Health And Safety At Work Etc Act 1974 Construction Essay

Constructions sites are by and large complex and sometimes it is insecure. In UK Construction industry can be called as one of the biggest industry, as it consist of over 300,000 houses and it using about 2.1 million people ( Construction, 2010 ) . Construction industry is holding about 9 % of the entire employment in the UK ( Construction Safety Management ) . Construction industry is still one of the most unsafe workplaces because of high rate of accidents. “ A building worker is 100 times more likely to decease of work related ill-health than from an accident ” . Harmonizing to Sir John Egan written in his study, Rethinking Construction ( 1998 ) stated that “ the wellness and safety record of building is the 2nd worst of any industry ” . And the study hereafter suggested that “ accidents can amount for 4 to 6 per cent of the of the entire undertaking cost ” ( Howarth and Watson, 2009 ) . Health and safety within an organisation is frequently coordinated by a peculiar individual, but it is the duty of all employees. Keeping a safe working environment and safe working patterns and guaranting that employees ‘ wellness is non harmfully affected by their work is a statutory responsibility of organisations (, 2011 ) .Good wellness and safety at work is non merely of import in human footings, but it is besides one of the most effectual ways to guarantee that the endeavors are successful and sustainable.

Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974

We will write a custom essay sample on
Health And Safety At Work Etc Act 1974 Construction Essay
or any similar topic only for you
Order now

The beginnings of industrial revolution bring with it a wide scope of different working patterns and types of activities. Workers are stimulated from the Fieldss to big mills and workshops. These alterations in the on the job form conveying with them extra hazards to the wellness and safety of the workers. Therefore at the start of the nineteenth century a little sum of protections for workers and unequal legal intercession developed but this could non assist for slow down the rate of wellness and safety issues. It was merely at the start of twentieth century the new and modern wellness and safety statute law developed. In the twelvemonth 1972 the Roben ‘s study came into being. This study recognised the division of wellness and safety jurisprudence and suggested a new and dynamic ways to covering with wellness and safety duties. The study chiefly put importance on the safety of public and the people at work. The study wholly changed the scenario of wellness and safety statute law and formed the footing of several new Acts of the Apostless and ordinances like Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, CDM Regulation 2007 and Construction wellness and safety public assistance ordinances.

The Health and safety at Work Act 1974 included the bulk of the Roben ‘s recommendations and produced the most wide-ranging wellness and safety statute law. The Acts of the Apostless introduce first clip a comprehensive and included system covering with work topographic point wellness and safety and the protection of public from the work activities ( Holt, 2001 ) . The act consolidated some bing statute law and provided the footing for future secondary statute law.

The Act defines general responsibilities onA employers, A employees, A contractors, providers of goods and substances for usage at work, individuals in control of work premises, and those who manage and maintain them, and individuals in general. It recognized a system of public supervising through AIDSs the creative activity of theA Health and Safety Commission ( HSC ) A andA Health and Safety Executive ( HSE ) and bestow extended enforcement powers. Additional, the Act provides a critical interface on workplace wellness and safety ( ANON, 2011 ) .

Partially 1 Health, Safety and Welfare in connexion with the work includes Preliminary, General responsibilities, The Health and Safety Commission ( HSC ) and The Health and Safety Executives, Health and Safety ordinances and approved codifications of pattern, Enforcement, Obtaining and revelation of information, Particular proviso relating towards the agribusiness, Offences, Financial commissariats and Miscellaneous and auxiliary.

Part 2 trades with the Employment medical consultative service includes Functions and duties for keeping, employment medical consultative service.

Part 3 trades with the Building Regulations and Amendment of Building ( Soctland ) Act 1959 in which Amendments relating towards the edifice ordinances.

Part 4 trades with the Miscellaneous and general commissariats. ( Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 )

The Health and safety at Work Act 1974 is besides divided in to 10 different Agendas and the act is besides divided in the 85 different subdivisions. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 imposes general responsibilities on everybody connected with work. The Act contains:

The functions of Health and Safety Executive and Commission HSE/HSC supply a comprehensive organic structure for commercialism with the operation and policy. However, function of authorities is wide-ranging and include Legislation, Secretary of State for Education and Employment- Appoints Chair HSC and manager HSE and can do ordinances and codification of pattern. The HSC and HSE were recognized by subdivision 10 of HASAWA. The HSC has a full clip chair and is made up of members who correspond to employers and employees and besides related administrations which promote aims of HASAWA, undertake research, offers preparation, information and advisory commissions, put proposals to curates, O.K. codification of pattern, initiate questions and generate one-year study. Whereas, HSE aims to guarantee that everyone ‘s wellness and safety is protected from work activities and the work activities are suitably controlled. The HSE carry out the maps of the HSC and carry out enforcement of statute law.

The CDM 2007 put Health and Safety direction surveies on all clients of the building undertaking. The ordinances promote an efficient undertaking communicating and co-ordination and necessitate the appraisal and presentation of capableness. In add-on the support of effectual wellness and safety direction the ordinances requires the small of the ‘pre-construction information ‘ by the client and a ‘construction stage program ‘ by the chief contractor ( Howarth and Watson, 2009 ) .

By set abouting any new undertaking, or a redevelopment undertaking, should be cognizant that it may be ‘notifiable ‘ to theA CDM Regulations. Notifiable undertakings are called which are more than 30 yearss and it involves more than 500 person-days of building work, and any plants affecting destruction. The HSE must be notified of these undertakings, by utilizing an F10 form.A These Regulations topographic point specific legal demands to guarantee the work is carried out within the steering rule, and that all contractors have definite accomplishments, experience and capableness to run into the Regulations demands ( ANON, 2010 ) .

Since the mid 1990 ‘s there has been increasing involvement in the figure of deceases happening in the workplace and specially after a series of big scale catastrophes such as Zeebrugge a turning demand emerged for greater countenances where companies cause decease. The general condemnable jurisprudence failed to cover efficaciously with companies whose action have been the cause of catastrophe. Therefore there was a great demand of a new statute law which would associate to corporate liability for nonvoluntary manslaughter.

The new jurisprudence called Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 came into force in April 2008 in order to cover with the corporate ‘s liability for nonvoluntary manslaughter. The new jurisprudence is enforced by the constabulary in affair with the Health and Safety Executives. The Act is intended to construct on bing wellness and safety statute law and does non seek to enforce new ordinances on concern.

The New Act will do it easier to prosecute companies, and other big administrations, in instances where gross failures in the direction of wellness and safety have lead to decease. In peculiar, it has reformed the jurisprudence so that there is now much more prospect of medium and big companies being held apt for manslaughter in cases where they may hold escaped strong belief in the yesteryear. The act includes occupier ‘s liability as a relevant responsibility and besides responsibilities associated with the building and care operations. The new Act besides removes Crown unsusceptibility to prosecution for such offenses.

This means that any administration whose gross carelessness leads to decease of one or more individual may be held apt under this act. An administration will be held apt of such type of offense if the activity managed or organised by its senior direction causes a individual ‘s decease and causes a gross breach of responsibility of attention owed by that administration to the deceased. The Act lone applies to administration and non persons.

Although there is no power of imprisonment associated with the Act, it will now be possible to guarantee that limitless mulcts are levied against organisations that cause decease as a consequence of direction failures with regard to wellness and safety. Equally good as being fined, organisations may be required to implement certain remedial actions and may besides be required to print inside informations of their offenses and the punishments implemented.

In order to hold a good apprehension of the construct the instance of ( R v. Peter Eaton and Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Limited 2008 ) can be referred. In this instance it was alleged that the company caused the decease of an employee due to its systemic weaknesss. The company was charged with offenses under Corporate Manslaughter Act. The manager of the company Mr Eaton was besides held apt for gross carelessness.

Now by mentioning to all the above Acts and ordinances it can be concluded that Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 is a much generalized act. The act is really comprehensive in range but does non supply things in deepness. CDM ordinance general focuses on the direction of building procedure. These ordinances have limited range and chiefly negotiations about the functions and duty of the direction ( responsibility holders ) . Corporate Manslaughter Legislation chiefly talks about the extreme scenario ( deceases ) and the act chiefly applies to organisation. None of the above Acts of the Apostless and ordinance focal points on the undertaking or operational specific facets of the building industry. Some of the cardinal illustrations of undertaking or operational ordinances are ;

Therefore the statement “ The Health and Safety at Work etc Act, Construction Design Management Regulations 2007 and the Corporate Manslaughter statute law provide a comprehensive legal model for covering with wellness, safety and public assistance in the building industry ” is non accurate as these act and ordinance do non supply any accent on the undertaking or operational ordinances which plays a critical function in cut downing the wellness, safety and public assistance issues.


Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out