Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 08 December 2004 23:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By ernie luney
What is the connection between Aberfan and the health and safety at work act 1974 other than lord robens being appointed as chair man. Was the feeling so bad at the time people demanded change in the system or did any of this result from the inquiry that was held after the tragedy.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 09 December 2004 10:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Martin Cope
Ernie,
In response to your question the answer is YES.

Lord Robens whom the relevant Minister (Barbara Castle) chose in 1969 to chair the committee that reviewed the extant law on health and safety at work. The Robens Committee led to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which has regulated that subject in the UK ever since.

Hope this helps

Martin
Admin  
#3 Posted : 09 December 2004 13:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Joe
I always have found it somewhat bizzare though that Lord Robens was also in a high level position within the Coal Board at the time of the disaster.

Yet he was given the task of investigating the broad scope of health and safety management!

Ironical or Cynical??
Admin  
#4 Posted : 09 December 2004 14:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ian Dimbleby
One of the main outcomes from this, was the Tip’s regulation - drainage and inspection of...(mining specific) made under the existing Mines and Quarries Act 1954
Admin  
#5 Posted : 09 December 2004 14:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis
I think even I am not that cynical. The government of the day actually understood that the mining industry was recognised as high risk; and rationalised that a top person from within such an organisation might have fresh ideas to bring to industry at large. We can thank the Case law developed around the master/servant relationship in coal mining for most, if not all, of section 2.

As for Aberfan this was dealt with under the Mines and Quarries Act changes with the need for tip inspections tightened even on closed tips. Other responsibilities were also more clearly defined in the changes.

We sometimes do well to rember history but there are deconstructionists about who deny that the past has any impact on today. I cannot go that far because I think it can teach us that mistakes and ommissions will always be repeated in some way, eg the lesson of unplanted slopes giving rise to mudslides in the presence of significant amounts of water - Aberfan v the Philipines today - Same root cause?

Bob
Admin  
#6 Posted : 09 December 2004 15:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Martin Gray
Ernie

An interesting book to read which might shed some light on your question is Learning From Accidents by Trevor Kletz, chapter 13 looks into the Aberfan disaster, it also looks a similar occurences.

A simple diagram shows 3 levels of responsibility Immediate Technical Recommendations, Avoiding the Hazard and Improving the Management System.

Martin
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.