View report page

registration. As indicated earlier compliance with Section 49, which requires occupiers to
register their premises, is seldom effected on an occupiers own initiative but only after one or
more written communications and a final visit by an Inspector.
The provisions of the Act which automatically exempt, without written application,
premises where only self-employed people work or where the only persons employed are close
relatives of the employer, and businesses where the total hours worked by all employees do
not exceed 21 hours per week, provide a loophole which is liable to exploitation and is being
used as a delaying action to evade responsibility under the Act. Occupiers of such businesses
are under no statutory obligation to make a signed declaration to the local authority and the
true situation cannot be ascertained without prying into matters which, quite properly, may be
considered the private concern of the individual who is under no compulsion to divulge to
officers of a local authority intimate details of his business. In my opinion the registration
requirements of the Act would be more effective and realistic if they were amended to make
it compulsory for occupiers of all commercial premises to notify the local authority on Form
OSR.I, and make a signed declaration (in a standard form) stating the reason or reasons why
they consider their premises should be exempted from the provisions of the Act. This would
enable enforcement action to be initiated without officers having to spend much needless time
in carrying out detailed investigations to establish whether or not premises are subject to the
Act.
A recent Parliamentary announcement indicated that preparatory work had begun on a
comprehensive revision of the safety, health and welfare legislation which might well lead to
the amalgamation of the Factory Act and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act into
one enactment and possibly the setting up of a new Central Inspectorate. In this connection
I wish to re-iterate the comment made in my 1967 report namely, that this is a field in which
local responsibility is fundamental and there are strong grounds for opposing any suggestion
of transferring responsibility for enforcement of the Act to central government.
Inspection of business premises by officers, of a local authority covers a wide sphere
of activity involving many separate, but inter-related, statutes, orders and regulations concerned
with environmental health, welfare, hygiene and public protection. Such a transfer
would bring about duplicity of inspections and responsibilities resulting in officers of both
central and local government visiting the same premises for essentially the same purpose.
It would also be bad for the promotion of good public relations.
Finally, I consider that there is a need for amending legislation to strengthen the
procedure for the notification of accidents under Section 48. All accidents reported to the
Ministry of Social Security for monetary insurance benefits should be referred to the appropriate
authority for verification and investigation under the Act.
B.J .Ashcroft
Chief Public Health Inspector
- 29 -