When researching modern British history, the issue of race comes up often, particularly in the late 1950s/early 1960s. This era saw a sharp increase in immigrant labour, as the government recognised that post-war reconstruction depended on an influx of new workers. Throughout the 1950s, immigration from the Commonwealth rose significantly.

For employers and safety organisations, this rise in immigrant labour brought with it particular problems relating to health and safety. Communicating OHS regulations to workers whose first language was not English is a concern that arises in the minutes of safety committees and industrial advisory groups, often reflecting the presumptions and beliefs dominant at the time. The following is an extract from the minutes of an Industrial Group Advisory Council dating from January 1960 (click to enlarge):

The committee minutes state that the Wolverhampton Safety Group’s rules for ‘dealing with Pakistani and Indian Labour’ included entreaties to employers to: ‘treat them kindly but firmly, as though they were children’. Other rules stipulate close supervision (as it was thought workers could not be trusted to be mindful of safety issues) and not employing immigrant workers on jobs which ‘involve the use of discretion.’ Whilst such perspectives now seem astonishing and inconceivable, at the time they were widely held and would have appeared unremarkable.

This sheds light on the increasing issue of race relations in the British workforce in the early 1960s, something that was recognised in industry at the time. Indeed, ‘The Immigrant in Industry’ was one of the topics discussed at the Conference of Advisory Councils on Occupational Health in 1962/3. Minutes from this conference hint at a more constructive (though at times no less misguided) approach, suggesting short courses on occupational health and safety to be offered to workers entering the country for the first time. The conference minutes also recommended the production of pamphlets, the purpose of which was to ‘guide the immigrant to a successful entry into industry. The idea was to sell to the immigrant the maxim “When in Britain, do as the British do”’.

These documents flag up a topic we might not normally think about in relation to the history of occupational health and safety in the UK; namely, immigration and race-relations in industry, particularly in the post-war period. How far was racial prejudice an issue when it came to establishing good health and safety practices in the workplace? How far did employers perceive the communication of OHS regulations and issues to immigrant workers to be problematic, and how much of this was tainted by intolerance? And how far did immigrant workers feel that they were protected by OHS regulations, compared to their British colleagues?

One interesting theme which emerged from our time at the British Safety Council archives in October was the various ways in which safety messages are communicated to workers through promotional material – one popular method being the medium of the safety film. Our search unearthed a safety film catalogue from Federation Films, a production company formed jointly between the National Federation of Building Trades Employers and the Construction Industry Training Board.

Films in the catalogue included Where’s Danny?, No Questions Asked and Eyes Down. These productions (made between 1987 and 1990) use brutal scenes and emotive subjects to communicate their safety messages and to raise questions about worker and employer responsibility.

Where’s Danny? was produced for the painting industry, and follows a painting contractor working in an engineering factory. The film takes place 35 feet above ground, where Danny unclips his safety harness in order to clip it to a ladder (the correct procedure) but falls to his death due to the movement of the platform, which was badly set up. The film, described in the promotional material as ‘highly emotive’, highlights neglect on the part of management, in terms of their failure to order the correct equipment and cutting of corners to meet a deadline.

No Questions Asked is described as a dramatic, step by step portrayal of how an accident really does happen on a building site, and follows a series of incidents, all interlinked, which culminate in eventual disaster involving an unsafe trench. The procedure followed when investigating an accident is also shown, and all persons involved are found guilty – the foreman, general foreman, site agent and ganger. The message here is clear: everyone on the site bears a responsibility for safety.

Still from No Questions Asked

Eyes Down stresses the importance of hand, eye and foot protection in the construction industry. The promotional material sums up the crux of the film:

“Frank Waller was doing a routine sort of job – using a breaker on a kerbstone. So simple that maybe he wasn’t paying it much heed. The breaker slipped…they had to amputate what was left of Frank’s foot.”

Stills from Eyes Down

These films are relatively short (between 10-20 minutes) and tend to deliver their points concisely, and although they are instructional they draw more upon shock tactics and brutal imagery to gain the attention of employees and managers. Promotional materials like these aim at hammering home the cost of accidents and the issue of employee-employer responsibility, and such materials are extremely interesting to study in terms of the ways in which they attempt to engage with workers and communicate safety messages.

The nature of archival research can vary depending on the size, scope and location of the collection involved, and this week’s project trip to the British Safety Council archive in Mansfield was no exception. As you can see from the picture below, the conditions were somewhat unusual!

Rifling through uncatalogued material is always exciting, as there’s no telling what the collection might hold. And our project researchers did come away with some interesting finds. More to follow on this later!

[Many thanks to the British Safety Council for facilitating access to the collection]

“Before the end of 2014 people in Scotland will take one of the most important decisions in the history of Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom (UK) – whether to stay in the UK, or leave it and become a new, separate and independent state”

(House of Commons, Scotland analysis: Devolution and the implications of Scottish independence, February 2013)

On Thursday 18 September the Scottish electorate will decide whether Scotland should become independent country or remain within the UK. But what does this mean for occupational health and safety in Scotland? Historically, this issue has come up before, although in relation to devolution rather than full independence. In 1979, Scotland held a referendum on establishing an assembly devolved from Westminster, though the vote fell short of the 40% of the electorate required to make this a reality. This period is an interesting one so far as it relates to health and safety issues, because in the run up to the referendum the Health and Safety at Work etc Act (1974) was in its first few years of implementation. During a trip to the National Archives of Scotland, I happened across a number of documents from this period which provided an insight into some OHS concerns that, in the 1970s, set Scotland apart from England, and implied that homogeneity in OHS legislation would not work for a devolved Scottish Assembly.

The Health and Safety at Work etc Act was introduced into UK law in July 1974. The act laid down the general principles for the management of health and safety at work in the United Kingdom and also resulted in the creation of the Health and Safety Commission (since merged with the Health and Safety Executive). At the time devolution was being discussed (1975-1978) this legislation wasn’t fully implemented, which could have contributed to some anxiety in terms of Scotland’s proposed control over OHS issues relating to agriculture, offshore oil and particularly emissions from industrial premises. For example, industrial emissions were to come under the remit of the HSC, but it was felt, in Scotland, that this should remain within the powers of the Department of the Environment (as this was seen to be an environmental issue). Furthermore, correspondence between the Scottish Home and Health Department and UK government officials highlighted a few complexities here with regard to devolution: different standards in England and Scotland could be harmful, and uniformity across Scotland and England was preferable for the UK government. However, industrial emissions were very closely related to other aspects of environmental health which would be devolved to the Scottish assembly, making this a tricky issue.

At this time it was also expected that the NHS would work closely with aspects relating to occupational health, which might be difficult under a devolved Scottish Assembly. In July 1975 the Scottish Home and Health Department wrote that it would be ‘illogical’ for Scotland to have control over the NHS, but with health during working hours under the control of Westminster. The department also recognised that in ‘view of financial and other constraints’ the idea of setting up a Scottish Health and Safety Commission was unlikely, but suggested that if Scotland wished to have control over some arrangements ‘e. g. alcoholism at work’ it was thought that this should not cause serious difficulty for the rest of the UK.

These discussions were academic, however, as Scotland did not gain devolution from Westminster until 1999. Today, Scotland’s health and safety laws come from the UK parliament (which in turn takes many of its regulations from the EU). Scotland cannot make new health and safety laws, but can make law on related issues, such as criminal law. Since 1999, there has existed a concordat between the HSE and Scottish executive which is non-binding, but allows for practical working arrangements between the HSE and the Scottish Executive on OHS matters.

So who will have responsibility for health and safety in the event of a ‘Yes’ vote on September 18? There is still the question of whether Scotland would remain in the EU, but it is possible that, as the Scottish government wishes to join the EU, it will bring health and safety laws into line with EU requirements (a necessary pre-requisite for membership). Furthermore, in 2011, Employment Minister Chris Grayling commissioned the Löfstedt report – an independent review aimed at streamlining health and safety regulation in Britain. Scottish independence would not happen overnight, and it is probable that by the time Scotland did achieve full independence the recommendations of the review will have already been implemented. In addition, given that there are already HSE offices employing over 270 staff in Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Inverness, any radical overhaul of health and safety regulation in Scotland might seem an unlikely eventuality.

Laura Mayne