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
Graham Bullough  
#1 Posted : 19 October 2016 11:17:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Graham Bullough

This coming Friday is the 50th anniversary of the disaster in which 116 children and 28 adults were killed when a vast amount of colliery.waste slurry suddenly flowed from a tip down a mountainside and engulfed the primary school and a number of houses at Aberfan in in South Wales.

Some of you may be interested in the TV documentary "Aberfan: The Fight for Justice" (broadcast on BBC1 late yesterday evening) which is available on BBC iPlayer at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07zk6fj/aberfan-the-fight-for-justice until around 17th Nov. Presented by Huw Edwards and lasting 1 hour, it includes some pertinent reconstructions of the Tribunal of Inquiry which started some weeks after the disaster and was prolonged by the National Coal Board (NCB) attempting to claim that the disaster was unpreventable and stemmed from unusual geological circumstances. This view was initially expressed to news reporters by NCB's then chairman, Lord Alfred Robens, when he finally visited Aberfan some 2 days after the disaster had occurred.

The documentary briefly mentions that some years after the disaster Robens chaired a committee to review arrangements for health and safety at work in the UK. This seemed to be something of a paradox considering Robens' behaviour and attitude after the disaster, including resistance to pleas for the NCB to remove the tips which remained above Aberfan. It's tempting to speculate if Robens (1910-1999) in his latter years ever pondered how the NCB plus himself and other senior NCB people would have fared if the disaster had occurred AFTER the enactment of the Health and Safety at Work, Etc., Act 1974 !

Graham B

p.s. I fear that this posting may be difficult to read. When I copied its content to the forum after drafting it elsewhere, the forum system greatly altered it and then my initial attempts to edit it resulted in sentences becoming disjointed.

thanks 3 users thanked Graham Bullough for this useful post.
gerrysharpe on 19/10/2016(UTC), jodieclark1510 on 19/10/2016(UTC), jwk on 20/10/2016(UTC)
gerrysharpe  
#2 Posted : 19 October 2016 11:25:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
gerrysharpe

Very sad thing to of happened The National Coal Board did not admit Liability, No one was sacked or found guilty.

Dispite massive piles of Spoil all around the Village.

Shortly afterwards the Village recieved a lot of Money by donations from all over the World, and they campaigned to get the rest of the Piles removed by the National Coal Board.

The Cheeky Gits even asked the village to contribute to the clear up from their Donations!!

Malc 61  
#3 Posted : 19 October 2016 11:41:24(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Malc 61

There is a great article written by Tim Marsh in the SHP online website about the Aberfan disaster and Lord Robens, very worthwhile reading http://www.shponline.co.uk/flawed-hero-aberfan-hswa/?cid=searchresult

thanks 2 users thanked Malc 61 for this useful post.
jodieclark1510 on 19/10/2016(UTC), peter gotch on 19/10/2016(UTC)
pete48  
#4 Posted : 19 October 2016 22:35:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

This has been discussed here several times before. There is an excellent academic page on the disaster which gives a useful overview of the tragedy and subsequent Tribunal here https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/politics/aberfan/home2.htm

There is also the parliamentary debate of 26th Oct 1967 which provides much interesting background to matters such as why the government refused to accept Robens resignation as well recognition that tip safety was not, prior to the disaster, a matter of concern. Underground works were the focus of OSH in mining

It is too easy to focus on Robens as the key player in this disaster and thus miss the reality. Apart from anything else, the NCB was not like a Board of directors with a Chairman and/or CEO. There was clearly a classic set up of a poorly governed and organised undertaking. The National Coal Board was a huge undertaking ‘managed’ through central command and control. Nearly 60, 000 were employed in Wales alone. It was doomed to fail at some point and it did catastrophically at Aberfan on that fateful morning.

We have to try to understand that the significance of tip safety was simply not perceived to be a major safety issue. All the engineering and control was directed at the underground activity. There was no legislation at all re tip safety.

If you check Hansard http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1967/oct/26/aberfan-disaster

you can read that the Minister of Power in the 1967 debate admitted that “One of the aspects most disturbing about this incident is the sheer lack of technical expertise which was available. I freely confess that, on the day after the disaster, when I talked to the Mines Inspectorate in my Ministry, I rapidly discovered that which I did not know before—and the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) will be aware of this—that this was not the usual mining expertise that was needed. In fact, we had to look for an expert in soil mechanics.” A clear recognition that the whole matter of civil engineering above ground had never been adequately addressed by anyone in the industry.

I mention these points not in defence of Robens or the NCB because they undoubtedly got things badly wrong after the tragedy, but to illustrate the cultural and political environment of the time.

The fact that the Tribunal, despite naming nine individual NCB employees and officials for particular criticism, went on to conclude that “The Aberfan Disaster is a terrifying tale of bungling ineptitude by many men charged with tasks for which they were totally unfitted, of failure to heed clear warnings, and of total lack of direction from above. Not villains but decent men, led astray by foolishness or by ignorance or by both in combination, are responsible for what happened at Aberfan.”.

 

The Sec of State for Wales during the October 1967 debate said “In a moving passage in paragraph 207, the Tribunal expressed its belief that Whether or not named or adversely referred to in this Report, there must be many today with hearts made heavy and haunted by the thought that if only they had done this, that or the other the disaster might have been averted. Of these, some will blame themselves needlessly; others, while blameworthy in some degree, will condemn themselves with excessive harshness; yet others must carry the heavy burden of knowing that their neglect played an unmistakeable part in bringing about the tragedy. There, in my view, the matter ought now to be allowed to rest.”

 

RayRapp  
#5 Posted : 20 October 2016 07:14:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

I think the Aberfan disaster is indicative of where health and safety was at this point in time. It has moved on a lot and possibly due in part to Aberfan. Lord Robens was in charge of the committee which set up the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, which was a huge milestone in creating safer practices. No doubt Aberfan was significant factor in his thinking.

Of course, there have been many disaters since Aberfan and arguably all of these have also contributed in improving safety management systems and processes.
David Thomas  
#6 Posted : 20 October 2016 09:29:54(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
David Thomas

Interesting article, as someone who is also a member of IOM3 and a MIning Engineering graduate I have always wondered why the OSH world gave Robens such reverence.

Possibly a poacher come gamekeeper, or someone who was fulfilling his role as a senior civil servant loyal to the great protector of the working class, Labour pm Harold Wilson.

Revisionist history is often dangerous and to blaming mining engineers is something a tad convenient and know that tip stability was something where I know Dr Ian Farmer at The University of Newcastle upon Tyne was very much involved during the 1970s and 1980s increasing knowledge and publishing seminal texts - I suggest the knowledge wasnt there at the time

What has been ignored is that the MInes and Quarries Tips Act of 1969 -http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1969/10 , was a legacy directly due to Aberfan so there was another legacy.

I go on to suggest that specialists who carry out measureemt and monitoring such as slope stability are the consultants that Judith Hackett eleuded too in her comments around 'consultants', sol mechanics is a worthy chartered profession and when we consider Health and safety it is these specialists many 'generalists' rely on. As an engineer know exactly what she means.

A Kurdziel  
#7 Posted : 20 October 2016 09:52:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel


As several people have eluded at the time of the disaster nobody
had a duty of care in law for ensuring that something like this could not happen.
There was a general vague duty in the common law of negligence but his would come
into play after the disaster. Nobody could have forced the NCB to do a risk assessment
and forced them to look at controlling the risks. The much maligned Section 3 of
Health and Safety at Work Act placing a duty of care on employers for anybody
that might be affected by a work undertaking was another piece of legislation that
comes directly from the disaster. Lord Robens was keen on such a duty being incorporated into the Act and said so in his report.


Graham  
#8 Posted : 20 October 2016 10:05:49(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Graham

I've always been concerned that Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) didn't apply, or wasn't used as precedent in this case as it was on the statute book at the time, and is now used as a major piece of case law underpinning the Health and Safety at Work Act.

It's is used now, but why couldn't it have been used then?

Surely it can’t be because the HSWA wasn’t on the statute book, this is precedent surely?

The law is very confusing and does not seem to be altogether consistent, but I guess lawyers have to make a living.  It worries and annoys me though

jay  
#9 Posted : 20 October 2016 10:09:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay

I saw the documentary. There is a very insightful blog by Professor Richard Booth at:-

http://www.hastam.co.uk/aberfan-disaster-21-october-1966-lessons-today-perhaps-yet-heeded/

thanks 1 user thanked jay for this useful post.
aud on 22/10/2016(UTC)
RayRapp  
#10 Posted : 20 October 2016 10:58:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Originally Posted by: Graham Go to Quoted Post

I've always been concerned that Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) didn't apply, or wasn't used as precedent in this case as it was on the statute book at the time, and is now used as a major piece of case law underpinning the Health and Safety at Work Act.

It's is used now, but why couldn't it have been used then?

Surely it can’t be because the HSWA wasn’t on the statute book, this is precedent surely?

The law is very confusing and does not seem to be altogether consistent, but I guess lawyers have to make a living.  It worries and annoys me though



Graham

I think you have got your civil law confused with criminal law. Donoghue v Stevenson is a civil law precedent and therefore does not apply to HASWA or any other criminal law.
A Kurdziel  
#11 Posted : 20 October 2016 14:18:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Yes the families could have sued the NCB for Negligence but it would have been a big and expensive case and taking into account the deferential culture that existed then I suspect that it just was not considered as an appropriate response. The people affected were offered paltry amounts of money as ex gracis payment (with the NCB refusing to acknowledge any liability) and a fund was set up to provide more support. Unbelievably the NCB took money from this fund to pay for remedial work on the slag heaps. Very different times.   

pete48  
#12 Posted : 20 October 2016 14:42:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

Not quite correct to say the NCB took the money. It was the Labour government of Harold Wilson who made that decision; not the NCB or Robens. Maybe why the government of Tony Blair felt so obliged to repay it years later, albeit without any interest accrued. Fine Socialist principles eh?

Just another little truth that sticks the blame where it wasn't warranted. 

Robens was undoubtably the right man to lead the work for the pre 1974 Act. There can be little doubt that his earlier life experience in the Trade Unions and the life changing events of Aberfan led him to the recognition of what was needed for more effective OSH regulation.The fact that its main precepts still hold every bit as relevant today is testament to that. 

Clark34486  
#13 Posted : 20 October 2016 15:17:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clark34486

It's a pity (not relevant at this time) that H&S and the repective 'acts' should be used in such situations, the issue is that the subsequent fines and punishments (sentences) are nothing like appropriate to the outcome of the negligence that caused or majorly attributed to such heinous events, particualarly situations where persons 'not at work' are the victims. Such incidents such be subject to criminal law of a different kind where penal punishments are greater

Aberfan

H O F Enterprise

Bhopal

etc..........

A Kurdziel  
#14 Posted : 20 October 2016 15:47:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Originally Posted by: Clark34486 Go to Quoted Post

It's a pity (not relevant at this time) that H&S and the respective 'acts' should be used in such situations, the issue is that the subsequent fines and punishments (sentences) are nothing like appropriate to the outcome of the negligence that caused or majorly attributed to such heinous events, particularly situations where persons 'not at work' are the victims. Such incidents such be subject to criminal law of a different kind where penal punishments are greater

Aberfan

H O F Enterprise

Bhopal

Etc

 

I am not convinced by the argument that we need to up the punishment all of the time. Currently under Health and Safety law and corporate manslaughter law and individual manslaughter under the common law such incidents (in the UK at least) would attract significant punishments.

When these things happen it is combination of ignorance both of the law and the likelihood and consequences of these actions.  Nobody knew that this was going to happen and they all hoped for the best, a fairly typical human reaction. No amount of fine or other punishment can undo the appalling suffering that people have suffered as a result of these incidents. What we need is a change in the culture where companies take responsibility, for their actions and work to prevent these incidents. We all share responsibility: we expect cheap goods in the shops often made in dangerous sweatshops and we expect the investments made on our behalf  by pension funds and the like to return a good profit. Until we all agree that the safety of our fellow human beings is more important than cheap underwear or energy and invest time and effort in educating people in things like risk management planning, corporate responsibility and a positive work culture these sort of things will continue to happen.

Clark34486  
#15 Posted : 20 October 2016 15:50:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clark34486

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: Clark34486 Go to Quoted Post

It's a pity (not relevant at this time) that H&S and the respective 'acts' should be used in such situations, the issue is that the subsequent fines and punishments (sentences) are nothing like appropriate to the outcome of the negligence that caused or majorly attributed to such heinous events, particularly situations where persons 'not at work' are the victims. Such incidents such be subject to criminal law of a different kind where penal punishments are greater

Aberfan

H O F Enterprise

Bhopal

Etc

 

I am not convinced by the argument that we need to up the punishment all of the time. Currently under Health and Safety law and corporate manslaughter law and individual manslaughter under the common law such incidents (in the UK at least) would attract significant punishments.

When these things happen it is combination of ignorance both of the law and the likelihood and consequences of these actions.  Nobody knew that this was going to happen and they all hoped for the best, a fairly typical human reaction. No amount of fine or other punishment can undo the appalling suffering that people have suffered as a result of these incidents. What we need is a change in the culture where companies take responsibility, for their actions and work to prevent these incidents. We all share responsibility: we expect cheap goods in the shops often made in dangerous sweatshops and we expect the investments made on our behalf  by pension funds and the like to return a good profit. Until we all agree that the safety of our fellow human beings is more important than cheap underwear or energy and invest time and effort in educating people in things like risk management planning, corporate responsibility and a positive work culture these sort of things will continue to happen.


Have to disagree, such is the nature of opinion and debate
A Kurdziel  
#16 Posted : 20 October 2016 15:57:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: Clark34486 Go to Quoted Post

It's a pity (not relevant at this time) that H&S and the respective 'acts' should be used in such situations, the issue is that the subsequent fines and punishments (sentences) are nothing like appropriate to the outcome of the negligence that caused or majorly attributed to such heinous events, particularly situations where persons 'not at work' are the victims. Such incidents such be subject to criminal law of a different kind where penal punishments are greater

Aberfan

H O F Enterprise

Bhopal

Etc

 

I am not convinced by the argument that we need to up the punishment all of the time. Currently under Health and Safety law and corporate manslaughter law and individual manslaughter under the common law such incidents (in the UK at least) would attract significant punishments.

When these things happen it is combination of ignorance both of the law and the likelihood and consequences of these actions.  Nobody knew that this was going to happen and they all hoped for the best, a fairly typical human reaction. No amount of fine or other punishment can undo the appalling suffering that people have suffered as a result of these incidents. What we need is a change in the culture where companies take responsibility, for their actions and work to prevent these incidents. We all share responsibility: we expect cheap goods in the shops often made in dangerous sweatshops and we expect the investments made on our behalf  by pension funds and the like to return a good profit. Until we all agree that the safety of our fellow human beings is more important than cheap underwear or energy and invest time and effort in educating people in things like risk management planning, corporate responsibility and a positive work culture these sort of things will continue to happen.

So what would be the apropriate level of punishment?

bob youel  
#17 Posted : 21 October 2016 07:09:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel

Thanks G for the post

Things did change for the better for a long time but I am afraid that things have now changed back and are getting worse again as the weeks go by with no light at the end of the tunnel for the foressable future

walker  
#18 Posted : 21 October 2016 10:49:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

Unfortunately the big beasts have always got away with screwing the little man even when "natural justice says they ought to be in prison.

And so it goes on today:

Thatcher using the police to conquer the upstart miners

Bliar using wars to maintain his place as PM

The bankers who have walked away laughing after gambling away our money

companies stealing pension funds (as I know to my cost!)

Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.