Secs 2-8 of the HASAWA are exempt "(Statute barred") from being used in the tort of breach of statutory duty. My question is, WHY? Why was this done?

I think that the reason was - that the requirements on sec 2-8 were already a duty in Common Law ( Wilson and Clyde Coal Ltd V English ( 1938) ) so there would have been no additional benifits.

The objective of the general provisions is to enable enforcement and criminal prosecution for breach of law. It replaced its forerunners with some new concepts and adopted legal processes which (as already said) were supported in common law precedence. HSWA introduced a new type of responsibility (reversal of proof) and less emphasis on codified terms or written standards. Each case on its own merits etc. The general provisions have a real mix of absolute, practicable and Sfrp terms -you need to read it line by line to understand each nuance. I believe the law makers did not want to dilute the primary purpose of the Act and so limited its use (as was the case for MHSW regs.). To introduce it into the civil context might have diluted its strength in the criminal court, and would have introduced another layer of complexity to the civil courts. Time to dust off the Robens report again, but worthwhile remembering how we got here and where we came from before throwing it all away......

I was of the same undersanding as Norfolk Boy. s2-8 are already enschrined within common law so allowing civil tort for their breach would in effect produce a double edged sword and duplication of negligence already proved / disproved.

I was taught that this exemption was because of the 'vagueness' and 'objective-based' style of the Act, against the very specific requisites of statutory duties under regulations or (as still existed at the time) the Factories / OSRP Acts - both quite detailed and absolute. One could say that common sense prevailed in this decision.