An Act for modern work with a nod to the past

The pre-1974 system had evolved piecemeal over 150 years. Individual inspectorates had been created on an ad hoc basis, industry-by-industry. Initially, they were forced into being as egregious problems became social concerns and the state – reluctant to intervene – came under pressure to do something.

Starting with the Factory Inspectorate in 1833, a model was established, but it was dependent upon persuading employers to make changes. Enforcement action was relatively limited and very much a last resort. Even when new inspectorates were created, most working people were not covered by the relevant bodies or legislation.

Laws were added to laws, regulations to regulations. Over time, a confusing mass of detailed specifications arose, creating difficulty in understanding what was required. By the post-Second World War period (if not sooner) this level of precision could not keep pace with technical changes. New regulations were out of date almost as soon as they were made. Risks to the public were not successfully managed, either – think of the Brent Cross crane collapse in 1964, or the tragedy in Aberfan in 1966.

As workplaces changed in the 1950s and 1960s, many more people were being exposed to dangers that weren’t covered by the existing system and that weren’t being managed adequately. From around 168,000 casualties in 1958, workplace deaths and injuries rose to about 323,000 in 1969. The piecemeal health and safety system wasn’t working.

A designed system

That the problem was recognised and acted upon – across party political divides – demonstrates how much consensus there was that occupational health and safety was important. The Robens Committee was established under a Labour administration, with the subsequent legislation introduced by a Conservative government and enacted by a Labour government. Report and legislation took a wide-ranging view of health and safety – and established a more considered, intentionally designed system.

That included really radical elements. Gone were the precise technical specifications. In came flexibility, via a risk-based approach which asked employers to respond to potential workplace dangers, taking precautions ‘so far as reasonably practicable’ to prevent harm. Coverage was extended to include millions more working people, as the vast majority of workplaces now fell under the Act’s remit. A single regulatory body was established – the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Something of a high point in a consensual approach, state, employers and unions were each given a say in how the system operated. Duties were also extended to include the public impacts of occupational activities – virtually everyone was now ‘in scope’ of health safety.

Intriguingly, though, we might see some 19th-century thought underlying the Act. Foundational was the idea that there was an ‘identity of interest’ between employer and employee. Yet the pre-1974 evidence provided case after case in which this was very clearly not so. Sadly, profit came first all too many times.

Baking this principle into the Act and the subsequent health and safety regime was a bold choice, and one seeking the best in human nature. Arguably, though, it has been problematic. HSE inspectors came from the old system, too, in which persuasion was the tool of choice and enforcement a last resort. That approach has persisted, not least as HSE funding was progressively cut from the 1980s.

Moving forward

Attacks on the idea of health and safety became more noticeable from the 1980s onwards but became fevered in the 2000s. Nonetheless, the report Paul Almond and I co-authored, ‘The Changing Legitimacy of Health and Safety at Work, 1960-2015’, as part of IOSH’s ‘Health and Safety in a Changing World’ programme has shown that public attitudes to health and safety are actually nuanced and broadly positive.

The Health and Safety at Work Act has proven controversial in a range of areas. It has been seen as weak and in need of a complete overhaul. At the same time, others have seen the Act and the HSE as being too overbearing on the part of the state. It clearly isn’t possible to please everyone – something which will come to the fore at a public debate in London in November 2024, organised by the History and Policy network.

Whatever the outcome there, the underlying principle – that no one should be harmed by their work – is surely a good one upon which we can all agree.