Myth Busters

A Town Council have a sign saying "Please do not feed the gulls in the interests of health and safety"

Issue

A Town Council have a sign saying "Please do not feed the gulls. In the interests of health and safety please do not encourage these birds. They may look pretty but can be very aggressive & could easily hurt people, especially small children. Thank you for your co-operation."

Panel decision

Whilst this is not an occupational safety and health issue, the council are taking reasonable steps to engage the public and deter people from feeding seagulls in the interests of public safety and health. They scavenge food from a number of sources which may present public health risks and can be aggressive. The panel does not consider this notice to be an unreasonable use of the term "health and safety" because it did not imply there was any form of regulation in place.

Banners taken from football supporters for health and safety reasons

Issue

In a Telegraph newspaper article about Daniel Levy, Chairman of Tottenham Hotspur Football club, and run of poor results, it stated that "An increasing number of Spurs supporters are turning on Levy and there were claims on social media that fans had 'Levy Out' banners taken off them by club stewards at the game against Stoke City on Sunday. Anybody wishing to take a banner inside White Hart Lane must get the prior approval of the club for health and safety reasons."

Panel decision

The club does have a rule in place that requires all banners (not just those about an unpopular 'chairman'!) to be notified in advance and this is for fire safety reasons. Given the challenges of crowd management at football matches this is an entirely reasonable rule to have in place.

Managing Agent says a garden pond has to be fenced in

Issue

A residents association for a residential development of 75 dwellings has been told by their new managing agent that they must fence in the feature garden pond in the middle of the parkland grounds due to health and safety. The development has been like this for 25 years.

Panel decision

There is no legal requirement for ponds and open water to be fenced off and the panel is unanimous in regarding this as an over the top and disproportionate approach being suggested by the site management. Fencing may appear to be a "solution" but could easily create different risks. A rethink is required here.

Shopfitting firm fined for Oxford Street hoarding collapse

Shoppers were crushed when a large hoarding collapsed in the heart of Oxford Street less than 24 hours after it had been erected, a court has heard.

Four people were injured, three seriously, in the incident on 7 March 2012. They included 25 year-old Charlotte Hammond, from Romford, who sustained an open fracture of her right ankle that required extensive surgery.

The hoarding, which was some 3.6m high and weighed nearly a tonne, had been put up the previous day by Wiltshire-based Oracle Interiors Ltd to fence off a clothing store that was being refurbished.

The shopfitting firm was prosecuted after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) identified serious flaws with the temporary structure.

Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard the hoarding was held in place by a single timber brace. As such it was inherently weak and wasn’t designed or installed to sufficiently withstand gusts of wind or knocks from passing shoppers, both of which should have been factored in.

An estimated 20 people were trapped by the hoarding when it came down, although most managed to escape unharmed as emergency crews and fellow passers-by rushed to help.

Injuries sustained by the other victims, none of whom want to be identified, included broken bones in the back and crushed nerves in an arm.

Oracle Interiors Ltd, of Lysander Way, Salisbury, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £13,069 in costs after pleading guilty to a single breach of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Wendy Garnett commented:

“The law clearly states that all temporary structures, including hoardings, should be properly designed, and so installed as to withstand any foreseeable loads imposed on them.

“That clearly wasn’t the case on this occasion and innocent shoppers were subjected to a frightening and, for some, hugely traumatic ordeal that had a long-term impact.

“Charlotte and others could easily have been killed by the hoarding and they were completely unaware that it posed a risk – not only to them, but to the tens of thousands of people who walked along Oxford Street that busy afternoon.
“Oracle Interiors Ltd could and should have done more to prevent the collapse.”

Consett firm prosecuted after trainee injured

A Consett firm has been fined after a worker was injured when he became trapped between the basket of a cherrypicker and a steel rail during a construction project in Newcastle.

The 20-year-old, from Consett, who does not want to be named, was working as a trainee steel erector for Crossgill Construction Ltd when the incident happened on 21 February 2013.

He had been helping to install cladding rails to a building extension at a site, in Walker Riverside, when he became trapped between a rail in the basket of the cherrypicker he was operating and one of the newly-installed rails.

He broke his jaw in three places, suffered a severe cut all the way through the right side of his cheek as well as other cuts to the face and a bruised shoulder. He was in hospital for two days following the incident.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Crossgill Construction Ltd for safety failings after investigating the incident.

Newcastle Magistrates’ Court heard the trainee, working with another steel erector, had just installed a fifth rail when the bottom of the basket of his cherrypicker became lodged on the steel rail below. It then came loose, causing it to shoot upwards, trapping him between the basket rail and the newly-installed steel rail above.

HSE found that Crossgill Construction Ltd had failed to properly plan and manage the risks from erecting the cladding rails.

The court was told the steelwork had been stored on the ground outside the main frame of the extension, which prevented both workers from positioning their cherrypickers outside the frame.

The rails were also raised into position by being lifted, unsecured, on the basket of one of the cherrypickers, and then rested, again unsecured, onto cleats on the steel frame. The workers then had to move their cherrypickers into a position that enabled them to bolt the rails into place.

The company had failed to consider the risks of workers being trapped or crushed between the basket of the cherrypickers and other objects and had failed to identify measures to avoid that risk as a result.

Crossgill Construction Ltd, of Front Street, Castleside, Consett, was fined £6,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 13(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. The company was also ordered to pay £865.30 costs.

Speaking after the case, HSE inspector Andrea Robbins said:

“This incident could easily have been prevented if both cherrypickers had been positioned outside the frame of the extension.

“Instead a young worker was badly injured and could have been killed because Crossgill Construction Ltd failed to plan and manage the work to ensure it was carried out safely.

“When used safely, mobile elevated work platforms, or cherrypickers, can significantly reduce the risk of injuries from falls from height, but in recent years there has been a significant number of incidents in which workers have been crushed against fixtures or other obstacles, including several fatalities.

“Extra care therefore needs to be taken if such equipment is used to manoeuvre through several layers of steelwork as there is a risk of the operator being trapped should the boom or basket strike the frame.”

Four prosecuted after roof fall death

A developer, scaffolding company, its director and a roofer have been sentenced after a worker fell around seven metres to his death in Staffordshire.

Stafford Crown Court  heard that, on 29 December 2010, experienced roofer Phillip Lonergan was installing the roof on a new warehouse being built by E2 Developments Ltd on land at Cotton Lane, Fauld, Tutbury.

 

He was standing on the edge of the roof when he slipped and fell through a gap of more than 50 centimetres between two scaffolding rails erected to form temporary edge protection.

 

Mr Lonergan, 36, of Burton-on-Trent, died in hospital the same day from head injuries.

 

An HSE investigation found that the edge protection had been provided by Nottinghamshire-based Albion Tower and Scaffold Ltd. The company’s director, Lee Cotterill, who had no formal qualifications as a scaffolder, had overall control of the design, planning and construction of the edge protection and personally signed it off as being safe.

 

The edge protection was in the form of two scaffolding guardrails running around the roof edge, which were attached to horizontal scaffolding tubes. However, British Standards only allow a minimum of two guardrails to be in place when the angle of the roof is ten degrees or less. The roof Mr Lonergan was working on had a pitch of 20 degrees.

 

Roofer Peter Allum was approached by E2 to install the roof panels and he, in turn, offered a number of roofers the work, including Mr Lonergan. He was supplied with the roof plans showing the 20-degree angle in October 2010 but failed to deal with the risks posed by the inadequate edge protection.

 

The investigation also found E2 Developments was not aware of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 which required the company, as the client, to notify HSE of the work and appoint a competent scheme co-ordinator and principal contractor.

 

E2 Developments Ltd, of Hopley Road, Anslow, Burton-on-Trent, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 14(1), 14(2) and 22 of the Construction, Design and Management Regulations 2007 and was fined a total of £66,000 with costs of £13,200.

 

Peter Allum, 41, of Beamhill Road, Burton-on-Trent, admitted breaching Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £1,500 with £1,500 costs.

 

Lee Cotterill, 53, of Marple Drive, Aston-on-Trent, Derby, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was sentenced to three months in prison, suspended for 12 months, and ordered to pay costs of £4,000.

 

Albion Tower and Scaffold (East Midlands) Ltd, of Common Lane, Watnall, Nottinghamshire, was fined £53,000 and ordered to pay £15,500 in costs after pleading guilty to the same offence.

 

Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Lindsay Hope said:

 

“Each defendant failed to ensure Mr Lonergan and other roofers could work safely. In each case their failure was a significant cause of Mr Lonergan’s death.

“The temporary edge protection should have had a third guardrail to reduce the space for a person to slide through. It should also have had netting around the edge, or toe boards. No such safety measures were in place. The edge protection was therefore inadequate to reduce the risk of serious harm – something that should have been obvious to both Albion and its director Lee Cotterill.

 

“E2 was provided with architects’ plans showing the roof was at a 20-degree pitch but failed to plan, manage or monitor the work in order to eliminate the risk of a fall. One of the directors had never heard of the regulations the company should have been working to. It was therefore very difficult for the company to discharge its duties under those Regulations if directors were ignorant of them.

 

“Peter Allum was aware of the obvious risk of harm posed by the inadequate rails, but did nothing about it. As an experienced roofer he could, and should, have tackled the issue.”

 

Firms fined after worker suffers multiple injuries

Two companies have been fined after a lorry driver suffered multiple injuries whilst loading his lorry.

Leicester Crown Court were told that on the 26 October 2010, railway engine wheels weighing more than 2.5 tonnes each were being loaded onto the back of a lorry driven by Mark Furborough, at Brush Electrical Machines Ltd in Meadow Lane, Loughborough.

A fork lift truck was being used to load the wheels and was being driven by an employee of Brush Electrical Machines Ltd. It was fitted with a lifting beam manufactured by Keenhandle Ltd.  Halfway through the lifting operation, the beam became detached from the fork lift truck and struck Mr Furborough.
Mr Furborough who was 44 years old at the time, suffered two broken bones in his left leg, a torn ligament, a broken left wrist and a broken rib. He was off work for nine months and is no longer able to work as a lorry driver.

An investigation by the HSE found that Brush Electrical Machines Ltd was loading the wheels using an unsafe system of work and inappropriate equipment.

The investigation also found that Keenhandle Ltd, as supplier of the lifting beam, should have provided information and instruction to Brush Electrical Machines Ltd in its intended and safe operation, so that it would not be misused.
Brush Electrical Machines Ltd, of Arden Road, Alcester, Warwickshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for failing to protect people not in their employment.

Keenhandle Ltd, of Loughborough Road, Quorn, Leicestershire, was found guilty at a trial in Leicester Crown Court in June of this year of a breach of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for failing to protect people not in their employment.

Brush Electrical Machines Ltd was fined £67,000 and ordered to pay costs of £15,500. Keenhandle Ltd was fined £25,000 and ordered to pay costs of £60,000

After the hearing HSE inspector David Lefever said:

“This incident was entirely preventable”.

“Keenhandle Ltd failed to give the other company adequate instructions on how the equipment that they manufactured should be used and failed to assess the foreseeable risks posed by the use of the equipment”.

“Brush Electrical Machines Ltd failed to utilise a safe system of work, something which they could easily have done”.

 “The failings by both companies resulted in a man suffering painful injuries which has cost him his job as a lorry driver.”

Firm in court over dangerous saws

A Tameside gate manufacturer has been fined £10,000 after it ignored a formal warning about installing guards on two circular saws.

Openshaw Bespoke Timber Gates Ltd was prosecuted by the HSE after it continued to expose its workforce to danger by operating the saws for one month after being ordered to take them out of use at its workshop on the Greenside Trading Estate in Droylsden.

Trafford Magistrates’ Court heard that two inspectors had spotted the unprotected saws during an unannounced visit to the site on 14 April 2014. They issued a Prohibition Notice requiring the saws not to be used until guards had been fitted.

When HSE inspectors returned to the site a month later, they found the saws still in use and no attempt had been made by the firm to fit guards.

Openshaw Bespoke Timber Gates Ltd, of Greenside Lane in Droylsden, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £729 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by failing to comply with a Prohibition Notice.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Sarah Taylor said:

“When we first visited the factory in April, we were immediately concerned by two of the saws which were not guarded and could easily have resulted in an employee losing a finger.

“We therefore issued a Prohibition Notice requiring the saws to be taken out of use but the company failed to take any action until we returned to the site one month later, despite it being a legal requirement.

“The firm has since subcontracted its wood cutting work to an outside firm so the saws are not needed. If it had done this when we first served the notice, or fitted guards to the saws, then it would have avoided having to pay a court fine.”

Firm fined after worker blinded in one eye

An Edinburgh firm has been prosecuted for safety failings after a worker was severely injured and left blind in one eye when he was struck by a piece of high tensile wire.

Declan Shipcott, 20, of Alexandria, was working for Viridor Enviroscot Ltd at its Materials Recycling facility in Bargeddie, Glasgow, when the incident happened on 24 September 2012.

Airdrie Sheriff Court heard that Mr Shipcott was helping two colleagues clear a blockage on a baler machine, which had a wire tie mechanism to bind bales of waste material. The blockage was preventing the strapping wire from wrapping around the bale.

After 30 minutes they had been unable to clear the blockage and so cut the wire. The remaining wire was within a “recoil” box, which had a button to release any tension still in the wire.

Mr Shipcott opened the box to find that the wire had become knotted and, unable to undo the knot, he used wire cutters to cut it free. At that point a piece of wire flicked out and struck him on the face and left eye. He was not wearing any eye protection at the time.

He was rushed to hospital and underwent emergency surgery to repair a cut to the cornea of his left eye and had to undergo further surgery the following month to remove the damaged lens and re-attach his retina.

This was only partially successful and he is now blind in his left eye, although he can see light, and has been told his vision will not improve due to the extent of the damage.

An investigation by the HSE revealed that although there was a risk assessment for replacing the wire in the machine, there was nothing referring to cutting the wire, although the fact that wire cutters were available at the machine acknowledged that sometimes wire had to be cut.

The court heard there was no safe system of work for those involved in cutting high tensile wire and that the company had also failed to distribute and ensure the use of personal protective equipment, such as safety glasses.

The company reviewed its risk assessments following the incident and employees now wear a full face visor when working at the baler.

Viridor Enviroscot Ltd, of Edinburgh Quay, Fountainbridge, Edinburgh, was fined £165,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Following the case, HSE inspector Aileen Jardine said:

“This incident could have easily been avoided if Viridor Enviroscot Ltd had carried out a risk assessment for the task, which would have identified the safety measures required to reduce any risks.

“The simple act of donning eye protection before working with high tensile wire may well have prevented this incident taking place. Instead, his employer’s failings led to an incident which has had real life changing consequences for this young man.”

Architects fined for safety failings in care home construction

A firm of architects has been fined for safety failings in the construction of a new timber frame care home in Hemlington.

Teesside Magistrates’ Court heard that Mario Minchella Ltd had not given contractors relevant information about the flammability of the timber frame used in the construction of the new building in October 2012.

A routine inspection of the work by a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspector found that the separation distance between the new timber frame building under construction and an adjacent occupied care home was insufficient.

As a result, had the timber frame caught fire there was a serious risk that the radiant heat would cause the fire to spread to the care home, putting the lives of residents and staff inside at risk.

HSE found that there was nothing in the design specification produced by Mario Minchella Ltd to alert construction workers erecting the timber frame to the additional fire risk it created, and the need to take action accordingly.

The court was told that it would have been reasonable for Mario Minchella Ltd to have specified in its design that fire-resistant timber be used or that it considered the sequence of construction so that the timber frame of each floor was clad before the next one was constructed, reducing the amount of timber exposed at any one time.

Mario Minchella Ltd, of Swallow House, Parsons Road, Washington, Tyne and Wear, was fined a total of £1,500 after pleading guilty to two breaches of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. The company was also ordered to pay £816 costs.

Speaking after the case, HSE inspector Andrea Robbins said:

“Timber frames will burn faster and more completely when the panels are incomplete and not yet protected by the usual internal fire-resistant plasterboard and external cladding. 

“When burning, exposed timber frame structures generate a lot of radiant heat and there have been a number of large and serious fires which have affected neighbouring properties with devastating consequences, though thankfully without loss of life.

“There was a real danger here that had there been a fire it could have spread to the adjacent care home, putting the lives of the residents and staff inside at risk. Mario Minchella Ltd failed to consider this risk in its design and failed to provide sufficient information to the contractors to enable them to carry out the construction safely.”

Plasterer breaks back in fall at Cheshire mansion

A Cheshire building firm has been fined after a plasterer broke his back when he fell three metres during the construction of a six-bedroom house.

CB Homes Ltd, which was the main contractor for the development in Little Budworth, was prosecuted by the HSE after an investigation found the company had failed to make sure adequate guard rails were in place on the first floor landing to prevent falls.

Trafford Magistrates’ Court heard that the 58-year-old from Wrexham, who has asked not to be named, had been fitting plasterboard when he fell from the open landing on 22 May 2013. He suffered two cracked vertebrae along with damage to his spine, hips and legs.

The court was told CB Homes had been managing a project to build seven new homes at Mondrem Green on Chester Road. The company had hired a plastering firm to plaster the inside of the houses but failed to make sure this work could be carried out safely.

The plasterer had needed to use a ladder to reach the first floor, and there was no guard rail in place along the open edge on the landing. He was carrying a piece of plasterboard when he lost his footing and fell to the ground floor below. 

CB Homes Ltd, of High Street in Tarporley, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £1,376 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to two breaches of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

 

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Laura Moran said:

“A plasterer suffered serious injuries in the fall which could, and should, have been prevented.

“As the principal contractor on the site, CB Homes was responsible for making sure work at height could be carried out safely. If the company had planned and supervised the work properly then it could have made sure guard rails were in place.

“Companies who take on big construction projects have a legal duty to make sure the tradesmen they bring onto the site can do their job safely. CB Homes fell well below that legal requirement on this occasion.”

Safety failings land scaffolding firm in court

A Carmarthenshire scaffolding company has been fined for safety failings that exposed workers to serious risks of injury from a fall.

It follows an inspection on 22 May 2014 by the HSE at a site in Old Station Road, Carmarthen, next to the safety regulator’s local office.

At the time, a scaffolder was seen standing on a platform only two boards wide at a height of approximately four metres. There were no guard rails in place or any other means to prevent a fall, such as the use of a harness.

Llanelli Magistrates’ Court heard that it wasn’t the first time that HSE had been forced to take action against Castle Scaffolding (Wales) Ltd for unsafe work at height.  

The company had previously received written warnings from HSE. The first occasion in January 2012 resulted in a Prohibition Notice being issued and the second occasion in September 2013 resulted in the company receiving a Notice of Contravention. Both instances concerned unsafe systems of work relating to the erection and dismantling of scaffolding. 

Castle Scaffolding (Wales) Ltd, of Old Coal Yard, Tir Onnen, Station Road, St Clears, Carmarthenshire, was fined a total of £10,600 and ordered to pay £2,500 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and Regulation 5 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

Speaking after the case, HSE Inspector Hayley Healey said:

“While it is fortunate that no-one was injured during the work in Old Station Road, the erection and dismantling of the scaffold was clearly unsafe, and those working on the scaffolding were exposed unnecessarily to high levels of risk.
“Death and serious injury following falls from height are all too common, and proper planning is vital to ensure the work is carried out safely and that the correct precautions are identified and used at all times.

“Castle Scaffolding fell far short of the standards required to ensure that work was carried out in a safe manner. It is of particular concern that the company failed to implement adequate monitoring of health and safety standards following previous intervention and advice by HSE inspectors.”

Contractor’s safety failings led to employee’s life-changing injuries

A Melksham construction company has been prosecuted after a crane operator suffered an electric shock when the equipment he was using came into contact with overhead power lines.

Sub-contractor Lee Burge 38, who lives near Bristol, was using the crane to move sections of steel at Trowbridge Rugby Club on 20 March 2013, where a new clubhouse and play area were being built by Ashford Homes (South Western) Ltd.

Swindon Crown Court heard that as Mr Burge started to lift a section of steel using the crane, the hook block came into contact with an 11kV power line and he suffered an electric shock. Mr Burge was resuscitated but now suffers from long term memory loss.

An investigation by the HSE established that Ashford Homes had been warned by the electricity company about the presence of overhead power cables, and had received advice on the removal of the power supplies running across the site. However, no measures were put in place by the company to prevent plant and equipment accessing the area beneath the power lines or for the power supply to be diverted or isolated.

Ashford Homes (South Western) Ltd of Merlin Way, Bower Hill, Melksham, was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,159 after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 34(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.

Speaking after sentencing HSE inspector Ian Whittles, said:

“Work near overhead power lines should be carefully planned and managed so that risks from contact or close proximity to the lines are adequately controlled. Ashford Homes failed to do this, and had been operating a range of machinery capable of coming close to the lines before Mr Burge was seriously injured.
“Luckily Mr Burge was resuscitated, but he now suffers from life changing complications due the electric shock he received. He was extremely close to losing his life and this is down to the failure of the construction company to adopt a safe system of work.

“This terrible incident could have been avoided had the company placed physical barriers on site so that no plant or equipment could gain access to either side and directly below the overhead power lines, or if the hive voltage cables were diverted or isolated.”

Contractor fined for potential asbestos risk

A County Durham contractor has been sentenced after illegally removing asbestos from a garage, putting himself, other workers and the householder at risk of exposure.

John Simpson, trading as Dun N Dusted and offering waste removal services, was paid £900 by a householder to remove asbestos from a garage under his house in Jesmond, Newcastle. He had told the owner he was licensed to remove the dangerous material despite not being so. 

On 25 April 2013, Mr Simpson arrived at the property with two other men. Working alone inside the garage and wearing paper overalls and a face mask, Mr Simpson spent most of the afternoon taking down the asbestos insulating board ceiling using a hammer and chisel. 

The other men then helped to bag the asbestos debris and loaded some 20 bags into Mr Simpson’s van, parked outside the house. 

A neighbour, who was concerned about the way the work was carried out, contacted the HSE.  Inspectors stopped Mr Simpson undertaking any similar work by serving a Prohibition Notice and investigated the incident. 

Newcastle Magistrates’ Court heard that HSE found that Mr Simpson was neither qualified or licensed to remove asbestos. 

Mr Simpson failed to take suitable measures to prevent the spread of potentially deadly asbestos fibres – the debris had been simply cleared up using a brush and a domestic vacuum cleaner before being bagged and loaded into the van. 
The court was told the nature of the work meant that it should have been notified to HSE and that Mr Simpson had not carried out any risk assessment nor identified the type of asbestos contained in the garage. He had not prepared a written plan of work and the equipment and clothing he used did not offer adequate protection from exposure. 

No air sampling had been carried out and Mr Simpson did not produce a certificate for reoccupation once the work was complete. 

John Simpson, 41, of Portland Avenue, Deneside, Seaham was fined a total of £1,500 and ordered to pay £1,383 in costs after pleading guilty to two breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. 

Speaking after the case HSE inspector Sal Brecken said: “Asbestos is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in the UK, with some 4,500 deaths each year due to asbestos-related diseases, as well as many serious illnesses. 

“For this reason, work with asbestos requires a high degree of regulatory control to ensure it is carried out safely. Mr Simpson decided to ignore the fact an asbestos licence was required to undertake this work and his actions not only put him at risk, but also the householder and those working alongside him. 
“Full compliance with asbestos legislation, in particular licensing requirements, is absolutely essential. HSE will continue to vigorously enforce the law to protect both workers and members of the public from exposure to this deadly substance.” 

She added: “When sentencing Mr Simpson, the magistrates said they considered this breach very serious and a custodial sentence was strongly considered but due to it being his first health and safety offence they decided to deal with it by way of a fine.” 

Suspended sentence for unregistered plumber who failed to spot boiler faults

A Derbyshire plumber has appeared in court for carrying out gas work without being registered and for failing to notice faults on an unsafe boiler.

Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court heard that between December 2012 and February 2014, Christopher Buck carried out gas work at a number of properties without being registered with Gas Safe, as the law requires.

It was a deliberate breach because he knew of the need to be formally accredited after previously allowing an earlier registration to lapse.

An investigation by the HSE on 27 November 2013 revealed that Mr Buck had serviced a boiler at a house in Inkersall but failed to carry out all the necessary safety checks. He did not spot that pipe work was not properly sealed, which meant the boiler was unsafe and posed a potential risk to those living in the property.

Christopher Buck of Mansfield Road, Hillstown, Bolsover, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 3(3) and 26(9) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998. He was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for 12 months, for both breaches, to run concurrently. He was also ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid community work and to pay costs of £748.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Edward Walker said:

“Mr Buck knew there was a requirement to be registered and that he should not have been carrying out the work, so there was a deliberate breach. Not only was he not registered but he did not take due diligence when it came to carrying out the safety checks as part of the boiler service. Subsequently, he was leaving the people in the property at risk.”

Russell Krämer, chief executive of Gas Safe Register, commented:

“It is a legal requirement for all engineers working on gas to be registered. By not doing so, they are putting people’s lives in danger.

Firm fined after worker seriously injured in fall

A Jedburgh firm has been fined for safety failings after a worker was severely injured when he fell down a lift shaft as he was transporting a loaded cage trolley that landed on top of him.

James Douglas, then 62, of Jedburgh, was working for The L S Starrett Company Ltd at its premises in Oxnam Road, Jedburgh, when the incident happened on 20 June 2013.

Jedburgh Sheriff Court heard that Mr Douglas, who had worked for the company for 46 years, was transporting a loaded cage trolley, weighing around 519kg in total, from the upper level of the despatch area to the lower level using one of the three table lifts.

He saw that the lift gates were open, but the platform was not at the upper level so he moved to edge of the lift shaft to look down and see if anyone was using the lift at the lower level.

However, as he looked down he lost his balance and fell down into lift shaft, landing on the platform two metres below. The loaded cage then fell on top of him, trapping him from the top of his legs to his feet until colleagues arrived to free him.

He suffered several severe fractures to his right hip and heel as well as tissue damage to his sciatic nerve, knees and lower legs, and had to undergo surgery that included the insertion of four screws in his hip.

The court heard that immediately following the incident the company prohibited the use of all the table lifts in the factory until it had carried out a full internal investigation and implemented any changes identified. This led to the installation of interlocks and sensor switches on the lift shaft access gates, which prevented them from being open when the platform was not in position.
An investigation by the HSE revealed that had The L S Starrett Company Ltd carried out a suitable risk assessment in advance it would have identified the fact that it was possible for the gates at the upper level to be opened even if the platform was at the lower level, which exposed workers to the risk of falling down the lift shaft.

There was a duty on the company to maintain safe equipment and systems of work and it would have been reasonably practicable for it to have installed interlocks and platform positioning sensors which work automatically, and are thus effective at preventing entry into an exposed lift shaft.

The lifts were subject to a thorough examination every six months, as required under legislation, but the contractor had failed to notice this issue.
 The L S Starrett Company Ltd, of Oxnam Road, Jedburgh, was fined £3,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

 Following the case, HSE inspector Norman Buchanan said:

“This incident could have easily been avoided if The L S Starrett Company Ltd had carried out a risk assessment, which would have identified the fact that the upper level gates could be opened when the platform was not there.

“It would have been reasonably practicable for the company to have installed inter-locks and platform positioning sensors, as they did later. Such devices are considered as a standard requirement in lift installations throughout residential, industrial and commercial buildings, and their omission in this case was a critical factor in the cause of this incident.

“The fact that the company did install such devices afterwards shows that this was a reasonably practicable measure which they could have taken, had they done so Mr Douglas would not have suffered such serious injuries.”

Furniture manufacturer sentenced over worker’s hand injury

Furniture manufacturer Ercol has been fined for safety failings after an employee suffered severe injuries when his hand was caught in poorly-guarded machinery.

The 42-year old from High Wycombe, who does not wish to be named, was using a lathe machine to produce chair legs at Ercol Furniture Ltd’s factory in Buckinghamshire on 4 October 2013.

When he decided to change the felt on the drill locators, he reached across the machine to access a vertical drill at the rear. However, the drill started to operate, caught his hand and completely pierced his right palm. He managed to free himself by pushing his right arm down with his left hand and was taken to hospital. He needed an operation to repair the wound and was unable to work for around three months. He has now returned to Ercol, although not on the lathe machine.

The HSE investigated and prosecuted Ercol Furniture Ltd for safety breaches at High Wycombe Magistrates’ Court. 

The court heard that HSE found the lathe machine was inadequately guarded, leaving employees at risk of getting caught in dangerous moving parts. Ercol had also failed to properly assess the risks associated with operating the machine, especially as the worker had only started using the lathe two months prior to the incident.

Ercol had since installed a perimeter fence around the machine which now prevents access to the drill.

Ercol Furniture Ltd, of Summerleys Road, Princes Risborough, Buckinghamshire, was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay costs of £816 after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

Following the case, HSE inspector Karl Howes said:

“Incidents involving this type of machinery can cause serious, life-changing injuries, which is why onus is on employers to ensure that appropriate guards and systems of work are in place to protect workers from dangerous moving parts.

“The painful injury to this employee could easily have been avoided but Ercol failed in its responsibilities to assess what risks this piece of equipment presented and to put measures in place to address them.

“There are several deaths and many more injuries each year due to incidents where workers have been using unguarded or poorly-guarded machines, and most of these are easily prevented. Companies have a legal duty to ensure dangerous parts are effectively guarded before a machine is used, whether or not these are provided by the manufacturer.”

Skating on thin ice: preparing for winter weather

 

This winter, long-range weather forecasters are warning of heavy and persistent snow, freezing gales and sub-zero temperatures in the UK, and early 2015 is showing signs of temperatures hitting ‘record-breaking’ lows, meaning parts of Britain could see temperatures plunge to -27 degrees.

We are fortunate that we do not experience the same regularity of extreme weather conditions as the USA, Canada and parts of Eastern Europe but, in our increasingly unpredictable climate, when harsh weather strikes, public outcry invariably follows as to why the UK cannot manage just a few centimetres of snow.

Following the chaos wrought by the previous extreme winter weather in autumn 2010, the coldest in three decades, the UK government published the first official ‘Snow Code’. Ministers said that ‘they wanted to encourage a more common sense approach to clearing snow and reassure people they are unlikely to be sued if someone slips’. Yet, in Minneapolis, US state legislation declares that it is your legal obligation to clear snow.

There are also strict regulations in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Most German towns have a ‘street cleaning statute’. Snow-shovelling requirements are spelled out in detail, even down to the minimum width of the cleared area and the time during which you must keep the snow cleared.

The reactive approach still taken by many organisations in the UK, from schools, hospitals and care homes to factories, retailers and corporates can, however have massive health & safety and financial implications for those that fail to put a bespoke winter management plan in place.

The cost of people experiencing injuries on business premises in winter, and of related employee ill health, is vast in financial terms. Latest statistics published by HSE reveal that, in 2013/14, over 50 per cent of slips and trips occurred in the autumn/winter months and around half of these resulted in over 7 days’ absence from work.

With an increase in litigation, and ‘slipping on ice’ now one of the top causes of accidents, companies can no longer afford to rely on an ad hoc winter service approach to protect them from heavy financial penalties, loss of reputation, and prolonged down-time.

Yet, one of the most fundamental reasons that the UK does seem to be lagging behind other countries in managing extreme weather is that preparedness costs money. Looking at the short-term cost implications of having a winter maintenance plan in place detracts from the risk of the even greater financial burden and loss of reputation, should a business be found to neglect their duty of care and the health and safety of their employees by failing to tackle winter risks.

Organisations must have a planned approach to their winter maintenance programme with a winter risk management policy embedded in their health and safety policy to give peace of mind that they are doing all they can to keep their staff, residents, students, and visitors safe, and minimise the risk of litigation.

This should involve:

 

• continual monitoring of the plan and performance measurement against defined KPIs.

 

• a detailed site specification with identified hazardous areas and bespoke clearance and gritting instructions.

 

• regularly maintained vehicles and equipment.

 

• adequate supplies of clearance equipment, salt and grit bins.

• a clear process with allocated overall responsibility for overseeing the winter maintenance plan and specific tasks assigned to individuals.

The History of HSE

 

1833

HM Factory Inspectorate was formed

The first factory inspectors were appointed under the provisions of the Factories Act 1833. Initially their main duty was to prevent injury and overworking in child textile workers. The four inspectors were responsible for approximately 3,000 textile mills and had powers to enter mills and question workers. They were also able to formulate new regulations and laws to ensure the Factories Act could be suitably enforced. Despite serious opposition from contemporary politicians and employers, the factory inspectors were enthusiastic and were able to influence subsequent legislation relating to machinery guarding and accident reporting. By 1868 there were 35 inspectors and sub-inspectors, each responsible for a distinct geographical area. Changes to legislation during the period 1860 to 1871 extended the Factories Act to practically all workplaces and the inspectors took on the role of technical advisers in addition to their enforcement duties. Major technological developments, world wars and the changing nature of employment have provided a constant challenge to factory inspectors over subsequent years.

1843

Mines Inspectorate was formed

In 1840 a Royal Commission was established to investigate working conditions in the mining industry. The Commission's findings published in 1842 made shocking reading. Accidents, brutality, lung diseases, long hours and highly dangerous and adverse working conditions were found to be the norm. Public outcry resulted and the Mines Act 1842 was brought into force.
 
The Act allowed for the appointment of an inspector of mines and collieries and the first inspector, Hugh Seymour Tremenheere took up his post in 1843. Tremenheere had only limited powers under the Act but undertook many prosecutions, investigated the condition of the mining community and made recommendations for training managers, reporting of fatal and serious accidents and provision of pithead baths and suitable habitation for mine workers. In 1850 inspectors were allowed to enter and inspect mine premises and Tremenheere's plans for a dedicated mining inspectorate began to be realised.

1893

The first women factory inspector were appointed

The Factory Inspectorate was formed in 1833 and for the first 60 years it employed only male inspectors. Alexander Redgrave, the Chief Inspector of Factories was opposed to the idea of women inspectors, saying in his 1879 annual report:

"I doubt very much whether the office of factory inspector is one suitable for women... The general and multifarious duties of an inspector of factories would really be incompatible with the gentle and home-loving character of a woman..."

After several years of campaigning by the Women's Protective and Provident League, the London Women's Trades Council and others and amid growing support in Parliament, the first "Lady Inspectors", May Abraham and Mary Paterson were appointed in 1893. They were based in London and Glasgow respectively and earned an annual salary of £200. Much of their early work involved enforcing the Truck Acts, investigating women's hours of employment and enforcing health and safety in laundries.

1895

The Quarry Inspectorate was formed

Prior to the Quarries Act 1894, the only quarries that factory inspectors were responsible for inspecting were quarries using steam power. The introduction of the Quarries Act 1894 extended the powers of the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act 1872 to give inspectors the power to enforce provisions of notifying accidents, undertake prosecutions and make Special Rules. This lead to the establishment of the Quarry Inspectorate.

1956

Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act 1956

This Act introduced comprehensive health protection and safeguards for agricultural workers and for children who may come into contact with agricultural machinery, equipment or vehicles. It prohibited the lifting of excessive weights, outlined the general provisions that must be made for sanitary conveniences and washing facilities and stipulated requirements for first aid provision. The Act also laid down requirements for the notification and investigation of accidents and diseases. It was instrumental in appointing a number of inspectors with the powers to enter agricultural premises and enforce the Act.

1959

Nuclear Installations Act 1959 which established the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate

The investigation into a major incident at the Windscale nuclear site on 8 October 1957 lead to a recommendation from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) that a body should be set up with responsibility for licensing future civil reactors in the UK. The insurance industry added pressure to the debate and in 1959 the Nuclear Installations Act was passed, setting in train the formation of the Inspectorate of Nuclear Installations within the Ministry of Power. Today's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is responsible for the UK safety regulation of nuclear power stations, nuclear chemical plants, defence nuclear facilities, nuclear safety research, decommissioning and strategy. Since 2 April 2007 NII has also been responsible for civil nuclear operational security and safeguards matters.

1974

Flixborough chemical plant explosion (28 fatalities)

On Saturday 1 June 1974 a massive explosion destroyed a large part of the Nypro (UK) Ltd plant at Flixborough, near Scunthorpe. Twenty eight people were killed in the incident and 36 people suffered injuries. More casualties could have been expected if the incident had occurred on a week day. Widespread damage was caused to surrounding commercial premises and residential housing. The explosion resulted from the ignition and deflagration of a huge vapour cloud which formed when cyclohexane under pressure escaped from a part of the plant used in the production of cyclohexanone and cyclohexanol. Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate investigated the incident (this was before the Health and Safety Executive was formed) and produced an interim report. Following on from this, a formal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the explosion was undertaken by a Court of Inquiry chaired by Roger J. Parker QC.

Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974

The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 was described as "a bold and far-reaching piece of legislation" by HSE's first Director General, John Locke. It certainly marked a departure from the framework of prescribed and detailed regulations which was in place at the time. The Act introduced a new system based on less-prescriptive and more goal-based regulations, supported by guidance and codes of practice. For the first time employers and employees were to be consulted and engaged in the process of designing a modern health and safety system. The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 also established the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) for the purpose of proposing new regulations, providing information and advice and conducting research. HSC's operating arm, the Health and Safety Executive was formed shortly after in order to enforce health and safety law, a duty shared with Local Authorities.

Health and Safety Commission established

The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) was formed when the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 received Royal Assent on 31 July 1974. HSC's constitution and responsibilities were laid out in Sections 1, 10 and 11 of the Act and, according to the first HSC annual report (1977) included: "taking appropriate steps to secure the health, safety and welfare of people at work, to protect the public generally against risks to health and safety arising out of the work situation, to give general direction to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and guidance to Local Authorities on the enforcement provisions of the Act, to assist and encourage persons with duties under the Act and to make suitable arrangements for research and the provision of information." Some of the key health and safety hazards which HSC was concerned with in its first few months included asbestos, construction, dusts, genetic manipulation, ionising radiation, lead, noise and vinyl chloride.

1975

Health and Safety Executive was formed

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) was formed on 1 January 1975 under the leadership of its first Director, John Locke. HSE's remit was to undertake the requirements of the Health and Safety Commission and to enforce health and safety legislation in all workplaces, except those regulated by Local Authorities. A number of regulatory and scientific organisations transferred to HSE at this time, including: the Factory Inspectorate; Explosives Inspectorate; Employment Medical Advisory Service; Nuclear Installations Inspectorate; Safety and Health Division from the Department of Energy; the Mines Inspectorate; the Safety in Mines Research Establishment; the British Approvals Service for Electrical Equipment in Flammable Atmospheres; and the Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate. One of the first tasks undertaken by HSE was the re-organisation of the Factory Inspectorate into a series of 21 Area Offices and 11 local offices, supported by Field Consultant Groups, comprised of specialist scientific and technical staff.

First HSC advisory committees established

The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) set up the first of a number of advisory committees during 1975. This was done with a view to drawing upon the expertise of industry and specialist organisations and in encouraging wide participation in the improvement of occupational health and safety. Advisory committees on the following topics were set up over the next couple of years: Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances; Advisory Committee on Toxic Substance; Medical Advisory Committee; Advisory Committee on Asbestos; Advisory Committee on Major Hazards; Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations; Safety in Mines Research Advisory Board; and the British Approvals Service for Electrical Equipment In Flammable Atmospheres (BASEEFA) Advisory Council. HSC also consulted the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Confederation of British Industry (CBI) for suggestions for additional advisory bodies.

1976

First HSC annual report published

The first annual report published by the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) concentrated on three strategic aims, namely: encouraging positive attitudes to health and safety in the workplace; developing better information about the cause and scale of hazards; and the review of section 1(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The report also outlined the objectives of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and Health and Safety Commission (HSC), the scope of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and policy development.

1977

Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977

These regulations established the right of a recognised trade union to appoint safety representatives from among the employees it represented. The exception to this was employees of mines, specifically coal mines as defined by section 180 of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954. The regulations conferred number of powers to safety representatives including: "to investigate potential hazards and dangerous occurrences at the workplace (whether or not they are drawn to his attention by the employees he represents) and to examine the causes of accidents at the workplace"; "to make representations to the employer on general matters affecting the health, safety or welfare of the employees at the workplace"; and to inspect certain documents. Under the terms of the regulations, two or more safety representatives could request their employer to establish a safety committee. The regulations also outlined the terms for pay for time off allowed to safety representatives carrying out official duties.

1979

Golborne Colliery disaster (10 fatalities)

Ten people died and one person was seriously injured when firedamp ignited and exploded in the Plodder Seam at the Golborne Colliery in the Greater Manchester area on 18 March 1979. Firedamp accumulated following a breakdown in the ventilation system and it is thought that this was probably ignited by electrical sparking. The Health and Safety Executive's Safety in Mines Research Establishment (SMRE) investigated the incident and made recommendations for improving both ventilation systems and intrinsically safe electrical equipment in mines.

1980

Control of Lead at Work Regulations 1980

The Regulations stipulated that where employees are exposed to lead in the workplace, employers or those who are self-employed must assess the work in order to establish the nature and degree of the exposure to lead. Employers are also required to provide information, training and instruction to exposed workers. Other requirements under the Regulations included: ensuring control measures are in place for material, plant and processes and that these are properly maintained; providing washing and changing facilities and areas for employees to eat, drink and smoke; avoiding the spread of contamination; cleaning; air monitoring; and conducting medical surveillance and biological tests.

Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980

The Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980 (NADOR) required employers and the self- employed to keep a record of any accidents or certain types of dangerous occurrences and report these to HSE. The Regulations include lists of the types of dangerous occurrences that are reportable, including those that occur in any situation and those that relate specifically to mines, quarries and railways. Today, the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulation 1995 (RIDDOR) has replaced NADOR.

1981

Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981

These Regulations which came into force on 1st July 1982 stipulated that “an employer shall provide or ensure that there are provided, such equipment and facilities as are adequate and appropriate in the circumstances for enabling first aid to be rendered to his employees if they are injured or become ill at work.” Employers were also required to inform employees about the arrangements in place for providing first-aid, including the location of facilities, personnel and equipment. Self-employed people were also covered by the Regulations as there was a requirement for them to provide appropriate and adequate equipment for rendering first aid to themselves at work, if necessary.

1983

HSE starts to enforce asbestos licensing industry

The Health and Safety Commission’s Advisory Committee on Asbestos reached agreement on two European Union directives concerning protection of workers exposed to asbestos and the marketing and use of asbestos. This agreement, based on medical evidence and research on engineering controls resulted in the development of the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 which came into force on 1 August 1984.

Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983

The Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 came into force on 1 August and have been amended by several pieces of legislation in the intervening years. At the time the Regulations became law, no-one could carry out work with asbestos insulation including asbestos insulation board or asbestos coating unless they held a licence granted by HSE or worked for someone who held such a licence. There were three exemptions to the requirements, namely: collecting samples or air monitoring to identify asbestos; work carried out with asbestos insulation, asbestos insulating board or asbestos coating by employers or the self-employed, either by themselves or by using their own employees and in their own premises; and work of short duration using these materials.

HSE starts to enforce genetic manipulation regulations

HSE assumed responsibility for enforcing the Health and Safety (Genetic Manipulation) Regulations 1978 from the Department of Education and Science in 1983. In March 1984 a new Advisory Committee on Genetic Manipulation (ACGM) was set up to support this new role. In its first year, ACGM set up working parties to investigate: the release of genetically manipulated organisms for agricultural and environmental purposes; the uses of viruses in genetic manipulation, including the use of recombinants containing potentially harmful nucleic acid sequences; and monitoring of workers involved in genetic manipulation work. In 2004, ACGM was replaced by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification (Contained Use), (SACGM(CU). SACGM(CU) provides technical and scientific advice to the UK Competent Authority on all aspects of the human and environmental risks of the contained use of genetically modified organisms.

1984

HSE starts to enforce domestic gas safety

HSE assumed responsibility for mains gas safety functions on 1 February 1984, taking over from the Department of Energy. This involves responsibility for the safety of gas mains in the home as well as the workplace. HSE was given the power to introduce gas safety regulations under the Gas Act 1972 and enforce safety regulations made under this Act. Now HSE and local authorities have joint enforcement responsibilities under the the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 and are responsible for preventing injury to consumers and the public from either fire and explosion or carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning.

Abbeystead pumping station (16 fatalities)

An explosion occurred at a subterranean valve house in the Lune/Wyre Water Transfer Scheme at Abbeystead in Lancashire on 23 May 1984. Sixteen people were killed and 28 injured whilst taking part in an evening visit at the site. The visit was part of a programme to demonstrate to local residents that their fears that the Transfer Scheme would cause winter flooding were unfounded. The explosion occurred while water was being pumped over the weir into the river Wyre. The valve house was severely damaged during the incident. HSE investigated and concluded that the explosion was caused by ignition of a mixture of methane and air which had built up in the wet room of Abbeystead Valve House. The source of the ignition was not identified. HSE also contacted water authorities and alerted them to the potential dangers of water transfer and comparable systems where methane could pose a serious risk.

Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1984 (S.I. 1984/1902)

The Regulations, known as COMAH, require that safe operation can be demonstrated for industrial activities in which various substances as defined in Schedule I of the Regulations are involved. They also set out requirements for isolated storage of substances in Schedule 2 of the Regulations. Under the Regulations, manufacturers are required to provide written evidence that major accident hazards have been identified and the necessary steps put in place to prevent major incidents and protect workers on the site. They also are required to prepare an off-site emergency plan to complement the Local Authority emergency plan and to provide information to the Local Authority which can be used to inform people living in the locality who might be affected by a COMAH site.

1985

Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985

The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985, commonly known as 'RIDDOR', require a 'responsible person' to notify the enforcing authority where a person dies or sustains any injuries or specific medical conditions or where a dangerous occurrence takes place in connection with a work activity. The Regulations set out the specific injuries which are reportable including fractures, amputation, decompression sickness and others. A list of the dangerous occurrences reportable under RIDDOR is provided in Schedule 1 of the Regulations, while a second schedule sets out reportable diseases under RIDDOR. Separate notification requirements for mines, quarries and railways are also explained.

Putney domestic gas explosion (8 fatalities)

Eight residents were killed in a major explosion which occurred on 10 January 1985 at a block of luxury flats in Newnham House, Manor Fields, Putney, South London. HSE worked with investigation teams from the British Gas Corporation, South Eastern Gas, Midland Research Station, the London Borough of Wandsworth and the police and fire authority to ascertain the cause of the incident. Investigations revealed the explosion was caused by gas leaking into the building from a crack in the cast iron pipe that formed the gas main. The crack had been caused by uneven loading on the pipe due to differential settlement. HSE made a number of recommendations regarding the safety of gas mains, one of the key ones being for the British Gas Corporation to review its priorities for replacing cast iron gas mains.

HSE starts to enforce transport of dangerous goods by road safety

Legislation surrounding the regulation of dangerous goods has been subject to many changes since HSE began enforcing The Dangerous Substances (Conveyance by Road in Packages) Regulations 1986 (PGR). Today HSE is one of the organisations responsible for enforcing The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Receptacles Regulations 2009 (CDG 2009).

Fire at Bradford City Football Stadium - Valley Parade

Fifty six people died and approximately 256 were injured when a serious fire broke out in the main stand at Valley Parade, the home ground of Bradford City Football Club, on Saturday 11 May 1985. HSE investigated this incident, described as the worst fire disaster in the history of British football. Forensic tests concluded that the fire was probably started by a dropped match or a cigarette stubbed out in a polystyrene cup. The old wooden stands that had been in place for decades at the ground contributed to the ferocity of the fire. The disaster prompted a review of the UK’s sports grounds and stadia, resulting in legislative changes.

Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985

The Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 applied to any work with ionising radiation except work carried out under section 1 of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 and in certain activities as outlined in Schedule 3 of the Regulations. The Regulations set out legal duties in the following areas: dose limitation including restriction of exposure; designation of controlled areas and of classified persons; appointment of qualified persons; training and instruction requirements; dosimetry and medical surveillance; control of radioactive substances including arrangements for personal protective equipment and washing and changing facilities; assessment of hazards; investigation of cases of overexposure; and fees for medical examinations.

1986

HSE starts to enforce pesticide safety

The Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/1510) conferred authority on HSE to enforce pesticide safety. The Regulations provided a detailed list of those types of pesticides which are subject to control and those which are excluded. They also outlined the approvals required before any pesticides could be sold, stored, used, supplied or advertised. In addition, the Regulations set out the general conditions for pesticides regarding sale, supply, storage, advertisement and use, including aerial application. The Regulations were superseded by the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1997.

1987

Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987

These regulations stipulate that an employer 'shall not carry out any work which exposes or is liable to expose any of his employees to asbestos unless either a) before commencing that work he has identified, by analysis or otherwise, the type of asbestos involved in the work; or b) he has assumed that the asbestos is crocidolite or amosite and for the purposes of the Regulations has treated it accordingly'. Under the Regulations, employers must notify the enforcing authority of work with asbestos in certain circumstances. They must also provide information, instruction and training for employees who are liable to be exposed to asbestos during the course of their work. Adequate control measures must be in place and must be adequately maintained to prevent or reduce the spread of asbestos. Other requirements of the regulations include: ensuring cleanliness of plant and premises; designation of areas where asbestos is present; air monitoring including associated record-keeping; medical surveillance and keeping health records; provision of washing and changing facilities; and storage and labelling of raw asbestos and asbestos waste.

Kings Cross underground station fire (31 fatalities)

The King's Cross underground station fire occurred on 18 November 1987. Thirty one people died and many more were injured. The fire started when a lighted match which was dropped by a passenger on one of the station's escalators fell through a gap between the treads and skirting boards and set fire to grease and dust that had been allowed to accumulate. The resulting fire spread rapidly, accompanied by thick black smoke. As London Underground's practice was to call the Fire Brigade only when a fire seemed to be getting out of hand, by the time the Fire Brigade arrived, the fire was widespread and out of control. There were no smoke detectors in place in the station and only a manual water spray system. The Fennell Inquiry report noted that the London Underground staff members on duty were poorly trained and "woefully inequipped to meet the emergency that arose". Following the incident, London Underground and the other organisations involved in the incident accepted 157 recommendations for safety improvements outlined in the official report.

1988

Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations

The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations, generally referred to as the COSHH Regulations, were introduced to protect the health of people arising from work activities. Under the Regulations, employers must carry out a risk assessment to ensure that employees are not exposed to substances which will be hazardous to their health. Where exposure to such substances cannot be prevented, employers must provide suitable protective equipment and control measures and they must ensure that such equipment is adequately maintained, examined and tested and the results of tests recorded and kept. RIDDOR stipulates a requirement for monitoring exposure in the workplace and maintaining suitable records. It also sets out requirements for health surveillance and medical surveillance. Employers are also obliged to ensure that where exposure to hazardous substance is unavoidable, workers are made aware of the associated health risks and the precautions that should be taken including any associated instruction and training requirements.

Clapham train crash (35 fatalities)

A major rail accident occurred on the morning of 12 December 1988 at Clapham junction when two commuter trains collided and were subsequently hit by a third empty train. Thirty five people died in the accident and many other passengers sustained injuries. The Inquiry into the collision concluded that the main cause was 'wiring issues' and it laid the blame on British Rail work practices. The Inquiry also made 93 recommendations for safety improvements to be made. These included a limit to the hours that signalmen should be allowed to work and a system of automatic train protection (ATP) to be installed.

Piper Alpha oil installation fire and explosion (167 fatalities)

A series of catastrophic explosions occurred on the Piper Alpha offshore platform on the evening of 6 July 1988. This lead to a major and sustained gas fire which resulted when the Tartan gas riser ruptured. The majority of the emergency systems including the fire water system failed to operate and the resulting fierce fires and dense smoke made evacuation by helicopter or lifeboats impossible. Structural collapse of the platform quickly followed, causing many of the offshore workers to jump into the sea. Of the 226 people on board the Piper Alpha platform, 165 died and two members of the 'Sandhaven's' fire rescue craft lost their lives. The Lord Cullen inquiry into the incident made a series of recommendations for the future regulation of the offshore installations and appointed the Health and Safety Executive as a single regulatory body to enforce occupational health and safety in the offshore oil and gas industry.

1989

Noise at Work Regulations 1989 

The Noise at Work Regulations 1989 stipulate that 'Every employer shall reduce the risk of damage to the hearing of his employees from exposure to noise to the lowest level reasonably practicable'. To this end, the Regulations require that a noise assessment should be made if employees are likely to be exposed to the first action level or above or to the peak action level of noise. The assessment should be reviewed as appropriate and adequate assessment records kept.

Where employees are exposed to noise, adequate ear protection must be provided and ear protection zones set up where necessary. Any equipment provided must be carefully maintained and used and employees should be given information on the steps they can take to protect their hearing in the workplace. The Regulations also outline the particular modifications of the duties of manufacturers of articles for use at work and articles of fairground equipment in relation to the Regulations.

Electricity at Work Regulations 1989

The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 had a wide remit, covering: work systems, protective equipment and work activities; adverse or hazardous environments; capability and strength of electrical equipment; earthing and other suitable precautions; electrical protection, insulation and placing of conductors; connections; integrity of conductors; cutting off electrical supply and isolation; working on dead equipment; working on or in the vicinity of live conductors; working space, lighting and access; and competent persons. A section of the Regulations applied only to Mines, covering areas such as: introduction of electrical equipment; restrictions in certain underground zones; provisions associated with the presence of firedamp; approval of certain equipment in safety-lamp mines; cutting off electricity to circuits underground; oil-filled equipment; electric shock notices; information and records; use of battery-powered locomotives and vehicles into safety-lamp mines; and storage, transfer and charging of electrical storage batteries.

 

Hillsborough disaster

The Hillsborough Stadium disaster in which 96 people were killed and 170 injured was one of Britain's worst sporting disasters. The disaster occurred on 15 April 1989 at the Hillsborough football stadium during the FA Cup semi-final match between Nottingham Forest and Liverpool. Football fans were caught up in a massive crush which occurred as a result of too many Liverpool fans being let into a full stand at the Leppings Lane end of the stadium. The resulting surge of fans gaining access to the ground caused the fans already inside the ground to be pushed against the wire safety fences and crushed. Lord Justice Taylor's official Inquiry into the disaster led to many new safety measures being introduced to sporting stadia.

1990

HSE starts to enforce rail safety

Responsibility for railway safety passed from the Department of Transport to HSE in 1990. This took place because the Department of Transport’s Railway Inspectorate was heavily criticised for their poor protection of rail passengers and for not employing modern risk assessment techniques. The transfer was also seen as beneficial because it passed the responsibility for safety to the main Government health and safety regulator and away from the transport industry’s representative government department. The privatisation of British Rail during the period 1993 to 1996 saw a hundred companies taking charge of the rail industry. HSE introduced a new regulatory framework to manage the challenges to railway safety culture and risk management that took place during this period. The key components of the regulatory framework included new safety cases and permissioning regimes. From 1 April 2006 the Railway Inspectorate moved to the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR).

HSE starts to carry out nuclear safety research

Responsibility for nuclear research passed from the Department of Energy to the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) on 1 April 1990. The Nuclear Safety Research Management Unit (NSRMU) was established to manage the nuclear safety research programme on behalf of HSC. Its work was reviewed by the Advisory Committee on Safety in Nuclear Installations’ (ACSNI) Subcommittee on Research. ACSNI was particularly concerned with the reductions in nuclear research among the current nuclear licensees due to commercial pressures, and consequently stressed the need for HSC to support key areas of nuclear research. ACSNI recommended that more research into the effects of nuclear plant ageing, human factors and future reactor designs would be beneficial. It also welcomed the fact that HSC’s research programme was being opened up to competition and that customer-contractor arrangements were being strengthened to ensure better targeting of research priorities.

1991

HSE starts to enforce offshore safety

HSE’S Offshore Division was established at the recommendation of Lord Cullen’s Inquiry into the Piper Alpha offshore explosion in 1988. This change in responsibility brought about a shift in emphasis for the industry as prescriptive regulations which set specific requirements on duty holders were replaced by goal-setting regulations. One of the main requirements of the new regime was the introduction of a safety case system in which each installation is required to demonstrate that major hazards are adequately controlled and that a suitable management system is in place. Safety cases are submitted to HSE for approval and approval must be obtained before an offshore company is allowed to operate on the UK continental shelf. Today’s challenge for the offshore industry and for HSE is to manage the integrity of an ageing infrastructure while improving health and safety for the offshore workforce.

 

1992

'Six pack' regulations

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 

These wide ranging Regulations were laid before Parliament on 8 December 1992 and came into force on 1 January 2003. The Regulations apply to the majority of workplaces and cover many workplace issues. These include: maintenance of workplaces and of equipment, devices and systems; ventilation; indoor workplace temperature; lighting; cleanliness and waste materials; room dimensions and space; workstations and seating; conditions of floors and traffic routes; falls or falling objects; windows and transparent / translucent doors, gates and walls; windows, skylights and ventilators; safe cleaning of windows; planning traffic routes; doors and gates; escalators and moving walkways; sanitary conveniences; washing facilities; drinking water; accommodation for clothing; and  facilities for changing clothing, resting and eating meals.

Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992

The Regulations required employers to ensure 'so far as is reasonably practicable that employees should not be asked to carry out manual handling work where there is a risk of being injured. Where such work is necessary, employers were required to make an assessment of the risks involved, take any appropriate steps required to ensure that risks are kept to a minimum, and provide employers undertaking such work with information about the weight of each load and the heaviest side of any load which has a non-centrally positioned centre of gravity. Schedule 1 of the Regulations outlined the factors that employers should take into account when carrying out an assessment of the risks associated with manual handling tasks.

The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992

These Regulations require employers to assess all computer workstations to ensure health and safety risks are identified and effectively minimised. The Regulations stipulate that employees who use DSE in their work must be able to periodically take adequate breaks or changes of activity from using display screen equipment (DSE). Employees are also entitled to request eye and eyesight tests. Employers must also provide health and safety training and information about working with DSE to employees. The Regulations also set out requirements for display screens, keyboards, work desks or work surfaces and chairs as well as environmental factors such as providing adequate arrangements for space and lighting, along with measures for controlling noise, reflections and glare, heat, humidity and radiation. In addition, the software and tasks carried out by an operator or user of a computer must be appropriate to both the task being undertaken and the knowledge of the operator or user.

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992

These Regulations, commonly known as PUWER, apply to the equipment provided for use in workplaces in general, including offshore installations. They also apply to self-employed people who use equipment in a work capacity. The Regulations impose a wide range of requirements for the provision and use of work equipment, including: suitability; maintenance; risks; information and instructions; training; EU conformity; dangerous parts of machinery; protection against specific hazards; working in high or very low temperatures; operating controls; isolation; stability; lighting; maintenance; markings; and warnings and exemptions.

Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992

The regulations stipulate that personal protective equipment (PPE) should be supplied and used in the workplace wherever there are risks to health and safety that cannot be eliminated or managed in any other way. The regulations also require that PPE is: properly assessed to ensure its suitability; issued with full instructions on its safe use; stored and maintained properly; and used correctly by employees.

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992

The regulations set out responsibilities for carrying out risk assessments and health surveillance in the workplace, as well as putting health and safety arrangements including assistance in place. Other responsibilities set out by the regulations include: procedures for serious and imminent danger and for danger areas; co-operation and co-ordination between employers sharing work premises; self-employed persons’ undertakings; working in hosted premises; providing information for employees; capabilities and training; employees’ duties; and responsibilities towards temporary workers.

1994

Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994

The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 (CDM) came into force on 31 March 1995. The first part of the Regulations dealt with the application of the Regulations and definitions. The second part outlines how the regulations apply to construction work.  The roles and responsibilities of clients and agents of clients are explained in the third part. There are also separate sections for developers, appointments of principal contractor and planning supervisor and the responsibilities assigned to these roles.

Major Review of Regulation completed

In 1992, the Health and Safety Commission was charged with undertaking a review of extant health and safety legislation. The purpose of the review was to check whether existing legislation was still relevant and necessary in its current form. In addition the review aimed to reduce the administrative burdens that legislation can place on small businesses and also examine HSE's general approach to enforcement. The review found that, while there was widespread support for the framework of health and safety legislation, much of the current law was seen as 'too voluminous, complicated and fragmented'. When the finding of the report was published in 1994, it recommended the removal of 100 sets of regulations and seven pieces of primary legislation as well as the simplification of many of the 340 requirements and recommendations for associated administrative paperwork.

1995

Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) becomes an agency of HSE

 

An experimental station to investigate explosions in coal mines was set up at Eskmeals in Cumberland in 1911 by the UK government. Over the next few years, this area of research continued to grow and after the formation of the Safety in Mines Research Board in 1921, a site at Harpur Hill was acquired in 1924 for large scale mining safety work. The Safety in Mines Research Establishment (SMRE) was formed in 1947 and this combined the work of the Buxton site with the central laboratories which had opened in Sheffield in 1928. In 1959 the Occupational Medicine Laboratory was opened in London in 1959 and in 1975 the three organisations were merged to form the Health and Safety Executive’s Research and Laboratory Services Division (RLSD) .RLSD’s laboratories were integrated into one laboratory, the Health and Safety Laboratory in 1995.

1996

Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996

The Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 came into force on 2nd September 1996. The Regulations set out a wide range of enforceable safety measures for the construction industry including the provision of "suitable and sufficient safe access to and egress from every place of work and to any other place provided for the use of any person while at work, which access and egress shall be without risks to health and properly maintained." Specific requirements of the Regulations included: preventing falls; ensuring the stability of structures; safe methods for demolition and dismantling operations; protection from falling objects; temperature and weather protection; fire detection and fire-fighting measures; provision of welfare facilities; safe use of explosives; provision of lighting; safe systems for using cofferdams and caissons; inspection by competent persons; training; and others.

1997

Southall rail accident

The Southall rail accident occurred when the 10.35 high speed train from Swansea to London Paddington collided with a freight train operated by English Welsh and Scottish Railway. The incident happened at 13.15 on 19 September 1997 at Southall East Junction. Seven people died in the accident and 139 people were injured, some of these sustaining serious injuries. HSE's Railway Inspectorate investigated the incident and an official inquiry was conducted by Professor John Uff.

1998

Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998

The first of the general provisions of the Regulations covered qualification and supervision and states that 'No person shall carry out work in relation to a gas fitting or gas storage vessel unless he is competent to do so'. The Regulations imposed a duty on employers to ensure that people carrying out work on gas installations have been approved by HSE under regulation 3(3) of these Regulations. Requirements for materials and workmanship, protection against damage, existing gas fittings as well as general safety precautions are also outlined in the Regulations.

1999

Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999

The Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (CIMAH) set out the responsibilities of operators of plants where scheduled hazardous chemicals are used, to prevent major accidents and limit the consequences of major accidents to people and the environment. The regulations require operators to formulate a major accident prevention policy and also to notify the competent authority at the start of the construction of a plant handling scheduled chemicals and at the end, when the plant is being decommissioned or the chemicals are no longer present on site. The regulations also require retailed safety reports to be sent to the competent authority and for operators to produce emergency plans in consultation with local authorities. In addition, operators must provide information to the public with regard to local safety measures and actions to take in the event of a major accident at a CIMAH site.

Ladbroke Grove train crash (31 fatalities)

Thirty-one people died and over 400 were injured when a passenger train passed a red signal and collided with a high-speed passenger train at Ladbroke Grove in West London on 5 October 1999. The Health and Safety Executive’s Railway Inspectorate investigated the incident and Lord Cullen chaired a Public Inquiry into the causes of the crash as well as wider issues relating to regulatory matters and safety management. In 2004 HSE won a prosecution against Thames Trains for breaches of Section 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act relating to driver training. Following this, in 2005 the Crown Prosecution Service successfully prosecuted Network Rail Infrastructure (formerly Railtrack Plc) under Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act.

Bill Callaghan appointed as Chair of the Health and Safety Commission

Bill Callaghan took up the post of Chair of the Health and Safety Commission in October 1999. Formerly the Chief Economist and Head of the Economic and Social Affairs Department at the Trades Union Congress (TUC), Bill Callaghan also served on the Low Pay Commission from 1997 – 2000. During his time as HSC Chair, Bill Callaghan played a major role in the ‘Revitalising health and safety’ campaign which set targets and priorities for improving health and safety performance. He also lead on the development of HSC’s strategy to 2010 and beyond and spearheaded the sensible risk campaign which was aimed at overturning health and safety myths. Bill Callaghan was knighted in June 2007 in recognition of his outstanding contribution to health and safety management at work. He also received a Distinguished Service Award from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA) in October of that year.

2000

'Revitalising health and safety strategy' launched

The Revitalising Health and Safety Strategy Statement was published in June 2000 to mark the start of the ten year campaign of the same name. The Revitalising health and safety strategy was launched at a time when the same proportion of people had been injured at work since the early 1990s. The aim of the Revitalising health and safety strategy was to help people at work to protect themselves and their business, to improve the quality of life in the workplace and to help employers and employees to make work safer and healthier. Measurable targets were set and reviewed at regular intervals.

'Securing health together occupational health strategy for Great Britain' launched

The 'Securing health together occupational health strategy for Great Britain’ was launched in 2000 as a ten year strategy for reducing high levels of occupational ill-health and the resulting costs to families, employers and society. The Strategy was based on several main targets: to reduce ill health in workers and the public that had been caused or affected by work; to help people who had been ill to return to work, whether or not their work had caused their absence; to improve work opportunities for people not in work, due to illness or disability; to use the work environment to help people improve or maintain their health. A number of measurable targets were at the heart of the Strategy and the contemporary estimated gross benefits of reaching the targets were estimated to be 6.6 to 21.8 billion pounds sterling by 2010.

2004

HSC's 'Strategy for workplace health and safety to 2010 and beyond' launched

A Strategy was launched in February 2004 to set a new direction for the role of the Health and Safety Commission, Health and Safety Executive and Local Authorities. The Strategy aimed to improve poor safety performances, engender a greater participation of workers in workplace health and safety, build closer involvement between stakeholders and HSE and provide clearer and simple information and advice in a more accessible way.

Morecambe Bay: death of cockle-pickers (21 fatalities)

An incident occurred on the night of 5-6 February 2004 when 35 cockle pickers, most of whom were Chinese, were cut off by the tide as they worked on the cockle banks on Morecambe Bay. It is thought that 23 of the workers died, although only 21 bodies were recovered. HSE inspectors joined with the police in a major investigation into the incident. The Crown Prosecution Service brought criminal charges of manslaughter and facilitation against a number of individuals. Following the incident, HSE produced some practical guidelines for safe working in tidal areas and estuaries. Some organisers of cockling work also introduced some improvements to their work processes including: providing protective clothing and high-visibility garments; using better vehicles; and carrying dinghies, lifejackets and life rafts.

HSE's Infoline service received its 2 millionth call

The HSE Infoline public enquiry contact centre took its two millionth call in September 2004. Run by the National Britannia Group based in Caerphilly, Infoline was set up in July 1996 to provide health and safety information and access to expert sources of guidance and advice. While Infoline’s services are available to anyone with an interest in workplace health and safety matters, the majority of enquiries come from small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Enquirers can remain anonymous if they wish and all enquiries are treated confidentially. The most common queries relate to asbestos, the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) and health and safety requirements for setting up a new business.
 

Explosion at ICL Plastic factory, Maryhill, Glasgow

An explosion occurred at the ICL Plastics factory in Maryhill, Glasgow on 11 May 2004. Nine people were killed in the incident and many more suffered injuries. The explosion occurred when liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) leaked from an underground metal pipe in the basement of the factory. The LPG ignited and the resulting explosion caused the building to collapse.
Lord Brian Gill was appointed to hold an Inquiry into the events that led up to the disaster. HSE inspectors and retired inspectors and the Chief Executive and the then Deputy Chief Executive gave evidence in the formal hearings. Lord Gill's report was published in July 2009 and outlined various recommendations for HSE as the body which (together with Local Authorities) regulates LPG hazards in industrial and commercial premises.

2005

Buncefield explosion

A series of explosions occurred at the Buncefield Oil Storage Depot at Hemel Hempstead in Hertfordshire on 11th December 2005. A large area of the site was engulfed by a fire which resulted from one of the initial massive explosions. Although more than 50 people were injured in the incident, no-one died. A large area around the Buncefield site was evacuated as a precaution. Many of the commercial and residential properties in the vicinity were damaged in the incident. The fire, which burned for several days, destroyed most of the site and released large plumes of black smoke into the atmosphere. The Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency launched a joint investigation into the incident. Five companies were prosecuted as a result of the incident. A series of recommendations from HSE was published under the title "Recommendations on land use planning and the control of societal risk around major hazard sites and the investigation culminated in the publication of the Final report in December 2008.

2006

Transfer of responsibility for railway safety from HSE to the Office of the Rail Regulator

HSE assumed responsibility for railway safety in 1990 when the Railway Inspectorate moved from the Department of Transport. The move took place following criticism of the Inspectorate for not protecting passengers adequately and for not using modern risk assessment techniques. During the period 1993 to 1996, British Rail was privatised and over a hundred companies took charge of the railways. This resulted in a major change to railway safety culture and risk management. HSE introduced a new regulatory framework to manage these changes and the key elements of the framework included new safety case and permissioning regimes. On 1 April 2006 railway safety passed to the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR).

Workplace Health Connect launched

Workplace Health Connect was launched in February 2006 as a two year project pilot project to give advice on workplace health, safety and return to work issues. The advice given by the pilot was free, confidential and practical and was aimed at small and medium sized businesses (ie those with between 5 to 250 workers) in England and Wales. Workplace Connect was managed, funded and quality controlled by HSE but was independently run. It incorporated an Adviceline, a problem-solving visit service and a system of referrals to approved local specialists where appropriate. The pilot ended in February 2008.

Redgrave Court new headquarters officially opened

HSE's new headquarters building, Redgrave Court, based in Bootle, Merseyside was officially opened by HRH the Duke of York on 19 July 2006. Redgrave Court has provided a central base for staff and contractors who previously occupied six separate buildings. It has enabled staff to undertake new and more efficient ways of working, allowed for better use of resources and provided increased access to senior managers.

2007

Responsibility for the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority (AALA) passes to HSE.

The Adventure Activities Licensing Authority (AALA) was launched in 1996 and became HSE’s responsibility in 2007. The AALA controls the licensing regime for the provision of adventure activities for young people within the scope of the Adventure Activities Licensing Regulations 2004 (AALR). HSE’s Field Operations and Policy Group work with organisations in this sector to provide guidance, advice and support and to improve health and safety.

Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM 2007) launched.

The CDM Regulations combine the CDM Regulations 2004 and the Construction (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 into one regulatory package, aimed at alleviating the previous complex and at times, bureaucratic approach taken by many duty holders. The aim of the CDM Regulations is to reduce the risk of harm to workers who build, use, maintain and demolish structures. Effective planning and management of construction projects, from design concept onwards is at the heart of the Regulations. The aim is for health and safety considerations to be treated as a normal part of a project’s development, not an afterthought or bolt-on extra.

Bill Callaghan is knighted for his services to health and safety

Bill Callaghan became Chair of the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) on 1 October 1999. During his career with HSC and HSE, Bill Callaghan championed the sensible risk message, had a leading role in ensuring that risks to health and safety in the workplace are properly controlled and has played a key role in developing the HSC/E Strategy to 2010. In 2007 Bill Callaghan was knighted for his services to health and safety. He left HSE on 27 Sept 2007 and was replaced by Judith E. Hackitt CBE.

Judith Hackitt appointed as new Chair of the Health and Safety Commission, following on from the retirement of Sir Bill Callaghan

Judith Hackitt was appointed as Chair of the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) on 1 October 2007. Ms Hackitt’s five year appointment follows on from her previous role as a Commissioner of HSC during the period 2002 – 2005 and an assignment as Director of the European Chemical Industry Council‘s Chemistry for Europe project.

HSE takes on responsibility for the security activities of the Office for Nuclear Security (OCNS) and UK Safeguards Office (UKSO)

On 1 April 2007 the security activities of the Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) transferred to the Health and Safety Executive. This happened as a result of recommendations in the 2005 Hampton report. This means that HSE’s Nuclear Directorate became the single point of contact for operational matters relating to nuclear safety, security and safeguards. You can find out more about the work of OCNS from HSE's Nuclear Directorate web pages.

The Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) European Union regulations come into force in the UK and across Europe

The Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of CHemicals (REACH) Regulations came into force on 1 June 2007, replacing several Regulations and European directives with a single system. One of the main requirements of REACH is for importers or manufacturers of substances to register them with the central European Chemicals Agency. The aim of this is to ensure that human health and the environment is protected by ensuring that manufacturers and importers understand and manage the risks associated with chemicals. REACH also allows substances to move freely on the EU market as well as allowing for free competition and innovation in the European chemicals industry.

 

2008

HSC/HSE merges to form one organisation

The Health and Safety Commission and Health and Safety Executive took the decision to merge their powers and functions to become a new unitary body with the name ‘Health and Safety Executive’. The merger took place following a 2006 consultation exercise setting out the benefits of the merger.

Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008

The Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008 came into force on 16 January 2009. Under the provisions of the Act, offenders who break the law will be subjected to higher fines and longer sentences. The Act makes imprisonment an option for more health and safety offences in both the lower and higher courts. It also allows certain offences which at one time could only be tried in lower courts, be tried in the higher courts. However the main change which the Act has brought is to raise the maximum fine which may be imposed in the lower courts to £20,000 for most health and safety offences.

Pesticides Safety Directorate transfers to HSE

The Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) transferred from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to HSE on 1 April 2008 following recommendations of the 2005 Hampton Review of Regulators. The transfer allowed PSD and HSE to explore joint areas of interest for example on regulatory science and policy for chemicals, pesticides, detergents and biocides. PSD has retained a distinct identity in HSE and continues to have its policy set by Defra.

2009

Gas Safe Register - 10 year contract to Capita

A new registration scheme for gas engineers was launched on 1 April 2009. The scheme is known as the Gas Safe Register and is administered under a 10 year contract by the Capita Group Plc. Under the Gas Safe Register, Capita have made a commitment to deliver improvements to gas safety by raising awareness of domestic gas risks among consumers and by increasing public confidence in registered gas engineers and the safety of public gas work. Gas engineers will also benefit from the Gas Safe Register as they will have more flexible payment and registration options. The administrative burdens on them will also be reduced.
 

Health and safety law poster replaced - after 10 years service!

A new version of the health and safety law poster was published on 6 April 2009. The poster includes a list of basic points relating to health and safety in the workplace and it outlines what employers and workers must do to comply with the law. The health and safety poster must be displayed in all workplaces or if this is not possible, each employee must be given a copy of the leaflet version.

 

2010

Health and Safety Pledge Forum launched

The Health and Safety Pledge Forum was launched on 24 February 2010 as part of HSE’s 2009 Strategy The Health and Safety of Great Britain\\ Be part of the solution.  The Strategy encouraged organisations to show their commitment to workplace health and safety by signing the HSE Safety Pledge. HSE is keen for those who have signed the Pledge to share ideas for improving health and safety with each other or to work with HSE on collaborative ventures in risk management. The Pledge Forum helps this process by allowing pledge signers to share ideas and best practice and ask questions. It also contains a wealth of information on a range of topics including: worker protection; absence management; saving recruitment and insurance costs; improving productivity; reputation management; and case studies for both small/medium sized businesses and large businesses.

HSE introduces new Safety Alerts

In 2010 HSE revised its Safety Bulletin system to improve the way it warns industry about problems with substances, equipment, procedures and processes that may cause injury. The information contained in the bulletins are gathered from a range of sources including inspections, research, investigations, advice from industry and the EU Commission. There are three types of bulletin: Alerts which are immediate and vital; Notice which do not require immediate action but must be dealt with within a given timescale; and Other information which needs to be shared with a wide audience or specific group or sector of industry. Safety Bulletins can be received via email, text message or RSS feed and are also available on the HSE Website.

The Control of Artificial Optical Radiation at Work Regulations 2010

The Control of Artificial Optical Radiation at Work Regulations 2010 aim to protect workers from health risks associated with exposure to hazardous sources of artificial optical radiation (AOR). The Regulations require employers who may expose workers to AOR to assess the risk of adverse health effects of AOR to the skin or eyes. This assessment should include measurements or calculations for the levels of radiation to which employees are exposed. It must also assess the level, wavelength and duration of exposure. Employers are require to reduce or eliminate exposure to AOR where practicable, provide appropriate information and training for employees and ensure that exposed employees have their health monitored and receive medical examinations. HSE has produced ‘Guidance for Employers on the Control of Artificial Optical Radiation at Work Regulations (AOR) 2010’ for those employers who would like to find out more about their responsibilities under the Regulations.

Lord Young’s review of health and safety, ‘Common Sense – Common Safety’ is published

Lord Young's report was published on 15 October 2010 and sets out a series of recommendations for improving the way health and safety is applied in Great Britain and for reviewing today’s ‘compensation culture’. The review, commissioned by the Prime Minister, David Cameron, has a wider remit than HSE’s sphere of responsibility, however HSE has welcomed Lord Young’s review and has continued to offer information and participate in improvements where appropriate. To this end, HSE has co-operated with a number of organisations to develop the Occupational Safety Consultants Register (OSCR). This will go live in January 2011. HSE has also produced a series of risk assessment tools for offices, shops, classrooms and charity shops.

2011

Occupational Safety Consultants Register (OSHCR)

The Occupational Safety Consultants Register (OSHCR provides a source for identifying consultants who are qualified to provide general advice on health and safety to help UK businesses manage workplace risks. While many companies will feel confident about carrying out their own workplace risk assessments and implementing appropriate health and safety measures, those who need additional help can turn to OSHCR. The consultants listed in OSHCR are recognised by the key occupational health and safety organisations who participate in the OSHCR scheme. OSHCR can be used to search for consultants by keyword, industry, topic, county or by provision of free information.

The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) launched 1 April

On 1 April 2011, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) was established as an agency of the Health and Safety Executive. ONR’s objective is to consolidate the functions of HSE’s Nuclear Directorate including the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, the Office for Civil Nuclear Security and the UK Safeguards Office, as well as the Department for Transport’s Radioactive Materials Transport Division. ONR is responsible for protecting people from the hazards inherent in the nuclear industry. It does this through enforcing relevant legislation and by encouraging the nuclear industry to aspire to an exemplary health and safety culture. ONR uses specialist advice from HSE and consultants and runs a nuclear safety studies programme to help it with inspection and assessment work. It also provides specialist assistance to various international energy organisations as well as nuclear regulators in a range of countries.

 

Lőfstedt report published

Professor Ragnar Lőfstedt’s report: ‘Reclaiming health and safety for all: an independent review of health and safety legislation' was published in November 2011. The report was commissioned by Employment Minister Chris Grayling as part of the Government’s plan to overhaul the health and safety system in Britain. The report considers ways in which health and safety legislation can be combined, simplified or reduced so that the burden on British businesses can be alleviated. At the same time, it suggests how progress in improving health and safety in the workplace can continue. The report takes into account the views of employers’ and employees’ organisations, Government bodies, academics and professional health and safety organisations.

 

2012

The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 launched

The Regulations came into force in April 2012 and updated earlier asbestos regulations to take account of the fact that in the European Commission’s view, the UK had not completely implemented the EU Directive on exposure to asbestos as set out in EU Directive 2009/148/EC). The changes brought about by the new Regulations are fairly small and mostly affect some types of non-licensed work with asbestos including medical surveillance, record keeping and notification of work.

Fee for Intervention (FFI) launched 1 October

HSE's new cost recovery scheme known as Fee for Intervention (FFI) came into force on 1 October 2012. FFI is administered under the Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations 2012 and is used to recover HSE's costs against those who contravene health and safety laws. The costs that are recouped in this way are those for inspection, investigation and taking enforcement action. FFI is designed to ensure that companies who break health and safety laws quickly put matters right. It will also discourage companies who try to undercut their competitors by flouting health and safety laws and putting people at risk.

2013

The Health and Safety (Sharp Instruments in Healthcare) Regulations

The Health and Safety (Sharp Instruments in Healthcare) Regulations 2013 which came into effect on 11 May 2013, require employers to ensure that the risks from needles and other ‘sharps’ used in healthcare are effectively controlled.  The regulations stipulate that healthcare employers and contractors must provide suitable arrangements for the safe use and disposal of sharps and must train workers to understand the risks. In addition, the Regulations require employers and contactors to investigate any work-related incidents involving sharps, and to take appropriate action.

Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Repeals, Revocations and Amendments) Regulations 2013

The Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Repeals, Revocations and Amendments) Regulations 2013 came into force on 6 April 2013. These Regulations are designed to revoke a series of redundant and / or out of date legislation, including one Act and twelve statutory instruments. HSE has introduced these Regulations as part of a process of ensuring that employers can quickly understand their duty to provide a safe and healthy working environment for employees