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
peter gotch  
#1 Posted : 19 June 2024 15:50:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

                 Sorry about how this looks on screen but the app messed up my formatting!

An offshoot from a "drunk driving"  thread as it has veered off course.

This is one for the legal eagles, and perhaps those working towards their OSH qualifications and arguably might have been better posted on the Study Support Forum, though given that appears to now be restricted to IOSH Members, it seems more sensible to make it more widely available.

Section 14(1) of the Factories Act 1961 said:

Every dangerous part of machinery shall be securely fenced....

....though with some exceptions written into the Act + a few more in the Operations and Unfenced Machinery Regulations (whose date does not immediately come to mind).

However, Section 14 was one of the parts of the Factories Act 1961 (and other H&S legislation) that set "strict liability" duties sometimes errroneously called "absolute duties".

That they were not "absolute" is illustrated by the volume of case law on various aspects of Section 14.

Then we got the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and an extension of duties qualified by the words "so far as reasonably practicable" - not entirely new as some duties in the 1961 Act had such a qualification.

However HSWA did have a safety valve in the form of Section 1(2):

(2) The provisions of this Part relating to the making of health and safety regulations as.......... to be progressively replaced by a system of regulations and approved codes of practice operating in combination with the other provisionsof this Part and designed to maintain or improve the standards of health, safety and welfare established by or under those enactments.

So, saying NO to dilution of requirements, right?

But then PUWER comes along and Section 14 of FA 1961 was, in effect, replaced by Regulation 11:

Regulation 11 Dangerous parts of machinery (1) Every employer shall ensure that measures are taken in accordance with paragraph (2) which are effective—      

     (a) to prevent access to any dangerous part of machinery or to any rotating             stock-bar; or       (b) to stop the movement of any dangerous part of machinery or rotating             stock-bar before any part of a person enters a danger zone.

(2) The measures required by paragraph (1) shall consist of—

      (a) the provision of fixed guards enclosing every dangerous part or rotating            stock-bar where and to the extent that it is practicable to do so, but            where or to the extent that it is not, then       (b) the provision of other guards or protection devices where and to the             extent that it is practicable to do so, but where or to the extent that it is             not, then       (c) the provision of jigs, holders, push-sticks or similar protection appliances            used in conjunction with the machinery where and to the extent that it is            practicable to do so,

and the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary.

So, NOT a "strict liability" duty though subject to a more stringent qualification than "reasonably practicable" as the "reasonably" is not included.

How is it that this dilution of legal requirements doesn't seem to have been challenged e.g. on the basis that the Minister making the Regulations was "ultra vires", i.e. going beyond their powers by making regulations which appear to fail the constraints set in Section 1(2) of HSWA?

Edited by user 19 June 2024 15:54:24(UTC)  | Reason: Formatting and some extra text at the top

CraigKing1  
#2 Posted : 14 August 2024 08:40:09(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
CraigKing1

Hi Peter,

It would seem that the two Acts of Parliament appear to contradict each other. As there is a constitutional principle that Parliament cannot be bound by its successors, the HSWA would be widely accepted as the correct law to follow, and therefore the principle of 'so far as is reasonably practicable' would be accepted as correct law. It was most likely deemed that securing every dangerous part of machinery was too restrictive for employers, and therefore the subjective test of the HSWA was implemented allowing employers to determine what is reasonably practicable.

With little knowledge of the Factories Act, it may be that administratively certain sections should be revoked.

I think if  this was to be challenged through judicial review, the judiciary's statutory interpretation would deem that the minister has not created the regulation 'ultra vires' as the current and active powers of ministers had been created through the HSWA and not the Factories Act.

Interesting question, and love where H&S meets the United Kingdom's constutional principles so I'm happy to discuss further.

Cheers,

Craig

CraigKing1  
#3 Posted : 14 August 2024 08:44:09(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
CraigKing1

Also, had I done my due diligence before sending by reading the legislation, I would have noted that many sections of the Factories Act had been revoked many years ago.

However, in principle it does not change my response.

peter gotch  
#4 Posted : 14 August 2024 12:33:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hi Craig

Nearly two months before anyone took up my challenge and your first contributions here, so welcome to the Forums!!

I don't think there is any conflict between the two Acts, and the Factories Act 1961 [what little is left of it] is a "relevant statutory provision" within the meaning of HSWA.

The key bit of Section 1(2) of HSWA are the last few words....

designed to maintain or improve the standards of health, safety and welfare established by or under those enactments

.....and, in particular the words "standards" and "established".

So, FA 1961 set a legislative goal - a strict liability duty to "securely fence".

However, that didn't establish the goal by achieving the standards legally required.

Instead, HSE didn't even attempt to enforce the legislative requirement when it came to many types of machine, but rather enforced a mix of what was "practicable" and "reasonably practicable".

As an HSE Inspector, there were literally 1000s of internal instructions to tell us what to enforcce INSTEAD of the law - I doubt many of us were fully conversant with each and every one of these instructions!

So, in practice what PUWER requires is NOT a dilution of standards, but a dilution of an unattainable legislative duty, with the Minister having applied a very similar,  pragmatic approach to that taken by their predecessors in making the Woodworking Machines Regulations 1922 (replaced in 1974) and the Abrasive Wheels Regulations 1969.

Etgo, no failure to follow Section 1(2) of HSWA and the Minister NOT ultra vires.

HSE made a not dissimilar argument to justify diluting accident reporting requirements in the change from RIDDOR 1995 to the current 2013 version.

The argument here was that underreporting of reportable accidents was so prevalent that HSE doesn't even use RIDDOR as its primary source of intelligence to estimate the number of reportable and/or recordable accidents (and other RIDDOR events).

Edited by user 14 August 2024 12:34:12(UTC)  | Reason: A missing G!

HSSnail  
#5 Posted : 14 August 2024 13:16:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
HSSnail

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post

As an HSE Inspector, there were literally 1000s of internal instructions to tell us what to enforcce INSTEAD of the law - I doubt many of us were fully conversant with each and every one of these instructions!

the argument here was that underreporting of reportable accidents was so prevalent that HSE doesn't even use RIDDOR as its primary source of intelligence to estimate the number of reportable and/or recordable accidents (and other RIDDOR events).

Flipping heck Peter which side of the bed did you get out of? Missed this when you first posted it. Dont think you would have used it as you left the enforcement game before i did, but now we have the EMM (enforcement management model) to tell inspectors how bad a breach of the law is and what the anticipated response should be.

Had not relised it was HSE that wanted to changed RIDDOR thort it was the government as accident numbers were not coming down fast enough.

peter gotch  
#6 Posted : 14 August 2024 13:49:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hi HSSnail, still trying to work out whether with your moniker you should be somebody along the lines of Donoghue, Stevenson or perhaps Lord Atkin!

When I worked for HSE we did have guidelines on enforcement, though they were much less restrictive than the current EMM.

As for RIDDOR, obviously the driver was Government looking to "reduce red tape" but it was up to HSE to dress up the proposed changes and present them as NOT being problematic in terms of potential judicial review. 

The Coalition Government had asked Professor Ragnar Lofstedt to review H&S legislation with a view to removing or improving "Regulations".

That word "Regulations" was subsequently interpreted (with zero comment to such effect) as meaning "Codes of Regulations" and by the end of the Coalition, HM Government claimed to have "removed or improved" 83% of occupational H&S "Regulations". 

Said process - remove or improve - "Regulations" included replacing RIDDOR - which WAS a clear bit of deregulation, however minor, and a change that probably added to so called "Blue Tape" including by confusing duty holders with a two tier process of reporting AND recording "over 7 day injiry accidents" but still having to record the "over 3 day injury accidents" which had previously been also reportable.

However, that was a very small contributor to that amazing claim of 83% "Regulations" removed or improved.

Biggest single contributor would have been the consolidation of mining H&S legilsation where about 50 Codes of Regulations were turned into ONE Code of Regulations. 

Hence 50 (Codes of) Regulations - ONE (Code of) Regulations = nearly 50 LESS (Codes of) Regulations!!!

Virtually no difference in what the law actually required in terms of mining H&S but ticked the politicos' boxes.

Amost surprising that they didn't go further and amend HSWA to consolidate PUWER, LOLER, COSHH, CAW, CLAW, ete etc etc into a single piece of occupational H&S legislation. Imagine how close to 100% that 83% would have become!!

thanks 2 users thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
HSSnail on 14/08/2024(UTC), Kate on 14/08/2024(UTC)
CraigKing1  
#7 Posted : 14 August 2024 14:53:23(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
CraigKing1

Peter,

My assumption would be that consolidating PUWER, LOWER etc. into one single piece of H&S legislation would be too much of a burden. It is not a simple process to introduce legislation, and there is likely other areas which the government have decided to concentrate their efforts on, and hence why they provided the power for ministers to create secondary legislation.

Secondary legislation i.e., PUWER, LOLER has the advantage that it can be quickly introduced, and amended easily however does not have the legislative powers contained within the HSWA. And for this reason we have judicial review, to ensure that secondary legislation is not ultra vires. However, as companies and directors are generally charged with breaching the HSWA and not secondary legislation, you will not find many (if any) cases being brought for judicial review.

Cheers,

Craig

thanks 1 user thanked CraigKing1 for this useful post.
HSSnail on 14/08/2024(UTC)
HSSnail  
#8 Posted : 14 August 2024 15:03:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
HSSnail

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post

Hi HSSnail, still trying to work out whether with your moniker you should be somebody along the lines of Donoghue, Stevenson or perhaps Lord Atkin!

Think more Magic Roundabout LOL. I also remember they wanted CODES and ACOPS restricted to 50 pages!

thanks 1 user thanked HSSnail for this useful post.
peter gotch on 14/08/2024(UTC)
peter gotch  
#9 Posted : 14 August 2024 17:04:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hi Craig

What goes around comes around.

So this from the new Conservativish Government in NZ.

New Zealand looks beyond road cones in safety reformation (shponline.co.uk)

I am tempted to point out to the Minister that what she is asking is almost exactly what the UK Coalition Govt asked Loftstedt to do, and considering that NZ H&S legislation is largely a cut and paste from that in the UK, the answer would probably be the same if put to someone independent - the legislation is generally "fit for purpose" and doesn't impose an unreasonable burden.

Loftstedt (and others) did conclude that much of the "Red Tape" is a myth and actually the "Blue Tape" that some choose to interpret the legislation as requiring. 

You do give a clue as to why the Coalition Government probably avoided any consideration of attempting to consolidate everything under the banner of HSWA.

Firstly, as you point out the result would be extremely cumbersome.

Then, as you note it is MUCH easier for the Minister to make Regulations than it would be to do a major amendment of HSWA as that would require the proposals to go through the entire Parliamentary process. 

What does surprise me a little is that we have yet to see any proposal to reduce some duplicated requirements, e.g. as an attempt to show some "benefit" from Brexit. 

As example, there is no real reason for having more than one legal requirement for an employer to do risk assessments and to back up Reg 3 of the Management Regs with guidance on what to do when there are e.g. noise, and/or manual handling, and/or hazardous substances risks rather than to have specific additional requirements for each class of some but not all types of risk might result in less unnecessary effort, sometimes distracting from an integrated approach to managing ALL the risks as a package.

The only real reason why this happened in the first place is that successive Governments from different political parties chose to "transpose" a series of EC Directives via a cut and paste approach in an effort to avoid "Gold Plating", with the result that we got some duplication which might well be seen as Gold Plating.

CraigKing1  
#10 Posted : 16 August 2024 11:00:02(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
CraigKing1

Your correct, there is no real reason for having more than one legal requirement for an employer to do risk assessments, however, it is also worth considering that the common law system can become extremely complex, and often you find disaprity within this system over time. There were cases like this with defamation where the common law principles had become too complex, and due to this the Defamation Act was introduced by Parliament.

It may have been the case that common law within these fields was seen to be deviating away from Parliaments' original intention and a new regulation makes it easier to reset the legal requirements, and provide greater clarity for businesses and H&S advisors.

Cheers,

Craig

toe  
#11 Posted : 16 August 2024 16:02:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
toe

I don’t wish to get into a debate on ‘absolute duties’ versus ‘reasonably practicable’ or the legal argument regarding strict liability. However, ‘the law is an ass’.

The absolute duty in the Factories Act 1961, “Every dangerous part of machinery shall be securely fenced...” was not always feasible to comply with. For instance, to use a pedestal-mounted abrasive wheel, you would need to come into contact with the dangerous part of the machinery (the rotating wheel), and a guard would render it useless. This historical context led to the introduction of the Abrasive Wheels Regulations of 1970 (now mostly repealed) a few years later.

Furthermore, many pieces of equipment could not be securely fenced at that time, and although the spirit of the Factories Act was commendable, it was often impractical or unreasonable.  There is no doubt the exposed chain on a chainsaw is the dangerous part of the machine, but how could you possibly securely fence it? This is a clear example of the law being 'an ass ', meaning it can be impractical in certain situations.

Section 11 of PUWER is designed to address the practicalities of a hierarchy of guarding control. While the legal requirements from previous legislation are diluted, it's crucial for ministers to make these regulations. In some cases, such as with a circular bench saw, it's not possible to fit a guard, making the use of push sticks a practical and necessary control measure.

Please accept my apology if I have picked up the nature of the post incorrectly. 

Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
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.