Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Absolute duties
These are requirements laid down in law which usu-
ally state that something 'shall' or 'shall not' or 'must' or
'must not' be done. There is no effective legal defence
against a breach of an absolute standard, including igno-
rance. An example of an absolute standard would be the
requirement laid down in Article 9(1) of the Regulatory
Reform (Fire Safety) Order that a responsible person must
make a suitable and suffi cient assessment of the risks to
which relevant persons are exposed for the purpose of
identifying the general fi re precautions he needs to take.
Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and
Safety at Work Regulations 1999 requires every employer
to carry out suitable and suffi cient assessments of risk.
Article 23(1) of the RRFSO or section 7 of HSWA states
that employees must take care of themselves or others
(relevant persons) who may be affected by their acts or
omissions.
would not be cost effective. The requirement is that the
employer must reduce the risks using controls commen-
surate with those risks; a balance needs to be struck.
1.4.2 Specifi c fi re and health and safety
legislation
There are three key pieces of legislation relating specifi -
cally to fi re and health and safety in England and Wales:
➤
The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
➤
The Management of Health and Safety at Work
Regulations 1999
➤
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
As it is the basis upon which our current safety legisla-
tion is founded we will look at the Health and Safety at
Work etc. Act fi rst.
The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
This Act came into force as a result of work undertaken
by the Rubens Institute, in 1972. In essence the Act con-
fers duties on a number of key parties in relation to health
and safety. The primary responsibilities are held by:
Practicable duties
These require steps to be taken in light of what is actu-
ally possible using current knowledge and technology,
e.g. it is technically possible. A good example would be
the requirement under regulation 11 of the Provision and
Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 for all dan-
gerous parts of machines to be guarded so far as it is
practicable to do so. Obviously it would be impossible
to guard every part of a grinding wheel, for example, so
only those parts which it is
practicable
(technically pos-
sible) to guard need to be covered.
However, unlike reasonably practicable below there
is no quantum relating to the cost of provision.
➤
Employers
➤
Occupiers of premises
➤
Designers, manufacturers, suppliers, importers,
installers, etc.
➤
Employees
➤
Personal liabilities
➤
HSC and HSE.
Reasonably practicable duties
These require the employer to assess the risks associated
with a particular work activity and then take appropriate
measures to counteract those risks, taking into account
the costs of the proposed controls. The controls may be
measured in time, effort or money, and there will be an
optimum balance point at which further risk reduction
Employers
The general duty of employers under the Act is to ensure,
so far as is reasonably practicable, the health safety and
welfare at work of all his employees. This general duty is
extended to include the following specifi c requirements:
➤
The provision of safe plant and systems of work
➤
The safe storage, handling, use and transportation
of articles and substances used at work
➤
The adequate provision of information, instruction
and training with supporting supervision
➤
A safe place in which to work with adequate means
of access and egress
➤
A safe working environment with appropriate provi-
sion of welfare facilities.
Time
Effort
Money
Magnitude
of risk
The Act also places a duty upon an employer to
produce a health and safety policy which if there are fi ve
or more employees should be written down.
There is also a general duty for an employer to consult
with duly appointed trade union safety representatives
and to form safety committees given certain criteria.
Figure 1.10
Balancing risk against cost
