Ann. occup. Hyg. Vol. 18, pp. 229-236. Pergunon Pica 197S. Printed in Great Britmin
RESPONSIBILITIES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN RECENT LEGISLATION W.
G.
SYMONS
Institute of Municipal Safety Officers
concern of most members of the B.O.H.S. is technical rather than legal—we are concerned to see that the people for whom we are responsible are protected as well as possible from the hazards of their environment, whatever the law may say. Nevertheless, the law matters. It can, among other things, help in persuading managements, chief officers and committees of Council that the awkward precautions we sometimes advocate are related to nationally-accepted standards which may be enforceable. Two major new Acts of Parliament, directly relevant to this Conference, received the Royal Assent in July 1974, and come into force progressively during 1975. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is almost certainly the most radical revision of our law on occupational hygiene and safety for many years. The Control ofPollution Act 1974 deals primarily with environmental controls. This paper indicates the broad outline of the two Acts, dealing primarily with the former, and points to various places where they will impinge on the responsibilities of Local Authorities, especially in relation to matters of occupational and environmental hygiene. THE PRIMARY
HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. ACT 1974
This Act contains four main elements: 1. Detailed safety provisions The Act identifies a number of "existing statutory provisions" (listed in Schedule 1 of the Act) and brings them within its scope for purposes of enforcement. This list 229
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on May 4, 2015
Abstract—Two recent important Acts of Parliament are the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Control ofPollution Act 1974, the former being more far-reaching and the primary concern of this article. The main features of the Act are: 1. Detailed safety provisions, making use of "existing statutory provisions" with power to amend by regulations; 2. General duties; 3. Administration, with some responsibility for enforcement allocated to Local Authorities; 4. Additional powers for Building Regulations under the Public Health Acts. These provisions create two distinct areas of concern for local authorities: compliance and enforcement. A large range of local authorities' activities have not so far been covered by employeesafety legislation, but will be brought within the comprehensive scope of this Act. These include some activities with relatively high accident rates, and some with substantial technical hazards. Chemical and toxic hazards are encountered in sewer work, refuse disposal, parks, schools and colleges, and elsewhere. Some of these present distinct problems for the hygienist. Local Authorities will have duties for direct enforcement of the Health and Safety at Work Act in certain workplaces. In addition, this Act will impinge on other Local Authority functions, especially in relation to hazards of industrial origin which may involve the surroundings. These include disposal of dangerous wastes, water pollution, noise, atmospheric pollution, building control and planning, and fire precautions.
230
W.
G.
SYMONS
includes Acts concerned with employee safety, with public safety and with the environment, the most important being:
2. General duties These provisions (see Sections 2-9) are new and place on employers and other persons positive statutory duties to maintain safety. "Persons" for this purpose include Local Authorities as employers and as undertakings controlling premises and carrying on working activities. The Act spells out the matters which should concern the employer: safety of plant and equipment, systems of work, handling, storage and transport, training and instruction, safe premises, means of access and escape, and environment. Three features of these general duties are to be noted especially. Firstly, they are comprehensive and relate to every kind of work (excepting only domestic servants in private houses). This is significant for Local Authorities, so many of whose activities have so far been outside the scope of systematic safety legislation. Secondly, they impose a duty to foresee danger—to check, in the light of the best available knowledge, that all equipment, materials or processes are safe. Thirdly, when considering safety, the undertaking has to be concerned not only with hazards to its own employees, but with hazards which may involve other people—other workers (e.g. subcontractors), visitors, local residents and the general public. This marks a sharp re-orientation of approach compared with much previous safety legislation, and is particularly important for Local Authorities, so many of whose activities involve the public and groups other than their employees (e.g. school children, old people, the handicapped, youth groups).
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on May 4, 2015
The Explosives Acts 1875 and 1923 The Alkali, etc. Works Regulation Act 1906 The Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Act 1926 The Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 The Radioactive Substances Act 1948 The Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Act 1952 The Mines and Quarries Act 1954 The Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act 1956 The Factories Act 1961 The Pipe-lines Act 1962 The Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 The Nuclear Installations Act 1965 The Mines Management Act 1971 The Employment Medical Advisory Service Act 1972 It is intended that these Acts, and the regulations made under them, will be progressively replaced by more systematic and comprehensive provisions designed to maintain or improve standards of hygiene or safety [Section 1(2) ]. This will be done by means of Health and Safety Regulations with the force of law, and Approved Codes of Practice, whose legal effect is given in Sections 16 and 17. This process will, however, be lengthy and in the mean time the familiar provisions of the Factories Act, the Mines and Quarries Act and so on, and of the codes of regulations made under them, will remain in force.
Responsibilities of local authorities in recent legislation
231
These provisions also require the employer to prepare a written statement of policy with respect to the health and safety of his employees, and the organization for carrying it out [see Section 2(3) ]. There are provisions for the appointment of employees' safetyrepresentativesand for the employer to consult these representatives on the arrangements [see Section 2(4-7) ]. We have yet to see how these provisions will work out in industry as a whole, but Local Authorities, being so exposed to public scrutiny, cannot afford to ignore them. Many authorities have, of course, already gone a long way towards meeting the requirements. 3. Administration and enforcement
TABLE 1.
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE SESRETAHIISS or STAXt, lor EnTironment Education and Science Energy Health and Social Security Scotland
SECRETAHT of STATE for EHPLOTHEWT
etc.
HEALTH and SAFETT COMMISSION
1 1 1
[_ Agricultural HlnlaMrB AQRICTLTURAL IHSPECTOHS |
HEALTH and SAFETY INSPECTORS
EXECUTIVE
|
)
U-EHPLGTMENT MEDICAL ABVISOHT SERVICE
LOCAL AUTHOHITIES, «tc. |
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on May 4, 2015
The administrative structure established by the Act is set out in Table 1. The Health and Safety Commission is concerned with general policy, including initiation of research and preparation of Regulations and of Codes of Practice. It reports to the Secretary of State for Employment, but will consult with other Ministers as appropriate. The Health and Safety Executive is the operational arm of the Commission. Table 2 indicates the previously existing inspectorates which are being incorporated into the professional staff of the Executive, along with certain other bodies. The Employment Medical Advisory Service forms the medical arm of the Executive. Enforcement is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive, except where other arrangements are made. The Act provides specifically for making Local Authorities responsible for enforcement to such extent as may be prescribed by regulations, and it is likely that this arrangement will cover some non-industrial employments. Regulations have not yet been made, however. In addition, enforcement and other matters exclusive to agriculture are the separate responsibility of "the agricultural ministers" (i.e. in England and Wales, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and, in Scotland, the Secretary of State).
232
W. G. SYMONS TABLE 2.
ARRANGEMENTS FOR INSPECTION AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION
Attached to
- Inspectors of
.—FACTORIES -
Health t Safety
HIKES and qDAEEIES MJCLEAB INSTALLATIONS
Sncutire -
PTPgT.TWltS
ALKALI and CLEAN AIB EXPKSIVES - EHP10IHOT HEDICAL ADIOSOHT SEBVICE - SAFETY IN MINES HESEAHCH ESTABLISHHHff - INDOSTHIAL HTOIfflB UHIT
(H.H.r.I.)
Other arranmaanta Agricultural Inspectors attached to the Agricultural
Ministries
Certain non-Industrial Eaployment
-
Local Authorities (Diatriot
Counoil*)
Special functions Badiatlon safety - National Radiological Protection Board (Radiological Protection Act 1970, amended by S. 77 of Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act, K r e safety of buildings - County Fire Serricee (Operating under Fire Precautlona Act, 1971, amended by the Health 8, Safety at Work, eto. Act, 197*0
4. Building regulations
Finally, Part III of the Act amends parts of the Public Health Acts, and gives increased powers for the making and enforcement of Building Regulations under that Act. This Part is distinct from the rest of the Act, and is the concern of the Department of the Environment rather than of the Health and Safety Commission and the Department of Employment. It has been the subject of some debate, and there are those who see it as an irrelevant after-thought, included in the Act merely for legislative convenience. My own view is that it can and should be seen as within the purpose of the Act as a whole; it is clearly related to some of the most important recommendations of the Robens Report on which the Act is based. These amendments will give increased powers to require the incorporation of good standards of safety and hygiene into new workplaces at the design stage—experience of newly-constructed buildings shows that there is much room for improvement here. This Part also contains powers which may help authorities to identify hazards from processes and materials which, from their nature, scale and location, may endanger both workpeople and others in the locality. Public concern about large-scale industrial hazards is increasing, partly as a result of certain recent disasters and incidents involving toxic materials; Local Authorities are therefore likely to come under pressure to take account of such hazards as part of planning and building control.
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on May 4, 2015
Agriculture
Responsibilities of local authorities in recent legislation
233
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES This outline indicates that Local Authorities will have two quite distinct areas of responsibility under the Act. Firstly, like any other large employers, they will have responsibility for the safety of their own employees, their own premises and their own activities. Secondly they will have duties in the administration and enforcement of parts of the Act in their own territories. In other words, they will have "internal" duties of complying with the Act, and "external" duties of enforcing the Act. Different Authorities will doubtless adopt different patterns of organisation. My own view is that responsibilities in these two areas should be kept distinct; difficulties will arise if the same officers have to combine the duties. The following is a discussion of some of the more important matters likely to require attention in each of these two areas:
TABLE 3.
TYPICAL LOCAL AUTHORITY WORKPLACES AND WORKING ACTIVITIES
Wsrfcplao»»
Outside work
•Offices
*Construotion - bousing
Schools and oollegas
roads and public works
"''Libraries and museums
Refuse colleotion and cleansing
Publio halls
Parks and gardens
Parks and sport aground a Swiraing baths Residential hoses + Vork»hops for handicapped •Vorks and depots + Iltchens ^Refuse disposal sites Ceae tries Youth clubs and coramnity oentres
+ Vater and sewage Fire service Police Transport Hoos visiting Inspection services
* Premises and activities oovered by the health and safety provisions of tho Factories Act 1961 and the Offices, Shone and Railway Premises Aot 1963. Premises and activities cooing partially or uncertainly within the scope of suoh provisions.
Only a few of these places and processes have been covered by systematic safety law in the past. Offices are covered by the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 (although office-work is a fairly low-risk occupation). Most Authorities have a few "factories" (e.g. repair depots), though not on a large scale. Construction work (on housing and public works) is covered by Construction Regulations under the Factories Act 1961. The remainder of Local Authority work has so far been entirely outside the scope of systematic safety law, or covered only partially and uncertainly. From April 1st 1975, all this work comes under the "general duties" clauses already discussed, and will probably be covered in due course, by more detailed provisions.
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on May 4, 2015
Safety and hygiene affecting employees, premises and activities of Local Authorities Local Authorities are large employers of labour and, in comparison with ordinary industrial and commercial firms, undertake a wide diversity of activities and services. Table 3 is a list of some typical responsibilities.
234
W.
G. SYMONS
Enforcement The external or enforcement duties of Authorities cannot be accurately foreseen at present, because of uncertainty as to how duties will be allocated and what use will be made of regulation-making powers. There are four main areas of responsibility:
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on May 4, 2015
What "occupational hazards" are to be found in these places and processes? Sample records of lost-time accidents suggest that a number of groups of corporation employees have accident rates at or above the average for "industrial employment" e.g. canteen (including school canteen) staff, refuse collectors, workers on roads and highways, cleaners, caretakers and school technicians. A large proportion of these accidents are due to falls or occur while lifting or carrying articles. Technical hazards, from power machinery, fire and chemicals, cause fewer accidents statistically, but can result in very severe injuries and even major disasters. Such hazards are widely distributed, and involve many groups of local government employees additional to those already mentioned. Chemical hazards of concern to hygienists are to be found, typically, in schools and colleges, swimming baths, parks and gardens, sewer work, refuse disposal and the fire service. In general, risks of cumulative poisoning from continued exposure to particular toxic materials are very rare in local government employment, compared with manufacturing industry. Consequently, TLVs based on time-weighted averages for long-term exposure are of limited significance. Most toxic hazards encountered take the form of intermittent exposures to varied and sometimes unknown contaminants. In sewer work, for example, acute gassing from methane, hydrogen sulphide or oxygen deficiency is a constant risk, with the additional possibility of the escape of unknown industrial chemicals into the sewers. Choice of instruments for tests before entry and for continuous monitoring is not easy. Disposal of waste on tips, in processing plant and in incinerators can also produce various and unexpected atmospheric contaminants which may affect workpeople and others in the vicinity. Weed-killers and pesticides in parks may endanger the public as well as employees; some incidents have been reported. Chemical hazards in school and colleges present distinctive problems. Fumes of all sorts are to be expected in chemical laboratories. Craft workrooms in schools will often contain welding fumes, products of combustion from hearths and furnaces, styrene vapour from fibreglass work and so on. Technical Colleges will contain more diverse hazards. Unexpected toxic hazards are to be found even in primary schools—such as the presence of lead-containing glaze in craft areas also used for food preparation. Publications of the Department of Education and Science give plenty of warnings about "dangerous materials", but there seems to have been little attempt to quantify margins of risk. Normally, cumulative poisoning of schoolchildren or students is most unlikely, in view of the short exposure to any one contaminant, although some science teachers may be at slightly greater risk. Ceiling limits for irritants and allergens could, however, be more significant, especially for young children and those in poor health. Questions have arisen, for example, about the exposure of asthmatic children to sulphur dioxide and similar irritants during chemical experiments. Unfortunately, fume cupboards, even in apparently well-equipped schools, often fall far short of British Standard (BS 3202:1959, Section 3.1) levels of performance.
Responsibilities of local authorities in recent legislation
235
2. Environmental hygiene and pollution, especially from causes connected with working activities. The "Rotherhithe incident" described by EPSOM at this Conference* is a reminder of the complications of public responsibility for such matters in the past. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act contains at least one simplification: placing the Alkali etc. Works Regulation Act and the Factories Act both under the Health and Safety Commission, will concentrate the responsibility of the central government for such matters. There will still, however, be a wide area where consultation and co-ordination of action between the Health and Safety Executive and the Environmental Services Departments of Local Authorities will be needed. The Control of Pollution Act 1974 is also relevant in this context. This is, on the whole, a less far-reaching and comprehensive Act than the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. It deals with four main subjects—waste disposal, water pollution, noise and atmospheric pollution. It replaces and systematises certain previous legislation, such as the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act, the Rivers {Prevention of Pollution) Act, and the Noise Abatement Act. There will be some boundary questions on the relation between the provisions of the Act and the powers under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act as to noise from plant and machinery and from construction sites. The provisions relating to atmospheric pollution seem, at first sight, to be limited, and are mainly enabling provisions permitting Local Authorities to undertake research, investigation and publicity, leaving powers to take remedial action mainly to other legislation such as the Public Health Acts and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. 3. Planning and building control. It is difficult to foresee developments here until there is some indication about new Building Regulations under the Public Health Acts as amended by Part III of the Safety and Health at Work etc. Act. Technological developments and pressure of public opinion will almost certainly require Local Authorities to equip themselves so that technical expertise on occupational safety and hygiene can be incorporated into decisions on the design and location of workplaces at the planning stage. 4. Fire precautions. The Act places responsibility for fire safety of buildings on County Fire Authorities and the Home Office, by transferring certain provisions of •Text not received (Ed.).
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on May 4, 2015
1. Primary inspection and enforcement by Local Authorities, normally District Councils, of the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. The area of responsibility has not yet been decided, but it seems likely that Local Authorities will be made responsible for some categories of "non-industrial work"—that is, work not containing a high level of mechanical and chemical hazards. This will be analogous to existing arrangements for enforcing the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, but is likely to be a much more demanding task, covering a more diverse range of work. If the intention of the Act is to be fulfilled, inspectors will have to give attention not only to conditions of workplaces, but also to working methods in so far as these affect health and safety. A key question will be how to organise consultation and the flow of information between the Local Authority officers doing this work and the technical organs of the Health and Safety Commission.
236
W. G. SYMONS
the Factories Act and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act (concerned, for example, with fire escapes and fire alarms) to the Fire Precautions Act 1971 (see Section 78). The Health and Safety Commission will still be concerned with "process fire risks", so there will be need for consultation. The general effect of the changes should be a simplification, although they will increase the work-load of the County Fire Services. CONCLUSION
DISCUSSION Mr P. J. HEWITT (University of Bradford): Will you comment on the type and standards of education and training which may be appropriate for local authority officers given responsibility for environmental control, with special reference to the recent changes in legislation discussed in this paper. Mr SYMONS: Courses have so far been mainly directed to the needs of Public Health Inspectors, concerned with sanitation, public health, housing and food hygiene, but there is already a growing recognition of the need for some officers to be equipped in the techniques of air pollution control, noise measurement and control, etc. Rather than overload an already full syllabus, the best aim, perhaps, would be that all persons working in thisfieldshould have a basic knowledge of the principles of environmental hygiene, air contamination, etc., so that they can understand and use the results of more specialized work, and also so that certain of them can readily qualify themselves in particular techniques, as need and opportunity arises, by means of diploma courses. In addition, there is need for a clear understanding of the common ground and of the distinctions between the criteria and methods of "environmental hygiene" (concerned with the general public in a locality) and of "occupational hygiene" (concerned with hazards to people at work). This is especially important for collaboration between Local Authority officers and the Health & Safety Executive. Dr J. R. GLOVER (Welsh National School of Medicine): Will there be a demand as well as a need for occupational hygienists in Environmental Departments of Local Authorities? Mr SYMONS: I would not expect to find many openings for full-time specialised occupational hygienists within Local Authorities. On the other hand, I would hope for an increasing awareness of the principles of environmental and occupational hygiene, both in Environmental Services Departments (concerned with conditions in the locality) and in Safety Sections (concerned with the safety of the Authority's own employees, premises and activities). Officers in these departments would then be able to judge when to call on the services of qualified hygienists, possibly from outside the Authority. Much depends on the size of the Authority. Many larger Authorities are already well equipped with instruments for measuring air contamination, environmental noise, etc., and have staff trained to use them. There is, however, room for discussion as to whether such resources are needed in smaller Authorities and, if so, how they can be made available. There is also the question of how far such resources should deal with occupational as well as environmental problems.
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on May 4, 2015
Future development in this area of law and public administration is still uncertain, but it is fairly safe to forecast that technological progress, growth of public concern and new legislation will combine to make this an important growth area for Local Authority action during the next few years.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN RECENT LEGISLATION W.
G.
SYMONS
Institute of Municipal Safety Officers
concern of most members of the B.O.H.S. is technical rather than legal—we are concerned to see that the people for whom we are responsible are protected as well as possible from the hazards of their environment, whatever the law may say. Nevertheless, the law matters. It can, among other things, help in persuading managements, chief officers and committees of Council that the awkward precautions we sometimes advocate are related to nationally-accepted standards which may be enforceable. Two major new Acts of Parliament, directly relevant to this Conference, received the Royal Assent in July 1974, and come into force progressively during 1975. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is almost certainly the most radical revision of our law on occupational hygiene and safety for many years. The Control ofPollution Act 1974 deals primarily with environmental controls. This paper indicates the broad outline of the two Acts, dealing primarily with the former, and points to various places where they will impinge on the responsibilities of Local Authorities, especially in relation to matters of occupational and environmental hygiene. THE PRIMARY
HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. ACT 1974
This Act contains four main elements: 1. Detailed safety provisions The Act identifies a number of "existing statutory provisions" (listed in Schedule 1 of the Act) and brings them within its scope for purposes of enforcement. This list 229
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on May 4, 2015
Abstract—Two recent important Acts of Parliament are the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Control ofPollution Act 1974, the former being more far-reaching and the primary concern of this article. The main features of the Act are: 1. Detailed safety provisions, making use of "existing statutory provisions" with power to amend by regulations; 2. General duties; 3. Administration, with some responsibility for enforcement allocated to Local Authorities; 4. Additional powers for Building Regulations under the Public Health Acts. These provisions create two distinct areas of concern for local authorities: compliance and enforcement. A large range of local authorities' activities have not so far been covered by employeesafety legislation, but will be brought within the comprehensive scope of this Act. These include some activities with relatively high accident rates, and some with substantial technical hazards. Chemical and toxic hazards are encountered in sewer work, refuse disposal, parks, schools and colleges, and elsewhere. Some of these present distinct problems for the hygienist. Local Authorities will have duties for direct enforcement of the Health and Safety at Work Act in certain workplaces. In addition, this Act will impinge on other Local Authority functions, especially in relation to hazards of industrial origin which may involve the surroundings. These include disposal of dangerous wastes, water pollution, noise, atmospheric pollution, building control and planning, and fire precautions.
230
W.
G.
SYMONS
includes Acts concerned with employee safety, with public safety and with the environment, the most important being:
2. General duties These provisions (see Sections 2-9) are new and place on employers and other persons positive statutory duties to maintain safety. "Persons" for this purpose include Local Authorities as employers and as undertakings controlling premises and carrying on working activities. The Act spells out the matters which should concern the employer: safety of plant and equipment, systems of work, handling, storage and transport, training and instruction, safe premises, means of access and escape, and environment. Three features of these general duties are to be noted especially. Firstly, they are comprehensive and relate to every kind of work (excepting only domestic servants in private houses). This is significant for Local Authorities, so many of whose activities have so far been outside the scope of systematic safety legislation. Secondly, they impose a duty to foresee danger—to check, in the light of the best available knowledge, that all equipment, materials or processes are safe. Thirdly, when considering safety, the undertaking has to be concerned not only with hazards to its own employees, but with hazards which may involve other people—other workers (e.g. subcontractors), visitors, local residents and the general public. This marks a sharp re-orientation of approach compared with much previous safety legislation, and is particularly important for Local Authorities, so many of whose activities involve the public and groups other than their employees (e.g. school children, old people, the handicapped, youth groups).
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on May 4, 2015
The Explosives Acts 1875 and 1923 The Alkali, etc. Works Regulation Act 1906 The Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Act 1926 The Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 The Radioactive Substances Act 1948 The Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Act 1952 The Mines and Quarries Act 1954 The Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act 1956 The Factories Act 1961 The Pipe-lines Act 1962 The Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 The Nuclear Installations Act 1965 The Mines Management Act 1971 The Employment Medical Advisory Service Act 1972 It is intended that these Acts, and the regulations made under them, will be progressively replaced by more systematic and comprehensive provisions designed to maintain or improve standards of hygiene or safety [Section 1(2) ]. This will be done by means of Health and Safety Regulations with the force of law, and Approved Codes of Practice, whose legal effect is given in Sections 16 and 17. This process will, however, be lengthy and in the mean time the familiar provisions of the Factories Act, the Mines and Quarries Act and so on, and of the codes of regulations made under them, will remain in force.
Responsibilities of local authorities in recent legislation
231
These provisions also require the employer to prepare a written statement of policy with respect to the health and safety of his employees, and the organization for carrying it out [see Section 2(3) ]. There are provisions for the appointment of employees' safetyrepresentativesand for the employer to consult these representatives on the arrangements [see Section 2(4-7) ]. We have yet to see how these provisions will work out in industry as a whole, but Local Authorities, being so exposed to public scrutiny, cannot afford to ignore them. Many authorities have, of course, already gone a long way towards meeting the requirements. 3. Administration and enforcement
TABLE 1.
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE SESRETAHIISS or STAXt, lor EnTironment Education and Science Energy Health and Social Security Scotland
SECRETAHT of STATE for EHPLOTHEWT
etc.
HEALTH and SAFETT COMMISSION
1 1 1
[_ Agricultural HlnlaMrB AQRICTLTURAL IHSPECTOHS |
HEALTH and SAFETY INSPECTORS
EXECUTIVE
|
)
U-EHPLGTMENT MEDICAL ABVISOHT SERVICE
LOCAL AUTHOHITIES, «tc. |
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on May 4, 2015
The administrative structure established by the Act is set out in Table 1. The Health and Safety Commission is concerned with general policy, including initiation of research and preparation of Regulations and of Codes of Practice. It reports to the Secretary of State for Employment, but will consult with other Ministers as appropriate. The Health and Safety Executive is the operational arm of the Commission. Table 2 indicates the previously existing inspectorates which are being incorporated into the professional staff of the Executive, along with certain other bodies. The Employment Medical Advisory Service forms the medical arm of the Executive. Enforcement is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive, except where other arrangements are made. The Act provides specifically for making Local Authorities responsible for enforcement to such extent as may be prescribed by regulations, and it is likely that this arrangement will cover some non-industrial employments. Regulations have not yet been made, however. In addition, enforcement and other matters exclusive to agriculture are the separate responsibility of "the agricultural ministers" (i.e. in England and Wales, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and, in Scotland, the Secretary of State).
232
W. G. SYMONS TABLE 2.
ARRANGEMENTS FOR INSPECTION AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION
Attached to
- Inspectors of
.—FACTORIES -
Health t Safety
HIKES and qDAEEIES MJCLEAB INSTALLATIONS
Sncutire -
PTPgT.TWltS
ALKALI and CLEAN AIB EXPKSIVES - EHP10IHOT HEDICAL ADIOSOHT SEBVICE - SAFETY IN MINES HESEAHCH ESTABLISHHHff - INDOSTHIAL HTOIfflB UHIT
(H.H.r.I.)
Other arranmaanta Agricultural Inspectors attached to the Agricultural
Ministries
Certain non-Industrial Eaployment
-
Local Authorities (Diatriot
Counoil*)
Special functions Badiatlon safety - National Radiological Protection Board (Radiological Protection Act 1970, amended by S. 77 of Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act, K r e safety of buildings - County Fire Serricee (Operating under Fire Precautlona Act, 1971, amended by the Health 8, Safety at Work, eto. Act, 197*0
4. Building regulations
Finally, Part III of the Act amends parts of the Public Health Acts, and gives increased powers for the making and enforcement of Building Regulations under that Act. This Part is distinct from the rest of the Act, and is the concern of the Department of the Environment rather than of the Health and Safety Commission and the Department of Employment. It has been the subject of some debate, and there are those who see it as an irrelevant after-thought, included in the Act merely for legislative convenience. My own view is that it can and should be seen as within the purpose of the Act as a whole; it is clearly related to some of the most important recommendations of the Robens Report on which the Act is based. These amendments will give increased powers to require the incorporation of good standards of safety and hygiene into new workplaces at the design stage—experience of newly-constructed buildings shows that there is much room for improvement here. This Part also contains powers which may help authorities to identify hazards from processes and materials which, from their nature, scale and location, may endanger both workpeople and others in the locality. Public concern about large-scale industrial hazards is increasing, partly as a result of certain recent disasters and incidents involving toxic materials; Local Authorities are therefore likely to come under pressure to take account of such hazards as part of planning and building control.
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on May 4, 2015
Agriculture
Responsibilities of local authorities in recent legislation
233
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES This outline indicates that Local Authorities will have two quite distinct areas of responsibility under the Act. Firstly, like any other large employers, they will have responsibility for the safety of their own employees, their own premises and their own activities. Secondly they will have duties in the administration and enforcement of parts of the Act in their own territories. In other words, they will have "internal" duties of complying with the Act, and "external" duties of enforcing the Act. Different Authorities will doubtless adopt different patterns of organisation. My own view is that responsibilities in these two areas should be kept distinct; difficulties will arise if the same officers have to combine the duties. The following is a discussion of some of the more important matters likely to require attention in each of these two areas:
TABLE 3.
TYPICAL LOCAL AUTHORITY WORKPLACES AND WORKING ACTIVITIES
Wsrfcplao»»
Outside work
•Offices
*Construotion - bousing
Schools and oollegas
roads and public works
"''Libraries and museums
Refuse colleotion and cleansing
Publio halls
Parks and gardens
Parks and sport aground a Swiraing baths Residential hoses + Vork»hops for handicapped •Vorks and depots + Iltchens ^Refuse disposal sites Ceae tries Youth clubs and coramnity oentres
+ Vater and sewage Fire service Police Transport Hoos visiting Inspection services
* Premises and activities oovered by the health and safety provisions of tho Factories Act 1961 and the Offices, Shone and Railway Premises Aot 1963. Premises and activities cooing partially or uncertainly within the scope of suoh provisions.
Only a few of these places and processes have been covered by systematic safety law in the past. Offices are covered by the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 (although office-work is a fairly low-risk occupation). Most Authorities have a few "factories" (e.g. repair depots), though not on a large scale. Construction work (on housing and public works) is covered by Construction Regulations under the Factories Act 1961. The remainder of Local Authority work has so far been entirely outside the scope of systematic safety law, or covered only partially and uncertainly. From April 1st 1975, all this work comes under the "general duties" clauses already discussed, and will probably be covered in due course, by more detailed provisions.
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on May 4, 2015
Safety and hygiene affecting employees, premises and activities of Local Authorities Local Authorities are large employers of labour and, in comparison with ordinary industrial and commercial firms, undertake a wide diversity of activities and services. Table 3 is a list of some typical responsibilities.
234
W.
G. SYMONS
Enforcement The external or enforcement duties of Authorities cannot be accurately foreseen at present, because of uncertainty as to how duties will be allocated and what use will be made of regulation-making powers. There are four main areas of responsibility:
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on May 4, 2015
What "occupational hazards" are to be found in these places and processes? Sample records of lost-time accidents suggest that a number of groups of corporation employees have accident rates at or above the average for "industrial employment" e.g. canteen (including school canteen) staff, refuse collectors, workers on roads and highways, cleaners, caretakers and school technicians. A large proportion of these accidents are due to falls or occur while lifting or carrying articles. Technical hazards, from power machinery, fire and chemicals, cause fewer accidents statistically, but can result in very severe injuries and even major disasters. Such hazards are widely distributed, and involve many groups of local government employees additional to those already mentioned. Chemical hazards of concern to hygienists are to be found, typically, in schools and colleges, swimming baths, parks and gardens, sewer work, refuse disposal and the fire service. In general, risks of cumulative poisoning from continued exposure to particular toxic materials are very rare in local government employment, compared with manufacturing industry. Consequently, TLVs based on time-weighted averages for long-term exposure are of limited significance. Most toxic hazards encountered take the form of intermittent exposures to varied and sometimes unknown contaminants. In sewer work, for example, acute gassing from methane, hydrogen sulphide or oxygen deficiency is a constant risk, with the additional possibility of the escape of unknown industrial chemicals into the sewers. Choice of instruments for tests before entry and for continuous monitoring is not easy. Disposal of waste on tips, in processing plant and in incinerators can also produce various and unexpected atmospheric contaminants which may affect workpeople and others in the vicinity. Weed-killers and pesticides in parks may endanger the public as well as employees; some incidents have been reported. Chemical hazards in school and colleges present distinctive problems. Fumes of all sorts are to be expected in chemical laboratories. Craft workrooms in schools will often contain welding fumes, products of combustion from hearths and furnaces, styrene vapour from fibreglass work and so on. Technical Colleges will contain more diverse hazards. Unexpected toxic hazards are to be found even in primary schools—such as the presence of lead-containing glaze in craft areas also used for food preparation. Publications of the Department of Education and Science give plenty of warnings about "dangerous materials", but there seems to have been little attempt to quantify margins of risk. Normally, cumulative poisoning of schoolchildren or students is most unlikely, in view of the short exposure to any one contaminant, although some science teachers may be at slightly greater risk. Ceiling limits for irritants and allergens could, however, be more significant, especially for young children and those in poor health. Questions have arisen, for example, about the exposure of asthmatic children to sulphur dioxide and similar irritants during chemical experiments. Unfortunately, fume cupboards, even in apparently well-equipped schools, often fall far short of British Standard (BS 3202:1959, Section 3.1) levels of performance.
Responsibilities of local authorities in recent legislation
235
2. Environmental hygiene and pollution, especially from causes connected with working activities. The "Rotherhithe incident" described by EPSOM at this Conference* is a reminder of the complications of public responsibility for such matters in the past. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act contains at least one simplification: placing the Alkali etc. Works Regulation Act and the Factories Act both under the Health and Safety Commission, will concentrate the responsibility of the central government for such matters. There will still, however, be a wide area where consultation and co-ordination of action between the Health and Safety Executive and the Environmental Services Departments of Local Authorities will be needed. The Control of Pollution Act 1974 is also relevant in this context. This is, on the whole, a less far-reaching and comprehensive Act than the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. It deals with four main subjects—waste disposal, water pollution, noise and atmospheric pollution. It replaces and systematises certain previous legislation, such as the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act, the Rivers {Prevention of Pollution) Act, and the Noise Abatement Act. There will be some boundary questions on the relation between the provisions of the Act and the powers under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act as to noise from plant and machinery and from construction sites. The provisions relating to atmospheric pollution seem, at first sight, to be limited, and are mainly enabling provisions permitting Local Authorities to undertake research, investigation and publicity, leaving powers to take remedial action mainly to other legislation such as the Public Health Acts and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. 3. Planning and building control. It is difficult to foresee developments here until there is some indication about new Building Regulations under the Public Health Acts as amended by Part III of the Safety and Health at Work etc. Act. Technological developments and pressure of public opinion will almost certainly require Local Authorities to equip themselves so that technical expertise on occupational safety and hygiene can be incorporated into decisions on the design and location of workplaces at the planning stage. 4. Fire precautions. The Act places responsibility for fire safety of buildings on County Fire Authorities and the Home Office, by transferring certain provisions of •Text not received (Ed.).
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on May 4, 2015
1. Primary inspection and enforcement by Local Authorities, normally District Councils, of the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. The area of responsibility has not yet been decided, but it seems likely that Local Authorities will be made responsible for some categories of "non-industrial work"—that is, work not containing a high level of mechanical and chemical hazards. This will be analogous to existing arrangements for enforcing the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, but is likely to be a much more demanding task, covering a more diverse range of work. If the intention of the Act is to be fulfilled, inspectors will have to give attention not only to conditions of workplaces, but also to working methods in so far as these affect health and safety. A key question will be how to organise consultation and the flow of information between the Local Authority officers doing this work and the technical organs of the Health and Safety Commission.
236
W. G. SYMONS
the Factories Act and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act (concerned, for example, with fire escapes and fire alarms) to the Fire Precautions Act 1971 (see Section 78). The Health and Safety Commission will still be concerned with "process fire risks", so there will be need for consultation. The general effect of the changes should be a simplification, although they will increase the work-load of the County Fire Services. CONCLUSION
DISCUSSION Mr P. J. HEWITT (University of Bradford): Will you comment on the type and standards of education and training which may be appropriate for local authority officers given responsibility for environmental control, with special reference to the recent changes in legislation discussed in this paper. Mr SYMONS: Courses have so far been mainly directed to the needs of Public Health Inspectors, concerned with sanitation, public health, housing and food hygiene, but there is already a growing recognition of the need for some officers to be equipped in the techniques of air pollution control, noise measurement and control, etc. Rather than overload an already full syllabus, the best aim, perhaps, would be that all persons working in thisfieldshould have a basic knowledge of the principles of environmental hygiene, air contamination, etc., so that they can understand and use the results of more specialized work, and also so that certain of them can readily qualify themselves in particular techniques, as need and opportunity arises, by means of diploma courses. In addition, there is need for a clear understanding of the common ground and of the distinctions between the criteria and methods of "environmental hygiene" (concerned with the general public in a locality) and of "occupational hygiene" (concerned with hazards to people at work). This is especially important for collaboration between Local Authority officers and the Health & Safety Executive. Dr J. R. GLOVER (Welsh National School of Medicine): Will there be a demand as well as a need for occupational hygienists in Environmental Departments of Local Authorities? Mr SYMONS: I would not expect to find many openings for full-time specialised occupational hygienists within Local Authorities. On the other hand, I would hope for an increasing awareness of the principles of environmental and occupational hygiene, both in Environmental Services Departments (concerned with conditions in the locality) and in Safety Sections (concerned with the safety of the Authority's own employees, premises and activities). Officers in these departments would then be able to judge when to call on the services of qualified hygienists, possibly from outside the Authority. Much depends on the size of the Authority. Many larger Authorities are already well equipped with instruments for measuring air contamination, environmental noise, etc., and have staff trained to use them. There is, however, room for discussion as to whether such resources are needed in smaller Authorities and, if so, how they can be made available. There is also the question of how far such resources should deal with occupational as well as environmental problems.
Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on May 4, 2015
Future development in this area of law and public administration is still uncertain, but it is fairly safe to forecast that technological progress, growth of public concern and new legislation will combine to make this an important growth area for Local Authority action during the next few years.
