiasm for the employment of hygienists throughout industry in general. Can Mr Luxon tell how he thinks this lack of enthusiasm will be overcome? Mr LUXON: The new Act will, I believe, create a more favourable climate for acceptance of the need for quantification of hazards of all kinds. This must inevitably lead to the employment of Hygienists where health hazards are present on a substantial scale. It may be that part of this need, particularly in the case of small premises, can be filled by chemists or medical officers who have by their own training and experience the necessary expertise.
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Karolinska Institutet on May 25, 2015
The general obligations in regard to the health of persons at work coupled with the new requirements on the tests and examination of plant, must increasingly involve hygienists in the detailed consideration of the design of such plants both before and after they are installed. Monitoring as we understand this word must play an increasing part in all this. The hazards of substances must now be considered before they are used and there will need to be close liaison with suppliers who have responsibilities for providing information on the research and investigation of such hazards. Interpretation of such information must increasingly be part of the professional responsibilities of the hygienist requiring as it will value judgements as to how the substance can be properly used. The statement of company policy in respect of health and safety will require a careful study of industrial hygiene needs and practices and the hygienist will have a direct responsibility for advising management on this. Hygienists will also have an important part to play in advising safety committees on the adequacy of control measures and the justification of the standards by quantification of risk. Perhaps the most important task—one which underlies the whole Act—is to secure the co-operation of all concerned. In this the Hygienist will have increasingly the role of researcher, trouble shooter, mediator and concilliator on health matters. Acceptance of this role will not only help to achieve the object of the Act but will also enhance the status of Occupational Hygiene in the eyes of both workers and management.
342
S. G. LUXON
Prof. ATHERLEY: I read the Royal Institute of Chemistry's Code of Professional Conduct. It seems to say that chemists are the people who should be taking on the specialist function in health and safety at work. There is certainly no mention of chemists* needing advice from occupational hygienists. And chemists are often part of management. This seems to me to indicate that management's enthusiasm for occupational hygienists and health and safety advisers will not increase spontaneously—without some further stimulation. Dr MAGOS (MRC Toxicology Unit, Carshalton) : Is there any comprehensive plan to satisfy the basic requirements for the operation of the Act: increase in manpower and facilities? Mr LUXON: The Health and Safety Commission and Executive have recently been set up specifically to operate the new Act. It has been indicated in Parliament that the number of inspectors will be increased to enable them to meet their new commitments subject to overall manpower considerations.
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Karolinska Institutet on May 25, 2015
