HSE reveals plans to withdraw management ACoP          
   
The HSE proposes to withdraw the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) for the Management of Health and Safety at Work (MHSW) Regulations as part of a package of proposals outlined in a consultation document launched yesterday (25 June).

The consultation, which seeks views on proposals covering 30 ACoPs, forms part of the HSE’s commitment to review all its ACoPs, as recommended by Professor Löfstedt in his recent review of health and safety legislation.

After an initial review of 32 of its 52 ACoPs, the HSE identified 15 ACoPs requiring revision, consolidation or withdrawal by the end of 2013. The consultation document also asks for views on further plans for minor revisions and updates — by 2014 — to 14 other ACoPs, and on a suggestion that no changes be made to the "Consulting workers on health and safety" ACoP (L146). The final section of the consultation deals with a proposal to limit ACoP documents to 32 pages, with a few exceptions.

ACoPs set out preferred methods to achieve legal compliance and clarify what is required. They are not law, though they do have a special legal status in that if duty holders follow the advice in the code, they can be confident they are compliant. Duty holders may use alternative methods to comply, but if they are prosecuted for a breach, and it is proved that they did not follow the code, they will be found at fault unless they can show the court they complied in some other way.

Among the 15 ACoPs listed for revision, consolidation or withdrawal are well known publications such as the “Management of health and safety at work” (L21), “The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 Approved Code of Practice and Guidance” (L5), “Legionnaires’ disease” (L8), “The management of asbestos in non-domestic premises” (L127) and “Workplace health, safety and welfare” (L24). A full list is available here.
The HSE also wants to consolidate the five ACoPs (L134-138) that provide advice on compliance with the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations into a single revised document.

Perhaps the most radical proposal is the complete withdrawal of the MHSW ACoP and its replacement with a suite of structured, specific and updated guidance documents, including “Health and Safety Made Simple”, a revision to the guidance previously branded as “Essentials”, a revised “Five Steps to Risk Assessment” and “Managing for Health and Safety” (HSG65).

The HSE says the “generic” nature of the current MHSW ACoP, which does not describe methods of compliance suitable for different sizes and types of business, leaves duty holders uncertain whether they are complying with their legal obligations. Both the Löfstedt review and Lord Young’s report Common Sense Common Safety singled out the ACoP for reform.

As well as the 30 ACoPs covered in the consultation document, the HSE has identified two other publications – “Rider-operated lift trucks: operator training” (L117) and “The compilation of safety data sheets” (L130) – for revision or withdrawal without consultation, either because changes had been consulted on before the Löfstedt review or because the associated legal provisions have been revoked.

The HSE says it has not yet reviewed the remaining 20 ACoPs because they are “associated with ongoing sector specific consolidations or other regulatory amendments”.

The consultation, which opened on 25 June will run until 14 September.

Unsafe tree work leads to fine for Lincolnshire man

A Lincolnshire landscape gardener has been fined after being spotted carrying out unsafe tree work.

John Holland and an employee were felling a tree at a house in Foxgloves, Deeping St James, on 19 August 2011. They were both using a chainsaw, despite not being qualified to do so and neither was wearing protective clothing such as protective trousers and boots.

Spotted by a neighbour who was trained to assess chainsaw work.

In addition, Mr Holland was working in the crown of the tree without any kind of safety equipment that would have prevented a fall, such as a harness.

The two men were spotted by a neighbour who was trained to assess chainsaw work. He reported his concerns to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which brought today’s prosecution at Spalding Magistrates’ Court.

John Michael Holland, age 53, of Little London, Spalding, Lincolnshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005, Regulations 4(1) and 4(2) of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 and Regulation 9(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

Spalding magistrates today fined him a total of £4,000 and ordered him to pay costs of £2,000.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Neil Ward said:

"The neighbour was suitably qualified to know that the way Mr Holland and his employee were working was far from safe and Mr Holland could have fallen from the tree at any time. Not only was it wrong of Mr Holland to use the chainsaw without having the necessary qualifications, but it was also wrong for him to expect his employee to do the same. Chainsaws are dangerous pieces of machinery in untrained hands. They can cause serious injury or even death. It is sheer good fortune that no-one was hurt that day.

"Mr Holland should also have been aware of the need to secure himself to the tree. Working at height carries significant risks and all necessary precautions should be taken to prevent a fall."

West Yorkshire firm prosecuted over unacceptable working conditions

A Keighley lighting supplier has been fined for subjecting its staff to ‘appalling’ working conditions and exposing them to risks from defective electrics and welding fumes.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspector visited the premises of Keylighting Ltd as a result of a number of complaints about the working conditions at the site on Alincote Street.

A catalogue of health and safety failings was uncovered and specialists were called in to examine the electrical systems, a range of hygiene issues, and to assess the safety management of the welding and powder spraying process.

Bradford Magistrates’ Court was told that during an occupational hygiene inspection in December 2010 an expert found temperatures in various parts of the building ranged from just four degrees centigrade in the toilets to ten degrees in the stores and welding areas.

As a result of these findings five Improvement Notices were served on Keylighting by HSE.

Seven more Improvement Notices were served by HSE after an electrical specialist found an eight-month-old report from a separate company had revealed 70 defects on the electrical system, seven of them requiring urgent attention.  Not one of the faults had been acted upon.

The various investigations also found the toilets in a dire state with blocked sinks, out of order cisterns which were still being used, no running water for hand-washing and rubbish strewn around. They were deemed to be a high disease risk to anyone using them.

In the welding area, there was no ventilation to remove fumes and the protective equipment for the workers was ineffective.  In one of the spray booths, an operator was found with powder contamination around his face, neck and hands and extensive powder dust had escaped from the booth.

Keylighting Ltd, of North Brook Works, Alincote Street, Keighley, was prosecuted by HSE for breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 between 25 May 2010 and 25 January 2011. The company pleaded guilty and was fined £8,000 with £20,000 to pay in costs.

After the hearing, inspector Morag Irwin, who made the first visit to the premises following the complaints, said:

"This was, without doubt, the worst workplace I have inspected in more than ten years with HSE. The conditions the employees had to endure at work were totally unacceptable, a threat to workers’ health, and in breach of many health and safety regulations.

"During the coldest December in more than a century, some employees were working in temperatures only a few degrees higher than they were outside. A report highlighting serious electrical hazards had been allowed to gather dust.

"There was no one at the company with the competence to manage even the most basic levels of  health and safety. If any employer shirks their responsibility and ignores legislation, putting their workers at risk, it is only right that HSE takes enforcement action.

Demolition firm fined for safety failings

A demolition firm and its director have been fined for endangering workers at a site in Lancing, West Sussex.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Rabbit Demolition and Excavation Ltd and its director, Colin Bell, for not providing a safe means for working on a roof during the demolition of the Ball Tree Inn, on Busticle Lane, Sompting, between the 12 and 21 September last year.

Worthing Magistrates' Court heard today (16 July) that a member of the public sent HSE a photograph showing workers on the site, run by Rabbit Demolition, removing roof tiles from the former pub with no edge protection in place to prevent falls. One worker was also shown to be standing in the bucket of an excavator being driven by Colin Bell.

HSE investigated and found working practices were unsafe and unnecessary, and that edge protection in the form of scaffolding could have been provided.

Alternatively, the work could have been safely carried out using a mobile elevated working platform.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Denis Bodger said:

"Falls from height account for more deaths and serious injuries in the construction industry than anything else. This was a clear example of unsafe working on a roof. One slip and someone could easily have been killed or seriously injured.

"It is staggering that Colin Bell not only allowed such unsafe work practice but actually participated in it.

"Contractors carrying out construction work, including demolition, should properly plan, manage and monitor the work to ensure that it is carried out safely. Where work at height is undertaken, precautions should ensure that people can not be injured from falling. If people work on roofs to reclaim tiles, edge protection in the form of guard rails or other equally effective measures must be provided."

Scaffold collapse leads to fines

Two Stoke-on-Trent companies have been fined for their part in a major scaffold collapse.

Seventy metres of sheeted scaffold peeled away from a row of houses in Wellington Road, Hanley, on 30 April 2011.

Fortunately workers were on a break so no-one was on or near the scaffolding at the time of the collapse. No members of the public were walking past and no vehicles were driving by, although a row of parked cars received minor damage and a street lamp was destroyed.

Seventy metres of sheeted scaffold peeled away from a row of houses in Wellington Road, Hanley.

Potteries Demolition Company Limited was the principal contractor on the Stoke City Council scheme to demolish 15 terraced houses and the former Highland Laddie pub on one side of Wellington Road.  The firm appointed Jacko’s Scaffolding Limited to provide scaffolding.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found the scaffold had not been built to  an appropriate bespoke design and was not sufficiently secured to the houses. In addition it was a particularly windy day with the Met Office recording gusts of up to 46mph in the area, which put extra pressure on the sheeted scaffold.

Stafford magistrates were told that the original scaffold provided by Jacko’s was a basic scaffold provided for roof tile removal and as such it did not require a bespoke design. However the next stage in the demolition sequence required the scaffold to be altered and sheeting added, as it was to be used as a work platform to facilitate hand demolition of the front upper walls of the buildings. This meant that the scaffold needed to be a bespoke design as it could become vulnerable to collapse as the buildings it was tied to were demolished.

After today’s hearing, HSE inspector Andrew Bowker said:

"It was sheer good luck that no-one was hurt when the scaffold collapsed. If anyone had been on it or nearby, it would have been a very different story.

"This incident was caused by a catalogue of serious failings by both companies.
The failure to construct the scaffold to a suitable design for the work meant that the scaffold ultimately could not withstand the effects of wind loading as the buildings upper walls were demolished and first floor anchor ties were removed.

"Potteries Demolition the Principal Contractor failed to effectively co-ordinate, plan and manage the demolition sequence in order to ensure that the scaffold safety was not compromised. They failed to ensure that the sheeted scaffold was constructed to a suitable bespoke design despite knowing that this was necessary. They failed to inspect the scaffold and removed anchor ties during the demolition sequence ignoring written instructions on the scaffold handover certificate not to do so"

Jacko’s scaffolding failed to construct the scaffold to a suitable design despite knowing that this was necessary. They failed to inform Potteries Demolition that the sheeted scaffold they handed over was not adequately tied for the façade demolition to start.

Both companies failed to ensure that the anchor ties that were fitted were suitably tested.

Jacko’s Scaffolding Limited, of Winghouse Lane, Tittensor, Stoke-on-Trent, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Today, Stafford Magistrates’ Court fined the firm £5,000 and ordered it to pay costs of £2,992

Demolition

What you need to do

The law says that all demolition, dismantling and structural alteration should be carefully planned and carried out by competent practitioners. Key issues are:

• Falls from height
• Injury from falling materials
• Uncontrolled collapse
• Risks from connected services
• Traffic management
• Hazardous materials
• Noise and vibration
• Fire
• Worker involvement

A systematic approach to demolition projects is a team effort between many people, who all have responsibilities:

• Clients must appoint dutyholders who are competent and adequately resourced.
• Structural engineers survey the site and assess the stability of nearby structures the risks of uncontrolled collapse,and the risks from hazardous materials. This should be done before work beginsa nd not be left for the principal contractor to organise.
• CDM Co-ordinators plan effective site management that keeps people (site workers and the public) as far as possible from the risks. They should give principal contractors as much information as possible.
• Principal contractors co-ordinate and manage health and safety issues during the demolition project.
• Site managers supervise workers and ensure they are following safe working practice. 
• Sub-contractors and site workers must understand and follow the precautions and ensure that their colleagues do too.

Health surveillance

Health surveillance means regularly looking for early signs of work related ill health and putting procedures in place to achieve this.

The purpose of health surveillance is to monitor and protect the health of individual employees.

Collecting simple information may lead to early detection of ill health caused by work and identify the need for improved control measures.

All employees exposed or likely to be exposed to an asthmagen should receive suitable health surveillance.

The specific requirements are set out in COSHH and might involve examinations by a doctor or trained nurse.

COSHH

The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations require employers to control exposures to hazardous substances to protect employees’ health.

Employers must assess the risk of exposure (exposure means taking in chemicals by breathing in, by skin contact or by swallowing).

COSHH requires you to consider the substitution of harmful products with less harmful ones.

COSHH requires that all controls be kept in good working order, including:

• Mechanical controls eg local exhaust ventilation (LEV), protective gloves
• Administrative controls eg supervision
• Operator controls eg following instructions

For more information on how to control hazardous substances in your workplace see the COSHH Essentials website

Engineering firm prosecuted after workers fall from height

A vehicle engineering, design and testing firm has been fined after two employees were injured when they fell from a platform.

One of the workers, who does not wish to be named, broke his collar bone and needed to take six weeks off work after the incident at Mira Ltd's Watling Street site near Nuneaton on 5 July last year. His colleague, who also wishes to remain anonymous, bruised his eye and cut the back of his head.

Nuneaton Magistrates' Court heard today (9 July) that the two injured employees were among six workers helping to reinstall a large motorised fan in a ceiling. As they tried to push a heavy motor back into the fan a section of the mesh mezzanine platform they were stood on became dislodged and they both fell 2.2 metres to the ground below.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigated the incident and found the company had failed to properly plan the work at height. Even after the fall, Mira Ltd neglected to implement satisfactory safety measures and risks remained until the work was completed.

HSE identified there were further risks to employees as the task involved working around a void through which employees could fall.

Mira Ltd, of Watling Street, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for its failings. The company was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £9,305.

After the hearing HSE inspector Alison Cook said:

"The two employees were lucky not to have been more badly injured in the fall, especially after landing the way they did with their head and upper body taking the brunt of the impact.

"Mira Ltd should have planned the work properly, and had they done so the incident could have been avoided. Instead they put six workers at unnecessary risk and fell far short of the legal standard required when planning and organising such complex maintenance work at height

Builder fined for dangerous construction site

A Lincolnshire builder has been fined after a spot check by the Health and Safety Executive revealed his construction site was unsafe.

The unsafe construction site at Danesgate in Lincoln

Andre Wilkin, trading as Hillen Projects, was the main contractor on a refurbishment scheme at Danesgate in Lincoln when an HSE inspector visited as part of a national construction safety initiative on 1 March 2011.

A scaffold, which was not being used at the time, was found to have numerous defects and the site itself was very untidy, with numerous slips, trips and fall hazards.

Lincoln Magistrates' Court heard today (11 July) that Mr Wilkin was verbally advised about the three issues on the day of the visit and was sent a letter two days later detailing the actions he needed to take to bring the site up to an adequate standard.

The unsafe construction site at Danesgate in Lincoln

A month later, a follow-up inspection was carried out but the defects on the scaffolding, which people were now working on, had not been remedied. A Prohibition Notice was served to prevent further work on the scaffold.

The site was still not organised in a safe manner and the hazards noted during the initial visit were still present. A second Prohibition Notice was served to stop any further construction work until a safe means of access around the site had been established.

Andre Baudouin Wilkin, of Market Place, Caistor, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 27(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and Regulation 4(1) (c) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 for his failings. He was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,800.

Workers on the unsafe construction site at Danesgate in Lincoln

After the hearing, HSE inspector Martin Waring said:

"Mr Wilkin was offered plenty of advice and had the opportunity to rectify the problems that were identified. Instead he chose to continue putting workers at risk.

"It is essential that construction work, particularly work at height and site organisation, is properly planned to ensure that appropriate precautions are in place."

Safety failings led to asbestos exposure at Dorset school

The unsafe removal of asbestos insulation boards at a large independent school in Dorset led to several people being exposed to asbestos fibres, Dorchester Crown Court heard today (13 July).

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Sherborne School and Peter Eldridge, the director of a company responsible for the refurbishment project, after an investigation found they had failed to identify and prevent the risk of asbestos exposure at the school.

Asbestos insulation boards were removed in an unsafe way, exposing building contractors and a teenage work experience student to asbestos fibres, and leaving them at risk of developing serious and potentially fatal diseases later in life.

The HSE investigation found that from the initial design stages in May 2008 right through to undertaking the construction work in July 2009, there was inadequate planning and a failure to carry out a full asbestos survey.

This was despite the fact that a sample taken from the building in 2008 had identified its presence and asbestos had previously been removed from other parts of the school. An asbestos register was also kept for the school buildings.

The court heard that neither Mr Eldridge nor the school had appointed a Construction Design and Management (CDM) coordinator for the refurbishment project, despite it being a requirement of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 for a project of this size.

The CDM coordinator would have ensured a full refurbishment and demolition asbestos survey was completed in advance of construction work. Licensed asbestos contractors could then have been appointed to safely remove it.

Sherborne School was found guilty of breaching Regulation 4(8) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and Regulation 14 of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. The school was fined a total of £60,000 and ordered to pay £13,000 in costs.

Peter Eldridge, of Long Street, Sherborne, Dorset, was found guilty of breaching Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act for his neglect as an individual director. He was also found guilty of breaching Regulations 11(3) and 18(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 for contributing to the failings of his company. He was fined a total of £10,000 with costs of £6,000.

Speaking after the prosecution, HSE Inspector Joanna Teasdale, said:

"Both Peter Eldridge and Sherborne School knew about the risks posed by the presence of asbestos in the school buildings, and yet they failed to manage the risk of exposure to asbestos fibres during the refurbishment project.

"As a result several people, including at least one teenager, were put at unnecessary risk. In being exposed to asbestos fibres they could develop a serious and potentially fatal illness.

"Although Sherborne School was the client, it still had a duty to manage the control of asbestos on its site, and to be aware of the requirements of removing asbestos safely.

"This incident and the risk to those involved could have been easily avoided if competent people had been engaged during the planning of the refurbishment project to advise the school, such as a CDM coordinator."

HSE Business Plan

The HSE have released their business plan for 2012-15 which sets out the activities they plan to undertake over the next 3 years.

The plan is a mix of continuing "business as usual" activities in many frontline areas whilst also delivering significant reform.  

Key goals for the HSE include::
         

• reducing and simplifing the stock of regulation without reducing levels of protection
• making it easier for people to understand what is required, leading to increased levels of compliance;
• devoting a greater proportion of effort where risks are highest and where we can have greatest impact;
• continuing to hold to account those who expose their employees and others to unnecessary risk; and
• drawing a clearer distinction between real health and safety and the bureaucratic over interpretation which gets in the way.

Full details can be found on the HSE web site

Retail – Lone workers

Robbery in the retail sector costs the UK millions of pounds every year and, in many cases, the only thing standing between the perpetrators and their objective is a lone shop assistant, or storeperson. Consequently, warns Craig Swallow, it is crucial that such workers are provided with the best possible protection, including the means to summon assistance quickly and effectively.
Mention ‘lone worker’ to most people and they will immediately think of a district nurse, or a meter-reader, or a long-distance lorry driver. Rarely will they come up with retail workers but, as the largest private-sector employer in the UK, retail has hundreds of thousands of lone workers, either on a full or part-time basis. Think of the staff who open and close stores, go on banking runs, conduct warehouse operations, or those involved in delivery networks and regional management.

Figures for 2011 from the British Retail Consortium (BRC) show there are some 285,000 retail outlets in the UK. Over the last decade, store formats have changed considerably in line with how we consume – we now demand greater convenience, speed and choice in relation to the products we buy. This has helped shape the emergence of an increasing number of smaller-format stores, often with lower numbers of staff and longer opening hours, which, in turn, have an impact on how retail organisations meet their duty of care to employees.

Different roles generally result in different risk profiles; however, verbal abuse and robbery remain the biggest concerns. According to the BRC’s Retail Crime Survey 2011:

• verbal abuse of retail staff increased by more than 80 per cent, with threats of violence also rising;
• robberies rose by 20 per cent, with retailers reporting an increase in the use of weapons and violence; and
• typical security measures, such as CCTV and fixed panic alarms, are unable to capture, or verify verbal abuse directed at staff.

Of course, risk to a business or staff cannot entirely be removed but organisations can do more to ensure it is minimised through assessment, training, communication, and exchange of information (see panel overleaf). Relevant monitoring and alarm systems should also be part of any retail organisation’s package of measures to safeguard lone and vulnerable workers, and the most important feature of these is that they capture evidence effectively when incidents take place, and raise an alarm at an early stage.

Push that button
Risk has undoubtedly changed – gone are the days when it was exclusive to the point of sale – yet many retailers still deploy under-counter, fixed panic alarms as a solution. There is a number of problems with these:

• Fixed panic alarms typically do not capture audio evidence as a situation is unfolding, meaning a response cannot be informed and tailored accordingly. If audio is captured it tends to be from a speaker in the alarm panel and not directly from the incident point;
• The lack of audio information means third-party evaluation of the situation is hampered. Consequently, fixed systems generate a high number of false alarms because they offer less scope for human judgement. If false alarms are a regular occurrence, the organisation could lose its Unique Reference Number (URN – see below);
• There is less evidence about an incident to use retrospectively, if necessary;
• If an incident happens away from the point of sale, or the point where the alarm is fixed, it is unlikely to be used, or, at best, will suffer a time delay in use; and
• They cannot help a worker in distress who happens to be travelling to, from, or during work.1

Taking the first two points, generating a response is clearly the most important function of an alarm system, but it is equally important that it is the right response for the situation. Take the tragic case of PC Sharon Beshenivsky, who was fatally wounded in 2005, when she responded to a panic alarm activated during a robbery attempt on a Bradford travel agency. Had the full scale and nature of the incident been captured more effectively as it was unfolding, the Police response deployed would likely have been very different.

Naturally, the Police needs to respond to situations appropriately while maximising resources – therefore, a suitable method for escalation is required. The most effective way to elicit a Police response is to escalate via a URN. The Unique Reference Number allows an emergency alarm to be escalated one level above a 999 call, i.e. defined by the Association Of Chief Police Officers for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (ACPO) as a ‘Type A’ alarm.

URNs must be issued by a local Police force on the acceptance of an application from a client, and for an annual subscription fee. To comply, the client needs to demonstrate that appropriate and qualified technology is deployed correctly.

Police forces retain the right to revoke a URN if there is a disproportionate number of false alarms from a particular source. It is essential, therefore, that any alarm be used responsibly so an organisation does not lose its URN. The management costs and increase in insurance premiums arising from a lost URN can be significant.

ACPO statistics for 2010 show that fixed panic alarms generate the majority of false alarms.2 That year, there were 1.1 million remote alarm systems recorded in England & Wales, with, on average, 20 per cent of them having had at least one false alarm. Of the 251,149 alarms recorded, nearly 85 per cent of them were false – at massive cost to the Police in terms of resources and the management time involved.

Conversely, statistics collated by the British Security Industry Association’s Lone Worker Steering Group3 (comprising the leading solution providers in the UK) show mobile lone-worker alarms are far more efficient than fixed-system, from a false-alarm perspective. In the first three quarters of 2011 there were 135,428 ‘Red Alerts’ (alarms) raised by users of such systems. Over the same period, only 68 false alarms were subsequently passed to the Police – an average of eight a month.

Like any of the solutions already discussed, a mobile lone-worker alarm is obviously not a ‘one size fits all’ proposition but there are clear benefits to deploying them in tandem with other measures and technologies.

Always on hand
A mobile, GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications)-based lone-worker device can be used effectively to reduce the impact of the aforementioned limitations. Lone-worker alarms, because they are carried at all times by the user, offer protection away from the point of sale. Activation is easier and more discreet than with fixed panic alarms. A further advantage is that in the case of ‘man down’, certain devices can automatically alarm if they detect that the wearer has become incapacitated.

Because they use wireless technology (GSM) lone-worker alarms are easy to use, with little ongoing maintenance required. No specialist expertise is necessary, and permission does not have to be sought from site landlords. Lone-worker alarms can also be pooled among staff at the same site.

Any credible lone-worker alarm will capture audio and facilitate operator discernment. Audio evidence can support staff dealing with verbally abusive customers, or as part of a defined process to engage with those suspected of in-store theft.

In particular, those audited and approved against BS 84844 (the British Standard for lone-worker device services) allow a user to benefit from a ‘Type A’ alarm escalation via a URN attached to an Alarm Receiving Centre and thus allowing an element of discernment as part of the escalation process. Typically, a single agreement will cover all the solutions deployed by a single organisation (England and Wales). Such national deployment of systems is quick and effective. Furthermore, it is the ARC, not the retailer, that will be held accountable for any ‘over-enthusiastic’ escalation volumes.

ACPO’s stance on the lone-worker standard is very clear in that only lone-worker solutions approved by a UKAS (UK Accreditation Service) body can guarantee an alarm escalation via a URN. Earlier this year, ACPO compared alarm escalations via a URN (Type A) with a 999/101 call (Type B) and confirmed: “When a Police response is given to a Type ‘B’ alarm, experience shows that there is a significant time delay in despatching a Police response compared to the URN system. This is due to the questions that need to be asked to verify if it is a genuine alarm situation. This time lapse could be vital if a person is in immediate danger.”

ACPO has also confirmed that it is to review its URN charging procedures later this year. This could result in each retail outlet requiring an individual URN, thus increasing the costs to large multiples, should a fixed panic alarm continue to be their preferred solution.
Conclusion

There are myriad measures that employers in the retail sector can use to help prevent and manage the risk of violence to lone workers. The most effective solutions usually arise from the way the business is run, such as staff training, job design and changes to the physical environment. Technological solutions and security equipment do involve a cost but the benefit of having a safer, more confident workforce far outweighs this. Knowing that there are proper support systems in place means staff will feel happier and thus are likely to be more productive and take less time off

Road accidents warrant closer HSE involvement, MP urges                                  

The long-running debate about the HSE’s ‘limited’ remit in respect of work-related road traffic accidents was back on the agenda last week, as MPs discussed how the Government could help reduce the number of driving deaths.

Speaking in the Commons on 20 June, Labour MP Meg Munn referred to figures on work-related deaths and injuries provided by Mike Penning MP, under-secretary of state for Transport, in response to a recent parliamentary question.

She told the House: “He (Mr Penning) said 24 per cent of serious injuries and 30 per cent of road deaths in 2010 could be linked to work-related road traffic accidents. As there is no requirement to report work-related deaths [on the roads], that is likely to be an underestimate. Even using those figures, we are talking about, on average, 11 deaths and 105 serious injuries every week.”

Questioning why deaths and injuries resulting from such accidents are not counted as workplace deaths and injuries, she lamented that a “full picture” is not being provided, adding: “We do not know enough about why and how people at work die on the road, or how many members of the public are killed by people who drive for a living.”

Turning her attention to one serious health problem, obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) – a breathing condition that can stop people from getting proper restful sleep, resulting in tiredness during the day – she pointed out that medical experts estimate that between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of lorry drivers are affected by the condition, and other sleep problems.

“There are 400,000 large-goods vehicle drivers in the UK, which means a minimum estimate of 40,000 affected drivers,” explained Ms Munn. “The number of road accidents, with the resulting deaths and serious injuries, can be substantially reduced by increasing the number of drivers who are diagnosed and successfully treated for this condition.”

She pressed the Government to ensure that “the HSE’s expertise is brought to bear”, and said organisations that employ drivers as part of their undertaking could contribute significantly to improvements in road safety by screening drivers for health issues in the workplace.

Responding to the MP’s concerns, Maria Miller, under-secretary of state for Work and Pensions, stressed that a number of agencies have a role in enforcing and regulating on road safety matters, not least the Police, as well as the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and the DVLA, which, among other responsibilities, leads on the medical fitness of drivers.

She also underlined that drivers can experience a broad range of health conditions that could affect their capabilities, such as diabetes, heart conditions and migraines, and this means employers and employees should think “more generally” about their health.

“Given the broad range of health issues involved, it is difficult to set out a definite requirement for each one,” said the minister. “We have to remember personal responsibility and the fact that the legal and moral obligation of all drivers to drive safely and to report any health condition to their employer exists in law.

“OSA is treatable when identified, and we need to ensure that employers are aware of the condition and that they have processes in place to monitor all sorts of health conditions, including OSA, in employees who drive as part of their work.”

October start for HSE cost-recovery confirmed 29 June 2012

The HSE’s cost-recovery scheme, known as Fee for Intervention (FFI), will begin on 1 October, subject to Parliamentary approval, the regulator has announced.

As well as confirming the start date for the scheme, the HSE has also published initial guidance explaining how the scheme will work in practice, along with examples illustrating how it will be applied.

The scheme was originally expected to come into force in April but was postponed following the HSE’s decision to take more time to discuss certain “technical details” and carry out a test run.

Announcing the date of the scheme’s launch today (29 June), HSE programme director Gordon MacDonald stressed that law-abiding businesses will not pay a penny and that the Executive will only recover costs from duty-holders that are found to be in material breach of health and safety law.

“We have worked with industry representatives in shaping the final form of the scheme, and the published guidance explains how the scheme will work and what businesses can do to comply with the law and avoid incurring a fee,” he explained.
 
“It is right that those who break the law should pay their fair share of the costs to put things right, and not the public purse. Firms who manage workplace risks properly will not pay.”

Detailed advice on the scheme’s operation is now available in a newly published guidance document on the HSE’s website. The guidance includes a number of examples of material breaches but does not cover every scenario where FFI might apply. It also explains how the scheme will operate in accordance with the HSE’s existing Enforcement Management Model (EMM) and the Enforcement Policy Statement (EPS).

The process for handling queries and disputed invoices is also covered, although full guidance on these procedures will be published on the HSE website in advance of the Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations 2012 – under which FFI is being introduced – coming into effect.

The new guidance confirms that the fee payable by duty-holders found to be in material breach of the law is £124 per hour, except where work is contracted to the Health and Safety Laboratory, or a specialist third party, in which instances the actual cost to the HSE of the service will be recovered from the duty-holder. The fee includes all work that is needed to identify a material breach and all work to ensure that the breach is remedied.

FFI will apply when an inspector:

• identifies a contravention of health and safety law;
• is of the opinion that the contravention is serious enough to require written notification (i.e. it is a material breach); and
• notifies the person contravening the law of their opinion, in writing, by a notification of contravention, Improvement or Prohibition Notice, or prosecution.

Invoices will generally be sent to duty-holders every two months, and payment is due to the HSE within 30 days of the date of the invoice.

With disputes, all initial inquiries will be treated as a query for which no fee is payable. However, if duty-holders are not satisfied with the response to their query, they can formally dispute the invoice by writing to the HSE and setting out the specific reasons why they do not believe the charge is valid. A fee is payable for handling disputes.

Existing arrangements for making an appeal against an Improvement or Prohibition Notice remain unchanged.
Steffan Groch, a partner at DWF solicitors, said FFI is of particular concern for smaller businesses. “Depending on experience and style, some inspectors may take longer than others to complete the investigation, which will undoubtedly lead to discrepancies across the board, meaning some businesses could pay much more than others,” he explained.

“Apart from knowing that the hourly rate will be £124, businesses will have no way of knowing what the final bill will come to until the very end of the case. What’s more, there appears to be no room for discussion or negotiations until this stage either, as the first time that a business can raise an objection is when they receive the invoice for the investigation. Ultimately, it is smaller businesses that are going to suffer as a result of the FFI regulation.”

The initial ‘Guidance on the application of Fee for Intervention’ is available at www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse47.htm but a final version will be published prior to the start date of the scheme

Minister orders second Löfstedt report          
   

Löfstedt has been asked by employment minister Chris Grayling to prepare a follow-up “mini-report” in the Autumn for publication by the end of January 2013 assessing progress in making his proposed changes.

“I have been asked to report on whether I am satisfied by the way the government is implementing my 26 recommendations,”. “And if I think anything else should be done.”

The recommendations from last year’s review, almost all of which were accepted by Grayling, included exempting some self-employed people from compliance with safety law, a review of core safety law to see if some common requirements can be consolidated and simplification of the HSE’s 53 approved codes of practice which guide dutyholders on how to meet regulatory requirements.

He said the team of researchers at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) who helped with the review will reassemble later in the year to help him evaluate progress on the recommendations.

The challenge panel made up of representatives of unions business and the major political parties, which advised him on last year’s review will probably reconvene for one meeting.

The result will be a 10-page summary of progress submitted to the minister in January and then made public.

The first report suggested varying deadlines for the proposed changes such as April 2013 for the HSE to review the Work at Height Regulations and April 2015 to examine regulations limited to particular industrial sectors such as construction, to see if there is scope for consolidating them.

The suggested timescales were later shortened by the prime minister, who said in an article in London’s Evening Standard newspaper in January that he had asked for most of the recommendations to be implemented by the end of this year.

Löfstedt said he had not seen a proposed timetable from the HSE or DWP but said he understood ministers were keeping up the pressure to meet the end-of-year deadline. “It’s getting tighter and tighter,” he said

Can I incorporate a water risk assessment into a standard risk assessment?

Yes, a water (Legionella) risk assessment can form part of a general risk assessment.

But the water risk assessment has to be suitable and sufficient to cover the specific measures associated with control of Legionella, which are set out in detail in the HSE’s L8 code of practice. In brief, the assessment should identify where there are:

• suitable conditions for Legionella growth: water temperature of 25oC to 45oC.
• means of dissemination, such as showers or air-conditioning units, as the disease is contracted by the inhalation of contaminated water droplets.
• presence and nature of the people exposed. Old and infirm people are more prone to contracting Legionnaires’ disease.

A water risk assessment typically includes the schematic drawings of your water systems, the asset register, measures to control the risk and monitoring programmes.

Legionella assessments should be carried out at least every two years or when there is a significant change to the water system, and are needed for all commercial buildings with water systems, not just those with cooling towers.

Ensure there is proper training for anyone tasked with maintaining the control systems; it is good practice to provide employees with toolbox talks to understand the potential hazards.

Most organisations trust water assessments to specialists. Whoever is assigned the task must be competent and have sufficient experience, expertise and training in the systems.

Building sites found putting workers at risk

Almost half of the refurbishment construction projects in and around Stamford Hill in North East London have failed health and safety spot checks.

A day-long inspection initiative by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) last week (3 July) saw a small team of Inspectors visit 22 construction sites across North Hackney and South Tottenham, Haringey.

An example of a dangerous working platform several metres above ground

Enforcement action had to be taken at nine of those sites, with six Prohibition Notices served requiring dangerous practices to stop immediately, and six Improvement Notices served requiring safety improvements to be made. One site was completely closed down due to exceptionally hazardous conditions.

Five of the Prohibition Notices served related to unsafe work at height. Training and welfare concerns accounted for the Improvement Notices.

Mike Williams, Principal Inspector for HSE's construction division in North and East London said:

"Construction remains one of Britain's most dangerous industries and fatal incidents across London have shown how devastating they can be.

"We are very concerned at the number of small sites that are failing to take the most basic precautions to protect workers and members of the public. Good health and safety on construction sites is a legal requirement and we will continue to clamp down on dangerous practices or poor standards until the message gets through.

"Contractors must properly plan their work and protect their workers from risks such as falls from height or structures collapsing."

Common issues found during the inspections were:

• Basic precautions were missing, such as edge protection to prevent falls from height
• Work was not properly planned
• Poorly trained site managers
• Inadequate welfare facilities for workers

Worker's injury leads to court case for firm

A North Yorkshire firm has been fined after a worker became trapped by the head and neck in a packaging machine at its factory in Whitley Bridge, near Selby.

Cromar Building Products Ltd was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for safety failings after it investigated the incident on 16 February last year.

Selby Magistrates Court heard (3 July) that Mr Glyn Addison was working on a packaging machine when a wrapping unit developed a fault that stopped it from correctly sealing polythene around rolls of roof felt on a production line.

Mr Addison squeezed past a table where the finished rolls were discharged and reached under the roll conveyor to free some packaging film from the machine. As he did, a ram pushing the rolls of felt on to the packaging machine moved forward and trapped him by the head and neck against the frame of the conveyor.

The court heard Mr Addison was quickly freed by a colleague who prised away the ram. However, he suffered nerve damage to his neck and shoulder area and has not returned to work since.

HSE discovered that the wrapping machine often blocked and operatives regularly accessed the machine by walking between gaps down either side of the discharge table.

It found that Cromar Building Products had failed to ensure that the machine could be effectively isolated so employees were unable to access dangerous moving parts. There was also no safe system of work for employees to follow.

Cromar Building Products Ltd of The Maltings Industrial Estate, Whitley Bridge, pleaded guilty to a single breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act l974. The company was fined £2,750 and ordered to pay £3,039 in costs.

After the case, HSE Inspector Helen Hennessy said:

"There is no doubt that this incident could have been avoided. It highlights the need for employers to ensure they devise and maintain safe systems of work, and that machinery is properly isolated before workers enter the danger zone.

"It was lucky that Mr Addison's injuries were not life-threatening, but if his colleague had not been there to release him quickly, the outcome could have been very different.

"Employers must provide adequate safeguards and ensure their staff are given the right information, procedures and systems to allow them to do their jobs in safety."

Two firms fined for Telford incident

Two companies have been fined for safety failings after an employee lost three fingers and part of his thumb.

The 37-year-old man, who does not wish to be named, had been working with another employee for O'Neill Concrete Pumping Ltd to pump concrete into a garden in Wrockwardine, Telford, on 27 February 2010.

When the job was finished he went to clean the hopper and lifted the automatic locking hopper grille. As he did, the swinging tube, which is part of the pumping mechanism, moved and trapped his right hand, crushing his fingers. He was taken to hospital and had three fingers and part of his thumb amputated. The employee needed extensive surgery and has been traumatised by his injuries.

During the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecution, Telford Magistrates' Court heard that Transcrete (GB) Ltd supplied the concrete pump to O'Neill Concrete Pumping Ltd. There were defects found with the machine supplied.

Following the incident Prohibition Notices were immediately served on two lorry-mounted concrete pumps owned and used by O'Neill Concrete Pumping Ltd due to the failure of the interlocking system on the hopper.

HSE found that O'Neill had failed to ensure that effective measures were taken to prevent access to dangerous parts of the hopper of the lorry-mounted concrete pump and that Transcrete had failed to ensure that it was designed to be safe when it was being cleaned or maintained.

O'Neill Concrete Pumping Ltd, of Wellington Road, Bilston, West Midlands, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and were fined £3,000 with costs of £2,000.

Transcrete (GB) Ltd, of Pool Lane, Winterley, Sandbach, Cheshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 6(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for failing to ensure the concrete pump supplied was safe between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2006. They were fined £4,000 with costs of £2,000.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Guy Dale said:

"The employee will see his injuries every day and have to change the way he lives for the rest of his life. A safe, compliant machine and simple safety checks would have meant the incident would never have occurred.

"Both the supplier and user of the machine had a duty to ensure they were safe and that the critical parts were assessed and the appropriate measures were taken."

Ladders - pre use checks - things to look for

Every time you use a ladder you should do a pre-use check beforehand to make sure that it is safe for use.

A pre use check should be carried out by:

• the user;
• at the beginning of the working day; and
• after something has changed i.e. ladder dropped or moved from a dirty area to a clean area (check state or condition of feet).

The benefit of conducting daily pre-use checks is that they provide the opportunity to pick up any immediate/serious defects before they cause an accident.

1. Leaning ladders

Stiles need to be in good condition
Do not use the ladder if they are bent or split the ladder could collapse.

• Check the stiles
  Do not use the ladder if they are bent or damaged the ladder could buckle or collapse.

• Check the feet
  Do not use the ladder if they are missing or worn or damaged the ladder could slip.

• Check the rungs
  Do not use the ladder if they are bent, missing or loose the ladder could become unstable.

2. Step ladders pre-use checks - things to look for

• Check the locking bars
  Do not use the ladder if they are bent or the fixings are worn or damaged the ladder could collapse.

• Check the feet
  Do not use the ladder if they are missing or worn or damaged the ladder could slip.

• Check the stepladder platform
  Do not use the ladder if it is split or buckled the ladder could become unstable or collapse.

• Check the steps or treads
  Do not use the ladder if they are contaminated they could be slippery.

• Check the steps
  Do not use the ladder if the fixings are loose they could collapse.

• Check the stiles
  Do not use the ladder if they are bent or damaged the ladder could buckle or collapse.