Thursday, 23 December 2010
Tuesday, 14 December 2010
Untrained Banksman Killed
A Buckinghamshire metal fabricator has been fined £30,000 after a worker was crushed to death at its premises.
Bryn Evans, 52, from Milton Keynes was acting as a banksman at Bletchley-based Trevett Engineering Ltd and was guiding a reversing heavy goods delivery vehicle towards a doorway when he was killed.
As Mr Evans was guiding the lorry into the loading area he became trapped between the back of the vehicle and the building’s brick wall. He died at the scene from crush injuries to his chest.
Milton Keynes Crown heard Mr Evans had not received training as a banksman. An investigation by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) also showed there was no specific need for a banksman during the reversing process, it had merely become customary at the site.
As well the £30,000 fine, Trevett Engineering was ordered to pay costs of £11,630.
HSE inspector Karl Howes said: "This tragic case illustrates the risks that are associated with deliveries and reversing vehicles. It is vital that employers fully assess the risks involved in deliveries to site. Banksman should only be used when there are no safer available methods to control reversing and then only when people have been fully trained to undertake that role."
Bryn Evans, 52, from Milton Keynes was acting as a banksman at Bletchley-based Trevett Engineering Ltd and was guiding a reversing heavy goods delivery vehicle towards a doorway when he was killed.
As Mr Evans was guiding the lorry into the loading area he became trapped between the back of the vehicle and the building’s brick wall. He died at the scene from crush injuries to his chest.
Milton Keynes Crown heard Mr Evans had not received training as a banksman. An investigation by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) also showed there was no specific need for a banksman during the reversing process, it had merely become customary at the site.
As well the £30,000 fine, Trevett Engineering was ordered to pay costs of £11,630.
HSE inspector Karl Howes said: "This tragic case illustrates the risks that are associated with deliveries and reversing vehicles. It is vital that employers fully assess the risks involved in deliveries to site. Banksman should only be used when there are no safer available methods to control reversing and then only when people have been fully trained to undertake that role."
Monday, 29 November 2010
Skip Warning
The Health & Safety Executive has issued a warning notice on the dangers of 'false' engagement of tipping hooks on builders' skips. It warns that many skips have a lip on which tipping hooks may appear to be engaged but do not have a safe hold.
With no British or European standards for skips, they are often made with the base plate extending beyond the end plates, producing a lip. If the tipping hooks snag on this lip instead of the engaging properly with the tipping bar, it is not necessarily visible from the operating position. The problem only becomes apparent when the angle of tipping is reached and the hooks are pushed off the lip. With the skip no longer restrained, it swings out over the back of the lorry. The momentum can lift the front of the lorry off the ground. The potential for the lorry to overbalance is further increased if the stabilisers have not been deployed correctly.
Although there is no established industry standard, the Container Handling Equipment Manufacturers (CHEM) Association has produced a technical standard TS14 "Standard Specification for Skip Containers", which the HSE advises manufacturers to refer to. In section 4.6.3 it states: "There must be no projection of the base plate in the area of the tipping hook engagement with the tipping bar thus preventing inadvertent hooking on the skip."
The HSE advises that skip operators should check all their skips and modify any that have protrusions that hooks could catch on. Driver-operators should perform a visual check to ensure the proper engagement of the hooks on the catch bar during tipping-out, to ensure no hook is just caught on the lip.
New skips should be manufactured without a protrusion that could give rise to false engagement with the tipping hooks, in line with the CHEM association standard TS14
With no British or European standards for skips, they are often made with the base plate extending beyond the end plates, producing a lip. If the tipping hooks snag on this lip instead of the engaging properly with the tipping bar, it is not necessarily visible from the operating position. The problem only becomes apparent when the angle of tipping is reached and the hooks are pushed off the lip. With the skip no longer restrained, it swings out over the back of the lorry. The momentum can lift the front of the lorry off the ground. The potential for the lorry to overbalance is further increased if the stabilisers have not been deployed correctly.
Although there is no established industry standard, the Container Handling Equipment Manufacturers (CHEM) Association has produced a technical standard TS14 "Standard Specification for Skip Containers", which the HSE advises manufacturers to refer to. In section 4.6.3 it states: "There must be no projection of the base plate in the area of the tipping hook engagement with the tipping bar thus preventing inadvertent hooking on the skip."
The HSE advises that skip operators should check all their skips and modify any that have protrusions that hooks could catch on. Driver-operators should perform a visual check to ensure the proper engagement of the hooks on the catch bar during tipping-out, to ensure no hook is just caught on the lip.
New skips should be manufactured without a protrusion that could give rise to false engagement with the tipping hooks, in line with the CHEM association standard TS14
Fire Extinguisher Offers
We now have an extensive range of Fire Extinguishers on offer, along with signage, stands and wall fixings.
Extinguishers start at £75.00 + VAT for a single with deals available on multiple purchases.
Please contact rob@rhssltd.co.uk for a quote or call 0333 577 0248.
Extinguishers start at £75.00 + VAT for a single with deals available on multiple purchases.
Please contact rob@rhssltd.co.uk for a quote or call 0333 577 0248.
Friday, 29 October 2010
Services from RHSS Limited
Just a taste of what we can now offer our clients:
Portable Appliance Testing
Periodic Inspection Certificates for Electrical Installations
Asbestos Awareness Training
Fire Alarm Design and Installation
Fire Alarm Servicing
Emergency Lighting Servicing
Asbestos Surveys
CDM C0-ordinator
Health and Safety Management Systems
Guaranteed pass for Accreditation Schemes (subject to our guidance)
Fire Extinguisher Provision
Health and Safety Signage
Fire Risk Assessment
Fire Training
DSE Assessments
Manual Handling Assessments
CDM Awareness Training
Risk Assessment Training
First Aid Training
Please call us on 0333 577 0248 to discuss your requirements.
Portable Appliance Testing
Periodic Inspection Certificates for Electrical Installations
Asbestos Awareness Training
Fire Alarm Design and Installation
Fire Alarm Servicing
Emergency Lighting Servicing
Asbestos Surveys
CDM C0-ordinator
Health and Safety Management Systems
Guaranteed pass for Accreditation Schemes (subject to our guidance)
Fire Extinguisher Provision
Health and Safety Signage
Fire Risk Assessment
Fire Training
DSE Assessments
Manual Handling Assessments
CDM Awareness Training
Risk Assessment Training
First Aid Training
Please call us on 0333 577 0248 to discuss your requirements.
Lord Young
I want to strip away mystique around health and safety, says Lord Young
26 October 2010
“It is something that you would think yourself. You know it when you see it. The things you would normally do.” Thus did Lord Young of Graffham define common sense at a gathering in London yesterday (25 October) to discuss his recently-published review of health and safety.
But the Tory peer was also quick to point out that Common sense, common safety “doesn’t really have too much to do with health and safety at all”. It’s about perception, he said, and the fact that, despite all the good it has done, health and safety has become “a joke”.
Lord Young was taking part in a panel discussion entitled ‘Insuring a safer future?’ at the Chartered Insurance Institute, alongside the managing director of Zurich Insurance, David Smith, and Gerard Forlin QC, organised by Cardinus Risk Management and the IIRSM.
He told the audience of mainly insurance and health and safety professionals that when he was responsible for health and safety as Employment Secretary in the mid-1980s “I doubt I spent two and a half minutes on health and safety in those two and a half years because it did a solid, sterling job in the hazardous occupations”. (He failed to mention that the number of fatalities in 1986/87, at more than 400, was two and a half times the number in 2009/10.)
Emphasising repeatedly that his review and recommendations are not about health and safety in the major-hazard occupations Lord Young said the essence of his report is simple: “Reduce bureaucracy in low-hazard occupations, and eliminate those ludicrous stories that face the average reader over breakfast every day.”
He cited offices, schools and shops as examples of what he sees as low-risk environments and lauded the HSE’s new online interactive risk assessment as a major step forward in reducing bureaucracy for those workplaces. He explained: “It takes just 15 minutes. Print it, complete it, sign it – that’s it. No need for consultants, which is something we are telling the insurance industry, especially.”
In response, David Smith said his company, Zurich Insurance, doesn’t require its policy-holders to engage outside consultants and that, done properly, risk assessment doesn’t have to be bureaucratic. “It is,” he added “an excellent tool for insurers in defending civil-liability claims.”
But he then appeared to undercut Lord Young’s enthusiasm for the 15-minute online risk assessment by warning: “We are not interested in tick-box exercises; we want a practical assessment of the risk.”
Nevertheless, Smith said the insurance industry applauds the “pragmatism and practical measures” in the peer’s report – although he confided that when the industry first learned about it, it set alarm bells ringing.
He explained: “It wasn’t that we didn’t agree that the system needed reform but that we were worried how he would succeed where others before him have failed. But having seen his report now, we think it can work.”
Gerry Forlin QC was more circumspect, however, warning that any changes to the current health and safety system must be carefully thought through. Likening Lord Young’s recommendations to the children’s game Kerplunk, in which the supports for a bunch of marbles are removed one by one until all the balls fall, Forlin said: “One of the dangers of fiddling with stuff is if you take something out, you have to ask why it was there in the first place. The UK has an excellent health and safety record, and we have to be careful and not meddle with that too much.”
Taking Lord Young’s examples of low-risk workplaces, Forlin reminded the audience: “The leading case on risk in this country was a school-playground death [R v Porter (2008)]. The decision there was that risk has to be real, not fanciful or hypothetical. It is about the consequences of the risk, should it be realised. So we have to be careful; the bereaved, the injured, and juries might not see things as ‘low-risk’ as others do.”
He also argued that the ‘fear factor’ is a powerful motivator in ensuring compliance with health and safety laws and that any lowering of the bar at this stage would be inadvisable. Said Forlin: “Unless we have certain sticks and carrots, the system won’t work. Essentially, we need to get the idea of collective board responsibility into directors’ minds – otherwise Lord Young’s proposals won’t work. The reason why our fatalities are going down is because there is that fear there.”
He continued: “In my opinion, the HSE/IoD guidance for directors is the most important document we have because it sets out everything boards need to know – especially if they find themselves in front of the courts. This is stuff we cannot take out.”
Lord Young was quick to respond by emphasising that his report is “not about rolling back health and safety – it’s about getting rid of some bureaucracy”. He also surmised that had he not been asked to do this review now, “fatalities would start to rise again because people will ignore health and safety because it has become such a joke”.
The floor was then given to the audience, to put their questions to the panellists. Lord Young, in general, answered along the lines of what he wrote in his report, offering little further insight into how some of his recommendations might be implemented in practice.
His aforementioned views on common sense were given in response to a simple request from the floor to “define it” and provoked some degree of muttering among the audience.
On the new accreditation scheme for health and safety consultants, Lord Young said: “I can’t think of any other area in which people can charge a fee for their advice without having any qualifications. My report is aiming to set a standard so that people who practise health and safety in the future can achieve a recognised standard and qualification.”
Asked if it was really necessary to have a degree-level qualification to be competent, the peer replied: “No, but if you haven’t passed a standard, how does your client know that you know what you are talking about? It is dangerous to allow consultants to practise without qualifications.”
Another member of the audience wanted to know why not all organisations with an interest in health and safety standards had been involved in setting up the accreditation scheme. Lord Young said the aim was for it to eventually come under UKAS – “paid for and supported by the industry, and independent of government” – before he passed the buck to HSE chief executive, Geoffrey Podger, who was sitting in the audience.
Said Podger: “We limited the field [of organisations involved] initially to get it started but before the New Year we will look at how to extend the scheme and improve it. There is no question of any one organisation getting preferential treatment.”
The event came to a conclusion with an intriguing hint from Lord Young on the reasoning behind his recommendation that police officers and fire-fighters be immune from prosecution under health and safety duties for putting themselves at risk by carrying out a heroic act.
Responding to a question from a fire-fighter in the audience, who wanted to know if the recommendation extended to the employing organisations as well as individuals, the peer replied: “The inquiry into the 7/7 bombings in London may have had some bearing on my recommendations in this sphere but I won’t say more than that.”
So, no detail as yet on how his proposals will be implemented, and no insight into how the subjective ‘skill’ of common sense will be assessed and determined in practice but there has been at least one concrete, positive result of Lord Young’s report: the peer revealed that his contacts at the Daily Mail and The Sun have been on to him to complain that he’s going to ruin their livelihood!
26 October 2010
“It is something that you would think yourself. You know it when you see it. The things you would normally do.” Thus did Lord Young of Graffham define common sense at a gathering in London yesterday (25 October) to discuss his recently-published review of health and safety.
But the Tory peer was also quick to point out that Common sense, common safety “doesn’t really have too much to do with health and safety at all”. It’s about perception, he said, and the fact that, despite all the good it has done, health and safety has become “a joke”.
Lord Young was taking part in a panel discussion entitled ‘Insuring a safer future?’ at the Chartered Insurance Institute, alongside the managing director of Zurich Insurance, David Smith, and Gerard Forlin QC, organised by Cardinus Risk Management and the IIRSM.
He told the audience of mainly insurance and health and safety professionals that when he was responsible for health and safety as Employment Secretary in the mid-1980s “I doubt I spent two and a half minutes on health and safety in those two and a half years because it did a solid, sterling job in the hazardous occupations”. (He failed to mention that the number of fatalities in 1986/87, at more than 400, was two and a half times the number in 2009/10.)
Emphasising repeatedly that his review and recommendations are not about health and safety in the major-hazard occupations Lord Young said the essence of his report is simple: “Reduce bureaucracy in low-hazard occupations, and eliminate those ludicrous stories that face the average reader over breakfast every day.”
He cited offices, schools and shops as examples of what he sees as low-risk environments and lauded the HSE’s new online interactive risk assessment as a major step forward in reducing bureaucracy for those workplaces. He explained: “It takes just 15 minutes. Print it, complete it, sign it – that’s it. No need for consultants, which is something we are telling the insurance industry, especially.”
In response, David Smith said his company, Zurich Insurance, doesn’t require its policy-holders to engage outside consultants and that, done properly, risk assessment doesn’t have to be bureaucratic. “It is,” he added “an excellent tool for insurers in defending civil-liability claims.”
But he then appeared to undercut Lord Young’s enthusiasm for the 15-minute online risk assessment by warning: “We are not interested in tick-box exercises; we want a practical assessment of the risk.”
Nevertheless, Smith said the insurance industry applauds the “pragmatism and practical measures” in the peer’s report – although he confided that when the industry first learned about it, it set alarm bells ringing.
He explained: “It wasn’t that we didn’t agree that the system needed reform but that we were worried how he would succeed where others before him have failed. But having seen his report now, we think it can work.”
Gerry Forlin QC was more circumspect, however, warning that any changes to the current health and safety system must be carefully thought through. Likening Lord Young’s recommendations to the children’s game Kerplunk, in which the supports for a bunch of marbles are removed one by one until all the balls fall, Forlin said: “One of the dangers of fiddling with stuff is if you take something out, you have to ask why it was there in the first place. The UK has an excellent health and safety record, and we have to be careful and not meddle with that too much.”
Taking Lord Young’s examples of low-risk workplaces, Forlin reminded the audience: “The leading case on risk in this country was a school-playground death [R v Porter (2008)]. The decision there was that risk has to be real, not fanciful or hypothetical. It is about the consequences of the risk, should it be realised. So we have to be careful; the bereaved, the injured, and juries might not see things as ‘low-risk’ as others do.”
He also argued that the ‘fear factor’ is a powerful motivator in ensuring compliance with health and safety laws and that any lowering of the bar at this stage would be inadvisable. Said Forlin: “Unless we have certain sticks and carrots, the system won’t work. Essentially, we need to get the idea of collective board responsibility into directors’ minds – otherwise Lord Young’s proposals won’t work. The reason why our fatalities are going down is because there is that fear there.”
He continued: “In my opinion, the HSE/IoD guidance for directors is the most important document we have because it sets out everything boards need to know – especially if they find themselves in front of the courts. This is stuff we cannot take out.”
Lord Young was quick to respond by emphasising that his report is “not about rolling back health and safety – it’s about getting rid of some bureaucracy”. He also surmised that had he not been asked to do this review now, “fatalities would start to rise again because people will ignore health and safety because it has become such a joke”.
The floor was then given to the audience, to put their questions to the panellists. Lord Young, in general, answered along the lines of what he wrote in his report, offering little further insight into how some of his recommendations might be implemented in practice.
His aforementioned views on common sense were given in response to a simple request from the floor to “define it” and provoked some degree of muttering among the audience.
On the new accreditation scheme for health and safety consultants, Lord Young said: “I can’t think of any other area in which people can charge a fee for their advice without having any qualifications. My report is aiming to set a standard so that people who practise health and safety in the future can achieve a recognised standard and qualification.”
Asked if it was really necessary to have a degree-level qualification to be competent, the peer replied: “No, but if you haven’t passed a standard, how does your client know that you know what you are talking about? It is dangerous to allow consultants to practise without qualifications.”
Another member of the audience wanted to know why not all organisations with an interest in health and safety standards had been involved in setting up the accreditation scheme. Lord Young said the aim was for it to eventually come under UKAS – “paid for and supported by the industry, and independent of government” – before he passed the buck to HSE chief executive, Geoffrey Podger, who was sitting in the audience.
Said Podger: “We limited the field [of organisations involved] initially to get it started but before the New Year we will look at how to extend the scheme and improve it. There is no question of any one organisation getting preferential treatment.”
The event came to a conclusion with an intriguing hint from Lord Young on the reasoning behind his recommendation that police officers and fire-fighters be immune from prosecution under health and safety duties for putting themselves at risk by carrying out a heroic act.
Responding to a question from a fire-fighter in the audience, who wanted to know if the recommendation extended to the employing organisations as well as individuals, the peer replied: “The inquiry into the 7/7 bombings in London may have had some bearing on my recommendations in this sphere but I won’t say more than that.”
So, no detail as yet on how his proposals will be implemented, and no insight into how the subjective ‘skill’ of common sense will be assessed and determined in practice but there has been at least one concrete, positive result of Lord Young’s report: the peer revealed that his contacts at the Daily Mail and The Sun have been on to him to complain that he’s going to ruin their livelihood!
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Fire Risk Assessments
Fire Risk Assessments – Why they’re needed to meet regulations and look after your employees
Fire Risk Assessments are required by The Fire Safety Order 2005 UK Fire Regulations – and for good reason too! In a nutshell, a fire risk assessment is used to determine the chance of a fire occurring in any workplace premises. This assessment can then be used to create precautions within the workplace which reduce fire risks and help prevent fires from occurring.
This has three distinct benefits:
1. Applies with essential regulations
2. Makes sure that you and your employees are working in a safe environment when it comes to the risks of fire
3. Limits the potential for fire damage to your premises
How do Fire Risk Assessments work?
•Under the UK Fire Regulations, someone must be legally-designated the “Responsible Person”. This person then as the duty and responsibility to carry out the fire risk assessment and deal with the outcome.
•This can be anyone; either you, or a member of staff, or a separate company/individual if you cannot find anyone within your business who has the knowledge and expertise to confidently carry out a reliable fire risk assessment.
•The responsible person must use a fire risk assessment form, and then analyse the entire premises for any potential hazards which carry a risk of causing a fire. Any hazards which could cause further damage or danger in the event of a fire should also be taken into account.
•Once fire hazards have been identified and noted, precautions must then be decided upon if actions are required to reduce the risk of fire harm or damage
However, it may not be simple as that, as there’s one catch:
The UK regulations state that the responsible person must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of risks. The responsible person must also comply with the requirements and prohibitions stated in the order. If you do not have someone available who has the knowledge and expertise to do this, then your fire assessment may not meet requirements, and you may break the law. As well as requiring the ability to carry out the fire assessment, the responsible person must also be able to correctly remedy any hazards which are found. This may require knowledge of fire extinguishers, emergency plans, fire-resistance and so on.
For the sake of complying with the law, protecting your staff and protecting your premises, it may be worth hiring someone who can help. With Veritas Consulting, you can hire one of our fire risk assessors to assess your premises, carry out a detailed professional assessment, and make sure that fire risks are as limited as possible.
RHSS Limited complete Fire Risk Assessments in line with PAS79 and our assessors hold various levels of membership of the Institute of Fire Engineers.
We guarantee the quality of these assessments to be of the highest standards and we will discuss them on your behalf with any enforcing authority free of charge.
Beware of Fire Extinguisher Companies offering this service as some will advise on unneccesary controls such as Fire Blankets and Excessive numbers of extinguishers to boost profits and subsidise cost of the assessment!
Fire Risk Assessments are required by The Fire Safety Order 2005 UK Fire Regulations – and for good reason too! In a nutshell, a fire risk assessment is used to determine the chance of a fire occurring in any workplace premises. This assessment can then be used to create precautions within the workplace which reduce fire risks and help prevent fires from occurring.
This has three distinct benefits:
1. Applies with essential regulations
2. Makes sure that you and your employees are working in a safe environment when it comes to the risks of fire
3. Limits the potential for fire damage to your premises
How do Fire Risk Assessments work?
•Under the UK Fire Regulations, someone must be legally-designated the “Responsible Person”. This person then as the duty and responsibility to carry out the fire risk assessment and deal with the outcome.
•This can be anyone; either you, or a member of staff, or a separate company/individual if you cannot find anyone within your business who has the knowledge and expertise to confidently carry out a reliable fire risk assessment.
•The responsible person must use a fire risk assessment form, and then analyse the entire premises for any potential hazards which carry a risk of causing a fire. Any hazards which could cause further damage or danger in the event of a fire should also be taken into account.
•Once fire hazards have been identified and noted, precautions must then be decided upon if actions are required to reduce the risk of fire harm or damage
However, it may not be simple as that, as there’s one catch:
The UK regulations state that the responsible person must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of risks. The responsible person must also comply with the requirements and prohibitions stated in the order. If you do not have someone available who has the knowledge and expertise to do this, then your fire assessment may not meet requirements, and you may break the law. As well as requiring the ability to carry out the fire assessment, the responsible person must also be able to correctly remedy any hazards which are found. This may require knowledge of fire extinguishers, emergency plans, fire-resistance and so on.
For the sake of complying with the law, protecting your staff and protecting your premises, it may be worth hiring someone who can help. With Veritas Consulting, you can hire one of our fire risk assessors to assess your premises, carry out a detailed professional assessment, and make sure that fire risks are as limited as possible.
RHSS Limited complete Fire Risk Assessments in line with PAS79 and our assessors hold various levels of membership of the Institute of Fire Engineers.
We guarantee the quality of these assessments to be of the highest standards and we will discuss them on your behalf with any enforcing authority free of charge.
Beware of Fire Extinguisher Companies offering this service as some will advise on unneccesary controls such as Fire Blankets and Excessive numbers of extinguishers to boost profits and subsidise cost of the assessment!
Monday, 18 October 2010
Consultants Register
A new register for safety consultants is likely to form part of a suite of government recommendations on health and safety. The report is authored by Lord David Young, the Conservative peer charged with reviewing health and safety law and perceptions in the UK.
Lord Young has voiced concerns that some consultants either overcomplicate safety, or miss important hazards. In his speech at the Conservative party conference, he said:
“We cannot allow untrained, unqualified and inexperienced consultants loose on the business world.”
The register, known as the Occupational Safety Consultants Register, or OSCR, is seen by the government as the first step to resolving problems Lord Young has identified around standards during his review. OSCR is designed to help businesses who don’t need to employ full time safety professionals, or need specialist help on a specific issue, and aims to give clients confidence in the consultant they choose.
The national register, which clients will be able to search online, is due to go live in early 2011. The Health and Safety Executive is leading the project to develop the register, and has worked in consultation with several organisations, including IOSH. The plan is to set up a not-for-profit company to run the scheme in the long term.
To register, consultants will need to have a degree level qualification and assessed experience in safety, as well as an active commitment to Continuing Professional Development. They also need to be signed up to a code of conduct and have current professional indemnity insurance. Chartered Members of IOSH, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland, and Fellows of the International Institute of Risk and Safety Management, will be eligible.
Initially, the register will only cover safety. The HSE has said that the register is for:
“…individuals who primarily provide commercial third party advice services on general safety management issues. We will keep this under review and will not rule out occupational health consultants in future.”
The enforcing body believes that the register will drive up standards:
“The benefit for safety consultants is that this will establish a new benchmark for high standards in the sector. The register will be the only independent and HSE-recognised way of demonstrating the highest professional standing and competence in occupational safety consultancy.”
The HSE and local authority inspectors will be referring businesses needing general external safety advice to OSCR. Lord Young has made it clear that if this voluntary scheme fails to raise standards, a statutory scheme can’t be ruled out.
The costs of joining and staying on the scheme haven’t yet been hammered out, but the HSE has described the joining cost as a “small fee” to cover administration.
Lord Young has voiced concerns that some consultants either overcomplicate safety, or miss important hazards. In his speech at the Conservative party conference, he said:
“We cannot allow untrained, unqualified and inexperienced consultants loose on the business world.”
The register, known as the Occupational Safety Consultants Register, or OSCR, is seen by the government as the first step to resolving problems Lord Young has identified around standards during his review. OSCR is designed to help businesses who don’t need to employ full time safety professionals, or need specialist help on a specific issue, and aims to give clients confidence in the consultant they choose.
The national register, which clients will be able to search online, is due to go live in early 2011. The Health and Safety Executive is leading the project to develop the register, and has worked in consultation with several organisations, including IOSH. The plan is to set up a not-for-profit company to run the scheme in the long term.
To register, consultants will need to have a degree level qualification and assessed experience in safety, as well as an active commitment to Continuing Professional Development. They also need to be signed up to a code of conduct and have current professional indemnity insurance. Chartered Members of IOSH, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland, and Fellows of the International Institute of Risk and Safety Management, will be eligible.
Initially, the register will only cover safety. The HSE has said that the register is for:
“…individuals who primarily provide commercial third party advice services on general safety management issues. We will keep this under review and will not rule out occupational health consultants in future.”
The enforcing body believes that the register will drive up standards:
“The benefit for safety consultants is that this will establish a new benchmark for high standards in the sector. The register will be the only independent and HSE-recognised way of demonstrating the highest professional standing and competence in occupational safety consultancy.”
The HSE and local authority inspectors will be referring businesses needing general external safety advice to OSCR. Lord Young has made it clear that if this voluntary scheme fails to raise standards, a statutory scheme can’t be ruled out.
The costs of joining and staying on the scheme haven’t yet been hammered out, but the HSE has described the joining cost as a “small fee” to cover administration.
Waste Site Fire
A clean-up operation is under way after a fire at a waste management site in Lancashire injured three people.
Up to 60 firefighters were called to PHS Waste Management in Burscough, Lancashire, after a fire broke out, emitting plumes of black smoke approximately 100ft into the air.
One of the injured was airlifted to the Royal Preston Hospital, while the other two were taken by ambulance to Whiston Hospital. All three suffered burns to their hands and faces.
Early reports suggested that a chemical explosion had taken place, but it later emerged that this was not the case after the fire crew successfully tackled the blaze and began an investigation to discover the cause.
A PHS spokeswoman said: "We can confirm that three people have been hurt. One of these has been taken to Royal Preston Hospital and the other two have been taken to Whiston Hospital.
"Meanwhile, Lancashire Fire and Rescue has confirmed the fire has been put out and the clean-up operation is now under way. All other operations on site have been shut down and safely isolated.
"A full internal investigation will be launched shortly and we are committed to co-operating with any external investigations to establish how this incident occurred so that it does not happen again."
Up to 60 firefighters were called to PHS Waste Management in Burscough, Lancashire, after a fire broke out, emitting plumes of black smoke approximately 100ft into the air.
One of the injured was airlifted to the Royal Preston Hospital, while the other two were taken by ambulance to Whiston Hospital. All three suffered burns to their hands and faces.
Early reports suggested that a chemical explosion had taken place, but it later emerged that this was not the case after the fire crew successfully tackled the blaze and began an investigation to discover the cause.
A PHS spokeswoman said: "We can confirm that three people have been hurt. One of these has been taken to Royal Preston Hospital and the other two have been taken to Whiston Hospital.
"Meanwhile, Lancashire Fire and Rescue has confirmed the fire has been put out and the clean-up operation is now under way. All other operations on site have been shut down and safely isolated.
"A full internal investigation will be launched shortly and we are committed to co-operating with any external investigations to establish how this incident occurred so that it does not happen again."
Lord Young review
Review “turning point” for health and safety
A Government review published today could mark a “turning point” for health and safety in the UK, the profession’s largest international body said today.
IOSH (Institution of Occupational Safety and Health) said it broadly welcomed Lord Young’s recommendations, which include a clampdown on “absurd” applications of health and safety legislation and measures to make it easier for teachers to organise school trips.
IOSH Chief Executive Rob Strange said:
“We warmly welcome this review. We are sick and tired of hearing of misinterpretations of health and safety laws which end in the cancellation of perfectly safe activities.
“Lord Young is absolutely right: The standing of health and safety has been lowered by ridiculous applications of the rules. This has to end.
“We think this review could see a turning point for health and safety in the UK by turning the focus away from daft decisions about conker competitions and hanging baskets and back onto saving people’s lives in genuinely hazardous areas of work and public life.”
In a report published today, Lord Young said the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act remains an “effective framework” and had brought about the lowest number of non-fatal accidents and second lowest number of fatal accidents at work in Europe. But health and safety had been given a bad name, said the former Government minister, by misinterpretations of the rules.
Lord Young is recommending controls on no win-no fee lawyers, the simplification of risk assessments for some businesses and the accreditation of health and safety consultants.
He is also advising the Government to cut red tape for school trips, apply extra scrutiny of councils which ban events on health and safety grounds and to ensure the emergency services are not at risk of litigation for acts of heroism.
Mr Strange said:
“It’s a little early to comment on the specific recommendations made by Lord Young, which have been made public only this morning. But we do think the Government is broadly on the right track and we will support it in whatever way we can.”
Jason Anker, 42, of Farndon, in Nottinghamshire, was paralysed in 1992 when the ladder he was on slipped and fell between two buildings. He has had an 18-year-struggle to get his life back on track, including lengthy spells in hospital, the collapse of his marriage, drink and drug problems, and compensation issues which were only resolved in 2007.
Jason is backing IOSH in raising awareness about the dangers of poor health and safety.
He said:
“Health and safety does have a bad image because people presume it’s about rules and restrictions. At the end of the day, it’s about saving lives and preventing accidents at work.
“If the laws in 1992 were as tight as they are now I would be standing, not sitting in a wheelchair, saying this today.”
A Government review published today could mark a “turning point” for health and safety in the UK, the profession’s largest international body said today.
IOSH (Institution of Occupational Safety and Health) said it broadly welcomed Lord Young’s recommendations, which include a clampdown on “absurd” applications of health and safety legislation and measures to make it easier for teachers to organise school trips.
IOSH Chief Executive Rob Strange said:
“We warmly welcome this review. We are sick and tired of hearing of misinterpretations of health and safety laws which end in the cancellation of perfectly safe activities.
“Lord Young is absolutely right: The standing of health and safety has been lowered by ridiculous applications of the rules. This has to end.
“We think this review could see a turning point for health and safety in the UK by turning the focus away from daft decisions about conker competitions and hanging baskets and back onto saving people’s lives in genuinely hazardous areas of work and public life.”
In a report published today, Lord Young said the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act remains an “effective framework” and had brought about the lowest number of non-fatal accidents and second lowest number of fatal accidents at work in Europe. But health and safety had been given a bad name, said the former Government minister, by misinterpretations of the rules.
Lord Young is recommending controls on no win-no fee lawyers, the simplification of risk assessments for some businesses and the accreditation of health and safety consultants.
He is also advising the Government to cut red tape for school trips, apply extra scrutiny of councils which ban events on health and safety grounds and to ensure the emergency services are not at risk of litigation for acts of heroism.
Mr Strange said:
“It’s a little early to comment on the specific recommendations made by Lord Young, which have been made public only this morning. But we do think the Government is broadly on the right track and we will support it in whatever way we can.”
Jason Anker, 42, of Farndon, in Nottinghamshire, was paralysed in 1992 when the ladder he was on slipped and fell between two buildings. He has had an 18-year-struggle to get his life back on track, including lengthy spells in hospital, the collapse of his marriage, drink and drug problems, and compensation issues which were only resolved in 2007.
Jason is backing IOSH in raising awareness about the dangers of poor health and safety.
He said:
“Health and safety does have a bad image because people presume it’s about rules and restrictions. At the end of the day, it’s about saving lives and preventing accidents at work.
“If the laws in 1992 were as tight as they are now I would be standing, not sitting in a wheelchair, saying this today.”
Tuesday, 5 October 2010
Guards
A chicken-processing company has been criticised for failing to protect its employees following two serious incidents at its factory in Norfolk.
Thetford Magistrates’ Court heard that the first incident took place on 24 July 2009 at Crown Chicken Ltd’s facility in Norwich. An employee was using a de-skinning machine, which is used to skin chicken carcasses, when his glove got caught and his hand was pulled into the blade. The skin on the back of his hand, from his knuckles to his wrist, was torn away from the underlying tissue.
The HSE found that the machine did not have adequate guards, or an emergency stop button. It also identified that the gloves provided for workers failed to give suitable protection. A Prohibition Notice was issued on 25 August 2009, which required the machine to be removed from service until safeguards were put in place.
On 2 December 2009, another employee severed a finger when his hand was crushed by the lifting mechanism of a forklift truck, as he stood on the forks to access the back of some refrigerated trailers.
HSE inspector, Saffron Turnell, revealed that guidance from both the HSE and the forklift manufacturer warns that it is unsafe to stand on the forks of a forklift truck, but the company had not provided a safe way for workers to access the back of the trailers.
Crown Chicken Ltd appeared in court on 27 September and admitted two breaches of s2(1) of the HSWA 1974, It was fined £4000 for each offence and ordered to pay £5500 in costs.
SHP contacted the company to offer it the chance to provide mitigation, but it declined to comment on the incidents.
After the hearing, inspector Turnell said: “These two incidents resulted in very serious and painful injuries to both men. What is more, both could easily have been avoided if Crown Chicken had taken the correct health and safety precautions.
“The company failed to ensure that simple measures were in place to protect employees using the de-skinning machine. Similarly, the company had no safe method for staff to access the refrigerated trailers.”
Thetford Magistrates’ Court heard that the first incident took place on 24 July 2009 at Crown Chicken Ltd’s facility in Norwich. An employee was using a de-skinning machine, which is used to skin chicken carcasses, when his glove got caught and his hand was pulled into the blade. The skin on the back of his hand, from his knuckles to his wrist, was torn away from the underlying tissue.
The HSE found that the machine did not have adequate guards, or an emergency stop button. It also identified that the gloves provided for workers failed to give suitable protection. A Prohibition Notice was issued on 25 August 2009, which required the machine to be removed from service until safeguards were put in place.
On 2 December 2009, another employee severed a finger when his hand was crushed by the lifting mechanism of a forklift truck, as he stood on the forks to access the back of some refrigerated trailers.
HSE inspector, Saffron Turnell, revealed that guidance from both the HSE and the forklift manufacturer warns that it is unsafe to stand on the forks of a forklift truck, but the company had not provided a safe way for workers to access the back of the trailers.
Crown Chicken Ltd appeared in court on 27 September and admitted two breaches of s2(1) of the HSWA 1974, It was fined £4000 for each offence and ordered to pay £5500 in costs.
SHP contacted the company to offer it the chance to provide mitigation, but it declined to comment on the incidents.
After the hearing, inspector Turnell said: “These two incidents resulted in very serious and painful injuries to both men. What is more, both could easily have been avoided if Crown Chicken had taken the correct health and safety precautions.
“The company failed to ensure that simple measures were in place to protect employees using the de-skinning machine. Similarly, the company had no safe method for staff to access the refrigerated trailers.”
Fairground Inspectors in court
A serial-offending fairground inspection company has appeared in court after two people were thrown out of a faulty fairground ride at Silverstone race circuit.
The incident took place on 6 July 2008, the day of the British Formula One Grand Prix, and the ‘Tagada’ ride was part of a fun fair being held in a field adjacent to the racetrack.
The Tagada is a ground-level spinning machine that bounces its riders as it turns. Riders sit in a round bowl and hold on via bars proved but there are no restraints to secure individuals in place. Sections of seating can be removed so the ride can be folded when it is packed away.
On the day of the incident, two passengers were sat on one of these sections when the seating collapsed while the ride was in motion. They fell backwards out of the ride and landed on the ground. One of them was knocked unconscious but both escaped with only back injuries and bruising.
The HSE’s investigation found that the ride failed due to corroded structural steelwork on the seating. Inspector Karl Howes told SHP that the corrosion was significant and clear to see, and should have been identified by the ride owner, Michael Searle, and during the machine’s annual safety inspection, which was carried out by Fairground Inspection Services (FIS) Ltd.
On 21 July 2008, a Prohibition Notice was issued against the ride, which required Searle to make significant improvements to restore it to a safe condition before it could be returned to service.
Inspector Howes said: “Fairground rides should be exciting but safe. Everyone on this ride faced a real risk, because the owner and inspector failed to comply with the law.
“The two injured men were fortunate because they could easily have suffered more serious injuries.
“It is the responsibility of those who operate, or inspect fairground rides to ensure they carry out their duties thoroughly by identifying and repairing corrosion and wear on the equipment.
“This incident should remind all ride operators and ride examiners that public safety on fairground rides is of paramount importance.”
Searle appeared at Aylesbury Crown Court on 30 September and pleaded gulty to breaching s3(2) of the HSWA 1974. He was fined £3000 and ordered to pay £1000 in costs.
In mitigation, he told the court that he had no previous convictions and had only owned the ride for nine months before the incident took place. He accepted that he should have identified the corrosion on the ride but said he believed the ride to be safe after it was passed during its annual safety inspection, which was carried out by FIS director Michael Rodgers.
Searle has subsequently completely rebuilt the ride to comply with the Prohibition Notice and it has been permitted to return to service by the HSE.
Rodgers appeared at the same hearing and pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. He was fined £3000 and must pay £1000 towards costs. FIS pleaded guilty to the same offence and was fined £7000 and £2000 in costs.
Rodgers told the court that he had no previous convictions and revealed that the company has now ceased trading.
The court heard that the firm had two previous similar convictions. In November 2009, it was fined £8000 and £1000 in costs after a fairground ride it had declared safe collapsed at a bonfire display in Suffolk.
In June 2010, FIS was sentenced over an incident in which a pod containing passengers on an Orbiter ride detached and flew ten metres through the air. FIS had inspected the ride and deemed it fit for use.
The incident took place on 6 July 2008, the day of the British Formula One Grand Prix, and the ‘Tagada’ ride was part of a fun fair being held in a field adjacent to the racetrack.
The Tagada is a ground-level spinning machine that bounces its riders as it turns. Riders sit in a round bowl and hold on via bars proved but there are no restraints to secure individuals in place. Sections of seating can be removed so the ride can be folded when it is packed away.
On the day of the incident, two passengers were sat on one of these sections when the seating collapsed while the ride was in motion. They fell backwards out of the ride and landed on the ground. One of them was knocked unconscious but both escaped with only back injuries and bruising.
The HSE’s investigation found that the ride failed due to corroded structural steelwork on the seating. Inspector Karl Howes told SHP that the corrosion was significant and clear to see, and should have been identified by the ride owner, Michael Searle, and during the machine’s annual safety inspection, which was carried out by Fairground Inspection Services (FIS) Ltd.
On 21 July 2008, a Prohibition Notice was issued against the ride, which required Searle to make significant improvements to restore it to a safe condition before it could be returned to service.
Inspector Howes said: “Fairground rides should be exciting but safe. Everyone on this ride faced a real risk, because the owner and inspector failed to comply with the law.
“The two injured men were fortunate because they could easily have suffered more serious injuries.
“It is the responsibility of those who operate, or inspect fairground rides to ensure they carry out their duties thoroughly by identifying and repairing corrosion and wear on the equipment.
“This incident should remind all ride operators and ride examiners that public safety on fairground rides is of paramount importance.”
Searle appeared at Aylesbury Crown Court on 30 September and pleaded gulty to breaching s3(2) of the HSWA 1974. He was fined £3000 and ordered to pay £1000 in costs.
In mitigation, he told the court that he had no previous convictions and had only owned the ride for nine months before the incident took place. He accepted that he should have identified the corrosion on the ride but said he believed the ride to be safe after it was passed during its annual safety inspection, which was carried out by FIS director Michael Rodgers.
Searle has subsequently completely rebuilt the ride to comply with the Prohibition Notice and it has been permitted to return to service by the HSE.
Rodgers appeared at the same hearing and pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. He was fined £3000 and must pay £1000 towards costs. FIS pleaded guilty to the same offence and was fined £7000 and £2000 in costs.
Rodgers told the court that he had no previous convictions and revealed that the company has now ceased trading.
The court heard that the firm had two previous similar convictions. In November 2009, it was fined £8000 and £1000 in costs after a fairground ride it had declared safe collapsed at a bonfire display in Suffolk.
In June 2010, FIS was sentenced over an incident in which a pod containing passengers on an Orbiter ride detached and flew ten metres through the air. FIS had inspected the ride and deemed it fit for use.
Wall collapse injury and prosecution
A Wiltshire construction company has been prosecuted after a teenager was seriously injured in a wall collapse.
Marlborough-based Simon Jones Restoration and Re-design pleaded guilty to health and safety breaches at Chippenham Magistrates Court on 4 October.
The prosecution was brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) which investigated the incident which took place on 24 August 2009.
Two employees were carrying out refurbishment work to a large domestic property in Chirton, Devizes, which had been in a poor condition for a number of years. They were creating an opening in a lime mortar gable end wall when the wall collapsed, injuring both workers.
The seriously-hurt teenager, who does not want to be named, was aged 17 at the time of the incident. He suffered a fractured pelvis, ligament damage to his ankle and chipped teeth.
Mark Renouf, HSE inspector, said: "This was a serious case which could easily have been fatal. The job was complex with a substantial element of temporary works. It needed to be carefully and meticulously planned with the involvement of a competent engineer. Unfortunately this was not done and as a result led to terrible consequences.”
The company pleaded guilty to breaching section 28(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and was fined £4,000, with £3,000 costs, and ordered to pay £1,000 compensation to the injured teenager.
Marlborough-based Simon Jones Restoration and Re-design pleaded guilty to health and safety breaches at Chippenham Magistrates Court on 4 October.
The prosecution was brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) which investigated the incident which took place on 24 August 2009.
Two employees were carrying out refurbishment work to a large domestic property in Chirton, Devizes, which had been in a poor condition for a number of years. They were creating an opening in a lime mortar gable end wall when the wall collapsed, injuring both workers.
The seriously-hurt teenager, who does not want to be named, was aged 17 at the time of the incident. He suffered a fractured pelvis, ligament damage to his ankle and chipped teeth.
Mark Renouf, HSE inspector, said: "This was a serious case which could easily have been fatal. The job was complex with a substantial element of temporary works. It needed to be carefully and meticulously planned with the involvement of a competent engineer. Unfortunately this was not done and as a result led to terrible consequences.”
The company pleaded guilty to breaching section 28(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and was fined £4,000, with £3,000 costs, and ordered to pay £1,000 compensation to the injured teenager.
Telehandler fatality
A Scottish construction firm has been prosecuted after one of its workers died following an accident involving a telehandler.
Charles Wilkinson, 51, from Berwick, was struck by the telehandler as it was being reversed the wrong way along a one-way residential street in Tweedmouth.
Newcastle Crown Court heard the company, Hawick-based James Swinton Co, was carrying out refurbishment work in the street on 10 November 2008.
The company had not requested a road closure from Berwick District Council and there were still residents' cars parked in the street.
The telehandler driver was reversing his vehicle up the street the wrong way when it mounted the pavement and struck Wilkinson, who was taken to hospital with injuries to his pelvis, spine and ribs but later released.
However, he died four weeks later as a result of a blood clot. A Home Office pathologist later determined the clot was caused by the incident.
James Swinton pleaded guilty to one breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £4,063 costs.
After the case, HSE inspector Dr Dave Shallow, said: "This was a tragic accident that could and should have been avoided.
"Site transport activities should be managed to minimise as far as possible the need for reversing. But where it is necessary to reverse, site managers should ensure that it is done in a safe and controlled manner, using a banksman, reversing aids on the vehicles and segregation of pedestrians and vehicles.
"The company could have asked Berwick District Council for a road closure which, along with these measures and the removal of residents' vehicles, would have allowed safer movement of construction plant and vehicles."
Charles Wilkinson, 51, from Berwick, was struck by the telehandler as it was being reversed the wrong way along a one-way residential street in Tweedmouth.
Newcastle Crown Court heard the company, Hawick-based James Swinton Co, was carrying out refurbishment work in the street on 10 November 2008.
The company had not requested a road closure from Berwick District Council and there were still residents' cars parked in the street.
The telehandler driver was reversing his vehicle up the street the wrong way when it mounted the pavement and struck Wilkinson, who was taken to hospital with injuries to his pelvis, spine and ribs but later released.
However, he died four weeks later as a result of a blood clot. A Home Office pathologist later determined the clot was caused by the incident.
James Swinton pleaded guilty to one breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £4,063 costs.
After the case, HSE inspector Dr Dave Shallow, said: "This was a tragic accident that could and should have been avoided.
"Site transport activities should be managed to minimise as far as possible the need for reversing. But where it is necessary to reverse, site managers should ensure that it is done in a safe and controlled manner, using a banksman, reversing aids on the vehicles and segregation of pedestrians and vehicles.
"The company could have asked Berwick District Council for a road closure which, along with these measures and the removal of residents' vehicles, would have allowed safer movement of construction plant and vehicles."
Friday, 17 September 2010
Princincipal Contractors - What you need to do..
What you need to do
The law [1] requires that principal contractors (PC) must undertake the following actions:
Project management – plan, manage and monitor the construction phase so that it is carried out safely and without risks to health;
Contractor engagement – provide information and directions whilst facilitating co-operation and co-ordination between contractors;
Workforce engagement – make sure the workforce is being inducted, informed, trained and consulted on health and safety;
What you need to know – three key questions
Question 1: Which projects require appointment of a principal contractor?
Answer: The client must appoint a PC on projects that are likely to involve more than 30 days or 500 man days of construction work (notifiable projects[2]). The client will carry the PC duties if a separate appointment is not made.
Question 2: When should the PC be appointed?
Answer: The client must appoint a PC as soon as practicable and at the latest before the construction phase starts.
Question 3: Who needs to be informed of the PC appointment?
Answer: The co-ordinator must inform HSE of the PC details as soon as practicable after the PC is appointed.
Project management
The PC must plan, manage and monitor the construction phase of the project.
Key actions include:
Planning: preparing a construction phase plan [3] that ensures the work is carried on without risk to health or safety;
Implementing: arranging for the plan to be implemented including facilitating co-operation and co-ordination between all persons on the project;
Reviewing: the PC must from time to time update, review, revise and refine the plan;
Site access: taking steps to prevent unauthorised access to the site by fencing and other controls;
Welfare facilities: making sure that facilities are sufficient throughout the construction phase;
Site rules: drawing up rules that are appropriate to the site and the activities;
Notification: displaying the required formal notice on site (F10) and;
Design: liaising with the CDM co-ordinator regarding any design or change to a design;
Contractor engagement
The PC must ensure the co-operation and co-ordination of contractors carrying out the construction work. Key actions include:
Time for planning: informing contractors of the minimum amount of time alllowed for their planning and preparation before their work begins;
Consultation on the plan: consulting contractors before finalising relevant parts of the plan;
Access to the plan: giving every contractor access to relevant parts of the plan and any other information needed to carry out their work safely and with proper welfare facilities;
Directions: giving directions to contractors to enable the PC to comply with his own duties and;
Health and safety file: letting contractors know what information is required for the file and providing it to the CDM-C.
Workforce engagement
Contractors [4] must provide their workforce with the required information and training to carry out work safely. In addition, the PC must check this happens so that every worker is provided with:
Induction: a suitable site induction on health and safety matters;
Information and training: needed for the particular work to be carried out including information on risks and required control measures. Workers must be able to inspect and take copies of relevant information relating to project health and safety.
The PC must also take steps to secure:
co-operation: arrangements so that workers can co-operate on devising safety measures and checking their effectiveness; and
Consultation: arrangements to consult the workforce on health, safety or welfare matters where they have not been so consulted by any employer.
The law [1] requires that principal contractors (PC) must undertake the following actions:
Project management – plan, manage and monitor the construction phase so that it is carried out safely and without risks to health;
Contractor engagement – provide information and directions whilst facilitating co-operation and co-ordination between contractors;
Workforce engagement – make sure the workforce is being inducted, informed, trained and consulted on health and safety;
What you need to know – three key questions
Question 1: Which projects require appointment of a principal contractor?
Answer: The client must appoint a PC on projects that are likely to involve more than 30 days or 500 man days of construction work (notifiable projects[2]). The client will carry the PC duties if a separate appointment is not made.
Question 2: When should the PC be appointed?
Answer: The client must appoint a PC as soon as practicable and at the latest before the construction phase starts.
Question 3: Who needs to be informed of the PC appointment?
Answer: The co-ordinator must inform HSE of the PC details as soon as practicable after the PC is appointed.
Project management
The PC must plan, manage and monitor the construction phase of the project.
Key actions include:
Planning: preparing a construction phase plan [3] that ensures the work is carried on without risk to health or safety;
Implementing: arranging for the plan to be implemented including facilitating co-operation and co-ordination between all persons on the project;
Reviewing: the PC must from time to time update, review, revise and refine the plan;
Site access: taking steps to prevent unauthorised access to the site by fencing and other controls;
Welfare facilities: making sure that facilities are sufficient throughout the construction phase;
Site rules: drawing up rules that are appropriate to the site and the activities;
Notification: displaying the required formal notice on site (F10) and;
Design: liaising with the CDM co-ordinator regarding any design or change to a design;
Contractor engagement
The PC must ensure the co-operation and co-ordination of contractors carrying out the construction work. Key actions include:
Time for planning: informing contractors of the minimum amount of time alllowed for their planning and preparation before their work begins;
Consultation on the plan: consulting contractors before finalising relevant parts of the plan;
Access to the plan: giving every contractor access to relevant parts of the plan and any other information needed to carry out their work safely and with proper welfare facilities;
Directions: giving directions to contractors to enable the PC to comply with his own duties and;
Health and safety file: letting contractors know what information is required for the file and providing it to the CDM-C.
Workforce engagement
Contractors [4] must provide their workforce with the required information and training to carry out work safely. In addition, the PC must check this happens so that every worker is provided with:
Induction: a suitable site induction on health and safety matters;
Information and training: needed for the particular work to be carried out including information on risks and required control measures. Workers must be able to inspect and take copies of relevant information relating to project health and safety.
The PC must also take steps to secure:
co-operation: arrangements so that workers can co-operate on devising safety measures and checking their effectiveness; and
Consultation: arrangements to consult the workforce on health, safety or welfare matters where they have not been so consulted by any employer.
Worker Involvement is key in Health and Safety
Many factors affect how you can engage your employees:
The business
Structure of the business
Management style
Organisational and safety cultures
Trade union recognition and employment relations
The workplace
Size of workplace
Location of sites
Types of work done
Degree and nature of inherent dangers
The workforce
Size of workforce
Diversity of the workforce
Employment structures (for example, direct employees, agency and contract workers)
Work patterns (for example, shift systems, part-time working)
Offsite, remote or mobile workers.
Questions you will need to ask yourself include:
Do we consult individuals or representatives?
How do we consult them?
How can we organise inspections and investigations?
How can we co-ordinate between committees?
For example:
A high-risk workplace with a large unionised workforce spread over multiple sites may have trade union representatives from different sites as members of a site-based health and safety committee that meets regularly, and feeds into a corporate health and safety committee.
A non-unionised smaller workplace located on one small, low-risk site, is more likely to consult directly with employees on a day-to-day basis.
Case study: BSkyB
BSkyB created a single forum for the whole business bringing together separate structures that had previously engaged with staff at their cross UK workplaces. They established an effective two-way communication channels that “plugged in” employees from all over the UK and created a partnership between management and employees...
The business
Structure of the business
Management style
Organisational and safety cultures
Trade union recognition and employment relations
The workplace
Size of workplace
Location of sites
Types of work done
Degree and nature of inherent dangers
The workforce
Size of workforce
Diversity of the workforce
Employment structures (for example, direct employees, agency and contract workers)
Work patterns (for example, shift systems, part-time working)
Offsite, remote or mobile workers.
Questions you will need to ask yourself include:
Do we consult individuals or representatives?
How do we consult them?
How can we organise inspections and investigations?
How can we co-ordinate between committees?
For example:
A high-risk workplace with a large unionised workforce spread over multiple sites may have trade union representatives from different sites as members of a site-based health and safety committee that meets regularly, and feeds into a corporate health and safety committee.
A non-unionised smaller workplace located on one small, low-risk site, is more likely to consult directly with employees on a day-to-day basis.
Case study: BSkyB
BSkyB created a single forum for the whole business bringing together separate structures that had previously engaged with staff at their cross UK workplaces. They established an effective two-way communication channels that “plugged in” employees from all over the UK and created a partnership between management and employees...
What is Reach?
REACH is a European Union regulation concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals. It came into force on 1st June 2007 and replaced a number of European Directives and Regulations with a single system.
Aims
REACH has several aims:
To provide a high level of protection of human health and the environment from the use of chemicals.
To make the people who place chemicals on the market (manufacturers[1] and importers[2] responsible for understanding and managing the risks associated with their use.)
To allow the free movement of substances[3] on the EU market.
To enhance innovation in and the competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry.
To promote the use of alternative methods for the assessment of the hazardous properties of substances e.g. quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) and read across.
Scope and exemptions
REACH applies to substances manufactured or imported into the EU in quantities of 1 tonne or more per year. Generally, it applies to all individual chemical substances on their own, in preparations[4] or in articles[5] (if the substance is intended to be released during normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of use from an article).
Some substances are specifically excluded:
Radioactive substances
Substances under customs supervision
The transport of substances
Non-isolated intermediates[6]
Waste
Some naturally occurring low-hazard substances
Some substances, covered by more specific legislation, have tailored provisions, including:
Human and veterinary medicines
Food and foodstuff additives
Plant protection products and biocides
Other substances have tailored provisions within the REACH legislation, as long they are used in specified conditions:
Isolated intermediates[7]
Substances used for research and development
Aims
REACH has several aims:
To provide a high level of protection of human health and the environment from the use of chemicals.
To make the people who place chemicals on the market (manufacturers[1] and importers[2] responsible for understanding and managing the risks associated with their use.)
To allow the free movement of substances[3] on the EU market.
To enhance innovation in and the competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry.
To promote the use of alternative methods for the assessment of the hazardous properties of substances e.g. quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) and read across.
Scope and exemptions
REACH applies to substances manufactured or imported into the EU in quantities of 1 tonne or more per year. Generally, it applies to all individual chemical substances on their own, in preparations[4] or in articles[5] (if the substance is intended to be released during normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of use from an article).
Some substances are specifically excluded:
Radioactive substances
Substances under customs supervision
The transport of substances
Non-isolated intermediates[6]
Waste
Some naturally occurring low-hazard substances
Some substances, covered by more specific legislation, have tailored provisions, including:
Human and veterinary medicines
Food and foodstuff additives
Plant protection products and biocides
Other substances have tailored provisions within the REACH legislation, as long they are used in specified conditions:
Isolated intermediates[7]
Substances used for research and development
Friday, 3 September 2010
Asbestos and Shop Fitting...
Five workers were potentially exposed to deadly asbestos fibres while removing old shop fittings at the Arndale Centre in Manchester.
The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted Eastern Regional Shopfitters Ltd after the company ignored a report stating that asbestos was present in the shop.
Two of the company's workers were potentially exposed to the deadly fibres in October 2009 after spending five days ripping out shop fittings before they discovered asbestos had been used in some of the ceiling panels. As well as the workers, three management staff from the Arndale Centre were also potentially exposed after they carried out routine checks on the work at the shop.
Eastern Regional Shopfitters was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,215 after admitting three breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and one of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
Mark Green, 45 from Cambridge, was one of the two shop fitters to be exposed to asbestos fibres. He said: "It plays on my mind. I am more aware of the possibility I may become ill and that my life has unwittingly been put on the line. I hope that companies in the construction industry, no matter what their size, now begin to take asbestos more seriously. They should put everyone who works for them on asbestos awareness courses because workers need to be more aware."
Mr Green concluded: "When I go on a job now, the first question I ask is 'Have you done an asbestos report?' and then, if it is present, 'What will your actions be?'."
Tom Merry, the investigating inspector at HSE, said: "Eastern Regional Shopfitters knew asbestos was present in the shop but it didnÃt inform its workers and it didnÃt ensure it was dealt with safely. Abestos only becomes a risk if it is disturbed so the shop fitters could have worked safely if they knew where the asbestos was. It should either have been sealed or removed by a licensed contractor before the work started."
Inspector Merry concluded: "Five people now have to live with the knowledge that they may become ill with a life-threatening lung disease. Shop fitting and property maintenance companies must treat the risks from asbestos seriously so more lives arenÃt put in danger in the future."
The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted Eastern Regional Shopfitters Ltd after the company ignored a report stating that asbestos was present in the shop.
Two of the company's workers were potentially exposed to the deadly fibres in October 2009 after spending five days ripping out shop fittings before they discovered asbestos had been used in some of the ceiling panels. As well as the workers, three management staff from the Arndale Centre were also potentially exposed after they carried out routine checks on the work at the shop.
Eastern Regional Shopfitters was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,215 after admitting three breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and one of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
Mark Green, 45 from Cambridge, was one of the two shop fitters to be exposed to asbestos fibres. He said: "It plays on my mind. I am more aware of the possibility I may become ill and that my life has unwittingly been put on the line. I hope that companies in the construction industry, no matter what their size, now begin to take asbestos more seriously. They should put everyone who works for them on asbestos awareness courses because workers need to be more aware."
Mr Green concluded: "When I go on a job now, the first question I ask is 'Have you done an asbestos report?' and then, if it is present, 'What will your actions be?'."
Tom Merry, the investigating inspector at HSE, said: "Eastern Regional Shopfitters knew asbestos was present in the shop but it didnÃt inform its workers and it didnÃt ensure it was dealt with safely. Abestos only becomes a risk if it is disturbed so the shop fitters could have worked safely if they knew where the asbestos was. It should either have been sealed or removed by a licensed contractor before the work started."
Inspector Merry concluded: "Five people now have to live with the knowledge that they may become ill with a life-threatening lung disease. Shop fitting and property maintenance companies must treat the risks from asbestos seriously so more lives arenÃt put in danger in the future."
CDM in brief...
If it is accepted that good management involves;
•The use of competent persons/organisations
•The availability of background information
•The pre-planning of work activities
•The recording of crucial data
•Reviewing work on completion to learn from mistakes and experiences
Then one needs look no further than the CDM Regulations for an ideal management model to follow (notwithstanding the statutory obligation to do so). Pragmatic application of the Regulations will bring business benefits as well as compliance and will also go a long way to achieving the aims of the ‘rethinking construction’ agenda.
The Approved Code of Practice for the CDM Regulations makes it very clear that the client has a major role to play in the management of risk. This is particularly so during the design stage when the tone of the project is often set by the client, and a number of important actions are carried through, for example,
•Appointment by client of competent organisations
•Provision of information
•Provision of any existing Health and Safety Files
The Client may have little involvement during the construction phase, unless the site is an integral part of his business – or undertaking as the HSW Act calls it – when there will be an obligation to monitor the contractor to a greater extent. The law is complex in the area of monitoring and checking of those engaged to undertake work and has been largely determined by various landmark cases (see Port of Ramsgate Case: ‘Ramsgate Walkway Collapse: Legal Ramification’ The Structural Engineer Vol 76, No 1, Jan 98 ).
Designers are, of course, at the heart of the process during the design stage; in most projects however they are also still involved during the construction phase, as not all design is complete prior to commencing on site. Their responsibilities however stretch beyond these phases into the operational life of the facility and its eventual de-commissioning.
It is the manner in which this responsibility for risk is managed that makes the difference between a mediocre designer and a good one. The latter will:
•Think as a contractor or maintenance engineer when considering the risks introduced as a consequence of his design. (How would I wish to construct/maintain this item safely?)
•Liaise with other designers, and if at all possible the contractor and specialist suppliers, in order to ensure that the best expertise is brought to bear and that issues are viewed from a broad perspective.
•Consult with the client and end user, if known, in respect of assumed maintenance philosophies.
•Have a particular regard to site wide issues (site access, contamination, adjacent third parties) and the adequacy of the site and its services for the contractor.
This holistic approach is often best implemented through ‘risk management’ meetings where all those present may contribute, and ‘thinking out of the box’ is encouraged.
The role of CDM Coordinators is largely one of Management; it is the duty of the CDM Coordinators for example to ‘ensure that designers communicate and co-operate’. The effective CDM coordinator therefore is able to significantly influence the management of risk and encourage best practice.
The role of Principal Contractor is wholly devoted to the management of risk. Although the duty holder will often also be the ‘main contractor’, and hence be involved in construction itself, there is no requirement for this. As is the case for the CDM Coordinator, the manner in which this role is implemented has a major impact upon the management of the project. A pro-active principal contractor that understands the needs and benefits of good health and safety management will bring the same added value to the project as has been described elsewhere. This is likely to be manifested through:
•Regular meetings with sub contractors to discuss work activities, interfaces, access to the workplace etc.
•Involvement of the workforce.
•Review of accidents and near misses.
•Provision of training and appropriate inductions.
Contractors, as employers in their own right, will have their internal procedures for managing health and safety risk, and are also obliged to liaise with other contractors and the principal contractor. The good contractor will see this obligation as a benefit rather than a burden, and will seek to gain advantage from close working relationships.
The essence of good management is clearly set out in the Management of Health and Safety at Work (MHSW) Regulations, Regulation 5 ‘Health and Safety Arrangements’ which emphasises that the arrangements should be integrated with management for other purposes. The four elements are, quoting from the Regulations:
Planning:
Adopting a systematic approach which identifies priorities and sets objectives. Whenever possible, risks are eliminated by the careful selection and design of facilities, equipment and processes or minimised by the use of physical control measures.
Organisation:
Putting in place the necessary structure with the aim of ensuring that there is a progressive improvement in health and safety performance.
Control:
Ensuring that the decisions for ensuring and promoting health and safety are being implemented as planned.
Monitoring and Review:
Like quality, progressive improvement in health and safety can only be achieved through the constant development of policies, approaches to implementation and techniques of risk control.
It will be noted that although this advice is directed at health and safety issues, it will apply equally to any aspect of management eg ordering goods, employing sub contractors, programming the works. This again emphasises the benefits of treating health and safety risk as an integral part of project risk management.
Summary
Construction projects are complex technological processes involving the management of people, processes and products. Although in respect of health and safety issues there is a legal obligation to manage the risks emanating from the project, this note demonstrates that there is a business advantage in doing so, and furthermore, that health and safety frameworks such as the CDM regulations, provide an excellent tool for achieving this overall aim.
Current industry initiatives such as Rethinking Construction are providing additional management tools in the form of key performance indicators and benchmarking standards in order to facilitate the essential monitoring and review associated with all good management systems.
•The use of competent persons/organisations
•The availability of background information
•The pre-planning of work activities
•The recording of crucial data
•Reviewing work on completion to learn from mistakes and experiences
Then one needs look no further than the CDM Regulations for an ideal management model to follow (notwithstanding the statutory obligation to do so). Pragmatic application of the Regulations will bring business benefits as well as compliance and will also go a long way to achieving the aims of the ‘rethinking construction’ agenda.
The Approved Code of Practice for the CDM Regulations makes it very clear that the client has a major role to play in the management of risk. This is particularly so during the design stage when the tone of the project is often set by the client, and a number of important actions are carried through, for example,
•Appointment by client of competent organisations
•Provision of information
•Provision of any existing Health and Safety Files
The Client may have little involvement during the construction phase, unless the site is an integral part of his business – or undertaking as the HSW Act calls it – when there will be an obligation to monitor the contractor to a greater extent. The law is complex in the area of monitoring and checking of those engaged to undertake work and has been largely determined by various landmark cases (see Port of Ramsgate Case: ‘Ramsgate Walkway Collapse: Legal Ramification’ The Structural Engineer Vol 76, No 1, Jan 98 ).
Designers are, of course, at the heart of the process during the design stage; in most projects however they are also still involved during the construction phase, as not all design is complete prior to commencing on site. Their responsibilities however stretch beyond these phases into the operational life of the facility and its eventual de-commissioning.
It is the manner in which this responsibility for risk is managed that makes the difference between a mediocre designer and a good one. The latter will:
•Think as a contractor or maintenance engineer when considering the risks introduced as a consequence of his design. (How would I wish to construct/maintain this item safely?)
•Liaise with other designers, and if at all possible the contractor and specialist suppliers, in order to ensure that the best expertise is brought to bear and that issues are viewed from a broad perspective.
•Consult with the client and end user, if known, in respect of assumed maintenance philosophies.
•Have a particular regard to site wide issues (site access, contamination, adjacent third parties) and the adequacy of the site and its services for the contractor.
This holistic approach is often best implemented through ‘risk management’ meetings where all those present may contribute, and ‘thinking out of the box’ is encouraged.
The role of CDM Coordinators is largely one of Management; it is the duty of the CDM Coordinators for example to ‘ensure that designers communicate and co-operate’. The effective CDM coordinator therefore is able to significantly influence the management of risk and encourage best practice.
The role of Principal Contractor is wholly devoted to the management of risk. Although the duty holder will often also be the ‘main contractor’, and hence be involved in construction itself, there is no requirement for this. As is the case for the CDM Coordinator, the manner in which this role is implemented has a major impact upon the management of the project. A pro-active principal contractor that understands the needs and benefits of good health and safety management will bring the same added value to the project as has been described elsewhere. This is likely to be manifested through:
•Regular meetings with sub contractors to discuss work activities, interfaces, access to the workplace etc.
•Involvement of the workforce.
•Review of accidents and near misses.
•Provision of training and appropriate inductions.
Contractors, as employers in their own right, will have their internal procedures for managing health and safety risk, and are also obliged to liaise with other contractors and the principal contractor. The good contractor will see this obligation as a benefit rather than a burden, and will seek to gain advantage from close working relationships.
The essence of good management is clearly set out in the Management of Health and Safety at Work (MHSW) Regulations, Regulation 5 ‘Health and Safety Arrangements’ which emphasises that the arrangements should be integrated with management for other purposes. The four elements are, quoting from the Regulations:
Planning:
Adopting a systematic approach which identifies priorities and sets objectives. Whenever possible, risks are eliminated by the careful selection and design of facilities, equipment and processes or minimised by the use of physical control measures.
Organisation:
Putting in place the necessary structure with the aim of ensuring that there is a progressive improvement in health and safety performance.
Control:
Ensuring that the decisions for ensuring and promoting health and safety are being implemented as planned.
Monitoring and Review:
Like quality, progressive improvement in health and safety can only be achieved through the constant development of policies, approaches to implementation and techniques of risk control.
It will be noted that although this advice is directed at health and safety issues, it will apply equally to any aspect of management eg ordering goods, employing sub contractors, programming the works. This again emphasises the benefits of treating health and safety risk as an integral part of project risk management.
Summary
Construction projects are complex technological processes involving the management of people, processes and products. Although in respect of health and safety issues there is a legal obligation to manage the risks emanating from the project, this note demonstrates that there is a business advantage in doing so, and furthermore, that health and safety frameworks such as the CDM regulations, provide an excellent tool for achieving this overall aim.
Current industry initiatives such as Rethinking Construction are providing additional management tools in the form of key performance indicators and benchmarking standards in order to facilitate the essential monitoring and review associated with all good management systems.
Wednesday, 11 August 2010
Keyboards 'dirtier than a toilet'
Some computer keyboards harbour more harmful bacteria than a toilet seat, research has suggested.
Consumer group Which? said tests at its London offices found equipment carrying bugs that could cause food poisoning.
Out of 33 keyboards swabbed, four were regarded as a potential health hazard and one harboured five times more germs than one of the office's toilet seats.
Microbiologist Dr Peter Wilson said a keyboard was often "a reflection of what is in your nose and in your gut".
During the Which? tests in January this year, a microbiologist deemed one of the office's keyboards to be so dirty he ordered it to be removed, quarantined and cleaned.
It had 150 times the recommended limit for bacteria - five times as filthy as a lavatory seat tested at the same time, the research found.
Should somebody have a cold in your office, or even have gastroenteritis, you're very likely to pick it up from a keyboard
Dr Peter Wilson
Consultant microbiologist
The equipment was swabbed for bugs, such as those that can cause food poisoning like E.coli and staphylococcus aureus.
Dr Wilson, a consultant microbiologist at University College London Hospital, told BBC Radio 5 Live sharing a keyboard could be passing on illnesses among office workers.
"If you look at what grows on computer keyboards, and hospitals are worse, believe it or not, it's more or less a reflection of what's in your nose and in your gut," he said.
"Should somebody have a cold in your office, or even have gastroenteritis, you're very likely to pick it up from a keyboard."
Which? said one of the causes of dirty keyboards was users eating lunch at their desk, with crumbs encouraging the growth of bacteria.
Poor personal hygiene, such as not washing hands after going to the toilet, could also be to blame, it said.
Cleaning techniques
Which? computing editor Sarah Kidner advised users to give their computer "a spring clean".
"It's quite simple to do and could prevent your computer from becoming a health hazard," she said.
She said dust and food crumbs should be shaken out of keyboards and they should be wiped with a soft, lightly dampened, lint-free cloth. They should also be disinfected with alcohol wipes.
Research by the University of Arizona last year found the average office desktop harboured 400 times more bacteria than the average office toilet seat.
They also found that, compared to men, on average women have three to four times the amount of germs in, on and around their work area.
We recommend Mobile Computer Cleaning as a specialist in this area:
http://mobilecomputercleaning.co.uk/
Consumer group Which? said tests at its London offices found equipment carrying bugs that could cause food poisoning.
Out of 33 keyboards swabbed, four were regarded as a potential health hazard and one harboured five times more germs than one of the office's toilet seats.
Microbiologist Dr Peter Wilson said a keyboard was often "a reflection of what is in your nose and in your gut".
During the Which? tests in January this year, a microbiologist deemed one of the office's keyboards to be so dirty he ordered it to be removed, quarantined and cleaned.
It had 150 times the recommended limit for bacteria - five times as filthy as a lavatory seat tested at the same time, the research found.
Should somebody have a cold in your office, or even have gastroenteritis, you're very likely to pick it up from a keyboard
Dr Peter Wilson
Consultant microbiologist
The equipment was swabbed for bugs, such as those that can cause food poisoning like E.coli and staphylococcus aureus.
Dr Wilson, a consultant microbiologist at University College London Hospital, told BBC Radio 5 Live sharing a keyboard could be passing on illnesses among office workers.
"If you look at what grows on computer keyboards, and hospitals are worse, believe it or not, it's more or less a reflection of what's in your nose and in your gut," he said.
"Should somebody have a cold in your office, or even have gastroenteritis, you're very likely to pick it up from a keyboard."
Which? said one of the causes of dirty keyboards was users eating lunch at their desk, with crumbs encouraging the growth of bacteria.
Poor personal hygiene, such as not washing hands after going to the toilet, could also be to blame, it said.
Cleaning techniques
Which? computing editor Sarah Kidner advised users to give their computer "a spring clean".
"It's quite simple to do and could prevent your computer from becoming a health hazard," she said.
She said dust and food crumbs should be shaken out of keyboards and they should be wiped with a soft, lightly dampened, lint-free cloth. They should also be disinfected with alcohol wipes.
Research by the University of Arizona last year found the average office desktop harboured 400 times more bacteria than the average office toilet seat.
They also found that, compared to men, on average women have three to four times the amount of germs in, on and around their work area.
We recommend Mobile Computer Cleaning as a specialist in this area:
http://mobilecomputercleaning.co.uk/
Monday, 2 August 2010
Architects and construction firm fined after worker falls nine metres to his death
An architect's practice and a construction company involved in a Somerset development have today been fined a total of £195,000 following a fatality on the site.
Express Park Construction Company Limited (EPCC), of Harley Street, London, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for failing to safely manage subcontractors working for it.
[1]
The platform access point from which Mr Cairns fell
The architects involved, Oxford Architects Partnership, of Bagley Croft, Hinksey Hill, Oxford, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 13, and 14, of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994, which require designers to take safety considerations into account.
EPCC was fined £75,000 and ordered to pay costs of £68,000 and Oxford Architects Partnership was fined £120,000 and ordered to pay costs of £60,000 at Bristol Crown Court today.
The court heard that on 26 January 2005 David Cairns (64) was working for EPCC sub-contractors H&F Air Conditioning Limited, at the newly-built 'Exchange' building at Express Park in Bridgwater, Somerset.
Mr Cairns was working on the air conditioning plant, which was built on a platform accessed via a ladder at the edge of a flat roof. The roof only had a low parapet, which was not high enough to prevent Mr Cairns falling nine metres to the ground.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Sue Adsett, said:
"This is a tragic case where both the failings of the construction firm and the architects led to Mr Cairns' death.
"While it is rare for designers to be charged with breaching health and safety legislation, they must be aware they can be held responsible where bad design is an important contributory factor to a work-place fatality.
"Designers must ensure that plant and equipment can be accessed safely, and that safety harnesses are only used as a last resort.
"HSE will not hesitate to take enforcement action against any company or individual who fails to carry out their health and safety duties, especially when that failure results in a tragedy, as in this case."
Mr. Cairn's family, who were at court, said:
"The loss of David has deeply affected us all and he will be greatly missed. Our hope is that lessons are learnt within the construction industry so that other similar incidents are prevented. Safety should be paramount during all stages of the building process so that another family doesn't have to suffer the loss that we have."
Express Park Construction Company Limited (EPCC), of Harley Street, London, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for failing to safely manage subcontractors working for it.
[1]
The platform access point from which Mr Cairns fell
The architects involved, Oxford Architects Partnership, of Bagley Croft, Hinksey Hill, Oxford, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 13, and 14, of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994, which require designers to take safety considerations into account.
EPCC was fined £75,000 and ordered to pay costs of £68,000 and Oxford Architects Partnership was fined £120,000 and ordered to pay costs of £60,000 at Bristol Crown Court today.
The court heard that on 26 January 2005 David Cairns (64) was working for EPCC sub-contractors H&F Air Conditioning Limited, at the newly-built 'Exchange' building at Express Park in Bridgwater, Somerset.
Mr Cairns was working on the air conditioning plant, which was built on a platform accessed via a ladder at the edge of a flat roof. The roof only had a low parapet, which was not high enough to prevent Mr Cairns falling nine metres to the ground.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Sue Adsett, said:
"This is a tragic case where both the failings of the construction firm and the architects led to Mr Cairns' death.
"While it is rare for designers to be charged with breaching health and safety legislation, they must be aware they can be held responsible where bad design is an important contributory factor to a work-place fatality.
"Designers must ensure that plant and equipment can be accessed safely, and that safety harnesses are only used as a last resort.
"HSE will not hesitate to take enforcement action against any company or individual who fails to carry out their health and safety duties, especially when that failure results in a tragedy, as in this case."
Mr. Cairn's family, who were at court, said:
"The loss of David has deeply affected us all and he will be greatly missed. Our hope is that lessons are learnt within the construction industry so that other similar incidents are prevented. Safety should be paramount during all stages of the building process so that another family doesn't have to suffer the loss that we have."
Monday, 12 July 2010
Too Hot! Or Not?
The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 lay down particular requirements for most aspects of the working environment
Regulation 7 of these Regulations deals specifically with the temperature in indoor workplaces and states that:
During working hours, the temperature in all workplaces inside buildings shall be reasonable.
However, the application of the regulation depends on the nature of the workplace i.e. a bakery, a cold store, an office, a warehouse.
The associated ACOP goes on to explain:
'The temperature in workrooms should provide reasonable comfort without the need for special clothing. Where such a temperature is impractical because of hot or cold processes, all reasonable steps should be taken to achieve a temperature which is as close as possible to comfortable. 'Workroom' means a room where people normally work for more than short periods.
The temperature in workrooms should normally be at least 16 degrees Celsius unless much of the work involves severe physical effort in which case the temperature should be at least 13 degrees Celsius. These temperatures may not, however, ensure reasonable comfort, depending on other factors such as air movement and relative humidity.'
Where the temperature in a workroom would otherwise be uncomfortably high, for example because of hot processes or the design of the building, all reasonable steps should be taken to achieve a reasonably comfortable temperature, for example by:
insulating hot plants or pipes;
providing air-cooling plant;
shading windows;
siting workstations away from places subject to radiant heat.
Where a reasonably comfortable temperature cannot be achieved throughout a workroom, local cooling should be provided. In extremely hot weather fans and increased ventilation may be used instead of local cooling.
Where, despite the provision of local cooling, workers are exposed to temperatures which do not give reasonable comfort, suitable protective clothing and rest facilities should be provided. Where practical there should be systems of work (for example, task rotation) to ensure that the length of time for which individual workers are exposed to uncomfortable temperatures is limited.
Regulation 7 of these Regulations deals specifically with the temperature in indoor workplaces and states that:
During working hours, the temperature in all workplaces inside buildings shall be reasonable.
However, the application of the regulation depends on the nature of the workplace i.e. a bakery, a cold store, an office, a warehouse.
The associated ACOP goes on to explain:
'The temperature in workrooms should provide reasonable comfort without the need for special clothing. Where such a temperature is impractical because of hot or cold processes, all reasonable steps should be taken to achieve a temperature which is as close as possible to comfortable. 'Workroom' means a room where people normally work for more than short periods.
The temperature in workrooms should normally be at least 16 degrees Celsius unless much of the work involves severe physical effort in which case the temperature should be at least 13 degrees Celsius. These temperatures may not, however, ensure reasonable comfort, depending on other factors such as air movement and relative humidity.'
Where the temperature in a workroom would otherwise be uncomfortably high, for example because of hot processes or the design of the building, all reasonable steps should be taken to achieve a reasonably comfortable temperature, for example by:
insulating hot plants or pipes;
providing air-cooling plant;
shading windows;
siting workstations away from places subject to radiant heat.
Where a reasonably comfortable temperature cannot be achieved throughout a workroom, local cooling should be provided. In extremely hot weather fans and increased ventilation may be used instead of local cooling.
Where, despite the provision of local cooling, workers are exposed to temperatures which do not give reasonable comfort, suitable protective clothing and rest facilities should be provided. Where practical there should be systems of work (for example, task rotation) to ensure that the length of time for which individual workers are exposed to uncomfortable temperatures is limited.
HSE Pledge
www.hse.gov.uk/strategy/pledge
Sign up to the Pledge
We, the undersigned:
Agree to play our part in reducing the numbers of work-related deaths, injuries and ill-health in Great Britain.
Call on employers to put health and safety at the heart of what they do and to take a common sense approach to health and safety.
Commit to debunking myths around health and safety that trivialise the impact of injuries, ill health and deaths on individuals and their families.
Recognise the importance of health and safety in difficult economic times and the dangers of complacency.
Pledge to work with the Health and Safety Executive and its partners to Be Part of the Solution.
Sign up to the Pledge
We, the undersigned:
Agree to play our part in reducing the numbers of work-related deaths, injuries and ill-health in Great Britain.
Call on employers to put health and safety at the heart of what they do and to take a common sense approach to health and safety.
Commit to debunking myths around health and safety that trivialise the impact of injuries, ill health and deaths on individuals and their families.
Recognise the importance of health and safety in difficult economic times and the dangers of complacency.
Pledge to work with the Health and Safety Executive and its partners to Be Part of the Solution.
Monday, 5 July 2010
On the Up?
Construction activity continues to grow, according to new figures from the Construction Products Association and the Construction Purchasing Managers Index.
The latest Construction Activity Barometer from Ernst and Young and the Construction Products Association shows an overall score for the second quarter’s overall of 77. A figure above 50 represents an improvement in sales compared to a year earlier with below 50 representing a fall.
The score for heavy side manufacturers rose to 79 in the second quarter, the highest level since the second quarter of 2007, while light side manufacturers were also positive with a score of 66.
The majority of construction products manufacturers expect their sales to continue to rise in the third quarter, compared with the same quarter one year earlier.
Noble Francis, economics director, said: “This latest survey illustrates that the situation for the construction products industry is substantially better than it was one year ago but, with major public spending cuts looming, manufacturers fear that sales will fall sharply once again.”
Meanwhile, the Markit / CIPS Construction Purchasing Managers’ Index, which uses a similar scoring system as the Construction Products Association, posted a score of 58.4, broadly in line with the previous month’s 58.5.
But recruitment levels remained flat, as many construction companies expressed concern over the implications of public spending cuts and the VAT rise scheduled for 2011.
David Noble, chief executive officer, said: “Although the UK construction sector maintained a steady pace of growth in June, question marks loom over the sustainability of this recovery in the longer-term.
“Most tellingly, modest rises in order books did little to boost employment levels and confidence over future activity dropped. Meanwhile, curbing inflation continues to be a big issue facing firms and from our experience they are likely to be nervous about offsetting their higher costs by passing them on to clients.
“The sector is also bracing itself for another spell of troubled times following the public spending cuts and forthcoming VAT rises announced by the Government last month.”
The latest Construction Activity Barometer from Ernst and Young and the Construction Products Association shows an overall score for the second quarter’s overall of 77. A figure above 50 represents an improvement in sales compared to a year earlier with below 50 representing a fall.
The score for heavy side manufacturers rose to 79 in the second quarter, the highest level since the second quarter of 2007, while light side manufacturers were also positive with a score of 66.
The majority of construction products manufacturers expect their sales to continue to rise in the third quarter, compared with the same quarter one year earlier.
Noble Francis, economics director, said: “This latest survey illustrates that the situation for the construction products industry is substantially better than it was one year ago but, with major public spending cuts looming, manufacturers fear that sales will fall sharply once again.”
Meanwhile, the Markit / CIPS Construction Purchasing Managers’ Index, which uses a similar scoring system as the Construction Products Association, posted a score of 58.4, broadly in line with the previous month’s 58.5.
But recruitment levels remained flat, as many construction companies expressed concern over the implications of public spending cuts and the VAT rise scheduled for 2011.
David Noble, chief executive officer, said: “Although the UK construction sector maintained a steady pace of growth in June, question marks loom over the sustainability of this recovery in the longer-term.
“Most tellingly, modest rises in order books did little to boost employment levels and confidence over future activity dropped. Meanwhile, curbing inflation continues to be a big issue facing firms and from our experience they are likely to be nervous about offsetting their higher costs by passing them on to clients.
“The sector is also bracing itself for another spell of troubled times following the public spending cuts and forthcoming VAT rises announced by the Government last month.”
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Asbestos Information Points
1. All persons who survey asbestos should have taken a training course titled “British Occupational Hygiene Society’s Proficiency Module P402 (building surveys and bulk sampling for asbestos), this however does not deem full competence and it advises working with experience samplers for 6 months after as a minimum.
2. Organisations who are involved in the surveying of asbestos should be accredited by UKAS to ISO/IEC 17020. This will have demonstrated to the accrediting board that they operate impartially, have a robust and effective QMS and employ competent individuals etc.
3. So by having an organisation accredited to the following level duty holders can be sure that surveyors have P402.
4. There are many P402 holders who are sole-traders or work in small businesses which can’t afford to be accredited as above so the HSE introduced a scheme. The Asbetsos Building Inspectors Certificate (ABICS) this now certifies surveyors against ISO 17024.
5. There is no suggestion that UKAS and ABICS are mandatory but competence is. It just means those individuals companies outside of the accreditations will have to prove their competency that much more.
2. Organisations who are involved in the surveying of asbestos should be accredited by UKAS to ISO/IEC 17020. This will have demonstrated to the accrediting board that they operate impartially, have a robust and effective QMS and employ competent individuals etc.
3. So by having an organisation accredited to the following level duty holders can be sure that surveyors have P402.
4. There are many P402 holders who are sole-traders or work in small businesses which can’t afford to be accredited as above so the HSE introduced a scheme. The Asbetsos Building Inspectors Certificate (ABICS) this now certifies surveyors against ISO 17024.
5. There is no suggestion that UKAS and ABICS are mandatory but competence is. It just means those individuals companies outside of the accreditations will have to prove their competency that much more.
Fall in Worker Deaths (31% over last 5 years average)
The number of people killed at work in Britain fell to a record low of 151 in 2009/2010 – down from 178 the previous year, and 31 per cent lower than the average figure for the last five years.
In what could be seen as a message to the new government and its advisor Lord Young, who is currently carrying out a review of health and safety, HSE chair Judith Hackitt said the reduction means “continuing to strive to drive these numbers down further – not getting complacent about what we’ve collectively achieved, and recognising the new challenges as we emerge from the recession”.
The provisional figures cover the period between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2010 and reveal that agriculture was the most dangerous industry. It recorded a massive 52-per-cent increase in fatalities, with 38 workers losing their lives on farms last year compared with the record low of 25 deaths in 2008/09.
The National Farmers’ Union is to call for an industry coalition to address the situation. Speaking yesterday, NFU president Peter Kendall said: “The NFU notes the latest workplace fatality statistics with considerable sadness, as there is a tragic story that sits behind each one of the numbers. Any fatal accident or serious injury has a devastating impact on the families and businesses involved.
“In the coming months, we will establish an industry coalition with our partners and through a concerted effort will look to spread the health and safety message. We have already started to remind our members to take care but, as harvest gets underway, we will step this up and continue to support the HSE’s efforts to minimise farm deaths.”
The construction industry – traditionally on a par with agriculture as the most dangerous sector – saw a significant fall in the number of deaths on sites last year. A total of 41 fatal injuries was recorded, down from 52 deaths the previous year and way below the average for the last five years of 66.
Alan Ritchie, general secretary of construction union UCATT, said: “The reduction in construction deaths is good news. Yet it must never be forgotten that each death is an individual tragedy.”
Manufacturing improved also, with 24 fatalities in 2009/2010 compared with 33 the previous year. In the services sector, 42 workers died – 20 fewer than in 2008/09, and 30 fewer than the five-year average of 72. Steve Pointer, head of health and safety policy at EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, commented: “"We are encouraged that the number of fatalities in manufacturing fell to an all time low of 24. Many directors, managers, employee representatives and health and safety advisors throughout manufacturing deserve credit for their sustained hard work in difficult economic times.
"These figures are welcome but there is no room for complacency. As the industry continues to recover from recession, good, practical management of risk is even more important.”
While the HSE emphasised the contribution of “good practice, leadership and employee engagement” in the record low figures it was also pragmatic about the reasons for the improved performance, acknowledging that the recession has resulted in lower levels of activity in some sectors and a decrease in the number of new, inexperienced recruits.
The Executive would not explicitly comment on any likely effect the statistics may have on Lord Young’s ongoing review but it agreed that now is not the time to ease off the throttle. A spokesperson told SHP: “Of course this is a welcome reduction in the number of work-related deaths but the evidence on economic cycles shows that while there are fewer fatalities during recessions, as we move into recovery the injury rate will rise. We cannot be complacent – we don’t want to be talking this time next year about an increase in fatalities, so we need to be extra vigilant, not less so, for when the recovery happens.”
Alan Ritchie was more forthright, saying Lord Young’s review could lead to a weakening of safety standards. He added: “Prior to the General Election the Conservatives proposed introducing private safety audits. Once a company had obtained an audit, HSE inspectors would be barred from sites unless an emergency occurred. In construction, an emergency is likely to mean a worker being killed or maimed.
“The challenge for everyone concerned about safety is to ensure that the number of deaths in construction continues to be reduced as the industry recovers and activity increases. Rather than looking to reduce safety provisions the Government should be ensuring workers are safe by increasing the number of inspections and enforcement activity.”
In what could be seen as a message to the new government and its advisor Lord Young, who is currently carrying out a review of health and safety, HSE chair Judith Hackitt said the reduction means “continuing to strive to drive these numbers down further – not getting complacent about what we’ve collectively achieved, and recognising the new challenges as we emerge from the recession”.
The provisional figures cover the period between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2010 and reveal that agriculture was the most dangerous industry. It recorded a massive 52-per-cent increase in fatalities, with 38 workers losing their lives on farms last year compared with the record low of 25 deaths in 2008/09.
The National Farmers’ Union is to call for an industry coalition to address the situation. Speaking yesterday, NFU president Peter Kendall said: “The NFU notes the latest workplace fatality statistics with considerable sadness, as there is a tragic story that sits behind each one of the numbers. Any fatal accident or serious injury has a devastating impact on the families and businesses involved.
“In the coming months, we will establish an industry coalition with our partners and through a concerted effort will look to spread the health and safety message. We have already started to remind our members to take care but, as harvest gets underway, we will step this up and continue to support the HSE’s efforts to minimise farm deaths.”
The construction industry – traditionally on a par with agriculture as the most dangerous sector – saw a significant fall in the number of deaths on sites last year. A total of 41 fatal injuries was recorded, down from 52 deaths the previous year and way below the average for the last five years of 66.
Alan Ritchie, general secretary of construction union UCATT, said: “The reduction in construction deaths is good news. Yet it must never be forgotten that each death is an individual tragedy.”
Manufacturing improved also, with 24 fatalities in 2009/2010 compared with 33 the previous year. In the services sector, 42 workers died – 20 fewer than in 2008/09, and 30 fewer than the five-year average of 72. Steve Pointer, head of health and safety policy at EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, commented: “"We are encouraged that the number of fatalities in manufacturing fell to an all time low of 24. Many directors, managers, employee representatives and health and safety advisors throughout manufacturing deserve credit for their sustained hard work in difficult economic times.
"These figures are welcome but there is no room for complacency. As the industry continues to recover from recession, good, practical management of risk is even more important.”
While the HSE emphasised the contribution of “good practice, leadership and employee engagement” in the record low figures it was also pragmatic about the reasons for the improved performance, acknowledging that the recession has resulted in lower levels of activity in some sectors and a decrease in the number of new, inexperienced recruits.
The Executive would not explicitly comment on any likely effect the statistics may have on Lord Young’s ongoing review but it agreed that now is not the time to ease off the throttle. A spokesperson told SHP: “Of course this is a welcome reduction in the number of work-related deaths but the evidence on economic cycles shows that while there are fewer fatalities during recessions, as we move into recovery the injury rate will rise. We cannot be complacent – we don’t want to be talking this time next year about an increase in fatalities, so we need to be extra vigilant, not less so, for when the recovery happens.”
Alan Ritchie was more forthright, saying Lord Young’s review could lead to a weakening of safety standards. He added: “Prior to the General Election the Conservatives proposed introducing private safety audits. Once a company had obtained an audit, HSE inspectors would be barred from sites unless an emergency occurred. In construction, an emergency is likely to mean a worker being killed or maimed.
“The challenge for everyone concerned about safety is to ensure that the number of deaths in construction continues to be reduced as the industry recovers and activity increases. Rather than looking to reduce safety provisions the Government should be ensuring workers are safe by increasing the number of inspections and enforcement activity.”
Thursday, 24 June 2010
We have moved!
Due to recent expansion and development of our training services please note that we have moved office.
Our new address is:
Suite 438
Davis House Business Centre
4th Floor
High Street
Croydon
Surrey
CR0 1QQ
Our new low rate phone number is 0333 577 0248
Our new address is:
Suite 438
Davis House Business Centre
4th Floor
High Street
Croydon
Surrey
CR0 1QQ
Our new low rate phone number is 0333 577 0248
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
Fire Warden Training London
Date: 10th September 2010 Venue: 78 New Oxford Street London Time: 09.30am Cost: £99 + VAT per delegate
Course Overview:
This 1/2 day course is aimed at employees with a designated role in relation to workplace fire safety. The course builds on the understanding of the phenomenon of fire that all of us can recognise, but the majority of people fail to fully appreciate. The course material and handouts are used in conjunction with Fire Safety Employers Guide and current legislation.
Aim:
The training aims are designed to enable employees identified in your emergency plan who have a supervisory role in the event of a fire (e.g. heads of department, fire wardens or marshals and, in some large workplaces, fire fighting teams) to meet the training requirements of “Fire safety An Employer’s guide” and current legislation.
Learning Objectives: By the end of the course delegates should:
• Be aware of key fire safety duties under the law.
• Be able to recognise habitual human behaviour in a fire situation.
• Know the typical role of a fire warden in relation to workplace fire safety.
• Be able to state the basic principles of risk assessment.
• Be aware of how to prevent fire or limit its impact.
• Be able to state the common modes of building evacuation.
• Recognise the need for fire drills and pre-planning for fire.
• Recognise active and passive fire safety measures and facilities.
• Be able to identify and use a range of portable fire extinguishers.
Prerequisites: None. Although ideally delegates should have attended a Fire Awareness course or have a basic understanding of fire safety in the workplace.
Who should attend? All employees will benefit from the training, particularly new staff and managers. It is especially useful to those employees and managers with a fire safety designated responsibility.
Programme:
Review of modern fire safety law.
Human behaviour in a fire situation.
The role of the fire warden.
Basic principles of risk assessment.
Routine fire prevention measures.
Modes of evacuation.
Fire drills & pre-planning
Fire safety features and facilities.
Fire-fighting equipment.
Certification: Delegates will be awarded a certificate of attendance on successful completion of assessment.
For a booking form e mail info@rhssltd.co.uk
Course Overview:
This 1/2 day course is aimed at employees with a designated role in relation to workplace fire safety. The course builds on the understanding of the phenomenon of fire that all of us can recognise, but the majority of people fail to fully appreciate. The course material and handouts are used in conjunction with Fire Safety Employers Guide and current legislation.
Aim:
The training aims are designed to enable employees identified in your emergency plan who have a supervisory role in the event of a fire (e.g. heads of department, fire wardens or marshals and, in some large workplaces, fire fighting teams) to meet the training requirements of “Fire safety An Employer’s guide” and current legislation.
Learning Objectives: By the end of the course delegates should:
• Be aware of key fire safety duties under the law.
• Be able to recognise habitual human behaviour in a fire situation.
• Know the typical role of a fire warden in relation to workplace fire safety.
• Be able to state the basic principles of risk assessment.
• Be aware of how to prevent fire or limit its impact.
• Be able to state the common modes of building evacuation.
• Recognise the need for fire drills and pre-planning for fire.
• Recognise active and passive fire safety measures and facilities.
• Be able to identify and use a range of portable fire extinguishers.
Prerequisites: None. Although ideally delegates should have attended a Fire Awareness course or have a basic understanding of fire safety in the workplace.
Who should attend? All employees will benefit from the training, particularly new staff and managers. It is especially useful to those employees and managers with a fire safety designated responsibility.
Programme:
Review of modern fire safety law.
Human behaviour in a fire situation.
The role of the fire warden.
Basic principles of risk assessment.
Routine fire prevention measures.
Modes of evacuation.
Fire drills & pre-planning
Fire safety features and facilities.
Fire-fighting equipment.
Certification: Delegates will be awarded a certificate of attendance on successful completion of assessment.
For a booking form e mail info@rhssltd.co.uk
Is there a maximum weight a person can lift during their work?
The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (as amended) set no specific requirements such as weight limits.
The ergonomic approach shows clearly that such requirements are based on too simple a view of the problem and may lead to incorrect conclusions. Instead, an ergonomic assessment based on a range of relevant factors is used to determine the risk of injury and point the way to remedial action.
The Regulations establish the following clear hierarchy of control measures:
1.Avoid hazardous manual handling operations so far as is reasonably practicable, for example by redesigning the task to avoid moving the load or by automating or mechanising the process.
2.Make a suitable and sufficient assessment of any hazardous manual handling operations that cannot be avoided.
3.Reduce the risk of injury from those operations so far as is reasonably practicable. Where possible, you should provide mechanical assistance, for example a sack trolley or hoist. Where this is not reasonably practicable, look at ways of changing the task, the load and working environment.
Modern medical and scientific opinion accepts the scale of the problem and stresses the importance of an ergonomic approach to remove or reduce the risk of manual handling injury. Ergonomics is sometimes described as 'fitting the job to the person, rather than the person to the job'. The ergonomic approach looks at manual handling as a whole. It takes into account a range of relevant factors, including the nature of the task, the load, the working environment and individual capability and requires worker participation.
When a more detailed assessment is necessary it should follow the broad structure set out in Schedule 1 to the Regulations. The Schedule lists a number of questions in five categories:
1.the task;
2.the load;
3.the working environment;
4.individual capability (this category is discussed in more detail under regulation 4(3) and its guidance); and
5.other factors, for example use of protective clothing.
Each of these categories may influence the others and none of them can be considered on their own. However, to carry out an assessment in a structured way it is often helpful to begin by breaking the operations down into separate, more manageable items.
The ergonomic approach shows clearly that such requirements are based on too simple a view of the problem and may lead to incorrect conclusions. Instead, an ergonomic assessment based on a range of relevant factors is used to determine the risk of injury and point the way to remedial action.
The Regulations establish the following clear hierarchy of control measures:
1.Avoid hazardous manual handling operations so far as is reasonably practicable, for example by redesigning the task to avoid moving the load or by automating or mechanising the process.
2.Make a suitable and sufficient assessment of any hazardous manual handling operations that cannot be avoided.
3.Reduce the risk of injury from those operations so far as is reasonably practicable. Where possible, you should provide mechanical assistance, for example a sack trolley or hoist. Where this is not reasonably practicable, look at ways of changing the task, the load and working environment.
Modern medical and scientific opinion accepts the scale of the problem and stresses the importance of an ergonomic approach to remove or reduce the risk of manual handling injury. Ergonomics is sometimes described as 'fitting the job to the person, rather than the person to the job'. The ergonomic approach looks at manual handling as a whole. It takes into account a range of relevant factors, including the nature of the task, the load, the working environment and individual capability and requires worker participation.
When a more detailed assessment is necessary it should follow the broad structure set out in Schedule 1 to the Regulations. The Schedule lists a number of questions in five categories:
1.the task;
2.the load;
3.the working environment;
4.individual capability (this category is discussed in more detail under regulation 4(3) and its guidance); and
5.other factors, for example use of protective clothing.
Each of these categories may influence the others and none of them can be considered on their own. However, to carry out an assessment in a structured way it is often helpful to begin by breaking the operations down into separate, more manageable items.
Manufacturing Fine - High Voltage Shock
A stationery manufacturer has been fined after admitting exposing a worker to a high voltage shock that left him permanently disabled.
The man was investigating a fault on a plastic welding machine at Chart Design Ltd in Wembley in June 2007 when his fingers came into contact (or very close contact) with components carrying several thousand volts.
The shock severely burned his right hand and forearm, and damaged several muscles. He was hospitalised for 14 days and has since had to undergo skin grafts. He has not regained full use of his right hand and has been unable to return to work.
A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation into the incident revealed that guard panels which should have prevented access to live circuits had been removed. Inspectors discovered that no record of maintenance checks was kept for any of the machines at the factory.
The company also had no first aiders.
Chart Design Ltd - of Luxton Close, Dury Way, Wembley - pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 at the City of London Magistrates' Court. It was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,330.
HSE Inspector Kerry Williams said: "A man's life has been turned upside down because of entirely preventable and basic safety failings. It is the responsibility of all managers to make sure that all maintenance work is properly planned and recorded and that adequate guards are fitted to all machinery when it is in use.
"If these simple things had been done it is unlikely that he would have suffered these horrendous injuries. But this incident could have been much worse - instead of losing the feeling in his fingers, he could have lost his life."
The man was investigating a fault on a plastic welding machine at Chart Design Ltd in Wembley in June 2007 when his fingers came into contact (or very close contact) with components carrying several thousand volts.
The shock severely burned his right hand and forearm, and damaged several muscles. He was hospitalised for 14 days and has since had to undergo skin grafts. He has not regained full use of his right hand and has been unable to return to work.
A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation into the incident revealed that guard panels which should have prevented access to live circuits had been removed. Inspectors discovered that no record of maintenance checks was kept for any of the machines at the factory.
The company also had no first aiders.
Chart Design Ltd - of Luxton Close, Dury Way, Wembley - pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 at the City of London Magistrates' Court. It was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,330.
HSE Inspector Kerry Williams said: "A man's life has been turned upside down because of entirely preventable and basic safety failings. It is the responsibility of all managers to make sure that all maintenance work is properly planned and recorded and that adequate guards are fitted to all machinery when it is in use.
"If these simple things had been done it is unlikely that he would have suffered these horrendous injuries. But this incident could have been much worse - instead of losing the feeling in his fingers, he could have lost his life."
Asbestos Fines for Local Authority and Contractor
A local authority and its contractor have been fined after a worker left a family exposed to dangerous asbestos fibres for three days.
City of Lincoln Council and County Waste (Lincs) Ltd were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after allowing asbestos insulation boards to be incorrectly removed.
Lincoln Magistrates' Court heard that in June 2008 the city council was refurbishing the bathroom of a property in Winn Street in the city and contracted County Waste (Lincs) Ltd to investigate the fixing of asbestos insulation boards, with a view to their removal. However, County Waste (Lincs) Ltd was not licensed to work with asbestos.
The employee carrying out the work lacked adequate information or training about the hazards from exposure to asbestos. The court was told he simply prised off the panels with a crowbar, breaking them in the process, before putting the pieces in a sack to transport to a yard for disposal.
Broken panels and pieces of asbestos debris were left on the bathroom floor of the property, and the worker walked around for the rest of the day in clothing that may have been contaminated with asbestos fibres.
After the tenant complained to the Council, employees visited the property to inspect the damage. However, they failed to tell the tenant there was a problem and did not move the family to another property for three days.
City of Lincoln Council was fined £10,000 and County Waste (Lincs) Ltd, of Exchange Road, Lincoln, was fined £4,250 and ordered to pay costs of £12,000 and £6,000 respectively after pleading guilty to a number of health and safety breaches.
HSE inspector Martin Giles said:
"The Council failed to ensure the contractor was competent to carry out the work and had no procedures in place to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to its employees. It failed to protect its tenants and ensure that they were not exposed to risks to their health following the release of asbestos fibres.
"Not informing the family about the seriousness of the problem and leaving them in the property for three days before rehousing them was an irresponsible and unacceptable act for a landlord.
"Because County Waste (Lincs) Ltd failed to provide adequate information, instruction and training to ensure employees liable to be exposed to asbestos were able to safeguard themselves and others, it did nothing to prevent the spread of asbestos from the bathroom and removed the material from the property without being in an appropriately sealed receptacle or wrapping.
"Asbestos is a hidden killer and the HSE has a wealth of information on its website to help employers manage the risks of working with the material. There is no excuse for ignorance when dealing with people's lives."
City of Lincoln Council and County Waste (Lincs) Ltd were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after allowing asbestos insulation boards to be incorrectly removed.
Lincoln Magistrates' Court heard that in June 2008 the city council was refurbishing the bathroom of a property in Winn Street in the city and contracted County Waste (Lincs) Ltd to investigate the fixing of asbestos insulation boards, with a view to their removal. However, County Waste (Lincs) Ltd was not licensed to work with asbestos.
The employee carrying out the work lacked adequate information or training about the hazards from exposure to asbestos. The court was told he simply prised off the panels with a crowbar, breaking them in the process, before putting the pieces in a sack to transport to a yard for disposal.
Broken panels and pieces of asbestos debris were left on the bathroom floor of the property, and the worker walked around for the rest of the day in clothing that may have been contaminated with asbestos fibres.
After the tenant complained to the Council, employees visited the property to inspect the damage. However, they failed to tell the tenant there was a problem and did not move the family to another property for three days.
City of Lincoln Council was fined £10,000 and County Waste (Lincs) Ltd, of Exchange Road, Lincoln, was fined £4,250 and ordered to pay costs of £12,000 and £6,000 respectively after pleading guilty to a number of health and safety breaches.
HSE inspector Martin Giles said:
"The Council failed to ensure the contractor was competent to carry out the work and had no procedures in place to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to its employees. It failed to protect its tenants and ensure that they were not exposed to risks to their health following the release of asbestos fibres.
"Not informing the family about the seriousness of the problem and leaving them in the property for three days before rehousing them was an irresponsible and unacceptable act for a landlord.
"Because County Waste (Lincs) Ltd failed to provide adequate information, instruction and training to ensure employees liable to be exposed to asbestos were able to safeguard themselves and others, it did nothing to prevent the spread of asbestos from the bathroom and removed the material from the property without being in an appropriately sealed receptacle or wrapping.
"Asbestos is a hidden killer and the HSE has a wealth of information on its website to help employers manage the risks of working with the material. There is no excuse for ignorance when dealing with people's lives."
Migrant Workers
All construction workers have a right to work on sites where they do not get hurt or ill through work.
Your employer and the main contractor on site are responsible for health and safety, but you must help by being aware of your own and your employer’s responsibilities.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is the government agency responsible for enforcing health and safety legislation in Great Britain.
This website will help overseas construction workers and their employers understand their roles and responsibilities under British health and safety law.
If you are working here from overseas, this website will help you:
find out about your rights and responsibilities under health and safety law; and
find information on health and safety including your basic rights, good practice, legal standards and conditions of work.
If you are an employer or main contractor this website will enable you to provide written guidance for employees who do not speak English.
You can contact the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) by calling one of these Helpline numbers (English also spoken):
0207 556 2181 - Gujarati
0207 556 2206 - Hindi
0207 556 2294 - Punjabi
0207 556 2239 - Polish
0207 556 2200 - Romanian
Please note: All calls made to these numbers are confidential and you do not have to give your name if you don’t want to.
Your employer and the main contractor on site are responsible for health and safety, but you must help by being aware of your own and your employer’s responsibilities.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is the government agency responsible for enforcing health and safety legislation in Great Britain.
This website will help overseas construction workers and their employers understand their roles and responsibilities under British health and safety law.
If you are working here from overseas, this website will help you:
find out about your rights and responsibilities under health and safety law; and
find information on health and safety including your basic rights, good practice, legal standards and conditions of work.
If you are an employer or main contractor this website will enable you to provide written guidance for employees who do not speak English.
You can contact the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) by calling one of these Helpline numbers (English also spoken):
0207 556 2181 - Gujarati
0207 556 2206 - Hindi
0207 556 2294 - Punjabi
0207 556 2239 - Polish
0207 556 2200 - Romanian
Please note: All calls made to these numbers are confidential and you do not have to give your name if you don’t want to.
Monday, 7 June 2010
The pressures of the economic crisis have hit private company owners, with a survey revealing 41% of bosses have seen a rise in their stress levels as compared with a year ago.
Grant Thornton polled 500 privately held firms, including family, entrepreneurial and SMEs (PHBs) to find 34% of them selecting the recession as the main cause of workplace stress.
Twenty-six per cent said a heavy workload caused them most stress, while 26% picked the pressure on cash flow.
Privately owned business bosses in Northern Ireland were found to be the most stressed in the whole of the UK. The survey revealed 54% claimed their stress levels have increased in the past 12 months, while those in the East (48%) were second. Those in London and the South gave the third highest response, with 45% claiming a rise in stress levels in the past year.
PHB heads in the Midlands too said the crunch caused them the most stress at work, with 32.9% saying the recession made them tense, 28.6% citing pressure from a heavy workload and 27.1% pressure on cash flow.
Office managing partner at Birmingham's Grant Thornton Dave Munton said: "The pressure on cash flow has been driven by several factors, not least of which are the tightening of credit lines and customers renegotiating and often lengthening payment terms in order to keep cash within their own businesses."
Grant Thornton polled 500 privately held firms, including family, entrepreneurial and SMEs (PHBs) to find 34% of them selecting the recession as the main cause of workplace stress.
Twenty-six per cent said a heavy workload caused them most stress, while 26% picked the pressure on cash flow.
Privately owned business bosses in Northern Ireland were found to be the most stressed in the whole of the UK. The survey revealed 54% claimed their stress levels have increased in the past 12 months, while those in the East (48%) were second. Those in London and the South gave the third highest response, with 45% claiming a rise in stress levels in the past year.
PHB heads in the Midlands too said the crunch caused them the most stress at work, with 32.9% saying the recession made them tense, 28.6% citing pressure from a heavy workload and 27.1% pressure on cash flow.
Office managing partner at Birmingham's Grant Thornton Dave Munton said: "The pressure on cash flow has been driven by several factors, not least of which are the tightening of credit lines and customers renegotiating and often lengthening payment terms in order to keep cash within their own businesses."
Eye Care for Workers
Nearly one in 10 British businesses are failing to meet their legal responsibilities to protect their workforce's sight, a new study commissioned by national sight charity the Eyecare Trust and healthcare provider Simplyhealth found.
"Screen fatigue" is regularly suffered by 90% of office workers, and the symptoms include headaches, sore or tired eyes, impaired colour perception and blurred vision. During their working life, the average office worker will spend 128,740 hours staring at a screen.
The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) regulations place a legal obligation on all employers to make sure they care for the eye health of staff who regularly use a VDU (computer screen) at work in order to combat the visual stress associated with prolonged screen use.
There is no eye care policy at all amongst one in 10 businesses, while regular sight tests, which forms the most basic element of the legislation, are not provided by 44% of employers, the ScreenSmart study found.
Small businesses employing fewer than 10 people are the worst offenders. Absolutely no provision for eye care is provided by one in five (21%) small businesses, and the offer to pay for sight tests is only offered by a third, while three-quarters fail to ensure workstations are designed to minimise glare or reflections - two factors that can lead to screen fatigue and cause visual trauma.
When it came to big businesses, one in five (18%) did not meet the costs of regular sight tests, while two-fifths (40%) point blank refused to pay a contribution towards the cost of spectacles required solely for VDU work.
"Screen fatigue" is regularly suffered by 90% of office workers, and the symptoms include headaches, sore or tired eyes, impaired colour perception and blurred vision. During their working life, the average office worker will spend 128,740 hours staring at a screen.
The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) regulations place a legal obligation on all employers to make sure they care for the eye health of staff who regularly use a VDU (computer screen) at work in order to combat the visual stress associated with prolonged screen use.
There is no eye care policy at all amongst one in 10 businesses, while regular sight tests, which forms the most basic element of the legislation, are not provided by 44% of employers, the ScreenSmart study found.
Small businesses employing fewer than 10 people are the worst offenders. Absolutely no provision for eye care is provided by one in five (21%) small businesses, and the offer to pay for sight tests is only offered by a third, while three-quarters fail to ensure workstations are designed to minimise glare or reflections - two factors that can lead to screen fatigue and cause visual trauma.
When it came to big businesses, one in five (18%) did not meet the costs of regular sight tests, while two-fifths (40%) point blank refused to pay a contribution towards the cost of spectacles required solely for VDU work.
Friday, 28 May 2010
Fire Warden Training Course 10th September London
Date: 10th September 2010 Venue: 78 New Oxford Street London Time: 09.30am Cost: £99 + VAT per delegate
Course Overview:
This 1/2 day course is aimed at employees with a designated role in relation to workplace fire safety. The course builds on the understanding of the phenomenon of fire that all of us can recognise, but the majority of people fail to fully appreciate. The course material and handouts are used in conjunction with Fire Safety Employers Guide and current legislation.
Aim:
The training aims are designed to enable employees identified in your emergency plan who have a supervisory role in the event of a fire (e.g. heads of department, fire wardens or marshals and, in some large workplaces, fire fighting teams) to meet the training requirements of “Fire safety An Employer’s guide” and current legislation.
Learning Objectives: By the end of the course delegates should:
• Be aware of key fire safety duties under the law.
• Be able to recognise habitual human behaviour in a fire situation.
• Know the typical role of a fire warden in relation to workplace fire safety.
• Be able to state the basic principles of risk assessment.
• Be aware of how to prevent fire or limit its impact.
• Be able to state the common modes of building evacuation.
• Recognise the need for fire drills and pre-planning for fire.
• Recognise active and passive fire safety measures and facilities.
• Be able to identify and use a range of portable fire extinguishers.
Prerequisites: None. Although ideally delegates should have attended a Fire Awareness course or have a basic understanding of fire safety in the workplace.
Who should attend? All employees will benefit from the training, particularly new staff and managers. It is especially useful to those employees and managers with a fire safety designated responsibility.
Programme:
Review of modern fire safety law.
Human behaviour in a fire situation.
The role of the fire warden.
Basic principles of risk assessment.
Routine fire prevention measures.
Modes of evacuation.
Fire drills & pre-planning
Fire safety features and facilities.
Fire-fighting equipment.
Certification: Delegates will be awarded a certificate of attendance on successful completion of assessment.
For a booking form e mail info@rhssltd.co.uk
Course Overview:
This 1/2 day course is aimed at employees with a designated role in relation to workplace fire safety. The course builds on the understanding of the phenomenon of fire that all of us can recognise, but the majority of people fail to fully appreciate. The course material and handouts are used in conjunction with Fire Safety Employers Guide and current legislation.
Aim:
The training aims are designed to enable employees identified in your emergency plan who have a supervisory role in the event of a fire (e.g. heads of department, fire wardens or marshals and, in some large workplaces, fire fighting teams) to meet the training requirements of “Fire safety An Employer’s guide” and current legislation.
Learning Objectives: By the end of the course delegates should:
• Be aware of key fire safety duties under the law.
• Be able to recognise habitual human behaviour in a fire situation.
• Know the typical role of a fire warden in relation to workplace fire safety.
• Be able to state the basic principles of risk assessment.
• Be aware of how to prevent fire or limit its impact.
• Be able to state the common modes of building evacuation.
• Recognise the need for fire drills and pre-planning for fire.
• Recognise active and passive fire safety measures and facilities.
• Be able to identify and use a range of portable fire extinguishers.
Prerequisites: None. Although ideally delegates should have attended a Fire Awareness course or have a basic understanding of fire safety in the workplace.
Who should attend? All employees will benefit from the training, particularly new staff and managers. It is especially useful to those employees and managers with a fire safety designated responsibility.
Programme:
Review of modern fire safety law.
Human behaviour in a fire situation.
The role of the fire warden.
Basic principles of risk assessment.
Routine fire prevention measures.
Modes of evacuation.
Fire drills & pre-planning
Fire safety features and facilities.
Fire-fighting equipment.
Certification: Delegates will be awarded a certificate of attendance on successful completion of assessment.
For a booking form e mail info@rhssltd.co.uk
First Aid Course - Last few places!!
Our One day First Aid Appointed Persosn Course is nearly full!
17th June at 78 New Oxford Street
If you would like a place email info@rhssltd.co.uk for a booking form.
17th June at 78 New Oxford Street
If you would like a place email info@rhssltd.co.uk for a booking form.
Monday, 17 May 2010
Landlord jailed
A landlord who failed to provide "even the most basic protection" for tenants has been jailed after a teenager was "lucky" to survive a flat fire.
Barmaid Layla Skalli, who was 19 at the time, suffered devastating 80% burns in the inferno.
Michael Billings, of Beccles, Suffolk, was sent to prison for two-and-a-half years. The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted Billings following the blaze at Miss Skalli's home in April 2009.
At Norwich Crown Court, Billings pleaded guilty to charges of breaking health and safety and fire safety legislation. He was ordered to pay court costs of £20,000.
"Only pioneering skin grafting techniques saved Layla Skalli's life after she suffered 80% deep tissue burns all over her body," said a HSE spokesman.
"Virtually all the skin below her neck was destroyed by the intense 600 degree heat as the property above a mobile phone shop became a raging inferno."
The spokesman said Billings, in his 50s, failed to provide "even the most basic protection" for tenants.
He said the landlord had not fitted a working fire alarm system, installed the correct number of fire doors or provided adequate means of escape.
Gas appliances in the flats above the shop had also not been serviced or properly inspected, he added.
Miss Skalli had been unable to escape because her sash window could only be opened 4in and the staircase was blocked by smoke, said the spokesman.
The cause of the fire has never been conclusively proven.
Miss Skalli's brother Andrew added: "The actions of Michael Billings have ruined my sister's life.
"We want to remind every landlord that they have a legal and moral obligation to the safety of their tenants, something Billings gave no thought to hence why he has been sentenced."
HSE inspector John Claxton said: "This is the most distressing case I have worked on during my 31 years as a HSE inspector."
Barmaid Layla Skalli, who was 19 at the time, suffered devastating 80% burns in the inferno.
Michael Billings, of Beccles, Suffolk, was sent to prison for two-and-a-half years. The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted Billings following the blaze at Miss Skalli's home in April 2009.
At Norwich Crown Court, Billings pleaded guilty to charges of breaking health and safety and fire safety legislation. He was ordered to pay court costs of £20,000.
"Only pioneering skin grafting techniques saved Layla Skalli's life after she suffered 80% deep tissue burns all over her body," said a HSE spokesman.
"Virtually all the skin below her neck was destroyed by the intense 600 degree heat as the property above a mobile phone shop became a raging inferno."
The spokesman said Billings, in his 50s, failed to provide "even the most basic protection" for tenants.
He said the landlord had not fitted a working fire alarm system, installed the correct number of fire doors or provided adequate means of escape.
Gas appliances in the flats above the shop had also not been serviced or properly inspected, he added.
Miss Skalli had been unable to escape because her sash window could only be opened 4in and the staircase was blocked by smoke, said the spokesman.
The cause of the fire has never been conclusively proven.
Miss Skalli's brother Andrew added: "The actions of Michael Billings have ruined my sister's life.
"We want to remind every landlord that they have a legal and moral obligation to the safety of their tenants, something Billings gave no thought to hence why he has been sentenced."
HSE inspector John Claxton said: "This is the most distressing case I have worked on during my 31 years as a HSE inspector."
Monday, 10 May 2010
1 Day Emergency Aid Course HSE Approved 17th June London
Emergency First Aid at Work (1 day) (HSE recommended)
Date: Thursday 17th June 2010 Venue: 78 New Oxford Street London 09.30am – 15.30pm
Cost £90+VAT per delegate
First Aid equipment and first aid trained personnel at the workplace are requirements of Health & Safety law. In emergencies, Emergency First Aiders can act to prevent situations becoming major issues and can limit potential sick leave through prompt action.
This course is for:
Employees who have been nominated as Emergency First Aiders for their workplace. If your risk assessment has shown that First Aiders are not necessary, then this course will provide the skills and knowledge required for Emergency First Aiders to render necessary First Aid in an emergency situation. The course is also suitable for those who wish to gain knowledge of emergency procedures & a HSE approved qualification in First Aid.
Syllabus
Introduction
• Identification of learning needs
• The role of the Appointed person
• Emergency Aid (what is it?)
Primary Survey of a casualty
• Recovery Position
• Rescue Breathing
• CPR
Secondary Survey
• Examination of an unconscious casualty
• Choking
• Recognition & Treatment of Minor and Major bleeding
• Recognition & Treatment of Medical Shock
Duties of an Appointed person
• Emergency communication
• Contents & use of a workplace First Aid kit
• Open plenary session to include subjects identified by students
• Revision
Aim
To provide Emergency First Aiders with the knowledge & skills to summon help & give safe, prompt & effective emergency first aid to a casualty in the workplace following an injury or illness using materials to hand and/or HSE approved first aid equipment.
Objectives
By the end of this course, the student will be able to:
State the role of the Emergency First Aider
Carry out a primary survey of a casualty
To place an unconscious casualty into the recovery position
Carry out effective rescue breathing to current Resuscitation Council guidelines
Carry out effective CPR to current Resuscitation Council guidelines
Recognise and deal with Minor & major cases of bleeding
To recognise and treat a patient suffering from medical shock
Recognise & treat medical emergencies as identified by student group.
Certification
A 3 year Certificate of Competence (Health & Safety approved) will be awarded on successful completion of the course and assessment.
For a booking form contact sarah@rhssltd.co.uk
Date: Thursday 17th June 2010 Venue: 78 New Oxford Street London 09.30am – 15.30pm
Cost £90+VAT per delegate
First Aid equipment and first aid trained personnel at the workplace are requirements of Health & Safety law. In emergencies, Emergency First Aiders can act to prevent situations becoming major issues and can limit potential sick leave through prompt action.
This course is for:
Employees who have been nominated as Emergency First Aiders for their workplace. If your risk assessment has shown that First Aiders are not necessary, then this course will provide the skills and knowledge required for Emergency First Aiders to render necessary First Aid in an emergency situation. The course is also suitable for those who wish to gain knowledge of emergency procedures & a HSE approved qualification in First Aid.
Syllabus
Introduction
• Identification of learning needs
• The role of the Appointed person
• Emergency Aid (what is it?)
Primary Survey of a casualty
• Recovery Position
• Rescue Breathing
• CPR
Secondary Survey
• Examination of an unconscious casualty
• Choking
• Recognition & Treatment of Minor and Major bleeding
• Recognition & Treatment of Medical Shock
Duties of an Appointed person
• Emergency communication
• Contents & use of a workplace First Aid kit
• Open plenary session to include subjects identified by students
• Revision
Aim
To provide Emergency First Aiders with the knowledge & skills to summon help & give safe, prompt & effective emergency first aid to a casualty in the workplace following an injury or illness using materials to hand and/or HSE approved first aid equipment.
Objectives
By the end of this course, the student will be able to:
State the role of the Emergency First Aider
Carry out a primary survey of a casualty
To place an unconscious casualty into the recovery position
Carry out effective rescue breathing to current Resuscitation Council guidelines
Carry out effective CPR to current Resuscitation Council guidelines
Recognise and deal with Minor & major cases of bleeding
To recognise and treat a patient suffering from medical shock
Recognise & treat medical emergencies as identified by student group.
Certification
A 3 year Certificate of Competence (Health & Safety approved) will be awarded on successful completion of the course and assessment.
For a booking form contact sarah@rhssltd.co.uk
Thursday, 29 April 2010
Contractor fined over Asbestos breaches - closes golf club
A construction company has been fined after refurbishment work triggered the temporary closure of country club near Darlington over fears of exposure to asbestos.
Nationwide Building Contractors from Fareham, Hampshire was yesterday fined a total of £4,500 at Darlington Magistrates' Court over the incident.
The company was found guilty, in its absence, of breaching Regulations 5, 11 and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, between 7 January and 6 March 2008. Nationwide is now in liquidation.
The contractor had been contracted to refurbish Hall Garth Hotel Golf and Country Club, at Coatham Mundeville, near Darlington.
When HSE inspectors visited the site, they found that work was carried out without adequate checks for asbestos or asbestos-containing materials, and served a Prohibition Notice - immediately stopping construction work. Further investigations found large amounts of asbestos pipe lagging in walls and floor voids where work had been undertaken.
HSE worked with local Environmental Health Officers and the hotel management to ensure that asbestos fibres had not spread to the occupied areas of the hotel. The hotel was voluntarily closed while tests were undertaken. Fortunately the test results in the public areas were negative.
After the case, HSE inspector Victoria Wise said: "Construction and maintenance workers are the most at-risk groups from asbestos-related diseases due to the nature of their work. The widespread occurrence of asbestos as a product in buildings constructed or refurbished prior to 2000, means that inadvertent disturbance of asbestos-containing materials can be frequent and regular where asbestos products have not been adequately identified or managed.
"Nationwide Building Contractors could have prevented this risk and should have ensured that the asbestos containing materials in the work areas had been identified and, where necessary, removed - then the information passed on to those who were liable to disturb the fabric of the building.
"This prosecution should act as a reminder to those in the construction industry, and those in control of the repair and maintenance of buildings, of the importance of ensuring that a suitable and sufficient assessment for asbestos has been carried out and that the correct control measures are in place to ensure that exposure to asbestos is prevented, so far as is reasonably practicable."
Asbestos products have been widely used in the UK since the end of the 19th century and were used in the construction and refurbishment of buildings until 1999.
Asbestos can cause a number of fatal or serious respiratory conditions if fibres are inhaled. Asbestos exposure is the most serious occupational health issue in the UK, and is responsible for approximately 4,000 deaths each year.
RHSS NOW OFFERS IN HOUSE ASBESTOS AWARENESS TRAINING FROM AS LITTLE AS £40 + VAT PER PERSON
Nationwide Building Contractors from Fareham, Hampshire was yesterday fined a total of £4,500 at Darlington Magistrates' Court over the incident.
The company was found guilty, in its absence, of breaching Regulations 5, 11 and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, between 7 January and 6 March 2008. Nationwide is now in liquidation.
The contractor had been contracted to refurbish Hall Garth Hotel Golf and Country Club, at Coatham Mundeville, near Darlington.
When HSE inspectors visited the site, they found that work was carried out without adequate checks for asbestos or asbestos-containing materials, and served a Prohibition Notice - immediately stopping construction work. Further investigations found large amounts of asbestos pipe lagging in walls and floor voids where work had been undertaken.
HSE worked with local Environmental Health Officers and the hotel management to ensure that asbestos fibres had not spread to the occupied areas of the hotel. The hotel was voluntarily closed while tests were undertaken. Fortunately the test results in the public areas were negative.
After the case, HSE inspector Victoria Wise said: "Construction and maintenance workers are the most at-risk groups from asbestos-related diseases due to the nature of their work. The widespread occurrence of asbestos as a product in buildings constructed or refurbished prior to 2000, means that inadvertent disturbance of asbestos-containing materials can be frequent and regular where asbestos products have not been adequately identified or managed.
"Nationwide Building Contractors could have prevented this risk and should have ensured that the asbestos containing materials in the work areas had been identified and, where necessary, removed - then the information passed on to those who were liable to disturb the fabric of the building.
"This prosecution should act as a reminder to those in the construction industry, and those in control of the repair and maintenance of buildings, of the importance of ensuring that a suitable and sufficient assessment for asbestos has been carried out and that the correct control measures are in place to ensure that exposure to asbestos is prevented, so far as is reasonably practicable."
Asbestos products have been widely used in the UK since the end of the 19th century and were used in the construction and refurbishment of buildings until 1999.
Asbestos can cause a number of fatal or serious respiratory conditions if fibres are inhaled. Asbestos exposure is the most serious occupational health issue in the UK, and is responsible for approximately 4,000 deaths each year.
RHSS NOW OFFERS IN HOUSE ASBESTOS AWARENESS TRAINING FROM AS LITTLE AS £40 + VAT PER PERSON
Monday, 19 April 2010
If you ask for it check it!
An unregistered gas fitter who illegally carried out work on properties across Nottingham with falsely issued gas safety certificates has been given a 12-month community service order and ordered to carry out 200 hours unpaid work.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Paul Anthony Bailey (54) of Bridgnorth Drive, Nottingham, who traded as P A Bailey Plumbing and Heating. He pleaded guilty to breaching three sections of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 at Nottingham Magistrates' Court.
He was also ordered to pay costs of £750.
The court heard that Mr Bailey falsely claimed to be CORGI (Council of Registered Gas Installers) registered, when he carried out gas fitting work between 1 October 2008 and 31 January 2009 at premises on Broadfield in Calverton, and Radford Road in New Basford.
In addition, Mr Bailey issued gas safety certificates, using a false CORGI number, to premises on Radford Road in New Basford, Leander Close in Wilford and Long Hill Rise in Hucknall.
He also installed a gas boiler in industrial premises on Radford Road in New Basford, without the competence to do so.
Two complaints were received about Mr Bailey's work. One following an industrial job where he incorrectly installed a boiler in a garage, putting workers at risk, and the other related to the installation of a new boiler for a domestic heating system.
HSE Inspector David Butter said:
"Mr Bailey was not qualified to carry out this work on both private and commercial properties and by doing so put other workers at risk. While he had completed training at night school and was qualified, he had not registered with CORGI.
"In order to work legally in the UK, gas installers must be registered with the appropriate approved body. It is essential that homes and businesses check this before having work carried out to ensure the job is completed to a high standard and most of all, is safe."
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Paul Anthony Bailey (54) of Bridgnorth Drive, Nottingham, who traded as P A Bailey Plumbing and Heating. He pleaded guilty to breaching three sections of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 at Nottingham Magistrates' Court.
He was also ordered to pay costs of £750.
The court heard that Mr Bailey falsely claimed to be CORGI (Council of Registered Gas Installers) registered, when he carried out gas fitting work between 1 October 2008 and 31 January 2009 at premises on Broadfield in Calverton, and Radford Road in New Basford.
In addition, Mr Bailey issued gas safety certificates, using a false CORGI number, to premises on Radford Road in New Basford, Leander Close in Wilford and Long Hill Rise in Hucknall.
He also installed a gas boiler in industrial premises on Radford Road in New Basford, without the competence to do so.
Two complaints were received about Mr Bailey's work. One following an industrial job where he incorrectly installed a boiler in a garage, putting workers at risk, and the other related to the installation of a new boiler for a domestic heating system.
HSE Inspector David Butter said:
"Mr Bailey was not qualified to carry out this work on both private and commercial properties and by doing so put other workers at risk. While he had completed training at night school and was qualified, he had not registered with CORGI.
"In order to work legally in the UK, gas installers must be registered with the appropriate approved body. It is essential that homes and businesses check this before having work carried out to ensure the job is completed to a high standard and most of all, is safe."
Crushed to Death by Steel
Multinational steelmaker Corus has been fined £240,000 after a lorry driver was crushed to death at its site in Staffordshire.
The firm was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after three tonnes of steel plates fell on 22-year-old Netherton man, Ross Beddow, at the firm's base in Wombourne.
Corus (UK) Ltd, registered at 30 Millbank, London, was also ordered to pay £112,500 costs at Stafford Crown Court today after it pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
The court heard how on 4 January 2007, Mr Beddow, who was employed by A Hingley Transport Ltd, was helping to load steel plates onto a lorry. A Corus employee was operating a crane to lift a three-tonne pack of steel from a trailer, however, the load was not level, and as it was lifted it fell on top of Mr Beddow and killed him.
An HSE investigation showed the system of work for loading steel was unsafe. Not all the individual tasks involved had been evaluated and there was scope for misunderstanding between workers.
HSE inspector Dr Wai-Kin Liu said:
"This was a tragedy that could and should have been avoided. All the steps involved in an overall task should be analysed to create a safe system of work, and the consequences of something going wrong should always be taken into account.
"Anyone can make errors - no matter how well trained and motivated they are - but employers must develop a safe way of working that helps to prevent mistakes and reduces the severity of the consequences if they do occur. If Corus had a safe system of working then Mr Beddow would not have been killed simply doing his job."
The firm was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after three tonnes of steel plates fell on 22-year-old Netherton man, Ross Beddow, at the firm's base in Wombourne.
Corus (UK) Ltd, registered at 30 Millbank, London, was also ordered to pay £112,500 costs at Stafford Crown Court today after it pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
The court heard how on 4 January 2007, Mr Beddow, who was employed by A Hingley Transport Ltd, was helping to load steel plates onto a lorry. A Corus employee was operating a crane to lift a three-tonne pack of steel from a trailer, however, the load was not level, and as it was lifted it fell on top of Mr Beddow and killed him.
An HSE investigation showed the system of work for loading steel was unsafe. Not all the individual tasks involved had been evaluated and there was scope for misunderstanding between workers.
HSE inspector Dr Wai-Kin Liu said:
"This was a tragedy that could and should have been avoided. All the steps involved in an overall task should be analysed to create a safe system of work, and the consequences of something going wrong should always be taken into account.
"Anyone can make errors - no matter how well trained and motivated they are - but employers must develop a safe way of working that helps to prevent mistakes and reduces the severity of the consequences if they do occur. If Corus had a safe system of working then Mr Beddow would not have been killed simply doing his job."
5 meter fall....
A plant hire company has been fined £200,000 for health and safety failings that lead to an employee falling five metres to his death.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) showed that the company failed to follow its own health and safety guidelines for work at height.
HSE prosecuted Ashtead Plant Hire Co Ltd trading as APlant who admitted breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
The company, based at Dalton Ave in Birchwood Park, Warrington was also ordered to pay £15,698.30 in costs at Maidstone Crown Court today.
Phillip Pearce, aged 55, from the Medway area, had worked as a fitter at the company's depot at Tovil, Maidstone - where they provide portable accommodation units to the construction industry - for less than three months when he died on 16 August 2006.
Mr Pearce's job was to prepare the accommodation units - including site huts, welfare units and storage containers - which were then hired out to construction companies.
With two units stacked on top of each other, Mr Pearce climbed onto the top of the stack to help attach lifting chains so that the top unit could be lifted down. He fell more than five metres and died at the scene.
Ashtead Plant Hire Co Ltd had a written procedure for work on top of accommodation units in its depots and at customers' sites. This required people to wear a safety harness and inertia reel line and climb a secured ladder. If they slipped or fell, the line would lock and prevent a serious fall.
HSE's investigation found that workers at the depot had not been issued with this kit or been trained to use it and most did not know the company had a special procedure for doing this work.
The court heard that despite the depot handling up to 15 accommodation unit movements a day, management at the depot did not ensure that workers were aware of the procedure and did not ensure that the work was only done by those trained, equipped and authorised.
HSE Inspector John Underwood said:
"This was a wholly avoidable incident which led to a tragic and totally unnecessary loss of life.
"It is completely inexcusable that the company had indentified the risks, prepared an adequate procedure to manage the risk, and then failed to implement that procedure to protect their workers.
"Health and safety is not just about filling in forms or thinking about risk, it's about taking action to prevent people being killed or injured while trying to do their job.
"I hope this case will be an example to other companies that not only must health and safety be taken seriously but also followed through."
Last year more than 4,000 employees suffered major injuries after falling from height at work, and 21 workers in the construction industry died. For more information go to www.hse.gov.uk/shatteredlives
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) showed that the company failed to follow its own health and safety guidelines for work at height.
HSE prosecuted Ashtead Plant Hire Co Ltd trading as APlant who admitted breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
The company, based at Dalton Ave in Birchwood Park, Warrington was also ordered to pay £15,698.30 in costs at Maidstone Crown Court today.
Phillip Pearce, aged 55, from the Medway area, had worked as a fitter at the company's depot at Tovil, Maidstone - where they provide portable accommodation units to the construction industry - for less than three months when he died on 16 August 2006.
Mr Pearce's job was to prepare the accommodation units - including site huts, welfare units and storage containers - which were then hired out to construction companies.
With two units stacked on top of each other, Mr Pearce climbed onto the top of the stack to help attach lifting chains so that the top unit could be lifted down. He fell more than five metres and died at the scene.
Ashtead Plant Hire Co Ltd had a written procedure for work on top of accommodation units in its depots and at customers' sites. This required people to wear a safety harness and inertia reel line and climb a secured ladder. If they slipped or fell, the line would lock and prevent a serious fall.
HSE's investigation found that workers at the depot had not been issued with this kit or been trained to use it and most did not know the company had a special procedure for doing this work.
The court heard that despite the depot handling up to 15 accommodation unit movements a day, management at the depot did not ensure that workers were aware of the procedure and did not ensure that the work was only done by those trained, equipped and authorised.
HSE Inspector John Underwood said:
"This was a wholly avoidable incident which led to a tragic and totally unnecessary loss of life.
"It is completely inexcusable that the company had indentified the risks, prepared an adequate procedure to manage the risk, and then failed to implement that procedure to protect their workers.
"Health and safety is not just about filling in forms or thinking about risk, it's about taking action to prevent people being killed or injured while trying to do their job.
"I hope this case will be an example to other companies that not only must health and safety be taken seriously but also followed through."
Last year more than 4,000 employees suffered major injuries after falling from height at work, and 21 workers in the construction industry died. For more information go to www.hse.gov.uk/shatteredlives
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Fall through Skylight
A Llanelli cladding firm has been fined after an employee fell through an open skylight at a retail unit he was working on.
Stephen Armstrong-Esther was re-cladding a retail outlet roof at the Parc Trostre retail outlet when the incident occurred on 2 August 2005.
In a prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Llanelli Magistrates' Court heard Mr Armstrong-Esther was working for Ammex Ltd, of Llannon Road, Pontyberem.
He was carrying a roof panel with a colleague when he fell almost four metres through an unprotected skylight onto a mezzanine floor below. He sustained serious injuries including fractures to his ribs and back, nerve damage to his leg and also memory and hearing loss.
Ammex Ltd was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £6,750 costs after pleading guilty yesterday (29 March 2010) to charges under Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
In warning of the dangers of working at height, HSE Inspector Anne Marie Orrells said:
"This case has concluded at a time when HSE is reminding those in the construction industry of the dangers of working at height and the devastating effects of slips trips and falls through its Shattered Lives campaign.
"The HSE is currently carrying out visits in Wales to highlight the possible dangers involved in refurbishment and roofing work.
"Mr Armstrong-Esther has suffered long lasting effects from his injuries since the incident which is now four years ago, and which could have been prevented. Openings, such as skylights, in roofs must have suitable protection around them to prevent workers from falling into them."
One worker died and 243 were injured as a result of a slip, trip or fall in the construction industry in Wales in 2008/09.
Stephen Armstrong-Esther was re-cladding a retail outlet roof at the Parc Trostre retail outlet when the incident occurred on 2 August 2005.
In a prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Llanelli Magistrates' Court heard Mr Armstrong-Esther was working for Ammex Ltd, of Llannon Road, Pontyberem.
He was carrying a roof panel with a colleague when he fell almost four metres through an unprotected skylight onto a mezzanine floor below. He sustained serious injuries including fractures to his ribs and back, nerve damage to his leg and also memory and hearing loss.
Ammex Ltd was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £6,750 costs after pleading guilty yesterday (29 March 2010) to charges under Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
In warning of the dangers of working at height, HSE Inspector Anne Marie Orrells said:
"This case has concluded at a time when HSE is reminding those in the construction industry of the dangers of working at height and the devastating effects of slips trips and falls through its Shattered Lives campaign.
"The HSE is currently carrying out visits in Wales to highlight the possible dangers involved in refurbishment and roofing work.
"Mr Armstrong-Esther has suffered long lasting effects from his injuries since the incident which is now four years ago, and which could have been prevented. Openings, such as skylights, in roofs must have suitable protection around them to prevent workers from falling into them."
One worker died and 243 were injured as a result of a slip, trip or fall in the construction industry in Wales in 2008/09.
Take a Risk?
There's a video on YouTube of a woman holding fistfuls of methane bubbles which are then ignited – a great tower of flame leaping from her hands. A group of schoolchildren look on.
Surely there are all kinds of health and safety rules about playing with fire in front of children?
But, no, the woman in the “flaming hands” clip is none other than Judith Hackitt, chair of the Health and Safety Executive. The idea is to show that spectacular science demonstrations should, with proper precautions, be taking place in schools.
While her job is to ensure the safety of every workplace, Hackitt's public role has also been to dispel the burgeoning myths about health and safety.
“It's one of the reasons I took on the job, because I was absolutely fed up with it,” she explains.
Soon after we sit down in the MediaCityUK marketing suite at Salford Quays she says warily: “You're going to ask me about conkers now, aren't you.”
I am..but not quite yet.
We're in a world of cranes, earth-movers and high-visibility jackets, and Hackitt is here to take a look at “one of the biggest construction sites in the country”.
She expects to find best practice here, and does, describing contractor Bovis Lend Lease's work at the 36-acre site as “truly impressive”.
But bad things still happen elsewhere every day.
“People continue to fall off things, whether it's ladders, platforms or whatever; people continue to have things dropped on them from a height, and the other is people getting knocked over and crushed by moving machinery,” she says.
In 2008/9, 180 workers were killed at work and 131,895 other injuries were reported.
Challenge
“There are some sectors that stand out as a continuing challenge. Construction is one – not so much large projects like this , but at the smaller business end,” says Hackitt, who worked for 25 years in the chemical industry. “Agriculture is an industry where there seems to be an alarming sense of 'That's just the way it is'. The fact is that one person a week dies in agriculture, still. It doesn't have to be dangerous any more than any other sector has to be dangerous.
“One area of growing concern for us is waste and recycling, from collection on streets to recycling facilities. Very often they are very primitive in terms of lots of conveyor belts, people sorting broken bottles and goodness knows what.”
It's not a boast we can often make these days, but Britain leads the world on health and safety, our accident statistics being the lowest, our safety strategies copied by many other nations.
And yet health and safety – or, more likely, “elf and safety” - is often seen as a byword for rule-bound, killjoy, nonsensical bureaucracy. The HSE's website has a long list of “elf and safety” myths: graduates told not to throw mortar boards, poles in fire stations banned, regulations meaning trapeze artists would have to wear hard hats, snowball-throwing deemed too dangerous and panto actors banned from throwing sweets into the audience.
Like conkers and goggles, these stories often have a grain of truth. A well-meaning but misguided headteacher did once tell pupils to wear safety goggles when playing conkers. The myth is that the HSE is behind such rules.
“The problem is this: people are afraid of being sued,” says Hackitt. “ They're afraid that if something happens, someone will make a claim against them, so they hide behind the excuse 'I can't do this because of health and safety'. The no win, no fee provision allows people to see whether there's anything in it for them.”
We have become a more risk-averse society, says Hackitt.
“The more you take the big risks out of society, the more people start worrying about things that really shouldn't matter,” she adds. “What we are starting to see, which worries me a great deal, is the extent to which over-protective parents in particular get the whole notion of risk out of proportion.They wrap their kids in cotton wool, and it's creating a bigger problem because you create some cossetted kid who thinks he's indestructible because he's never been exposed to risk. So when he comes up against risk, whether it's on a school trip or, worse still, when it comes to work, he looks around and says 'Who's looking after me, because that's not my job'.”
Hackitt's own two daughters, now aged 25 and 22, each took gap years before university, travelling alone to Mexico and Tanzania. They were given advice and some useful contact details, but otherwise the message was “You're on your own”.
“You reach a point where you have to let go,” she adds.
The HSE has been involved in producing a new, simplified risk assessment for school trips, aiming to reverse an increasing trend for schools to opt out of such activities.
“In some cases, it is because their local authority has handed them a risk assessment package which may be 40 or 50 pages long, and said 'You've got to fill this in for everything you do'. Our answer is, no, that's not what we want.”
The HSE's example of a risk assessment for a school trip runs to just three pages.
You wonder how much Hackitt blames the media for public antipathy towards “elf and safety”.
“The media has done what the medai is paid to do – you pick up stories, ridiculous stories and print them,” she says. “The sad bit is that someone, somewhere has used health and safety as an excuse for can't be bothered, don't want to buy the insurance, just too lazy or whatever.”
Surely there are all kinds of health and safety rules about playing with fire in front of children?
But, no, the woman in the “flaming hands” clip is none other than Judith Hackitt, chair of the Health and Safety Executive. The idea is to show that spectacular science demonstrations should, with proper precautions, be taking place in schools.
While her job is to ensure the safety of every workplace, Hackitt's public role has also been to dispel the burgeoning myths about health and safety.
“It's one of the reasons I took on the job, because I was absolutely fed up with it,” she explains.
Soon after we sit down in the MediaCityUK marketing suite at Salford Quays she says warily: “You're going to ask me about conkers now, aren't you.”
I am..but not quite yet.
We're in a world of cranes, earth-movers and high-visibility jackets, and Hackitt is here to take a look at “one of the biggest construction sites in the country”.
She expects to find best practice here, and does, describing contractor Bovis Lend Lease's work at the 36-acre site as “truly impressive”.
But bad things still happen elsewhere every day.
“People continue to fall off things, whether it's ladders, platforms or whatever; people continue to have things dropped on them from a height, and the other is people getting knocked over and crushed by moving machinery,” she says.
In 2008/9, 180 workers were killed at work and 131,895 other injuries were reported.
Challenge
“There are some sectors that stand out as a continuing challenge. Construction is one – not so much large projects like this , but at the smaller business end,” says Hackitt, who worked for 25 years in the chemical industry. “Agriculture is an industry where there seems to be an alarming sense of 'That's just the way it is'. The fact is that one person a week dies in agriculture, still. It doesn't have to be dangerous any more than any other sector has to be dangerous.
“One area of growing concern for us is waste and recycling, from collection on streets to recycling facilities. Very often they are very primitive in terms of lots of conveyor belts, people sorting broken bottles and goodness knows what.”
It's not a boast we can often make these days, but Britain leads the world on health and safety, our accident statistics being the lowest, our safety strategies copied by many other nations.
And yet health and safety – or, more likely, “elf and safety” - is often seen as a byword for rule-bound, killjoy, nonsensical bureaucracy. The HSE's website has a long list of “elf and safety” myths: graduates told not to throw mortar boards, poles in fire stations banned, regulations meaning trapeze artists would have to wear hard hats, snowball-throwing deemed too dangerous and panto actors banned from throwing sweets into the audience.
Like conkers and goggles, these stories often have a grain of truth. A well-meaning but misguided headteacher did once tell pupils to wear safety goggles when playing conkers. The myth is that the HSE is behind such rules.
“The problem is this: people are afraid of being sued,” says Hackitt. “ They're afraid that if something happens, someone will make a claim against them, so they hide behind the excuse 'I can't do this because of health and safety'. The no win, no fee provision allows people to see whether there's anything in it for them.”
We have become a more risk-averse society, says Hackitt.
“The more you take the big risks out of society, the more people start worrying about things that really shouldn't matter,” she adds. “What we are starting to see, which worries me a great deal, is the extent to which over-protective parents in particular get the whole notion of risk out of proportion.They wrap their kids in cotton wool, and it's creating a bigger problem because you create some cossetted kid who thinks he's indestructible because he's never been exposed to risk. So when he comes up against risk, whether it's on a school trip or, worse still, when it comes to work, he looks around and says 'Who's looking after me, because that's not my job'.”
Hackitt's own two daughters, now aged 25 and 22, each took gap years before university, travelling alone to Mexico and Tanzania. They were given advice and some useful contact details, but otherwise the message was “You're on your own”.
“You reach a point where you have to let go,” she adds.
The HSE has been involved in producing a new, simplified risk assessment for school trips, aiming to reverse an increasing trend for schools to opt out of such activities.
“In some cases, it is because their local authority has handed them a risk assessment package which may be 40 or 50 pages long, and said 'You've got to fill this in for everything you do'. Our answer is, no, that's not what we want.”
The HSE's example of a risk assessment for a school trip runs to just three pages.
You wonder how much Hackitt blames the media for public antipathy towards “elf and safety”.
“The media has done what the medai is paid to do – you pick up stories, ridiculous stories and print them,” she says. “The sad bit is that someone, somewhere has used health and safety as an excuse for can't be bothered, don't want to buy the insurance, just too lazy or whatever.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)