1.  ERGONOMICS AND THE ERGONOMICS SOCIETY

  Ergonomics is concerned with the interactions between people and technological systems. The ergonomist is involved in the design of human tasks and jobs, the usability of equipment, procedures and training for human tasks, management and organisation, and the general working environment. In effect, this is the practical application of the knowledge and methodologies of the human sciences (psychology, physiology, anatomy) to the design of systems. The understanding of human behaviour, with some emphasis on human error, contributes to assuring the desired performance of a system that includes humans, equipment, procedures and processes.

  The objectives of ergonomics are improved performance, reduced human error, greater job satisfaction and reduced risk of injury. Typical applications of ergonomics principles and techniques are in systems of transport, industrial processes, communications, and computerised operations. Ergonomics is applied across a spectrum of activities, ranging from high-hazard environments to more routine undertakings. The synonym "Human Factors" sometimes is used in place of "Ergonomics".

  The Ergonomics Society, founded in 1949, is the professional body of ergonomists, with an international membership in excess of 1400 practitioners in the field. Its aim is to promote the awareness, education and application of ergonomics in industry, commerce, the public sector and government. It maintains professional standards and a Register of Ergonomics Consultancies.

2.  THE SOCIETY'S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT BILL

2.1  General

  2.1.1  The Society welcomes the general tenor of the Draft Bill, that is, to replace the current "identification" principle by exposing "management failure" in organising and/or managing the activities of the organisation. There is considerable evidence that such management failures are a key feature, and often the dominant feature, in the causation of serious accidents. Over the past twenty years, ergonomists, and other specialists in human aspects of technology, have changed the focus of accident investigation and prevention, from concentrating solely on the individuals immediately involved, to much broader analysis of the organisational context. The now established phrases "management of safety" and "safety culture" represent this approach. Typically, the immediate actors in an accident scenario are dependent on the design of equipment, procedures, documentation, and training which may be inimical to the demands of a particular situation—The ultimate responsibility for the design of such support lies with management.

  2.1.2  The Society welcomes also the extension of the scope of the Draft Bill, to include the Crown and other government bodies. Such bodies often have considerable responsibility for potentially hazardous situations, and it is proper and fair that they should be subject to such a Bill, along with commercial enterprises.

  2.1.3  The Society commends the "Power to order breach etc. to be remedied" (Sec. 6 of the Draft Bill). This will make a constructive contribution to future safety, both for the organisation concerned and, through publicity, for cognate organisations. However, please note our further recommendation in 2.2.7 below.

2.2  Requests for further consideration by the Government

  2.2.1  Clauses 4(1)(c) and 4(4) of the Draft Bill: The Society notes the exclusion of "exclusively public function", and recommends that this be considered further. In order to make the application of this legislation as comprehensive as possible, such activities should be included.

  2.2.2  Clause 4(2) of the Draft Bill: Similarly, the Society recommends that the exclusion of "matters of public policy" be reconsidered. The Draft Bill cites, as justification, that such processes involve the allocation of resources and the weighing of competing interests. Such issues of resource allocation and other matters are not unusual in the management of safety in commercial and industrial contexts, and so we cannot accept this as an argument for excluding "matters of public policy".

  2.2.3  Clauses 10(1) and 10(3)(b) of the Draft Bill: The Society accepts the exclusion of combat operations by the armed forces (Clause 10(1)), but it is concerned that the definition of combat operations includes associated training (Clause (10)(3)(b)). Such training should be designed so as to avoid excessive risk to the participants, and hence should not be excluded from the compass of the Draft Bill.

  2.2.4  Clause 1(2) of the Draft Bill: The Society is concerned by the exclusion of unincorporated bodies, as implied in Clause 1(2) of the Draft Bill. We note the arguments set out in paras. 41-43 (pp. 15-16) of the Introduction to the document, and the assurance (para. 43) that the matter will be kept under review. Nevertheless, the intent is to include police forces (para. 44). We believe that there are many more unincorporated bodies, with extensive management structures and with responsibilities for safety of staff and others, which ought to be included in the proposed legislation.

  2.2.5  Section 5 of the Draft Bill: The Society is concerned also by the exclusion of "corporations sole". We see that note 42 (p. 41) of the Explanatory Notes implies that corporations sole will continue to be subject to the legislation on gross negligence manslaughter. It seems possible that some such entities have support personnel necessitating safety management systems, where the cardinal principle of the Draft Bill has application. Thus, the exclusion of corporations sole should be re-considered.

  2.2.6  Clause 1(4) of the Draft Bill: We are disappointed by the restriction of sanctions to a fine only. We note the Introduction's history of previous consultations on individuals' involvement—we are very sympathetic to the Government's previous view, that the deterrent force of the proposed legislation would be weakened by a lack of punitive sanctions against company officers. Notwithstanding the continuation of the legislation on gross negligence manslaughter, we urge re-consideration of individual prosecution and/or disqualification of the responsible company officers where corporate manslaughter has been proved. It is arguable that company officers may feel insulated, as individuals, by the proposed Bill in its present form.

  2.2.7  Section 6 of the Draft Bill: We welcome the "Power to order breach etc. to be remedied", but we are convinced that this section must contain also provision for the involvement of HSE or a similar body, to track and approve the "remedial steps" taken by the convicted organisation.

2.3  Responses to specific questions in the document

  2.3.1  Definition of "a senior manager". The Society accepts the arguments in paras. 25-31 (pp.12-13), and has nothing to add. However, it would be helpful if such discussion were to be made available in a supplement to the Bill, such as a code of practice.

  2.3.2  "Gross breach and statutory criteria" (paras. 32-33, pp. 13-14) We judge that the definition of "gross breach" as ". . . conduct falling far below what can reasonably be expected." is still rather vague. Indeed, the qualification "far below" seems unaccountably lenient for a Bill that focuses on incidents where death has occurred in a work situation. Analysis of such incidents shows often that fatal accidents result from an interacting array of organisational failings, where the array could have been foreseen and defences planned. Furthermore, effective management of safety requires continuing awareness and monitoring of likely hazardous situations. Thus, we would recommend a more comprehensive and stringent formulation, such as—". . . conduct, particularly in failures to plan, resource, execute, and monitor safety systems and procedures, that could reasonably be expected to subject employees or others to unacceptable risk."

  Rather less important, we feel that clause 3(2)(b)(iii) is superfluous. The motivation for the breach is irrelevant—only the duty of care is pertinent. Indeed, there might be sources of motivation other than profit,

  2.3.3  "Statutory criteria" Further to the above comments, we accept that the inclusion (Clauses 3(2) and 3(3) of the Draft Bill) of reference to statutory criteria is helpful. However, there is a very wide range of guidance on safety and ergonomics, in addition to statutory documents. The Bill, or supplementary information, should acknowledge this, and reference might be made also to "any other relevant legislation or guidance'. We suggest that HSE could advise on the range of eligible publications. Other specialists, such as The Ergonomics Society, also might help in this.

  2.3.4  Fines for Crown bodies? (para. 53, p. 18) We accept that such fines would serve little practical purpose. The imposition of remedial orders, and the attendant publicity, would be much more effective and fitting. Please note also our comments at 2.2.6 above.

2.4  Further recommendations

  2.4.1  Ergonomics as applied to the design of equipment, procedures, tasks, training, working environments, and organisational issues makes a cardinal contribution to safety. This should be emphasised in the Bill, if allowable, but certainly in any supplementary codes of practice or guidance notes.

14 June 2005