Revised Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance for asbestos surveys came into force in January 2010, replacing current guidance known as MDHS 100.

It is a comprehensive regime covering surveying, sampling, and assessment of asbestos containing materials (ACMs).

It will affect you if you are:

an asbestos surveyor
a duty holder - a person or organisation having responsibility for non-domestic or domestic properties on whom falls the statutory duty to manage such premises so that occupants or employees are not exposed to risk from the presence of ACMs.

Unlike MDHS 100, the new survey guidelines impose express obligations on the Duty holder in relation to the planning and execution of the asbestos survey. The HSE emphasises that asbestos, a category 1 chemical carcinogen, is the cause of the greatest number of work-related deaths every year.

So what is new?

Types of asbestos survey

Under the new regime, there will be two types of asbestos survey:

the management survey (akin to the Type 2 survey) - designed to locate, as far as reasonably practicable, the presence and extent of ACMs, so that the Duty holder can prepare a plan for the management of asbestos
the refurbishment/demolition survey (akin to the Type 3 survey) - a much more intrusive survey, designed to locate all the ACMs so they can be removed before the refurbishment (whether small scale or a large project) or demolition takes place. Aggressive inspection techniques will be required, so controls must be in place to prevent the spread of asbestos debris

Top

February 2010

The Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) has published its definitive guideline on corporate manslaughter sentencing.

It sets out principles to guide courts in dealing with companies and organisations that cause death through a gross breach of care or where breaches of health and safety requirements are a significant cause of the death. The guidelines will come into effect from 15th February 2010.

The guidelines state that fines for companies and organisations found guilty of corporate manslaughter may be millions of pounds and should seldom be below £500,000. For other health and safety offences that cause death, fines from £100,000 upwards should be imposed.

In deciding the level of fine, the SGC says account must be taken of the financial circumstances of the offending organisation. In the guidelines, the Council emphasises the need for a court to have full, accurate and reliable information and details the method for ensuring that it is consistently provided.

When fixing the fine, the guidelines say a court should not be influenced by the impact on shareholders and directors, nor consider the costs of complying with other sanctions. However, the effect on the employment of the innocent may be relevant, as may the effect on provision of services to the public.

Factors increasing the seriousness of the offence identified by the Council include the foreseeability of serious injury, whether non-compliance was common and widespread within the organisation, and how far up the organisation responsibility for the breach went. Other factors that would aggravate the offence and raise the fine above the relevant minimum level include the number of deaths and serious injury caused, injury to vulnerable persons, failure to heed warnings or respond to near misses of a similar nature, cost-cutting, and deliberate failure to obtain or comply with relevant licences.

Publicity Orders, which compel companies and organisations to publish statements about their conviction for corporate manslaughter, details of the offence and the fine, are part of the penalty and should be imposed in virtually all cases, say the guidelines.

The fines will not attempt to value a human life – compensation will be assessed separately in these cases, but they will be punitive and substantial and have an impact on the company or organisation.”

The guidelines will apply to all cases which appear before the Courts after 15 February, even if the incident occurred a number of months or even years ago.

Top

December 2009

Kent Fire and Rescue Service (KFRS) has launched the musically-flavoured ‘Stand by Your Pan’ as a response to figures which highlight a particular risk to those who get peckish after a few drinks.

The lighthearted approach of this Tammy Wynette inspired video is intended to engage those at risk, so they take on board the serious safety messages that could save their lives. According to KFRS, one in every three fire deaths is drink related, and the majority of accidental domestic fires begin in the kitchen.

The short video tells the story of a man’s return home after a night out with friends, and how his hunger pangs lead him to dice with death.

Its well worth watching

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1RxuvfIwCo&feature=player_embedded

Top

Cowboys and Gas don't mix – If you use an unregistered gas engineers you could be putting your life at risk

Anyone employed to work on gas appliances in domestic premises must be Gas Safe registered and competent in that area of gas work. By using a Gas Safe registered engineer, and by checking the back of their ID card to see if they are qualified to do the type of gas work you want, you can be sure that any work completed by them will be done competently and safely.

HSE advises that you should arrange for regular maintenance and an annual safety check to be carried out on your gas appliances and installation by a Gas Safe registered engineer. Landlords have a legal duty to ensure that this is carried out.
Unsafe gas work can lead to a gas leak, fire, explosion and exposure to carbon monoxide, which could result in you, your family or friends being seriously injured or killed.

Go to the Gas Safe Register or phone 0800 408 5500 to find out more about how to make sure your engineer is Gas Safe registered and how to protect yourself and your family from unsafe gas

Independent safety audit for all risk assessments in all workplaces and all work activities.

The HSE have issued a Preliminary consultation into the recommendations of the Gill Report on the 2004 ICL Plastics explosion. This can be found at http://consultations.hse.gov.uk/inovem/gf2.ti/f/10274/278629.1/pdf/-/cd224.pdf

Lurking in this consultation document is the proposal for risk assessment to be made more effective by the addition of some form of independent safety audit. This would apply for all workplaces and all work activities.

Introduction:

In May 2004 a large explosion at a factory owned by ICL Plastics Ltd in Glasgow resulted in the deaths of nine people and injuries, some critical, to 33 more. The explosion was caused by a leak, into the basement of the factory, of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) from a corroded underground metal pipe. When the leaked LPG ignited, the explosion caused the four-storey factory to collapse.

ICL Plastics used LPG as a fuel source in some of its processes. However, since the LPG pipe was first installed, the factory and its yard had been subject to a number of structural modifications.

These, together with the lack of pipework maintenance, contributed ultimately to the explosion.

Two companies (ICL Tech Limited and ICL Plastics Ltd) pleaded guilty to breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and were fined £200 000 each. An inquiry was also held into the circumstances leading to the disaster. The inquiry was conducted by Lord Gill and focused on the issue of the service pipework between the tank and the premises to which it was supplying. It also looked at how LPG pipework should be installed and maintained on industrial and commercial premises.

The Gill Report

The inquiry report was published on 16 July 2009 and is available at

http://www.theiclinquiry.org/Documents/Documents/HC838ICL_Inquiry_Report.pdf.

For consultation: The current risk assessment system should be improved by
the addition of an independent audit process. The Gill Report endorses the view that the user of LPG at a site is primarily responsible for its safety, as they create the risk by bringing it onto their land. The organisation is therefore responsible for the risk assessment and control that are required under the legislation outlined above.

However, the Report expresses concerns about the quality of risk assessments that are undertaken in relation to LPG installations. It states: ‘This case has demonstrated the weakness of the risk assessment process. The regulations merely oblige the employer to carry out an assessment. They do not provide any safeguard that will ensure that the assessment is properly carried out by a competent person; or that it is subject to any form of independent expert audit.’ (p 141)

Therefore, the Report suggests that:

‘Ministers should consider whether the existing regulations on risk assessment could be made more effective, perhaps by the addition of some form of independent safety audit.’ (p 141)

The introduction of an independent safety audit would mean changing current practice.

Logically, it would not just apply to the storage and use of LPG, but also to risk assessments performed for all workplaces and all work activities.

We are therefore seeking views from a broad range of stakeholders on the introduction of an independent safety audit of risk assessment.

It is the view of JRB Consulting that the introduction of an independent safety audit of ALL risk assessments WOULD NOT add any value and only generate more expense and bureaucracy for businesses.

Whatever your view make it known and respond to this document

Top

August 2009 - Proposals for new ‘fit note’ unveiled

On 28 May, the Government unveiled proposals for a new medical ‘fit note’ to replace the existing sick note. The changes are intended to take effect from Spring 2010 and come in response to Dame Carol Black’s 2008 report into the health of Britain’s working population (as discussed in previous editions of this newsletter).

The ‘fit note’, which is intended to be computer generated in GPs’ surgeries, gives the GP the option to indicate when someone ‘may be fit for some work now’. Where the GP does so, he will be required to take a record of general details of the functionality of the individual’s condition. This information, it is hoped, will facilitate the discussions between employer and employee about what steps can be taken to achieve the employee’s return to work. Although the current sick note includes a ‘remarks’ section, its primary focus has been on the individual’s health condition and how long he should be absent from work.

The new note is aimed at getting people back to work quickly from sickness, rather than to let them drift into long-term absence. The exact form of the note is still under discussion and other proposals include allowing GPs to suggest where employees may benefit from common types of workplace or job changes, e.g. phased return to work or altered hours or even an occupational health referral.

The proposed new system should help employers assess an employee’s medical condition. However, employers will not be bound by the GP’s recommendations and will remain responsible for ensuring that the employee is fit to return to work under the terms of his contract. Prudent employers will therefore not follow GP recommendations in isolation and should, in particular, bear in mind their responsibilities and possible exposure under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and various health and safety laws.

Spider scare case unsuccessful

A German woman has recently been unsuccessful in her claim for 6000 Euros (approximately £5,190 at today’s rates) against her housecleaners for negligence for injuries suffered after she was startled by a spider in her garage!

The woman claimed she had been surprised by the presence of a spider which caused her to fall over, break her wrist and bruise her hip. She alleged she had employed the housecleaners to maintain the garage and specifically to remove cobwebs on a monthly basis. The court, however, ruled that this was nothing more than an unfortunate accident caused by an every day risk, and pointed out that spiders could easily make their way into the garage in between cleaning.

Top

June 2009 - Company director fined for fire safety breaches

A director of Maureen O’Brien Ltd (in administration) – the company which formerly owned the high street chain Joy – has been ordered to pay over £5,500 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to breaches of fire safety legislation.

Girish Chadha was fined £500 for 11 contraventions of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The case was held on Tuesday 23 June at the Inner London Crown Court. According to the London Fire Brigade which brought the prosecution, as a result of the company going into administration the defendant’s financial position had to be taken into account when setting the level of the fines.

A fire safety inspection was carried out in July 2007 at Joy’s headquarters at 432 Coldharbour Lane, Brixton. The inspecting officer found a number of fire safety contraventions; these included no emergency procedures, excessive storage in the escape routes and no appropriate fire safety training for staff. An enforcement notice was served and Mr Chadha was instructed to act upon its findings.

A follow up inspection took place on 12 December 2007 which discovered that the enforcement notice had not been complied with.

Brian Coleman, chairman of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority said: “This is an unusual case, in that Maureen O’Brien Limited was going into administration, meaning it was not in the public interest to prosecute the company. However, where the evidence exists, we will prosecute individuals who are responsible for fire safety and do not take these responsibilities seriously.

“I urge landlords, business owners and employers to remember that fire safety is a key part of running any business. You must make yourself aware of the regulations and undertake a fire safety risk assessment, which is now mandatory.”

Top

May 2009 - Employers Beware.

Not a reason to cancel team building events but something to be aware of.

When arranging any event discuss the arrangements with the company. No one wants a staff member of sick for six months, especially the staff member I would suggest.

Team-building, thrill-rides and other high-octane fast RIB trips have been blamed for causing numerous injuries to members of the public, according to a report issued yesterday by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB).

The report stated: 'Boat trips of varying intensities in small, fast, commercial craft have grown in popularity in recent years. However, these craft are particularly susceptible to relatively high levels of shock and vibration when transiting choppy or disturbed waters when the risk of spinal and other injuries in these craft is increased.

One such incident involved a 55 year old female passenger on board a 9m RIB, who suffered a lower back wedge compression fracture. She was participating in a 1 hour boat trip in the Bristol Channel with 10 colleagues as part of a corporate team building exercise. The injury occurred when the passenger landed heavily on her seat after she was momentarily lifted into the air due to the motion of the craft. She was treated in hospital and fitted with an external spine brace before returning home to begin a 6 month recuperation programme.

The report summary said: 'The MAIB is aware of 28 accidents that have resulted in lower back compression injuries on board RIBs since 2001, one of which occurred in April 2009.

'The risk of this type of injury can be reduced by the skill of a boat's coxswain, boat design and procedures such as the exclusion of individuals particularly at risk for medical reasons.

'Boat handling skills, including the ability to judge and anticipate the effects of the
prevailing sea conditions is the most significant factor when managing the risks
associated with high speed powerboat operations.'

RIB buoyancy tubes were highlighted as causing slamming on large waves and the re-positioning of the passengers' seats towards the stern would significantly reduce their exposure for given speeds and sea states. Shock damping seats are available but at significant cost and harnesses can be used to keep passengers in contact with their seats, but with other safety implications, such as entrapment in the case of capsize.

Investigators have issued recommendations to the RYA, MCA, the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services and the Institute of Licensing and the Passenger Boat and Professional Boatman's Associations to develop an approved code of practice for thrill-type rides in the UK.

Top

January 2009 - New Gas Safe Register

Last year, HSE announced changes to the gas installer registration scheme in Great Britain. The scheme currently operated by CORGI will be replaced on 1 April 2009 by the new Gas Safe Register™ (operated by Capita). The Gas Safe Register will be the only gas installer registration scheme approved by HSE from 1 April under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998. All gas installers wanting to undertake domestic gas work in Great Britain from 1 April will need, under those Regulations, to be registered with this scheme in order to be able lawfully to carry out any work on gas fittings, which includes gas appliances.

Gas Safe Register will maintain an up-to-date register of gas installers who are qualified to install or repair gas fittings and appliances.It will have systems in place to check the competence of gas installers, inspect their work and to deal with complaints about unsafe gas work. The operation of the Gas Safe Register will be overseen by HSE as the regulator with responsibility for gas safety. This means that from 1 April, in order to ensure that gas installers are lawfully able to carry out the gas work, domestic users of gas should ask for a Gas Safe Registered Engineer and not any other. The CORGI register will no longer count for those purposes.

The Gas Safe Register opened on Monday 19th January for currently registered gas installers to register in advance with new scheme by telephone or through the website:http://www.gassaferegister.co.uk.

Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008 raises the bar

After several failed attempts by Parliament to increase penalties for breaches of health and safety law, the Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008 (the “Act”) came into force Jan 2009.
The new Act makes three main changes - it raises the maximum financial penalties available to the courts, makes imprisonment an option for a wider range of health and safety offences, and makes certain offences currently only triable in the lower courts, triable in either the lower or the higher courts (meaning that more cases will be open to an unlimited fine and a term of imprisonment). The Act extends to both England & Wales and Scotland. Although it increases penalties for health and safety breaches, it does not impose any new obligations on employers by way of new offences. The principal duties of employers will remain as before under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (“HSWA”).

Previously, under summary procedure, courts have been unable to impose fines higher than £20,000 for a breach of the HSWA, or a fine higher than £5,000 for the breach of a regulation (for example, a breach of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999). The Act changes the law by increasing the maximum fine for summary cases to £20,000, and introducing a term of 12 months imprisonment. For those on indictment, the existing unlimited fine has been buttressed by the availability of a term of two years imprisonment for individuals under the Act.

Until now, imprisonment has only been an option in certain very limited cases, such as where an improvement or prohibition notice had been breached. However, the Act now makes imprisonment available for a much wider range of offences, both in the lower and higher courts. That said, whilst the option of a custodial sentence may have been extended to breaches of the general duties imposed on “employers” under the HSWA, the extent of this change will be limited unless more directors, managers and officers are also prosecuted and convicted, along with the corporate entity, under section 37 of the HSWA (since “employers”, if companies, cannot be imprisoned).

The matter of imprisonment of individuals is significant, and of particular note are the sections of the HSWA relating to individual liability. An individual, whether a director, manager or worker, can be prosecuted under section 7 of the HSWA if they have not taken reasonable care for the health and safety of themselves or other persons affected by their acts or omissions. In addition, section 37 of the HSWA allows action to be taken against directors, managers and officers where a failure can be attributed to their “neglect, consent or connivance”. Under the new Act, following a breach of sections 7 or 37, a director, manager, officer or worker could now face a term of up to two years imprisonment.

Top

Christmas 2008 - ‘It’s not rocket science’

Statistics show that at times when we are exposed to increased stress, unusual routine and distractions there is an increase in the number of accidents in the home.

Of all the times in the year when all three factors come together to impact on our daily life the Christmas period must surely be the prime time. A few simple safety steps which need only take a few extra seconds can help you enjoy a safe and happy Christmas. Initial preparations normally involve hanging decorations and dressing the Christmas tree. It is essential to use proper step ladders when putting up decorations in positions which would normally require you to stretch or climb precariously on to the edge of a chair and it is vital that you do not overreach - a few seconds spent moving the step ladders could prevent a painful fall. Care should be taken not to overload sockets with Christmas tree lights and other extra electrical items.

On Christmas Day itself discarded wrapping represents a fire hazard and the, hopefully, many presents which are scattered around can be a tripping hazard or if they are toys they can pose a variety of safety problems if they fall into the hands of a child who is younger than the age group for which the toy is designed. The easiest way to deal with these hazards is to tidy up the items and put them in a safer location where the risks of accidents occurring will be reduced.

Similarly Christmas Day is the time of greatest activity in the kitchen and a little extra effort and organisation in keeping worktops and cookers tidy with hot, heavy or sharp objects well back from the edges or with handles turned in so that they do not overhang will reduce the risks of any accidents. Overall it can be seen that with a little thought and organisation the risks of accidents occurring can be greatly reduced and will in turn lead to a less stressful Yuletide.

If past statistics are anything to go by 80,000 people will pay a visit to their local A&E over the 12 days of Christmas. Please don’t become a statistic.

A merry Christmas and a peaceful New Year to everyone.

John

Top

October 2008 - Asbestos: The Hidden Killer

During October and November 2008 HSE in partnership with key stakeholders will be running a national campaign to target tradesmen (primarily plumbers, electricians, joiners as well as other tradesmen) who are still at risk from exposure to asbestos. The campaign will build on the success of the previous pilot campaign in the North West. The primary aim of the campaign is to raise awareness amongst tradesmen that they are more at risk than they think from asbestos. The campaign also aims to encourage tradesmen to find out more about asbestos and the precautions they should be taking.

National radio adverts.
Adverts in national press
Distribution of campaign material to plumbers, electricians, joiners and other tradesmen
Case studies being developed nationally
PR activity, including the use of case studies.
Articles in trade press magazines.

Every week six joiners die from this hidden killer

The campaign launches 13 October

Top

November 2007 - Health and Safety Taliban?

The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, Sir Norman Bettison, has launched a scathing attack on the health and safety profession, saying the "elevated and authoritative status" of health and safety was hindering police officers from carrying out their jobs and putting lives at risk.

In a letter to the Yorkshire Post, Sir Norman condemned the "armchair perfection of the health and safety Taliban" and accused society of a "sleep-walking acceptance of the health and safety mantra".

In particular, he referred to the Metropolitan Police's conviction for breaching health and safety laws over the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. Sir Norman described the conviction as "a triumph for health and safety... but a disaster for common sense".

The Met Police was found guilty under s.3 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974 for failing in its duty to protect members of the public. It was ordered to pay a fine of £175,000 as well as £385,000 in court costs.

In response to the Chief Constable's comments, the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) said the dubbing of its profession as the "health and safety Taliban" was "deeply offensive and regrettable".

Lisa Fowlie, IOSH President, said: "Sir Norman Bettison’s attack on our profession, and his use of the phrase 'health and safety Taliban', is deeply offensive to the thousands of health and safety professionals who are working to make this country a safer place to work and it’s regrettable that he chose this phrase."

Are we offended?

No. In fact we have a lot of sympathy for the Chief Constable's view. Without a doubt one of the issues surrounding health and safety in 2007 is not the 'rules' but individuals perception and their interpretation of them.

JRB Consulting offer a bespoke, practical, and personal service to our clients. We would be delighted to discuss your requirements.

July 2007- HSE New Approach to Risk Assessment

“The times they are a changing” sang Bob Dylan. Well the HSE are now singing this tune with their new approach to Risk Assessment.

They have a campaign running to dispel the ‘myths’ that surround health and safety and this months subject is Risk Assessment. It is a legal requirement for employers and the self employed to access the risks with what they are doing, eliminate them if possible or introduce control measures to minimise the risk. Most importantly the assessments should be bought to the attention of those affected by them.

So what are the HSE now saying?

‘The reality'

On its own, paperwork never saved anyone. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself - action is what protects people. So risk assessments should be fit for purpose and acted upon.

OK, if you’re running an oil refinery you’re going to need a fair amount of paperwork. But for most, bullet points work very well indeed.’

We believe that risk management should be about practical steps to protect people from real harm and suffering - not bureaucratic back covering. If you believe some of the stories you hear, health and safety is all about stopping any activity that might possibly lead to harm. This is not our vision of sensible health and safety - we want to save lives, not stop them. Our approach is to seek a balance between the unachievable aim of absolute safety and the kind of poor management of risk that damages lives and the economy.

Sensible risk management is about:

Ensuring that workers and the public are properly protected
Providing overall benefit to society by balancing benefits and risks, with a focus on reducing real risks – both those which arise more often and those with serious consequences.
Enabling innovation and learning not stifling them
Ensuring that those who create risks manage them responsibly and understand that failure to manage real risks responsibly is likely to lead to robust action
Enabling individuals to understand that as well as the right to protection, they also

2. Sensible risk management is not about:

Creating a totally risk free society
Generating useless paperwork mountains
Scaring people by exaggerating or publicising trivial risks
Stopping important recreational and learning activities for individuals where the risks are managed
Reducing protection of people from risks that cause real harm and suffering

Well this should make everyone’s life easier shouldn’t’ it?

A note of caution. If you do have to produce your assessments or demonstrate how you have managed the risk and can’t I would suggest that it will much easier for the inspector to pursue a legal course of action against you.

After all they have tried to make it a lot easier for you and you failed to follow their advice!

For examples of the HSE’s new approach to risk assessments visit

http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/examples.htm

Be safe

Top

May 2007 - Health and Safety Questionnaires

I hate them and I am a Chartered Safety Practitioner so I fully understand when I get calls of desperation from clients wanting advice on how to complete them.

I think it’s important to firstly understand why they are used. The Health and Safety Act 74 Sect 3 makes it absolutely clear that employers have a legal duty to ensure the health and safety of persons not in their employee. This includes suppliers, contractors, visitors, members of the public etc. Another way to look at it is organisations have a legal responsibility to engage ‘competent’ contractors.

A key question in the questionnaire will concern Risk Assessments and Method Statements. It may ask for your process and or examples.

Many organisations have unfortunately discovered their responsibilities for contractors working on their behalf under Sect 3 in the courtroom.

A recent case involved Jeremy Davenport who suffered multiple injuries when he fell over five meters from a ladder he was using for access to a ledge at the University of the Arts London. The ledge was located above the busy shopping area of Oxford Street. He fell onto the ledge and from there to the ground. The ladder also fell and injured a member of the public who was walking underneath at the time. At a hearing on 8 March 2007, at the City of London Magistrates Court, self-employed workers John Preston and Graham Cresswell were each fined £7,500 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(2) of the HSWA. The University of the Arts London, who employed the three workers, was fined £20,000 (the maximum fine in the Magistrates Court) after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the HSWA. You cannot insure against fines in the courts!

Having now established why organisations need to send out these questionnaires why on earth isn’t there a standard one? The ones I look at are asking the same questions in a different way and that doesn’t make life easy. There is no easy answer to this and organisations are of course trying to meet their legal responsibilities.

One of my frustrations is that the person sending out the questionnaire often doesn’t really understand the process and on receipt puts it on file and ticks a box somewhere.

So what advice can I give you on this matter?

If you get a health and safety questionnaire answer it as soon as possible. A common mistake is to leave it till the last moment.
If there are questions on there you don’t understand ring the organisation and speak to the person concerned.
Ensure that the person answering the questionnaire in your organisation understands how health and safety is managed in your organisation.
Ensure your health and safety documentation is up to scratch as it is often asked for in a selection questionnaire
Don’t tell porkies. It will always catch you out somewhere.

Be safe

Top

November 2006 - Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006

The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 came into force on 13 November 2006 (Asbestos Regulations - SI 2006/2737).

These Regulations bring together the three previous sets of Regulations covering the prohibition of asbestos, the control of asbestos at work and asbestos licensing.

The Regulations prohibit the importation, supply and use of all forms of asbestos. They continue the ban introduced for blue and brown asbestos 1985 and for white asbestos in 1999. They also continue the ban the second-hand use of asbestos products such as asbestos cement sheets and asbestos boards and tiles; including panels which have been covered with paint or textured plaster containing asbestos. REMEMBER: The ban applies to new use of asbestos. If existing asbestos containing materials are in good condition, they may be left in place, their condition monitored and managed to ensure they are not disturbed.

The Asbestos Regulations also include the ‘duty to manage asbestos’ in non-domestic premises. Guidance on the duty to manage asbestos can be found in the 'Approved Code of Practice The Management of Asbestos in Non-Domestic Premises', L27, ISBN 0 7176 6209 8 and on the duty to manage area of this website.

The Regulations require mandatory training for anyone liable to be exposed to asbestos fibres at work (see regulation 10). This includes maintenance workers and others who may come into contact with or who may disturb asbestos (eg cable installers) as well as those involved in asbestos removal work.

When work with asbestos or which may disturb asbestos is being carried out, the Asbestos Regulations require employers and the self-employed to prevent exposure to asbestos fibres.

Where this is not reasonably practicable, they must make sure that exposure is kept as low as reasonably practicable by measures other than the use of respiratory protective equipment. The spread of asbestos must be prevented. The Regulations specify the work methods and controls that should be used to prevent exposure and spread.

Worker exposure must be below the airborne exposure limit (Control Limit). The Asbestos Regulations have a single Control Limit for all types of asbestos of 0.1 fibres per cm3. A Control Limit is a maximum concentration of asbestos fibres in the air (averaged over any continuous 4 hour period) that must not be exceeded.

In addition, short term exposures must be strictly controlled and worker exposure should not exceed 0.6 fibres per cm3 of air averaged over any continuous 10 minute period using respiratory protective equipment if exposure cannot be reduced sufficiently using other means.

Respiratory protective equipment is an important part of the control regime but it must not be the sole measure used to reduce exposure and should only be used to supplement other measures. Work methods that control the release of fibres such as those detailed in the Asbestos Essentials task sheets for non-licensed work should be used. Respiratory protective equipment must be suitable, must fit properly and must ensure that worker exposure is reduced as low as is reasonably practicable.

Most asbestos removal work must be undertaken by a licensed contractor but any decision on whether particular work is licensable is based on the risk. Work is only exempt from licensing if:

the exposure of employees to asbestos fibres is sporadic and of low intensity (but exposure cannot be considered to be sporadic and of low intensity if the concentration of asbestos in the air is liable to exceed 0.6 fibres per cm3 measured over 10 minutes); and
it is clear from the risk assessment that the exposure of any employee to asbestos will not exceed the control limit; and the work involves:
short, non-continuous maintenance activities. Work can only be considered as short, non-continuous maintenance activities if any one person carries out work with these materials for less than one hour in a seven-day period. The total time spent by all workers on the work should not exceed a total of two hours. [i]
removal of materials in which the asbestos fibres are firmly linked in a matrix, Such materials include: asbestos cement; textured decorative coatings and paints which contain asbestos; articles of bitumen, plastic, resin or rubber which contain asbestos where their thermal or acoustic properties are incidental to their main purpose (eg vinyl floor tiles, electric cables, roofing felt) and other insulation products which may be used at high temperatures but have no insulation purposes, for example gaskets, washers, ropes and seals.
encapsulation or sealing of asbestos-containing materials which are in good condition, or
air monitoring and control, and the collection and analysis of samples to find out if a specific material contains asbestos.

Under the Asbestos Regulations, anyone carrying out work on asbestos insulation, asbestos coating or asbestos insulating board (AIB) needs a licence issued by HSE unless they meet one of the exemptions above.

REMEMBER: Although you may not need a licence to carry out a particular job, you still need to comply with the rest of the requirements of the Asbestos Regulations.

If the work is licensable you have a number of additional duties. You need to:

Notify the enforcing authority responsible for the site where you are working (for example HSE or the local authority)
Designate the work area (see regulation 18 for details)
Prepare specific asbestos emergency procedures; and
Pay for your employees to undergo medical surveillance

The Asbestos Regulations require any analysis of the concentration of asbestos in the air to be measured in accordance with the 1997 WHO recommended method.

From 6 April 2007, a clearance certificate for re-occupation may only be issued by a body accredited to do so. At the moment, such accreditation can only be provided by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS).

You can find more details of how to undertake work with asbestos containing materials, the type of controls necessary, what training is required and analytical methods in the following HSE publications :

Approved Code of Practice Work with Materials containing Asbestos, L143, ISBN 0 7176 6206 3
Asbestos: the Licensed Contractors Guide, HSG 247, ISBN 0 7176 2874 4
Asbestos: The analysts' guide for sampling, analysis and clearance procedures, HSG 248, ISBN 0 7176 2875 2
Asbestos Essentials, HSG 210, ISBN 0 71761887 0 (Asbestos Essentials task sheets are available on the Asbestos Essentials area of this website).

REMEMBER: You must also comply with other health and safety legislation. [ii]

Notes

It is important that the amount of time you or your employees spend working with asbestos insulation, asbestos coatings or AIB is managed to make sure that these time limits are not exceeded. This includes the time for activities such as building enclosures and cleaning.

For example, the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 (CDM) The term ‘construction’ includes demolition, refurbishment, most maintenance activities as well as new build projects. The CDM Regulations place duties on the client to appoint a planning supervisor (to co-ordinate and manage health and safety during the design and early stages of preparation) and a principal contractor (to co-ordinate health and safety issues during the construction work). The client should pass any information about asbestos to the planning supervisor and the principal contractor early enough for any work to be properly planned and any potential risks to be effectively managed . The principal contractor should ensure that the risks from asbestos (etc.) are effectively managed during the construction work. This includes ensuring that any such work is properly planned (in a plan of work), is carried out by competent people and monitored to ensure that the work is carried out as in the plan of work. The CDM Regulations are being revised – see www.hse.gov.uk/construction/cdm.htm

Top

August 2006 - Risk Management

HSE publishes revamped guidance to simplify risk assessments

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) are now urging businesses to spend less time dotting ‘i’s and crossing ‘t’s and more time on putting practical actions into effect. To help companies do this HSE has issued a revamped risk assessment guide featuring examples that spell out, in plain English, what is – and what is not – expected.

Launching the guidance, HSE’s Deputy Chief Executive, Jonathan Rees, said: “We want to save lives, not tie businesses up in red tape – good risk assessment is the way to achieve this. Risk assessment is at the heart of sensible health and safety. We believe it should be a practical way of protecting people from real harm and suffering, not a bureaucratic back-covering exercise. On its own paperwork never saved a life, it needs to be a means to an end, resulting in actions that protect people in practice.

"I hope that this new, more straightforward guidance will help managers understand what’s expected of them and get more focus on the kind of risks that cause real harm and suffering – the ones that killed 220 workers last year and resulted in 35 million working days being lost. This guide takes the user through the process step-by-step with the minimum of fuss to achieve this aim."

The guidance Five Steps to Risk Assessment, which was first published in 1993, has been revised and simplified to make it even easier for normal business people, not just health and safety experts, to use. It also places greater emphasis on making sure that decisions are actually put into practice.

The 11-page booklet, which is also available free online at: www.hse.gov.uk/risk , provides advice and tips on five key elements to an effective risk assessment: identifying the hazards; deciding who might be harmed and how; evaluating the risks and deciding on precautions; recording findings and implementing them; and finally ensuring they are reviewed at regular intervals.

This is supported by four examples of what a risk assessment might look like. The examples help emphasise that risk assessment need not be difficult and the paperwork need not be long and complicated. For most, bullet points work very well.

Revised asbestos regulations receive HSC approval

The HSC is to recommend approval of revised asbestos regulations, which will strengthen overall worker protection by reducing exposure limits and introducing detailed mandatory training for work with asbestos.

The draft Control of Asbestos Regulations, which will simplify the regulatory regime and implement revisions to the EU Asbestos Worker Protection Directive, have been the subject of extensive consultation.

The new regulations replace three existing sets of regulations (The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002, The Asbestos (Licensing Regulations 1983, as amended, and The Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 1992, as amended), and introduce a lower single control limit of 0.1 fibres per cm3 of air for work with all types of asbestos. They also include practical guidelines for the determination of "sporadic and low intensity exposure", as required by the EU directive.

Under the new regulations, work with textured decorative coatings containing asbestos (TCs) will be removed from the licensing regime as research shows that the level of exposure to asbestos fibres from such work are low.

The HSC will shortly be submitting full details of the proposed regulations along with two Approved Codes of Practice which provide guidance on compliance, to Ministers for approval. It has asked the HSE to monitor implementation of the regulations.

Corporate Manslaughter Bill

The final version of the Bill that will begin its passage through Parliament in the autumn broadly reflects the original draft Bill and the Government's response to the Joint Select Committee report published in March. They have held their line in a number of important regards, in particular that there will be no secondary liability for individual directors or managers.

The proposed new offence remains based on the principle of a "senior management failure". The reference in the Bill to "senior managers" has been the subject of criticism, with some suggesting that it reintroduces the problems that have existed with the present law in relation to the need to prove the guilt of a directing mind within the company. There are good reasons why the Bill includes the reference to "senior managers", if only to ensure that the offence is focussed on deaths caused by high-level management failure, however, the Government undertook to look again at this issue and whilst it currently remains in the final version they have also indicated that they continue to consider whether this part of the Bill can be improved.

The issue of Crown immunity and the liability of public bodies are now dealt with in the Bill in more detail and significantly are widened to include the police and emergency services. It is important to recognise that a number of safeguards are built into the proposed legislation to limit the circumstances in which those types of organisation could be liable for the new offence. It will be interesting to see how the manner of the exemptions and the application of the legislation to public bodies are interpreted following its introduction.

The new legislation reinforces the need for organisations to be aware of upto date developments in the law such as the Work At Height Regulations, the reform of CDM or directors duties because of the way that the new offence tries to define whether a management failure has been a gross breach or not. Whether negligence has been gross has been a difficult issue within the existing law and an attempt is to be made in this legislation to set out the type of factors that should be considered by a jury. It includes whether there has been a failure to comply with any health and safety legislation or guidance.

The scope of the guidance for juries on gross breach has even extended in the latest Bill to include evidence relating to a corporate "culture". Reference is often made to the attitudes and culture of an organisation concerning safety but this can be difficult to define in a way that allows for a judgment to be made by a court as to a particular organisation's performance. This Bill allows the court to consider the attitudes, policies and procedures and accepted practices within an organisation and to take that into account when deciding whether an offence has been committed but problems may still remain as to how easily a corporate culture can be assessed.

Top

June 2006 Fire Safety

The ODPM has now published half of the new fire safety guides it had committed to producing before the introduction of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (RRO) on 1 October 2006.

In order to help businesses prepare, the Government had committed to releasing the eleven fire risk assessment guides three months in advance of the RRO coming into force. Originally the new legislation was meant to be coming into force in April. However it was announced in January that the RRO’s commencement date would be pushed back until October because the fire guides weren’t ready.

The guides which have now been published, and are available to download from the ODPM website, are:

educational premises;
office and shops;
factory and warehouses;
small and medium places of assembly;
large places of assembly; and
premises providing sleeping accommodation.

The guides that are still to be published are:

residential care premises;
theatres and cinemas;
outdoor events;
healthcare premises; and
transport premises and facilities.

It is unclear when these remaining guides will be published.

The RRO is the biggest overhaul of fire safety legislation in decades. The main effect of the changes in the RRO will be a move towards greater emphasis on fire prevention in all non-domestic premises, including the voluntary sector and self-employed people with premises separate from their homes. Fire certificates will be abolished and will cease to have legal status.

Responsibility for complying with the RRO will rest with the 'responsible person'. In a workplace, this is the employer and any other person who may have control of any part of the premises.

The Fire Safety Reform guides can be downloaded from: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1162101

Risk Management

New research reveals that a majority of employers believe risk management strategies have had a positive effect on reducing employers’ liability (EL) premiums and associated claims.

The survey from Marsh, a risk and insurance services firm, found that 73% of those businesses asked indicated that risk management had a positive impact on EL costs.

Barbara Dahill of Marsh believes the result is a positive reflection of the insurance market taking a more sophisticated approach to underwriting risk. She commented:

“A large majority of respondents believe that risk management had a direct impact on EL costs. Our experience shows that organisations which take an active approach to managing employment risk reduce the number of serious workplace accidents.”

According to the HSE accidents, slips, trips and falls currently cost UK employers £512m per year and comprise 33% of accidents at work. With 64% of survey participants indicating they felt they could improve their systems to prevent these types of accident, this is an area where good risk management practice could lead to a significant reduction in losses.

Departmental responsibility for EL risk management varies widely, with the survey showing that in 50% of organisations’ EL risks were handled by health and safety managers, 24% by insurance or risk managers, and the remaining 26% by human resources, finances and other functions.

The greatest area of concern expressed by survey participants related to non-insurance costs associated with EL risk management. These included salary costs related to sickness absence, cost of temporary replacement labour, additional overtime and employee turnover.

Approximately 58% of the organisations felt their company had not correctly identified the cost of sickness absence, while 72% were not confident their company had successfully identified the cost of replacement labour during an illness. Dahill added:

"Most organisations realise the significant cost associated with compensation when an employee has an accident at work, but neglect to examine the costs of an ill employee and replacing them”

“The survey revealed 72% of respondents felt identifying the cost of sickness absence would make the biggest difference in managing organisation risk.”

Health and Safety at Work Act - evidence of employees’ negligence

The Court of Appeal has made an important ruling in the case of R v Hatton Traffic Management Ltd which assists employers who defend health and safety prosecutions in cases where their employees have not followed the correct procedures. In such cases it will be open to employers to argue that they have discharged their safety duties, ‘so far as it is reasonably practicable’ by providing safe systems of work, training and instructions, notwithstanding a 1999 amendment to UK health and safety legislation which had been thought to rule this line of defence out.

This was an unusual case before the Court of Appeal which was required to determine points of law argued in advance of the trial of the company on charges under the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA).

The circumstances of the case

HMT was accused of failing to ensure the safety of its employees in breach of Section 2 (1) of the HSWA. The company had provided traffic management services and equipment to contractors carrying out re-surfacing work on a road. Two HMT employees were killed when equipment they were moving came into contact with high voltage overhead cables.

HMT wished to call evidence at its trial that it had taken all reasonably practicable steps to ensure the men’s safety (including training and instructions), that the accident was a result of their own actions, and that it was not foreseeable by the company that they would act as they did or in a way that would require further precautions by the company. These points of law were considered at a pre-trial hearing. The judge ruled in HMT’s favour on both points, and the HSE appealed.

The points of law

The case concerned the relationship between two provisions which provide as follows:

Section 2 (1) HSWA - "It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, and safety at work of all his employees."

Regulation 21 MHSW - "Nothing in the relevant statutory provisions shall operate so as to afford an employer a defence in any criminal proceedings for a contravention of those provisions by reason of any act for default."

Two questions arose:

a) whether evidence of forseeability was irrelevant to the case alleged against the company, particularly with regard to the reasonable practicability of ensuring the health, safety and welfare of its employees ; and

b) whether Regulation 21 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 precludes the company from relying upon any act or default of its employees in its defence.

The Court of Appeal’s decision

a) The notion of ‘forseeability’ of harm is traditionally an element in determining civil liability but not criminal liability under health and safety legislation. A number of previous cases have interpreted the phrase ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ (which qualifies the duty to ensure safety in health and safety legislation) as containing no element of forseeability (reasonable or otherwise).

In the HMT case, the Court of Appeal preferred instead the approach of Lord Goff in the House of Lords decision in the case of Austin Rover Group Ltd v. HM Inspector of Factories (1990) which was that forseeability is relevant to the narrow issue of the likelihood of a risk eventuating. This in turn is relevant to applying established formula for assessing whether a defendant has done all that is reasonable practicable given in Edwards v. National Coal Board (1949) which involves weighing up the quantum of risk against the difficulty and cost necessary to eliminate it to see if there is a gross disproportion between them. Lord Justice Latham said in the HMT case, that "it seems to us that a defendant to a charge under Section 2 or indeed Section 3 or 4, in asking the jury to consider whether it has established that it has done all that is reasonably practicable, cannot be prevented from adducing evidence as to the likelihood of the incidence of the relevant risk eventuating in support of its case that it had taken all reasonable means to eliminate it".

b) Regulation 21 of the MHWR was introduced to correct what was considered to be a failure properly to implement the European framework Directive 89/391. This was always a somewhat questionable need, but the wide wording of the resulting regulation was also intended to reverse the effect of an earlier Court of Appeal decision of R v Nelson Group Services (Maintenance) (1999). It was held there that where there has been carelessness or a failure to follow correct procedures by an employee this does not preclude the employer from establishing that everything reasonably practicable had been done.

Most commentators believed that the opportunity to defend charges based on the Nelson decision had not survived the Regulation 21 bar on employee-fault defences, not least because numerous appellate courts had freely referred to the "reasonably practicable defence" in earlier analysis of the legislation, and in practice it operates like other statutory defences in that the burden of proof is on a defendant to show that it took all reasonably practicable measures. However, the Court of Appeal in HMT analysed the ‘so far as reasonably practicable’ phrase not as a defence but merely one element of the employer’s overall duty under the relevant sections of the HSWA. So, in the absence of a true ‘defence’ written into the HSWA, the wording of Regulation 21 does not prevent an employer demonstrating it had taken all reasonably practicable precautions by evidence at trial.

Conclusions

The Court of Appeal has a chequered history of interpretating the HSWA, and has often found policy reasons to block routes devised by employers to avoid or reduce their liability. In this instance its apparently bold approach to the previous authorities and its unwillingness to adopt the HSE’s arguments may have been influenced by the fact that the merits or otherwise of HMT’s case would still have to be decided by the jury in the Crown Court. In practice the decision will alter the outcome of only a small number of cases, as HSE prosecution evidence is usually sufficient to show management failings preceding the negligent acts or omissions of employees causing accidents.

The decision is undoubtedly controversial, and the Court of Appeal was prepared to certify that questions of law of general public importance, leaving it to the House of Lords to decide whether it will hear a further appeal by the HSE.

Top

April 2006 - Noise Regulations 2005

The HSE is reminding employers that the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 came into force this month. The regulations put the emphasis on identifying measures to eliminate or reduce risks from exposure to noise at work rather than simply relying on hearing protection, although this may also be needed in the short term.

“Over one million employees in the UK are exposed to levels of noise which put their hearing at risk,” says HSE chief executive, Geoffrey Podger. “The costs to industry, society and most importantly, the people who suffer deafness or permanent hearing damage as a result of exposure to noise at work, are considerable. The new regulations introduce a reduction in the acceptable noise levels at work. The action values have gone down by 5dB and there is a welcome focus on noise control rather than just taking measurements. Employers should consider changes of process engineering controls, changes of workplace lay out, or controlling the amount of time individuals spend in noisy areas. Full compliance with the new regulations would over time eliminate occupational noise-induced hearing loss.

“Workplaces which fell within the scope of the 1989 Regulations would already have measures in place and the main effect is likely to be a need to review their risk assessments and prioritise their noise-control measures. Employees whose use of hearing protection under the 1989 regulations was advisory will now have to wear the protection supplied. Employees newly covered by the regulations are at relatively lower risk, and the employer will need to put in place proportionate noise reduction measures and provide hearing protection on request.”

Big firms still getting away with manslaughter, says TUC

The TUC last month welcomed the jailing of Mark Connolly, boss of the subcontracting company responsible for the deaths of four railway workers at Tebay, Cumbria in 2004 – but urged government to hold directors of big companies to account.

Connolly was sentenced to nine years over the killings which occurred when a three tonne flatbed laden with tonnes of scrap rail ran away from a work site, travelled three miles down the track, and smashed into the oblivious maintenance workers. At last month’s hearing the prosecution told how Connolly had tampered with the breaks – actually disconnecting them – because the hydraulics were so poorly maintained that they would not work in conjunction with the crane being used to load them. Instead the hydraulic cables were filled with ball bearings to make them appear in order and pass safety tests. Colin Buckley, Darren Burgess, Gary Tindall and Chris Waters died as a result.

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said the verdict was scant consolation for the families of the dead men, but stressed it would “send a warning to other employers not to take major safety risks just to save a few pounds”.

“Although a welcome decision, the success in this case must be contrasted with the failure to successfully prosecute the directors of large companies such as Transco, Balfour Beatty and various rail companies following other recent deaths,” he said. Balfour Beatty was fined £10m in October last year for sustained industrial negligence resulting in the Hatfield train crash. Transco was fined £15m in August 2005 for serious safety failings that caused the deaths of a family of four. The company was condemned by the judge for its lack of remorse and attempts to evade blame.

Neither cases resulted in a company director being jailed.

“This illustrates the urgent need for both a new offence of corporate killing and new duties on individual directors,” said Barber. “The government must introduce both as soon as possible.”

How not to impress H&S inspectors...

A Swiss strip club owner spectacularly failed to convince health and safety inspectors that his venue was fire-proof – by burning it down. Questioned whether decorations met fire safety regulations, Benedict Frank, proprietor of Kienberg's Caberet Club, set fire to them with his lighter to show there was nothing to worry about.

Unfortunately the fire spread like... wild fire... enveloping the club and restaurant next door, burning both to the ground. Luckily no one was hurt. But the damage bill is more than £300,000.

ASDA fined after employee suffered electric shock

21 April 2006

ASDA has been fined £12,000 after a worker suffered burns from a damaged electric cable hanging outside a metal-framed window.

Kim Postlethwaite was off for 12 weeks after receiving an electric shock from a frayed T.V lead in the staff canteen. The court heard the 10m cable had been pushed out of a window in the non-smoking area of the canteen where the T.V was situated, because a double wall socket had not been repaired. It was threaded through the window of the smoking area next door and plugged in. Notches made in the window frames by the fitters, had caused the cable to rip in places, leaving internal wires exposed.

In December 2004, Postlethwaite opened one of the windows and suffered an electric shock and burns to her hands.

Following the incident, inspectors from Sefton council and the HSE visited the store and found that the socket had still not been repaired and that several appliances were plugged into a similar extension lead. ASDA executives admitted breaching a health and safety regulation at South Sefton Magistrates' Court.

Nicola Watson, prosecuting for Sefton council, said:

"The standard of safety in the staff canteen was well below that which might be expected from a national company.

“Furthermore, the inspector from the HSE concluded the accident resulted from the use of an unsafe temporary electrical installation, and the store had failed to adhere to basic practice.

"The failure to repair the faulty socket in the staff canteen, so as to supply the television with power, is likely to have exposed staff to danger for some time.

"The condition of the cable confirms Asda's scheme of preventative measures was insufficient to prevent danger to members of staff."

Top

January 2006

Extract from the Sunday Times:

Large fines face small firms who ignore the rigorous legislation on health and safety:

When Susan and Luke Hennessy set up their garden centre six years ago, they had a staff of one. Today, depending on the season, they employ up to nine people. As numbers bloomed, so did the couple’s concern for safety. “As somebody with a nursing background, I was always interested in safety and I reckoned there were several issues that needed addressing,” said Susan.

The main problem was manual handling. “We have a lot of heavy, awkward-shaped items, such as furniture, that have to be lifted up to a second-floor showroom. We also lift bales of peat moss into car boots all day, so I had to make sure we were doing it right.”

Fertilisers, pesticides and even prickly plants all need practised, if not specialist, handling. The purchase of a forklift truck opened up a whole new set of risks that the Hennessys were keen to identify and minimise.

The first step was for Susan to undertake a health and safety training course run by her local county enterprise board. She then engaged a safety consultant to assess the risks. This was followed by staff training.

Some employees were then sent on first aid courses. This means that now there is always somebody on the premises with basic emergency medical skills.

Although safety training has cost the couple time and money, the Hennessys see it not only as a necessary expenditure but one with unexpected dividends. “Not only are we reducing the chance of accidents, but we found the staff really appreciated the fact that we were investing in them in this way, so it’s been good for morale too,” said Susan.

The introduction of new health and safety legislation this year holds no fears for the Hennessys. “We welcome it,” she said.

Here's my health and safety proposal – the moaners should give it a rest: David Aaronovitch, The Times December 20th 2005

Back to the radio at the end of last week. And the liberal academic Lisa Jardine is giving it large (as David Cameron might say) on Who Really Runs the Country?, and you don’t get prizes in this kind of exercise for understating your case.

For her it’s “health and safety” that not only bosses the nation, but that stops us from doing good stuff that we want to do. Her reason for saying this? She was organising an event and wanted to hang a banner up high, but a jobsworth told her she couldn’t because “health and safety” said you needed two men, including one to hold the ladder, and they didn’t have two men, so her entire event was going to be ruined. Plucky Lisa waited till he had gone and she put it up herself, proving two things — first, that she embodies the indomitable fighting spirit of the people and second that heath and safety culture has gone mad.

Well, something had certainly gone mad. In the old days, of course, the man would just have gone up that ladder, fixed everything and everyone would have been happy. In fact in the old days he might well have been obliged to climb that ladder as part of his job. The trouble is that even in the not-so-old days he might well have fallen off. In 2004, before the relevant directive came into force, 13 people died from falling off ladders in British workplaces and more than 1,200 were seriously injured. All Jardine had to do was to plan her banner-hanging with sufficient forethought to arrange elementary safety. If she can’t even do that, what on earth was she doing chairing the Booker Prize? Correspondence on that question to her, please. Instead she whinges about heath and safety.

Of course I appreciate, as anyone who has filled out a BBC hazard assessment form to visit a museum in York must do, some of the seeming absurdities that local enforcement of regulations can give rise to. It’s annoying and I could do without it. But I also want to live in a society where workers aren’t forced to do dangerous things, where steel bolts aren’t left protruding from the swings in children’s playgrounds, where people with disabilities can go to the toilet or get on buses and where the occasional under-regulated slurry tip doesn’t descend upon the local primary school.

Moaning is one thing, doing something about it is another. The pre-Cameronian-era Conservative Party has always fulminated against “excessive” regulation. Just this summer, in a Commons debate, its spokesperson, Angela Browning, asked ministers why the Government persisted in talking about “better regulation”. “What we want,” she stated, “is less regulation, not better regulation.”

But she didn’t tell us which regulations we ought to lose, and she never will. It was William Hague’s Disabilities Act of 1995 that signalled the end of the Routemaster. He should be proud of what he did — and I bet he is

Top

November 2005

Fine highlights the importance of risk assessments

Metokote (UK) Limited, which describes itself as the world leader in application of advanced coating technologies, has been prosecuted and fined following investigation of an accident at its Leicestershire premises during September 2004.

A forklift truck driver employee was asked to take 2 other workers to clean filters just below the top of a 5-metre tall booth used to spray protective covering on components. He climbed to the top of the booth using the side crawl ladder but his fellow workers later found that he had fallen 3 metres, leaving him with severe bruising and difficulty in breathing.

At Hinckley Magistrates' Court Metokote pleaded guilty to 2 charges that it had failed to ensure the safety of one its employees, contrary to s.2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for which it was fined £10,000, and failing to carry out a proper risk assessment contrary to r.3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 for which it was fined £3,300. Full court costs of £1,172 were also levied against the company.

The investigating HSE inspector commented:

"This employee was extremely lucky on this occasion - this incident could have easily led to much more serious injuries. On the date of the accident staff were not provided with clear instructions and crucially there was no risk assessment or plan of work for this maintenance task.

"Regardless of whether tasks are carried out infrequently or routinely, such an example of a high risk activity with the potential of a fall from height must be risk assessed and adequate precautions be implemented.

“It is important for all companies to carry out proper risk assessment for maintenance work, not matter how infrequent it takes place. They should also make sure staff understand what to do and that they are properly supervised."

November 2005

Padlocking of fire exits is a serious offence

Two London businesses have been prosecuted and heavily fined for failing to meet duties under the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997.

At Ealing Magistrates' Court Toughglaze (UK) Ltd, a glazier, was ordered to pay £23,000 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to 19 breaches of the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997.

The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) alleged that the company, based in London, had seriously compromised the safety of employees. An inspection of the premises was carried out and a number of contraventions of the regulations were found:

no working fire alarm;
firefighting equipment and extinguishers were either out of date or inaccessible;
staff training on fire safety was inadequate and unrecorded;
there was numerous breaches relating to insufficient fire exits; and in some cases, fire exits being padlocked shut or obstructed.

The company argued that, as they had co-operated fully with an LFEPA Enforcement Notice, they should receive either an absolute or conditional discharge. The Judge disagreed, stressing that padlocking fire exits was a serious offence and fines should be imposed.

At the same court, P Goddard & Sons Ltd, a furniture company, admitted 6 breaches of the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 and was ordered to pay £17,650 in fines and costs.

LFEPA alleged the Brentford High Street company had seriously compromised the safety of employees when, in two separate inspections, officers found exit doors to the car park padlocked shut with iron bars and the final exit from the bed showroom obstructed by a double bed.

However Goddard’s, which accepted in court that it had contravened its duties, claimed the charges were the result of an inspection by trainee fire officers with limited experience.

Changes to Fire Safety Legislation come into effect in April 2006 with the introduction of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. This is the biggest single reform of fire safety legislation in nearly 35 years, which will simplify the law for thousands of businesses while placing a greater focus on prevention.

Top

Folkestone company fined £5000 over injuries

07/09/2005

A Folkestone plant hire company has been fined a total of £5000 and ordered to pay £2416.17 in costs at Sevenoaks Magistrates' Court, for breaches of health and safety legislation.

The prosecution followed an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into an incident that occurred on the 27 September 2004 at the Star Plant Hire Ltd depot in Paddock Wood, Kent, in which an agency worker suffered an open fracture to his right leg.

Bernard Homewood, who was 38 at the time of the incident, from Minster, in Sheerness, Kent, suffered fractures to the tibia and fibula of his right leg as he unloaded a mini excavator from a lorry at the depot.

As he attempted to drive the vehicle down the left-hand side of the ramp it began to slide and eventually tipped over. Mr Homewood grabbed the excavator's levers to stay in the vehicle but his leg became trapped.

Star Plant Hire Ltd pleaded guilty to a breach of s.3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974 which relates to the duty of employers to conduct undertakings in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in their employment are not exposed to risks to their health or safety.

Following the case, Caroline Penwill, HM Inspector of Health and Safety, said the prosecution highlighted the need for employers to ensure that workers are given adequate instructions and information so they can follow safe systems of work, whether they are a permanent member of staff or employed via an agency.

HSE painter and decorator initiative

07/09/2005

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has joined forces with Dulux Decorator Centres to promote safe working at height practices for painters and decorators.

Painters and decorators visiting nominated Dulux Decorator Centres across the country will be able to discuss informally issues relating to working at height with HSE inspectors, such as:

the risks of working at height
complying with the new Working at Height Regulations 2005
suitable work at height equipment
best practice.

The HSE says its latest statistics reveal the numbers of painters and decorators falling from height whilst at work are not reducing amongst small and medium-sized businesses, despite the construction industry becoming increasingly aware of the dangers when working at height. Some key points are as follows.

During 2001/02, 254 painters and decorators were seriously injured as a result of falling from height, 89 of which were due to falls over two metres.
In 2002/03, 223 painters and decorators were seriously injured as a result of falling from height, and 103 of the falls were from a low height, ie under two metres.
In 2003/04, 245 painters and decorators were seriously injured as a result of falling from height and six of the falls were fatal.

The HSE is welcoming painters and decorators to visit the following Dulux Decorator Centers to speak with HSE inspectors, on specified dates during September 2005, as follows.

13 September: Leeds
14 September: Birmingham
14 September: Hemel Hempstead
15 September: Newcastle upon Tyne
15 September: Nottingham
19 September: Stratford
20 September: Salford
21 September: Rayleigh
26 September: Southampton
29 September: Yeovil.

Top

22/08/2005

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has warned companies to ensure that adequate precautions are being taken to prevent injuries from workplace transport related accidents at work, after two companies based in the same road in Birmingham were recently prosecuted by the HSE for forklift truck (FLT) related incidents.

In June 2005, Beaver 84 Limited was fined a total of £7000 after Ben Huckaby suffered a broken foot due to being run over by a forklift truck. The company failed to ensure that the goods yard at its site was organised in such a way that pedestrians and vehicles could circulate in a safe manner, as is required of workplaces by regulation 17 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.

The company also failed to ensure that employees who operated FLTs at the site had received adequate safety training, which is a requirement of regulation 9 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

In August 2005, Mereway Ltd was fined a total of £4000 after David Smith suffered an injured ankle after he was struck by a reversing FLT whilst he was unloading pallets from his lorry. The HSE says the firm failed to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of employees at work in relation to vehicle and pedestrian movements within the yard. The company also failed to adequately segregate pedestrians from areas where vehicles were in operation.

Therefore, regulation 17 of the 1992 Regulations was also relevant in relation to this case, as was regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 which places a duty on employers to assess the risks to health and safety to which employees are exposed whilst at work.

Top

July 2005 - Following the explosions in London..

The East Anglian Ambulance Service have launched a national "In case of Emergency ( ICE ) " campaign with the support of Falklands war hero Simon Weston.

The idea is that you store the word " I C E " in your mobile phone address book, and against it enter the number of the person you would want to be contacted "In Case of Emergency"

In an emergency situation ambulance and hospital staff will then be able to quickly find out who your next of kin are and be able to contact them. It's so simple that everyone can do it. Please do.

Please will you also email this to everybody in your address book, it won't take too many 'forwards' before everybody will know about this.

It really could save your life, or put a loved one's mind at rest.

For more than one contact name ICE1, ICE2, ICE3 etc.

New regulations on prevention of vibration risks in the workplace came into force on 6 July.

The new rules, which deal with the control of diseases caused by vibration at work from equipment, vehicles and machines, will help both employers and employees to take preventive action.

Hand-arm vibration is a major cause of occupational ill-health. Around 3,000 new claims for Industrial Injury Disability Benefit are made each year in relation to vibration white finger. The courts have also awarded large sums of compensation for the disease in recent years including an estimated £3bn for 165,000 ex-miners, and most recently £212,000 for a railway employee.

The Control of Vibration at Work Regulations will require employers to take action to prevent their employees from developing diseases caused by exposure to vibration at work from equipment, vehicles and machines.

While most companies whose employees are exposed to vibration are already well aware of the risks and are likely to have little problem complying with the regulations, there is a significant minority of firms which may not even be aware that they may be affected. This might include cleaning companies where staff operate floor polishers, for instance or firms employing delivery drivers. If employers have processes, tools or equipment that come under the regulations they are at least going to have to have a look at them and decide if they apply.

The original proposal included a whole-body vibration exposure limit value which would have placed severe restrictions on industry. The UK negotiated a substantial increase in the exposure limit value. The UK also negotiated a transitional period for the exposure limit values up to 2010 (with a further four years to 2014 for the agriculture and forestry sectors), for work activities where older machinery may be an obstacle to compliance. The UK also insisted on an option for averaging exposure over a week to allow high exposure on one or two days to be offset by low exposure on others.

Control Measures

Employers where there is a risk of exposure to vibration should:

Risk Assess exposure levels;
Use reasonably practicable measures to reduce them;
Provide information and training;
Provide appropriate health surveillance;
Purchase policy and maintenance plan
Design jobs to minimise the time spent on vibrating machinery (eg by job rotation;)
Provide operators with sufficient information, instruction, training and supervision;
Avoid using vibrating equipment in damp, cold conditions when blood circulation is less good;
Use PPE (eg protective gloves) as a last resort according to risk assessment principles.

Top

Lawyers say bosses should be named and shamed

20/06/2005

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) says that company bosses who ignore health and safety rules should be “named and shamed” and placed on a publicly available blacklist.

Responding to a recent Health and Safety Executive (HSE) consultation, APIL said employers may think twice about breaching safety rules if it means their companies’ reputation could be publicly tarnished.

llan Gore QC, President of the 5000-strong organisation, said companies with good health and safety records should in turn be rewarded, and said a publicly available “name and praise” list would give credit to employers who put workers’ safety high on their agenda.

He said safety-conscious bosses should also be rewarded with cheaper insurance premiums and that premiums should be linked to health and safety records so that decent employers could reap the benefits whereas those who consistently push health and safety to the bottom of the agenda would be made to pay, both financially and with their reputation.

APIL says the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) should also be given more money to increase the number of health and safety inspectors available to police work places.

Youngest mesothelioma sufferer

17/06/2005

The law firm, Irwin Mitchell, says that a 32-year-old father of three, which it believes to be the youngest person to have contracted the asbestos-related cancer, mesothelioma, has died.

Mr Barry Welch, from Braunstone in Leicester passed away on 27 April 2005 after an 11-month battle against the illness.

The law firm says it is believed that Mr Welch, who until the age of nine, lived in Chatham, contracted mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos dust and fibres brought home on work overalls by his stepfather, Roger Bugby.

Mr Bugby worked as a scaffolder at Kingsnorth Power Station, Kent between 1977 and 1979 and during that time, a source at Irwin Mitchell says, he was regularly exposed to asbestos dust at the plant.

According to the solicitors, Mr Bugby would return from work, covered in asbestos dust on his overalls, his skin and in his hair. Before changing out of his overalls he would relax and Barry would often sit on his lap. It is believed that this exposure to asbestos dust as a young child led to Barry contracting mesothelioma in later life.

A number of previous mesothelioma cases have involved the wives of workers who have been exposed to asbestos whilst laundering their husbands' asbestos-contaminated work clothes. However the case of Barry Welch is believed to be the first of its kind.

The law firm confirmed that the Welch family intends to proceed with legal action against the former employers of Mr Bugby.

Noise and vibration roadshows

16/06/2005

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and EEF, the manufacturers' organisation, will jointly be running a series of noise and vibration roadshows across Great Britain in September and October 2005.

The planned roadshows are to advise employers of the changes taking place in relation to new EU-based regulations for the control of risks in the workplace from vibration and noise.

The Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 and Control of Noise at Work Regulations, implementing the Physical Agents (Vibration) Directive (2002/44/EC), will come into force in the UK in July 2005 and February 2006 respectively.

At work, over 1.1 million people are at risk from high levels of noise and about 1.7 million people are at risk from hand-arm vibration (HAV).

The regional events are aimed at company risk managers, including, amongst others, managing directors, production managers, health and safety advisors and safety representatives. Those who attend will:

hear what the new regulations will mean in practice
gain an insight into practical risk management
find out what they need to do to arrange effective health surveillance for exposed employees.

The dates for the noise and vibration road shows 2005 are as follows:

Glasgow: 27 September
Sheffield: 28 September
Hook (Near Basingstoke): 29 September
Hadleigh (Near Ipswich): 4 October
Belfast: 5 October
Wales (Bridgend): 1 November
London: 3 November
Washington (Near Newcastle): 7 October
Birmingham: 14 October
Warrington: 18 October
Leeds: 19 October
Barleythorpe (near Leicester): 20 October.

For further details of the roadshows, contact the HSE InfoLine, tel: 0845 345 0055.

Top

March 2005 - New Work at Height Regulations

18/03/2005

The Work at Height Regulations 2005 will come into force on 6 April 2005.

The Regulations consolidate previous legislation on working at height and will implement the Temporary Work at Height Directive (TWAHD) (2001/45/EC) which relates to the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of equipment for work at height. The Regulations:

Will apply to all work at height where there is a risk of a fall liable to cause personal injury
Place duties on employers, the self-employed, and any person that controls the work of others, for example facilities managers or building owners who may contract others to work at height
Will not apply to the provision of instruction or leadership in caving or climbing by way of sport, recreation, team building or similar activities.

The Regulations will require duty holders to ensure that:

Alll work at height is properly planned and organised
Those involved in work at height are competent
The risks from work at height are assessed and appropriate work equipment is selected and used
The risks from fragile surfaces are properly controlled
Equipment for work at height is properly inspected and maintained.

The Regulations set out the hierarchy for managing and selecting equipment for work at height. Duty holders must:

Avoid work at height where they can
Use work equipment or other measures to prevent falls where they cannot avoid working at height
Where they cannot eliminate the risk of a fall, use work equipment or other measures to minimise the distance and consequences of a fall should one occur.

The Work at Height Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No 735) will be accessible at www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si20050735.htm.

Top

Obstacles to recovery from musculoskeletal disorders

17/03/2005

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published a new research report on the obstacles to recovery from musculoskeletal disorders in industry. The HSE notes that the burden of musculoskeletal disorders on society is substantial, requiring effective management especially in an occupational context.

Occupational health guidelines recommend addressing potentially detrimental psychosocial factors in the management of workers sick-listed with musculoskeletal disorders, yet the report says the specific influence on absence from occupational and clinical psychosocial risk factors (termed “blue” and “yellow” flags) remains under-explored.

As a result, a four-year study was carried out in two phases. The first involved a workforce survey of a large multi-site company in the UK whilst the second related to a controlled trial of an occupational guidelines-based intervention protocol for workers with musculoskeletal disorders, focusing on obstacles to recovery and returning to work.

The results confirmed a general association between the psychosocial work environment and musculoskeletal disorders. The report also concluded that, prospectively, psychosocial risk factors predicted the likelihood of future absence, but not its duration. Therefore the report says that routine psychosocial screening to predict return-to-work time may have limited value.

However, it says that implementation of an early proactive occupational health protocol, involving psychosocial intervention and a supportive network, was a successful strategy for reducing absence due to musculoskeletal disorders, for both return-to-work time and future loss of work.

RR323: Obstacles to Recovery from Musculoskeletal Disorders in Industry can be accessed at www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr323.htm.

Top

HSE issues warning on safe use of petrol after sentencing.

14/03/2005

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and Sussex Police have warned motor vehicle repair garages about the importance of having a safe system in place for handling and storing petrol after the manager of a Sussex garage was jailed for nine months and the owner was fined £10,000, following proceedings being brought.

The garage manager, Glen Hawkins, was found guilty of manslaughter and his father, Howard Hawkins, the owner, was found guilty of breaching s.2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974 (HSWA) which relates to the duty of employers to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees.

They were both sentenced at Lewes Crown Court, with Glen Hawkins receiving a nine-month custodial sentence and Howard Hawkins a fine of £10,000 with costs of £15,000.

The prosecution followed the death of an apprentice mechanic, 18-year-old Lewis Murphy, who died four days after becoming engulfed in flames in an explosion at the Anchor garage, Peacehaven, Sussex on 19 February 2004.

Mr Murphy was helping his manager, Glen Hawkins, empty a mixture of petrol and diesel from a dustbin into a waste oil disposal tank on the garage forecourt when the petrol exploded. A flue pipe outlet from a gas boiler was situated next to the tank and was switched on at the time. The boiler caused the fuel vapour to be sucked into the flue and ignited.

Top

January 2005 - BUSINESSES ALERTED TO BOGUS MAILSHOTS

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) today urged businesses to ignore all correspondence from a firm calling itself the "Health and Safety Registration Enforcement Division". Correspondence from the bogus agency has already been received by businesses in Kent, Surrey and Sussex.

HSE has received complaints from businesses who have received requests from the "Health and Safety Registration Enforcement Division" for payment in order to achieve compliance with the law. The request, sent from a Bradford address and quoting £199 for registration if 'compliant' or £249 if 'non-compliant', should be reported to HSE Infoline on 08701 545500, or West Yorkshire police on 01924 292 599.

Justin McCracken, HSE's Deputy Directory General (Operations), said: "The Health and Safety Registration Enforcement Division is not connected to HSE and is not an official body. Businesses should ignore any approach from this firm, and any similar offers.

The HSE would never write indiscriminately to firms seeking advance payment for services. Many of their services are provided free of charge and much of their guidance is on their website.

Top

Companies fined £87,000 following workplace fatality.

Two companies have been fined a total of £87,000 at the Central Criminal Court in London, following a prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) relating to the death of pipe fitting engineer Robert Burchett.

On 10 April 2002 Mr Burchett, aged 40, sustained fatal injuries following a fall of nine metres from an unprotected edge on a site where an operating theatre was being built at the Royal National Orthopedic Hospital in Stanmore.

The HSE had alleged that Krypton Health Construction Ltd (KHCL) and Controlled Flame Boilers Ltd (CFBL) had both failed in their duty of care towards Mr Burchett by exposing him to safety risks.

KHCL and CFBL each pleaded guilty to a charge of breaching s.3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974 (HSWA).

Section 3(1) of the HSWA states that every employer has a duty to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that non-employees who may be affected by work are not exposed to health and safety risks.

CFBL also pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 6 of the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 (CHSWR) which relates to preventing people from falling.

KHCL was fined £35,000 for breaching s.3(1) of the HSWA and ordered to pay costs to HSE of £5000.

CFBL was fined £26,000 for breaching s.3(1) of the HSWA, and £26,000 for breaching CHSWR. CFBL was ordered to pay costs to HSE of £8000.

The HSE said the investigation revealed:

serious health and safety failures by both companies
that a fairly standard activity of lifting a boiler into place was neither properly planned nor supervised
an inadequate method statement
that there was nothing in place to prevent Mr Burchett falling from the building.

Top

Bill targets directors' negligence

A private member's bill is being sponsored by Jarrow MP Stephen Hepburn which would see company directors held to account for negligent health and safety practices that cause injuries or fatalities.

Stephen Hepburn recently came third in a private member’s ballot and announced his promotion of the Health and Safety (Directors’ Duties) Bill, which seeks to introduce positive health and safety obligations on company directors.

The bill is being backed by unions, the Centre for Corporate Accountability, and various Labour backbenchers as well as former ministers such as Nick Brown, Frank Dobson and Michael Meacher.

In the November 2004 Queen's Speech, the Government pledged to amend the law on corporate manslaughter and announced a new draft Corporate Manslaughter Bill. The measures in the draft Corporate Manslaughter Bill would allow for the prosecution of companies which fail to ensure the safety of workers or the public, setting out a new offence of corporate manslaughter for cases when death takes place because of management failure.

Stephen Hepburn’s Bill, in contrast, focuses on individual directors. The Health and Safety (Directors' Duties) Bill would place a general duty on all company directors and for large companies to appoint a director at board level to be responsible for health and safety.

Under the Health and Safety (Directors' Duties) Bill, companies would face not just fines but the prospect of custodial sentences for directors where serious health and safety breaches or negligence has resulted in death. Campaigners say that the system of fines is failing victims.

Top

Supervisor fined £2K for failing to complete safety checks

A supervisor was fined £2000 for failing to carry out essential safety checks before the employees he was supervising commenced work.

The employees concerned hit a high-voltage electric cable and whilst no injuries occurred, it was a reportable incident.

The HSE investigation established that not only did the Supervisor fail to undertake the necessary checks but, during the investigation, also tried to cover up his error.

This case serves as a further reminder that the HSE are continuing to focus, where appropriate, on individual as well as company responsibilities to ensure that organisations are effectively managing safety.

Top

February 2005

Work deaths highest in North West

The North West of England is one of the most dangerous places to work in Britain according to figures released by two trade unions.

Figures from the Transport and General Workers Union and Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians gave it the highest rate of deaths in 2003-4.

And it also had the second highest number of people hurt at work.

The unions are calling for directors to be jailed for health and safety breaches which kill workers.

The T&G and Ucatt figures show that 620 people were killed and 60,177 suffered major injury due to accidents in the workplace between 2003-4.

The next highest area for deaths was the South East with 63 people killed and the region also recorded the highest number of people seriously injured at work with 7,538 people hurt.

Region	Work deaths 2003-4
North West	104
South East	63
Scotland	61
Eastern	61
London	59
Yorkshire	54
West Midlands	53
Wales	48
East Midlands	47
South West	43
North East	27

The government promised a Corporate Manslaughter Bill in the Queen's Speech but it has yet to come before Parliament.

The unions are urging MPs to back a Private Member's Bill by Stephen Hepburn, Labour MP for Jarrow, which is due to have its Second Reading in March.

"Directors can be jailed for fraud but unless they run a small firm, it is very difficult to prosecute directors for health and safety abuses," said Mr Hepburn MP.

"Fines are failing to make companies take workers' safety more seriously and will continue to do so until they are threatened with the ultimate sanction of jail for severe abuses."

Tony Woodley, T&G General Secretary, added: "I urge everyone who condemns safety abuses at work to write to their MP asking them to back the bill to introduce directors' duties for health and safety at work..

The unions claim 70% of workplace accidents are the direct result of management failures.

A CBI spokesman said it would support legislation to prosecute rogue operators who "have a blanket disregard for the law."

But he said responsible employers who were the victims of unforeseen accidents had to be protected.

The CBI also believed any legislation which governed the private sector should also apply to the public sector.

The CBI spokesperson added that health and safety was a partnership between employers and employees and both had to take responsibility.

Source: BBC - 17 February 2005

Top

Health and Safety! It’s a lot more than first aid kits and fire extinguishers.

Contact JRB Consulting now to find out more. Click here >>