Steven, Thats a cracker,but I think that there is a possible answer, which I offer for bricks to be thrown at it. I think that there are 2 points. Firstly, its a bit like the GMC arguement about electronic locks, which went to Court. You may recall that one arguement was that GMC, by ensuring that the public could escape were only doing so in order that, by their failure to escape the public did not put staff at risk; so the requirement under the Workplace Regs to protect employees was legitamately being enforced. It is also a bit like B5 of the Building Regs, which requires measures to assist firefighters, but primarily so that they could effect rescue, thereby enforcing the requirement to secure the H&S of those in and around buildings. If, say, a firefighting lift and rising main required under the Building regs were not maintained, this would be to the detriment of the safety of firefighters. Thus a breach of Article 38. Now, if the firefighters are at risk, and so are unable to effect rescues of relevant persons, the latter could, arguably, be exposed to risk of death or serious injury in the event of fire. In practice, as workplaces generally stand alone with no need for rescue by the fire brigade, it would be very difficult if not impossible to go straight to prosecution for this breach. Nervertheless consider a block of flats. If the firefighters cannot use the lifts and rising mains, people could be put at risk. None of this means that there is no teeth to enforce Article 38 of course, since a failure to maintain could result in an enforceement notice.
