The Legacy of Aberfan: 50 Years On

Friday, 21st October 2016

It is not uncommon to read in the press editorials complaining about the ‘nanny state’, unnecessary legislation and government interference. Health and safety legislation is a particular target, seen to combine with a fear of litigation to restrict people in activities that were previously considered harmless. However, whilst legislation on everything from manual handling to display screen equipment may be for some a cause of irritation in the workplace, it is underpinned by the ‘Health & Safety at Work Act, 1974’ which was formulated as a result of one of the worst disasters in modern UK history.

Today marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Aberfan disaster. At 9.15 in the morning on the 21st October, 1966, 144 people (including 116 children) were killed when colliery waste tip 7, comprising unwanted rock from the local coal mine, slid down Merthyr Mountain on to the village of Aberfan destroying 20 houses, a farm and nearly all of Pantglas Junior School.The tip had been deposited on a known water source and it was a build-up of water which led to the notoriously unstable slag-heap collapsing. Minutes earlier the school assembly hall had resounded to the sound of ‘All Things Bright and Beautiful.’

So shocking was the disaster that hundreds rushed to the scene to lend assistance to the largely unsuccessful rescue effort. Not, however, Lord Robens of Woldingham, Chairman of the National Coal Board, who, instead, went ahead with his investiture as Chancellor of the University of Surrey. When he did arrive at the scene the following day, he attempted to mislead the public and the media as to the causes of the disaster and suggested that nothing could have been done to prevent it.

A Tribunal was appointed within days to look into the disaster, the circumstances leading up to it, whether any individuals could be held responsible and what lessons could be learned. The Tribunal quickly discovered that, contrary to the claims of Lord Robens, the instability of the tip was well known and had been the subject of many letters of concern from the local community including the school’s Head Teacher. Lord Robens finally admitted as such when he appeared as a witness towards the end of the Tribunal.

The Report, when it appeared in August, 1967, was damning:

“…a terrifying tale of bungling ineptitude by many men charged with tasks for which they were totally unfitted…failure to heed clear warnings…total lack of direction from above.”

The conclusion read:

“Blame for the disaster rests upon the National Coal Board…The legal liability of the NCB to pay compensation of the personal injuries, fatal or otherwise, and damage to property, is incontestable and uncontested.”

Despite this, whilst nine employees were held responsible for the disaster, not one of them lost their job or was disciplined. Lord Robens’ half-hearted offer to resign was turned down by the Government. A Disaster Fund which raised the equivalent of £20,000,000 in today’s money was ordered to contribute towards the cost of removing the remnants of the tip which had claimed so many lives (this money was finally repaid to the fund in 1997 without a penny of interest added). The size of the fund was also used to justify the reduction in compensation paid to the families by the NCB.

It was clear that something had to be done to protect people who might be affected by unsafe work practices. Barbara Castle, the responsible minister at the time, set up a committee to review the workings of current law with regards to health and safety at work. The Committee, chaired by none other than Lord Robens, led to the establishment of the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act, 1974 which is still today the bedrock of health and safety legislation in the UK.

Previous law had been reactive rather than pro-active. The new law aimed to make employers and employees responsible before things went wrong. The new Act imposed a duty on every employer that they “shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, protect the health, safety and welfare at work of his employees.”

Further duties included:

(a) provision and maintenance of plant and safe systems of work;

(b) safety in the collection, use, storage and transport of loads and substances;

(c) provision of information, instruction, training and supervision of employees;

(d) maintaining a safe workplace, access and egress;

(e) maintaining a safe and healthy working environment.

The employer also had a duty to “prepare and revise a written statement of his general policy with respect to the health and safety at work of his employees and the organisation and arrangement […….] for carrying out that policy, and to bring the statement and any revision of it to the notice of his employees.”

Employees had a general duty to take reasonable care of themselves, and of others who might be affected by their acts and omissions at work. This might include: their willingness to receive training; to work safely; to use equipment or to exercise the right to refuse to carry out a task if there is no ‘safe system of work’ in place.

Where an employer was found negligent, the line manager or his equivalent was now also liable and could be punished accordingly. (Section 37).If a person was accused of negligence for failure to comply with health and safety legislation he/she had to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to have complied. (Section 40). Failure to comply with this Act might result in criminal prosecution.

It is not difficult to see how this law might have averted the disaster at Aberfan. It is perhaps better to focus on the lives which have been saved since due to a more rigorous health and safety framework, whilst regretting that it took the tragedy of fifty years ago to focus the minds of legislators.