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.
Friday 29 October 2010
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)