The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA), is the primary legislation covering occupational health and safety in the United Kingdom. The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for enforcing the Act.
The aim of the HSWA is to ensure practical compliance and help organisations understand and implement an ‘organisational intent’ to support health and safety. In particular the requirement for a health and safety policy enables the safety management structure to be publicised so all employees know how health and safety is dealt with.
For practical purposes, responsibility for the health and safety implications of work activity and employee welfare rests with the employer. The law also imposes duties on contractors, designers, suppliers, importers and manufacturers of articles and substances used at work, and employees. The self-employed have parallel sets of duties and usually interact with employers in the role of contractors.
The Health and Safety at Work Act is a pivotal piece of legislation, and try as politicians have to pull it apart, it has truly stood the test of time. Countless lives have been saved and many more workers have been protected from injury and illness because of it. As we look beyond its 40th birthday, we see an oft-imitated system that is the envy of the world.
But this success story, one of triumph of morality over hard-nosed profiteering, cannot be told without mention of previous generations and the many millions of people whose experiences brought it about.
It begins in 1800. Imagine that you are six years old and working in a cotton mill. There is an outbreak of malignant fever, which leaves many around you dead or dying. Physician Thomas Percival studies this and sends his recommendations to parliament.
The Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802, sometimes known as the Factory Act 1802, places orders upon cotton mill owners with regard to the treatment of apprentices (mostly children) and sets requirements for mill cleanliness.
Although the act was ineffective in its implementation, it did pave the way for future factory acts, which would regulate the industry. The factory acts were a series of acts passed by parliament to limit the number of hours worked by women and children, first in the textile industry, then later in all industries. This sets the backdrop to the eventual Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
Then, in the 1880s, we see the emergence of the production line. Imagine you are now a factory worker regarded by your well-heeled employer as little more than a component in a machine. It is consequently a monotonous and inhumane daily existence, which begins and ends just beyond the factory wall in a back-to-back terrace house without a garden, built cheaply and unsafely. The co-location of tasks in the process of production has arrived.
Next move forward three decades and across the Atlantic, from the Lancashire cotton mills to Henry Ford’s Detroit automobile plant. It is December 1913, and the eve of the first truly mechanised war. Your job at your work station is essentially one or two tasks on Ford’s rudimentary assembly line. Work is centred on repetition, fragmented experience and forensically monitored output. We begin to see an increasingly sophisticated division of labour. Perfection of this sequence resulted in the famous Model T Ford car.
Ford’s model of mass production was given its own name: Fordism. But the drive for increased production speeds resulted in a wide range of stress-related symptoms that became so familiar they also earned themselves a name: ‘Forditis’.
In the 1936 dark comedy Modern Times, Charlie Chaplin is the personification of the cog in a machine, a factory worker employed on an accelerating assembly line, where he screws nuts at an ever-increasing rate onto pieces of machinery. He finally suffers a nervous breakdown and runs amok, throwing the factory into chaos. He is sent to a hospital.
Worldwide the continued search for increased production line efficiency, coupled with the war time eras, resulted in a shell-shocked workforce. Remember time-and-motion studies? They have been in and out of fashion for many years. The aim was to find out who was working hard and who was not. But importantly they eventually raised the question of why? Did some work better when given a single small task to repeat over and over, or was frequent change of task key to reducing errors? Could it be that workers responded differently and acted as individuals?
Moving on through the post-second world war years and the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s, we arrive at 1974 and the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Act. You are now a female worker liberated by the drive for equality and emboldened by trade union membership. Autonomy has raised its head. People now want more control over the work they do.
Enlightenment, how can we make work better? We are not just talking about efficiency related to profit. Let’s change this assembly line to process thought, human need and emotion. Why would anyone adopt a job role which might do them harm? Of course, we can each think of many reasons why. So who was responsible for the health and safety of workers, and why?
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
The truth of it is that the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 was an enactment that consolidated a lot of existing and rather piecemeal legislation. It was no coincidence that it was enacted during a year when there had been a particularly large number of deaths from work-related accidents.
In 1970, an Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill had been introduced in the UK, and that same year the Occupational Safety and Health Act passed into US federal law.
This move by the US prompted Harold Wilson’s Labour government, in its last throes in 1970, to establish a committee of inquiry, chaired by Lord Robens. With an eye on the latest American initiative, the committee would consider this country’s legislation. It was a substantial task.
Edward Heath’s new Conservative government gave a proposed debate on the adopted US bill no parliamentary time, preferring to wait for the Robens Report.
Duly published in 1972, the report concluded, to put it simply, that there was too much law. Lord Robens noted: “One of the reasons why there is too much law is that every time a new technical situation arises an external agency imposes a new set of detailed rules. But one of the fundamental points in this document (the report) is that the primary responsibility for prevention lies with those who create the risk i.e. the management and the men.”
The report was instrumental. Following Labour’s return to power two years later, the recommendations were substantially enacted with the passage of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
Looking back in 2008, Lord Grocott gave this glowing review of this pivotal legislation: “The record of the 1974 act speaks for itself. Between 1974 and 2007, the number of fatal injuries to employees fell by 73 per cent; the number of reported non-fatal injuries fell by 70 per cent.
“Between 1974 and 2007, the rate of injuries per 100,000 employees fell by a huge 76 per cent, and Britain had the lowest rate of fatal injuries in the European Union in 2003, which is the most recent year for which figures are available. The EU average was 2.5 fatalities per 100,000 workers; the figure in the UK was 1.1.”
Of course, the shrewd among you might also accredit the change of our infrastructure landscape as a contributing factor.
The act’s success is beyond doubt; the figures speak for themselves. But moving on to the present day, surely serious health and safety issues are no longer an issue? Unfortunately, that is not the case.
Today, imagine you are a call centre worker with a failing voice and serious back problems. The workstations and repetitive tasks may have changed – but Fordism is still alive and well. We have a service industry now overtaking the manufacturing production line of the early 20th century. Time-and-motion studies and target-driven performance indicators are still stifling employee health, safety and wellbeing.
There is much work to be done, but behind this historic tale of ground-breaking legislation and vastly improved statistics, there is also a personal story about you and me. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 paved the way for a life in which we in this country can now hope and aspire. For example, my son wants to work for NASA, and why not?
Without such advancements in health and safety, we would not have the safe working environments that have paved the way for progress in technology, science and innovation. This system has protected and nurtured those innovators who have created a world of work with limitless opportunities.
Looking past law and regulation, putting aside employers’ duties and employees’ acts and omissions, the story is not only about saving lives but also of allowing kids to aspire to become an astronaut.
But there is a twist to this tale. If my son can aspire to fly to the moon, why do hundreds and thousands of parents continue to lose sons and daughters in factory fires and building collapses in the south Asian garment industry? And why are thousands in the UK still dying from occupational health exposures?
If we truly believe in creating a world of work that is safe, healthy and sustainable, there is still a great deal more to do.
We should be proud of this legislation. I am hard pressed to think of any other act that has been as effective as ours. We should not think twice about the ‘elf and safety press we get. Instead let’s focus our energies on what we have achieved, pool our knowledge and expertise on maintaining what we have, and help those who are not quite there yet. No one would argue with this message: everyone has the right to come home to their families healthy and safe at the end of the working day.
And everyone has the right to be an astronaut if they want to be.
Article shared from SHPonline.co.uk and written by Jane White, research and information services manager at IOSH.
If you are responsible for managing dust health hazards in the workplace, then the new “Dust Hub” from the HSE is for you.
The site provides information to help employers control exposure to dust in the workplace. You can also access further information on dust from this site.
Dust is tiny, dry particles in the air and can be produced when materials are cut, drilled, demolished, sanded, shovelled, etc. This means many work activities can create dust. Dust is not always an obvious health hazard as the particles which cause the most damage are often invisible to the naked eye and the health effects of exposure can take many years to develop.
Having read this book – Affective Safety Management by Dr. Tim Marsh, I thoroughly recommend it to any NEBOSH student as part of their studies around behavioural health and safety techniques.
I remember attending one of his workshops at the IOSH Conference in Manchester a couple of years ago and was captivated by his knowledge, passion and sense of humour. His writing certainly reflects his presentation style and it makes for a very informative and entertaining read.
Many of the models referenced in the NEBOSH text books are also discussed at length.
You can buy the book via Amazon by clicking here. (Amazon description follows…)
“Now in its third print run the Affective Safety Management (ASM) handbook has sold thousands of copies and is currently being used at various levels including as a key training material for large organisations.
The ASM handbook covers both the theory of Affective Safety Management as well as the application of Affective Safety Management. The handbook has been written by Dr Tim Marsh who is a leading authority on the topic of behavioural safety and has worked with over 150 major organisations around the world.”
The Fire Triangle
The Fire Triangle is a simple way of understanding the factors of fire. Each side of the triangle represents one of the three ingredients needed to have a fire – oxygen, heat, and fuel – demonstrating the interdependence of these ingredients in creating and sustaining fire. When there is not enough heat generated to sustain the process, when the fuel is exhausted, removed, or isolated, or when oxygen supply is limited, then a side of the triangle is broken and the fire will die.
A heat source is responsible for the initial ignition of fire, and heat is also needed to maintain the fire and permit it to spread. Heat allows fire to spread by removing the moisture from nearby fuel, warming surrounding air, and preheating the fuel in its path, enabling it to travel with greater ease.
Fuel is any kind of combustible material, and is characterized by its moisture content (how wet the fuel is), size and shape, quantity, and the arrangement in which it is spread over the landscape. The moisture content determines how easily that fuel will burn.
Air contains about 21% oxygen, and most fires require at least 16% oxygen content to burn. Oxygen supports the chemical processes that occur during a wildland fire. When fuel burns, it reacts with oxygen from the surrounding air releasing heat and generating combustion products (i.e. gases, smoke,embers). This process is known as oxidation.
This timeline of health and safety legislation and events is shared from the HSE site.
HM Factory Inspectorate was formed
Mines Inspectorate was formed
The first women factory inspector were appointed
“I doubt very much whether the office of factory inspector is one suitable for women… The general and multifarious duties of an inspector of factories would really be incompatible with the gentle and home-loving character of a woman…”After several years of campaigning by the Women’s Protective and Provident League, the London Women’s Trades Council and others and amid growing support in Parliament, the first “Lady Inspectors”, May Abraham and Mary Paterson were appointed in 1893. They were based in London and Glasgow respectively and earned an annual salary of £200. Much of their early work involved enforcing the Truck Acts, investigating women’s hours of employment and enforcing health and safety in laundries.
The Quarry Inspectorate was formed
Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act 1956
Nuclear Installations Act 1959 which established the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
Flixborough chemical plant explosion (28 fatalities)
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
Health and Safety Commission established
Health and Safety Executive was formed
First HSC advisory committees established
First HSC annual report published
Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 (S.I. 1977/500)
Golborne Colliery disaster (10 fatalities)
Control of Lead at Work Regulations 1980 (S.I. 1980/1248)
Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980 (S.I. 1980/637)
Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981/917)
150th anniversary of HM Factory Inspectorate
HSE starts to enforce asbestos licensing industry
Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 (S.I. 1983/1649)
HSE starts to enforce genetic manipulation regulations
HSE starts to enforce domestic gas safety
Abbeystead pumping station (16 fatalities)
Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1984 (S.I. 1984/1902)
Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 (S.I. 1985/2023)
Putney domestic gas explosion (8 fatalities)
HSE starts to enforce transport of dangerous goods by road safety
Fire at Bradford City Football Stadium – Valley Parade
Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 (1985 No 1333)
HSE starts to enforce pesticide safety
Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987/2115 )
Kings Cross underground station fire (31 fatalities)
Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (S.I. 1988/1657 )
Clapham train crash (35 fatalities)
Piper Alpha oil installation fire and explosion (167 fatalities)
Noise at Work Regulations 1989 (S.I. 1989/1790 )
Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 (S.I. 1989/635)
HSE starts to enforce rail safety
HSE starts to carry out nuclear safety research
HSE starts to enforce offshore safety
‘Six pack’ regulations
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/3004 )
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/2793 )
The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/2792 )
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/2932 )
Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/2966 )
The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/2051 )
150th anniversary of the Mines Inspectorate
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 (S.I. 1994/3140)
Major Review of Regulation completed
100th anniversary of the Quarry Inspectorate
Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) becomes an agency of HSE
Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996/1592 )
Southall rail accident
Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/2451 )
40th anniversary of the Nuclear Installation Inspectorate
Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999/743 )
Ladbroke Grove train crash (31 fatalities)
Bill Callaghan appointed as Chair of the Health and Safety Commission
‘Revitalising health and safety strategy’ launched
‘Securing health together occupational health strategy for Great Britain’ launched
HSC’s ‘Strategy for workplace health and safety to 2010 and beyond’ launched
Morecambe Bay: death of cockle-pickers (21 fatalities)
HSE’s Infoline service received its 2 millionth call
HSC’s ‘Strategy for workplace health and safety to 2010 and beyond’ launched
Explosion at ICL Plastic factory, Maryhill, Glasgow
Transfer of responsibility for railway safety from HSE to the Office of the Rail Regulator
Workplace Health Connect launched
Redgrave Court new headquarters officially opened
Responsibility for the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority (AALA) passes to HSE.
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM 2007) (S.I. 2007/320 ) launched.
Bill Callaghan is knighted for his services to health and safety
Judith Hackitt appointed as new Chair of the Health and Safety Commission, following on from the retirement of Sir Bill Callaghan
HSE takes on responsibility for the security activities of the Office for Nuclear Security (OCNS) and UK Safeguards Office (UKSO)
The Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) European Union regulations come into force in the UK and across Europe
Responsibility for the Adventure Licensing Authority (AALA) passes to HSE.
HSC/HSE merges to form one organisation
Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008
Pesticides Safety Directorate transfers to HSE
Gas Safe Register – 10 year contract to Capita
Health and safety law poster replaced – after 10 years service!
HSE launches strategy for the health and safety of GB
Health and Safety Pledge Forum launched
HSE introduces new Safety Alerts
The Control of Artificial Optical Radiation at Work Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/1140)
Lord Young’s review of health and safety, ‘Common Sense – Common Safety’ is published
Occupational Safety Consultants Register (OSHCR)
The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) launched 1 April
HSL celebrates 100 years
Lőfstedt report published
The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/632 ) launched
Fee for Intervention (FFI) launched 1 October
The Health and Safety (Sharp Instruments in Healthcare) Regulations (S.I. 2013/645 )
Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Repeals, Revocations and Amendments) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/448 )
The Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Repeals, Revocations and Amendments) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/448 ) came into force on 6 April 2013. These Regulations are designed to revoke a series of redundant and / or out of date legislation, including one Act and twelve statutory instruments. HSE has introduced these Regulations as part of a process of ensuring that employers can quickly understand their duty to provide a safe and healthy working environment for employees.
On 6 April 2015, CDM 2007 was revoked and replaced by the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015).
The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM) are the main set of regulations for managing the health, safety and welfare of construction projects.
CDM 2015 is subject to certain transitional arrangements, for construction projects that began before 6 April 2015 and continue beyond that date. It applies to all building and construction work and includes new build, demolition, refurbishment, extensions, conversions, repair and maintenance.
Key changes of the new CDM Regulations 20151. All projects must have:
- workers with the right skills, knowledge, training and experience
- contractors providing appropriate supervision, instruction and information
- a written construction phase plan
- principal designer and principal contractor must be appointed
- a health and safety file
- last longer than 30 working days and
- have more than 20 workers working simultaneously at any point in the project
- OR exceeds 500 person days
- Client must notify project to HSE
Click the download link below for full PDF of NEBOSH GC, IGC, and Diploma exam tips and pointers.
These are not answers to questions, but bullet pointed notes which will point you in the right direction, and may prove useful as a study / revision aid.
As usual, NEBOSH has began to release the Diploma Unit D Results a week ahead of schedule.
How have you done? Better or worse than expected?
Hopefully better! For most students, the NEBOSH Diploma Unit D marks the end of a long road of studying. But what if your marks are not what you expected? Well, submitting an EAR (Enquiry About Result) is a fairly straight forward process. If you need 3-4 marks to get that all important pass, then go for it.
If you are faced with re-submitting, then have no fear. Dust yourself down and see our Guide to Unit D Report.
1. Plan for Success
Before you even pick up a pen, think carefully about the workplace or organisation you are choosing to base your research assignment on. It should be large enough to provide an opportunity for a review of the health and safety management system as well as providing a sufficiently wide range of hazards in the areas covered by Units B and C as these will be identified and prioritised in your report. If the organisation you have chosen is very large, why not make your study more manageable by looking at a limited department or division rather than the entire organisation?
Once you have pinpointed the organisation you wish to use, start by making sure you fully understand the brief and then come up with a plan of how you intend to approach your study, which you can then discuss with your NEBOSH tutor. While they will not be able to read and amend your review, they should be able to tell you whether or not your proposal has sufficient depth and breadth of content to meet the NEBOSH Diploma level, and let you know whether or not you are heading in the right direction!
2. Style and Substance
It goes without saying that you should be writing in a formal style as expected for a report to management. Having said that, the report should be as easy to read as possible, so resist the temptation of using unnecessary technical jargon when a clear and concise explanation will suffice – remember, it’s a human being and not a machine that will be marking your work!
It’s also worth bearing in mind that the purpose of the report is to demonstrate that you have a firm understanding of the subject matter, so think about how you choose to present information. Sometimes bullet points or a table will be enough to convey a point, sometimes not – the important thing is to organise your work into paragraphs so that chunks of text are avoided and to try and think outside the box in terms of presentation in order to keep your report stimulating and reader friendly.
3. Think Marks!
Even though Unit D is a written report rather than an exam, it is still good practice to approach the assignment as you would a test paper. This means you should be aware that marks are awarded both for the range of factors considered and the quality of treatment and so you need to ensure an appropriate balance between range and depth. It is important to remember that a large range of factors treated superficially will not be rewarded with high marks – think quality not quantity!
4. Executive Summary
For those a little confused about the Executive Summary, you can simply think of it as an overview of the important points of your work, with a summary of the main conclusions and recommendations of your review.
It should be targeted at a person who is not necessarily an expert in the field and very briefly state the implications of your review for the organisation; including any costs involved and inform the reader of the proposed cause of action and the benefits – all presented in a non-technical, reader-friendly style, suitable for a busy senior manager to read on the fly. If in doubt the golden rule is: Simple but persuasive!
The Executive Summary should be written after the rest of your report and then inserted at the beginning. It is also the only part of the report which is length limited and should be no longer than one side of A4 using single-spaced Arial font. 10% of the marks available for the Executive Summary will be deducted for text covering up to an additional one-quarter of a page, with a further 10% for each additional quarter of a page submitted as part of the executive summary, so always be sure to plan ahead and keep it succinct if you don’t want to drop unnecessary marks.
5. First Impressions
They say that first impressions count, and the introduction to your report is no different! Your introduction should clearly set out your aims and objectives, which will help orientate the reader as well as keeping you on track. A good introduction will also help when it comes to writing your conclusion, providing you with a clear benchmark of objectives to refer back to and evaluate your success.
Your introduction should also include a clear description of your methodology, including your methods of research, as well as providing a description of your chosen organisation or workplace in order to set the context for the report. This should include the size and nature of the organisation, the employment profile, the work patterns and production schedules employed, as well as any special situations that are likely to have an impact on health and safety. If you have chosen a very large company (see point 1) you should also state which department or division you will be looking at.
You are also required to outline legislation and case law relevant to the organisation and this can also be included in your introduction. However, remember you are being marked on your ability to put these in the context of the development of an effective health and safety management programme. An exhaustive list of statutes, regulations etc is not expected.
6. Know your Hazards
As part of the assignment, you are required to identify at least 15 significant hazards from across a range of categories and prioritise them. You can then justify the choice of each hazard by using a system to assign levels of importance to each of the hazards identified. Remember: A full risk assessment is not needed on each hazard.
Once you have identified these hazards (which should be across a range of categories relevant to the organisation), you then need to prioritise two as being high priority – one physical hazard and the other relating to health and welfare. As a rule you should consider physical hazards as those covered in Unit C and health and welfare hazards as those covered in Unit B.
7. Specify Risks
The risk assessments that are required for the unit must be completed on the chosen hazards you have previously identified. You then need to evaluate the effectiveness of the organisation in controlling the risks and offer proposals to further control the hazard and reduce the risks – be sure to make use of any existing data for hazards that have already been quantified, for example noise control.
Also, make sure to briefly describe the methodology you adopted for each risk assessment and be sure to reference any relevant publications, legislation, ACOPs and other technical documents you consulted. Remember – if you’re striving for high marks you need to avoid presenting a generic risk assessment model when a specific risk assessment is required due to the nature of the hazard!
8. Summing up
It almost goes without saying, but your conclusion should offer a concise summary of your findings in the main body of the report – this is not the time to introduce any new ideas!
A good conclusion should start by referring back to the aims and objectives you set out at the beginning of your report, evaluating how well they were achieved. The rest of the conclusion should follow on logically from the findings in the main body, being sure to cover every finding in the main report. A good tip is to print out a rough copy of the report and highlight all of your findings – that way you can be sure you don’t miss any.
9. Recommendations Vs Action Planning
Like your conclusion, recommendations should lead on logically from your report and not come as a complete surprise to the reader. Recommendations need to be justified, complete (i.e. cover all the main findings), practical and include a cost benefit analysis – in other words what the organisation will gain set against the costs involved.
Recommendations also need to be prioritised – for example you could look at which hazards represent the highest risk, or which will be the easiest, or most cost efficient to implement. However you choose to prioritise your recommendations, make sure you explain the system you have used.
Action planning on the other hand is the tool through which your recommendations will be implemented. It is not a list of recommendations. Your action plans should include actions that need to take place to reduce the risks associated with the hazard, outlining the person responsibility for implementing the action, cost and timescale. Remember – staff time costs money!
While there is no set format to present your action plans, a table is often the most successful format because it is easy to see that all of the requirements have been included.
Finally, try and make your targets SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time bound) and don’t forget to address every recommendation with an action plan – there’s no point in making a recommendation then not doing anything about it!
And last but not least…
Unit D is all about bringing together the knowledge and understanding you have gained during units A, B and C. As long as you plan ahead and manage your time effectively there’s no reason you shouldn’t achieve success in the NEBOSH Diploma.
Post shared from RospaWorkplaceSafety.com