Risk, Health and Safety Information

2012-01-17T17:32:00.001Z

Over one third of London's basement construction unsafe

More than one in three basement construction sites in London has failed health and safety checks the Health & Safety Executive (HSE), said today.

On 40 sites out of 109 site surveyed recently by HSE inspectors, enforcement action was taken. They issued a total of 76 safety improvement notices and at four of those projects, conditions were so dangerous that the sites were shut down.

More than half of the prohibition notices served dealt with real risks of workers falling from height, either into unfenced excavations or through unprotected floor openings.

Inspectors visited 109 sites in the London boroughs of Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea andWestminster & Wandsworth, on 15 and 16 November.
As result of the issues uncovered, the HSE is organising a free awareness event to all involved in basement construction at Wandsworth Town Hall on 19 January 2012

2012-01-17T14:47:00.001Z

Roofer more concerned about beating the rain than safety

A roofer has admitted putting workers and members of the public at risk, after being spotted working on a roof without any fall protection by a passing HSE inspector.

Burnley Magistrates’ Court heard that Ross Singleton, who trades as Ross’s Roofing, and two other workers were carrying out roof repairs at a hairdressers in Colne, Lancashire, on 24 May 2011.

HSE inspector Jacqueline Western was passing the salon and noticed that there were no safety measures in place to prevent the workers from falling. Singleton had also failed to take precautions to stop debris from dropping on to the busy pedestrian footpath below.

Inspector Western took pictures of the men working and then ordered the work to stop immediately. She issued a Prohibition Notice to Singleton, which required the work to stop until edge protection was installed.

When she returned to the site later in the day, she found that Singleton had ignored the enforcement notice by continuing with the repairs without properly addressing the unsafe method of work.

Singleton appeared in court on 12 January and pleaded guilty to breaching reg.6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005, and s33(1)(g) of the HSWA 1974, for ignoring an enforcement notice. He was fined £350 and ordered to pay £300 in costs.

In mitigation Singleton said he hadn’t considered the roof to be high enough to need edge protection. He explained that following the issue of the Prohibition Notice he erected a tower scaffold to finish the work, which he accepts did not have edge protection. He told the court that his priority on the day was to finish the work before heavy rain began.

Speaking after the hearing, inspector Western said: “Ross Singleton and the two other men were working nearly three metres above the ground – a height that could have resulted in a serious injury if any of them had fallen.

“He should have treated the Prohibition Notice as a formal warning and stopped work until safety measures, such as guard rails, were in place. Instead, he ignored the notice and has found himself in court as a result.

“Dozens of people die every year as a result of a fall while at work. Roofers should treat the risks seriously and take action to make sure workers stay safe.”

The Lancashire Telegraph also reported on the case, and its story received a number of comments from readers who criticised the prosecution. Some labelled health and safety as “a joke”, saying it prevents people from making “an honest living”.

Singleton himself posted a comment, which said: “I hired the scaffold straight away but it started to rain as soon as were erecting it, which meant I had to go back on the roof to sheet-up to prevent the roof being rain-damaged.

“If I had got a professional to install the scaffolding it would have cost £400-£500. The owner of the hairdressers would not have been happy to cover this charge as well as the roof repairs.

Echoing the sentiments of other commentators, he concluded: “I’m an honest young man trying to make an honest living, rather than most my age, who clearly get every penny they can from the government in benefits.”

2012-01-11T13:26:00.001Z

Independent panel to challenge inspectors’ advice now operational

Businesses that believe they have been the recipients of erroneous, or over-the-top advice from HSE or Local Authority (LA) inspectors can now appeal these decisions to an independent panel.

The Government announced its intention to set up such a body as part of its response to the findings of the Löfstedt review in November – which called, more generally, for a process to challenge cases of incorrect and over-application of health and safety legislation.

Now up and running, the new Independent Regulatory Challenge Panel will look into complaints regarding health and safety advice given by HSE or LA inspectors that duty-holders believe is “incorrect, or goes beyond what is required to control the risk adequately”.

The panel will be chaired by Tricia Henton, former director of environment and business at the Environment Agency. She will be joined by Local Government Regulation’s (formerly LACORS) Mark DuVal, and its former executive director Derek Allen, as well as two ex-employees of the HSE. Other panel members may be appointed in due course.

If businesses are unhappy with the advice they have received, they are encouraged in the first instance to seek to resolve the matter with the relevant HSE or LA inspector, and the inspector’s manager. If they are not satisfied, businesses can then raise the issue with the panel by filling out an online form on the HSE website. If they are still not satisfied with the findings of the panel, they can follow the existing complaints procedures, including writing to the chief executive of the HSE, or relevant LA chief executive, as well as contacting local MPs, or local councillors.

The panel will only consider cases from 30 June last year onwards, and a summary of the cases and the panel’s findings will be made available on the HSE website. An HSE spokesperson said that because the process is new, it is difficult to estimate the scale and number of cases that will be referred to the panel. Nevertheless, to give greater clarity, terms of reference for the panel will be published in the next couple of weeks.

The spokesperson, who was keen to emphasise the independent nature of the panel, added that the HSE is expected to abide by the panel’s decisions, which, in most instances, should be made promptly by the panel, although there is no defined timescale.

The panel will also only deal with decisions of regulatory advice to control risks, which stop short of enforcement action. Hence, the appeals mechanism is completely separate from other appeals processes that will cover costs-recovery, and which already cover enforcement notices.

Asked if the HSE is concerned that a further appeals process will undermine the authority of its inspectors, and bring their competence under added scrutiny, the spokesperson replied: “Tackling disproportionate advice is vital in restoring confidence in the core business of health and safety, which is to reduce accidents and ill health. But, when our standards are not matched, it is only right that employers and duty-holders have a means to appeal decisions.”

Paul Verrico, solicitor-advocate at Eversheds law firm, welcomed the panel from the point of view of accessibility, perspective and accountability. He told SHP: “All too often, our clients either receive conflicting advice from inspectors, or opinions that go beyond the HSE’s written and documented protocols, or codes of practice.”

Traditionally, he added, businesses’ only practical course of action in such circumstances has been to dispute the advice with the inspector, or bite the bullet.

However, he cautioned that LA inspectors would need to “ensure they receive the same messages and have the same access to information as HSE inspectors,” as the panel will be judging both HSE and LA inspectors to the same standards.

2012-01-03T10:34:00.000Z

Constructionfirm Henry Bros fined £75k over worker's death

Oneof Northern Ireland's largest construction firms has been fined £75,000 afterpleading guilty to breaches which led to the death of a worker.

DesmondStevenson, 62, died when a temporary building at RAF Aldergrove fell on him in2006.
HenryBrothers was fined £75,000 plus £15,000 in costs, while architect AnthonyStewart was fined £5,000.

Thecase was brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSENI).

MrStevenson was a joiner employed by Henry Brothers in Magherafelt.

Hisfamily said on Monday that they were glad they now had "closure and assuch will be able to grieve".

"Thisoutcome will not bring our husband/father back but may ensure that no-one elsewill have to go through this scenario," they said in a statement.

HenryBrothers had secured a £7.5m contract, part of which was to move 10pre-fabricated units from one area to another at RAF Aldergrove.

AtAntrim Crown Court last week Henry Brothers and Mr Stewart pleaded guilty totwo breaches of health and safety legislation arising out of the incident.

Thecourt heard that the risk of collapse had not been identified at the planningstage due to "inadequate risk assessment, design and supervision".

Clear reminder

Adefence lawyer for Henry Brothers said that while the company acceptedresponsibility as the main contractor, none of the other experts on siteappreciated the risk.

Ina statement, the company expressed its condolences to Mr Stevenson's family.

Itsaid it had provided "its full cooperation and assistance to the Healthand Safety Executive from the outset and throughout its investigation".

Alawyer for Mr Stewart said that although he was project manager, he was a stepremoved from having direct responsibility for health and safety.

Hesaid his client had not been on site for six weeks before the accident and hadbeen shocked to be caught up in the prosecution.

OnWednesday Denise Donaghy, an inspector with HSENI's investigation team said:"This case sends out a clear reminder to architects and designers that therisks involved in construction activities must be considered and addressed atthe design stage.

"Alsocompanies involved in construction must make sure their activities are carriedout in a safe and considered manner."

2012-01-03T10:29:00.003Z

Leicesterfirm fined after death of worker

A Leicester manufacturer of quarrying plant andequipment has been fined after a worker was crushed between two nine-metresteel structures which were being lifted with an overhead travelling crane.

The structures were part of a 500 tonne concretebatching plant installation which had been manufactured for a project in theSudan. Michael Tilley, 55, from Barrow-upon-Soar, was killed instantly when oneof the 1.5 tonne structures became dislodged and fell on his head during alifting operation.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecutedParker Plant Ltd after carrying out an investigation into the 13 December 2008incident at the company's Canon Street site in Leicester.

Leicester Crown Court heard Mr Tilley and acolleague had been attempting to load the large parts of structural steelworkinto a shipping container using an overhead crane. The parts would not fit intothe container so they were being placed on the ground next to it. The pair hadbeen directed to place one steel section on top of the other and were releasingthe lifting chains from the load when the top section slid off the bottom oneand trapped Mr Tilley between the two, causing fatal head injuries.

HSE told the court that neither Mr Tilley nor hiscolleague had received the proper training on how to plan and manage such acomplex lifting operation, nor had they had any information on the size, weightor centre of gravity of the load which would have enabled them to sling theload correctly.

They had been working with an incorrect diagramthat showed the two steelwork structures fitting on top of each other, which infact was not possible. The structures were not strapped together meaning the loadwas unstable and liable to fall unexpectedly. The work was not properly plannedor supervised and the lifting equipment provided to do the job was defective.

Parker Plant Ltd of Viaduct Works, Canon Street,Leicester, pleaded guilty on 2 September to breaching Section 2(1) of theHealth and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. They were sentenced today and werefined £180,000 and ordered to pay £47,500 costs.

Sue Thompson, one of the HSE's Principal Inspectorssaid:

"This fatal incident was utterly preventableand occurred as a direct result of Parker Plant Ltd's approach to the safety ofits workers.

"This company failed to provide the propertraining for the work they were undertaking, and if that work had beenadequately planned and supervised this tragedy would not have happened. Becauseof this company's failures, one man lost his life and another will have to livewith the after effects of witnessing such a horrific incident."

After the hearing, Mr Tilley's mother Doreen Uptonsaid:

"Michael is a greatly-missed only son, fatherand grandfather. He is in our thoughts every day. The penalty imposed on thefirm will never bring him back but we are pleased that the seriousness of whathappened that day has been recognised by the court."

2012-01-03T10:20:00.005Z

Illegal gas fitter receives two-year prisonsentence

AnAccrington man who falsely claimed he was a registered gas engineer has beensent to prison for two years for endangering people's lives at two propertiesin Lancashire, including a baby boy.

StephenJonathan was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for committinga total of six offences, after his work was classified as being 'immediatelydangerous'.^[1]

Anunsafe chimney flue on a bolier Stephen Jonathan installed in Accrington

BurnleyCrown Court heard the 35-year-old's actions had put residents at risk of beingkilled or seriously injured in a gas explosion or from carbon monoxidepoisoning.

Thecourt was told Mr Jonathan falsely claimed he was a registered gas engineerwhen he installed a new boiler at a community nurse's home on Willows Lane inAccrington on 22 October 2010. Geoff Street regularly looked after his sister'sbaby in his house, without knowing the boiler was operating dangerously.

Anengineer was sent to repair the boiler after it was reported to the manufactureras being faulty. He classified the installation as being 'immediatelydangerous', and disconnected it from the gas supply straight away.

MrJonathan's work was reported to Gas Safe Register, which holds the officiallist of legal and safe gas engineers, and HSE, which carried out aninvestigation. It found that he had also installed central heating at a houseon Avondale Road in Lancaster during November and December 2010.

Hehad again claimed to be a registered gas engineer, and the installation of theboiler had again been classified as being 'immediately dangerous'.

StephenJonathan, of Collins Drive, Baxenden, admitted putting lives at risk, and ofcarrying out gas work while falsely claiming to be a registered gas engineer.He was sentenced to 24 months in prison at Burnley Crown Court on 20 October2011.

GeoffStreet, 52, spent £1,700 on making the boiler safe at his house on Willows Lanein Accrington. He said:

"It'sshocking that Stephen Jonathan didn't have any consideration for my life or anyoneelse's. I was looking after my sister's baby in the house without knowing bothour lives were being put in danger by the boiler he installed.

"Heappeared quite professional when I first met him. But he refused to come backwhen I told him the boiler kept switching itself off, and I eventually foundout it was actually dangerous.

"I'dadvise people to check the Gas Safe website or ring the helpline beforeagreeing to gas work being carried out. There are some people out there justout to make a fast buck, with no regard for health and safety."

StuartKitchingman, the investigating inspector at HSE, added:

"MrJonathan has displayed an appalling disregard for the lives of other people,and a total contempt for the law.

"Hewent out of his way to fake qualifications and he continued to carry out gaswork illegally. His actions caused a considerable amount of cost and distressto his customers, and it was only luck that no one was seriously harmed.

"Itis vital people become members of the Gas Safe Register before carrying out gaswork, or they risk putting lives in danger. Members of the public and landlordsshould also check that gas engineers have a valid Gas Safe Register IDcard."

PaulJohnston, Chief Executive of Gas Safe Register, added:

"Wework closely with the HSE to investigate unregistered gas fitters and theprosecution of Stephen Jonathan comes as welcome news to us all.

"Gasfitters working unregistered like Stephen Jonathan are far more common than youthink - we estimate they're doing 250,000 illegal jobs each year, causingfires, explosions, gas leaks, carbon monoxide poisoning and leaving people outof pocket.

"Allgas engineers have to be Gas Safe registered - it's the law. Our message toeveryone is clear - check the engineer's Gas Safe Register ID card beforeletting them work on gas."

2012-01-03T10:16:00.001Z

CollierIndustrial Waste Ltd fined over forklift accident

AGreater Manchester company has been fined £20,000 after a worker sufferedlife-threatening injuries when he was hit by a 35-tonne forklift truck.

The60-year-old, from Wirral, suffered organ damage and broken bones in theincident at Collier Industrial Waste Limited in January 2010.

Hewas in hospital for several months and has permanent injuries.

Thefirm admitted breaching Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations1992.

Itwas also ordered to pay £9,410 in prosecution costs at Trafford Magistrates'Court.

'Entirely preventable'

TheHealth and Safety Executive (HSE) said its investigation found the company didnot have sufficient systems in place to protect workers from reversing vehicleson the site.

Thiscould have included having marked walkways, a one-way system or making sure anyreversing vehicles were guided by another worker on the ground.

Speakingafter the hearing, HSE Inspector Daniel Longdon, said: "This was anentirely preventable incident which could have cost one of Collier's employeeshis life.

"Therewere several systems the company could have introduced to make sure workerswere not put at risk by moving vehicles. Most of these would have been simpleand inexpensive.

"Ifanother worker had stood on the ground to guide the forklift truck as itreserved then this incident could have been avoided."

2012-01-03T08:58:00.003Z

Company fined after worker's fingeramputated

Amodular building company has been fined after a worker was left with permanentinjuries when a lifting operation went wrong.

BanksmanJohn Hughes, of Newark, was working in an outdoor yard of Caledonian BuildingSystems Ltd at Carlton-on-Trent, Nottinghamshire, on 20 February 2009.

Hewas helping a fork lift truck driver to raise an 11-tonne modular building unitoff some blocks and a wheeled axle, on to a lorry, but the unstable loadstarted to rock. Mr Hughes put his right hand on to the wooden block, to moveit out of the way, but one end of the unit came down on his fingers.

Hisindex finger was crushed and had to be amputated at the knuckle, howevereighteen months later after continuing problems it was completely removed. Hismiddle finger was also damaged. Mr Hughes was off work for twelve weeks intotal before returning to work.

AHealth and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found the lifting operation wasdisorganised and the employees involved were not provided with clearinformation or instructions. It was unclear who was supposed to participate inthe operation, what their role was, which equipment would be used and whether theunit would be moved elsewhere or simply vertically lifted.

CaledonianBuilding Systems Ltd, of Glendale Gryfe Road, Bridge of Weir, Renfrewshire,pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 8(1)(c) of the Lifting Operations andLifting Equipment Regulations 1998 and Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Management ofHealth and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Today Nottingham Magistrates finedthe firm £15,000 and ordered it to pay costs of £7,328.

Afterthe hearing HSE inspector Stuart Parry said:

"Thiswas a routine lifting operation for Caledonian Building Systems Ltd yet it waspoorly assessed and planned and was conducted in a disorganised manner.Although Mr Hughes received a life-changing injury, the consequences could havebeen even worse. The risks associated with routine lifting operations shouldhave been assessed and a simple plan devised and followed to eliminate oradequately control the risks.

"Companiesmoving large loads with lift trucks should remember these basic legalrequirements to ensure they protect their employees and anyone else who may beaffected by their work."

2012-01-03T08:52:00.002Z

Worker’s injuries severe enough tonecessitate amputation

One worker who had his leg run over by a dumper truck was injured severelyenough to warrant the crushed limb’s surgical removal, according to the detailsof his workaccident claim.

Bromley native Michael O’Donovan, forty one years of age, had been workingas a building work assistant at Arsenal’s Ashburton Grove Emirates stadium, atthe time of the accident, his personalinjury solicitors recently reported. The worker’s injuries were so seriousthat doctors performed a surgical amputation of his right leg in the wake ofthe incident, where he also suffered a fractured pelvis as well.

The Government’s Health and Safety Executive conducted investigativeproceedings regarding the incident shortly thereafter, revealing that the threeconstruction firms that had been responsible for the work site had neglected toensure that there had been safe segregation between vehicles and pedestrians.Hemel Hempstead based Sir Robert McAlpine Limited, was given a fine of £19,000for its role in Mr O’Donavan’s life-changing injuries, and both Watford basedMaylim Limited and Rickmansworth based Skansa Utilities Ltd, McAlpine’s twocontractors, were fined £18,000 and £17,000 respectively, after all threeadmitted to breaching health and safety regulations at a hearing inMagistrates’ Court for the City of London.

The HSE inspector who was involved in the hearing spoke once the fines werehanded down, stating that all construction sites must by necessity segregatevehicles and workers whenever it was practical to do so. The inspector alsosaid that the incident could have been averted if there had been an adequaterisk assessment of the safety risks.

2012-01-03T08:42:00.002Z

LFBcloses down 'death trap' housing

London Fire Brigade (LFB) has closed down a number of commercial buildings which were being used as residential accommodation as they breached fire safety regulations.

The service has issued prohibition notices on six separate buildings on an industrial estate in Alperton, in the north west of the capital, which housed 150 people.

Inspectors found virtually no means of fire safety measures in the property, with no fire protection situated between different floors and extremely limited means of escape.

Steve Turek, LFB's assistant commissioner for Fire Safety Regulation, said: "The complete contempt some landlords appear to have for the safety of those families they are taking money from is incredible.

"These buildings are potential death traps and it's lucky nobody was killed as a result. Building owners must understand the responsibilities they have under fire safety law."

The brigade was initially alerted to the issue after a fire broke out in an office block on the estate at the end of October and a subsequent inspection found over 50 people living in just 17 rooms.

Lofstedt Review

2011-12-19T09:24:00.003Z

In summary the key points are as follows:

“The problem lies less with the regulations themselves and more with the way they are interpreted and applied”

Consolidating the regulations should reduce them by 35%

Health and Safety ( First Aid ) Regulations 1981 – remove the requirement for HSE approved training and qualifications

CDM Regulations 2007 – evaluate its effectiveness by April 2012

RIDDOR 1995 – to be amended by the end of 2013

Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 – clarify requirement for portable appliance testing by April 2012

Work at Height Regulations 2005 – review by April 2013

Display Screen Equipment Regulations 1992 – question the need for eye tests

New support for SMEs to tackle drug and alcohol abuse

2011-11-18T17:14:00.001Z

A European initiative, which aims to provide guidance for small businesses on how to deal with employees with drug or alcohol problems, has launched an electronic learning package and training course to help managers tackle the issue.

The Maximising Employee Potential by Minimising the Impact of Substances (MEPMIS) Project is being funded by the Leonardo Foundation, which is part of the European Commission’s Lifelong Learning Programme. It brought together seven European partners including a university, a research agency, three consultancies, a web design firm, and an IT company. The partners were based in the UK, Ireland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland.

The project features a dedicated website, which has an electronic learning package and a face-to-face training course that is dedicated to reducing absenteeism and under-performance caused by workers’ alcohol, or drug use.
Research by Alcohol Concern revealed that between 11 and 17 million working days are lost in Britain each year because of excessive drinking, and 10 per cent of a typical workforce is said to have an alcohol, or drug problem.

The e-learning and face-to-face training resources are modular and include sections on: examining the best corporate approach to tackling drug and alcohol use; legal principles that underpin any action, including health and safety law, human rights legislation and data protection; managerial knowledge, skills and competencies, which include spotting signs and symptoms, and discipline and support; testing; substances of concern and how they affect behaviour and performance; and putting theory into practice.

Project leader John Griffiths, of work2health Ltd, said: “We spoke to managers and occupational health and safety professionals in each country and asked them what they perceived as their main challenges in this area, and what they felt they needed in terms of information and support. It is one of the key personnel issues they feel least equipped to deal with.

“They are aware that this problem, and associated issues such as testing, can be a legal and social minefield and they want to know what actions are open to them, what’s expected of them, and what the sensitivities are.”
He added: “This is a complex issue; the problem cannot be ignored but employers who think they can simply dismiss workers, or force them to undergo tests without developing and implementing proper policies, procedures and training are likely to run into trouble.

“One of the main aims is to build skills; many companies do not possess the tools to enable their managers to deal with substance use at a corporate level. That’s the value of this new resource.”

Full details of the project can be found at www.alcoholdrugsandwork.eu

New portal for finding CDM-compliant construction contractors

2011-11-18T17:10:00.001Z

Safety Schemes in Procurement (SSIP) has introduced a new internet portal that aims to improve standards of health and safety in the construction industry and simplify the process of contractor assessment.

SSIP says the portal provides instant verification of thousands of construction contractors who have successfully completed a rigorous CDM 2007 Core Criteria Stage 1 assessment. Contractors that have been assessed by an SSIP scheme can demonstrate to any client, or main contractor that they meet the recognised standard for health and safety performance without filling in additional questionnaires.

Unlimited access to the portal will cost £100 a year. SSIP says all revenues from the portal will be ploughed back into improving its service to the construction industry. Simon Mantle, chair of SSIP, said: “Clients seeking complete assurance that a contractor is CDM-compliant can quickly type the company’s name into the portal and check if they hold current certification from an SSIP member. This saves time and cost for the client company, enabling them to get on with Stage 2 assessments.”

According to SSIP, an estimated 5000 clients collect information on 180,000 contractors every year, using more than 2 million questionnaires, at a cost to industry of £1 billion. “The streamlined SSIP process and our new portal will save everybody time and money while providing assurance that robust and consistent assessment processes have been followed,” Mantle said.  
The SSIP portal has been developed and is maintained by SSIP member Altius Vendor Assessment, which also provides the online payment process. Another scheme member, Exor Management Services, has provided the administration process for handling customer log-ins.

For more information, go to: www.ssipportal.org.uk

Risk of structural collapse not identified by designer

2011-11-18T17:08:00.001Z

One of Northern Ireland’s largest construction firms has been fined a total of £75,000 after a section of a portable office unit caved in on top of an employee, fatally injuring him.
Sitting on 5 October, Antrim Crown Court heard that on 19 September 2006, Desmond Stevenson, 62, a joiner employed by Henry Brothers, had been removing temporary bracing inside a section of a pre-fabricated unit that was being repositioned to another location 1000 metres away, at RAF Aldergrove, 15 miles from Belfast. The firm had been moving ten of the units as part of a £7.5m contract it had secured.   

Ken Logan, an HSENI inspector who was part of the investigating team, told SHP that the bracing that should have supported the structure during relocation had been inadequate. “The problem was, that when the operation was being planned at the design stage, nobody considered the potential for it to collapse,” he said.

He went on: “It was clearly foreseeable that there was a risk of the structure collapsing. The lead designer, Anthony Stewart, and Henry Brothers should have realised this state of instability and instructed structural engineers to design an adequate temporary bracing system to be placed inside the line of the structure, so that it could be put in its final position and only then the temporary bracing system removed. They did not do so and, as a result, a 62-year-old joiner paid the ultimate price.”

Henry Brothers (Magherafelt) Ltd had previously pleaded guilty to breaching Article 4(2)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work (NI) Order 1978 by failing to ensure a safe system of work, and reg.9(1) of the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations (NI) 1996 by failing to ensure the stability of a structure. It was fined £60,000 on the first charge and £15,000 on the second.

Stewart was fined £5000 after pleading guilty to a breach of Article 8(a) of the Health and Safety at Work (NI) Order 1978 by not ensuring the safety of himself and other persons. No costs were awarded against him.

“Designers have an obligation to design out risks, or identify them so that they can be properly managed,” inspector Logan said. “In this case the residual risk of collapse was not identified and clearly should have been. If it had been identified, this fatal accident would have been prevented.”

In mitigation, Stewart said he had not fully appreciated his role and responsibilities as a designer in the operation. Henry Brothers said it had a very good health and safety record. It had put its employees through extensive training to ensure such an incident could never happen again. There were lessons to be learned and they had taken them on board. Both expressed their condolences to the victim’s family.

Henry Brothers was ordered to pay a contribution to costs of £15,000.

Government cagey about future of HSE website

2011-11-03T17:47:00.002Z

The Government’s website rationalisation programme and decision to plough ahead with the development of a single government domain to host all main public information has thrown the future of the HSE website into doubt.

A Cabinet Office report released last month shows that 444 central government websites are currently open, compared with 820 last year. The streamlining process aims to reduce unnecessary spending and, at the same time, pave the way for a single government Web domain.

This domain – a recommendation made last year in a government-commissioned report by lastminute.com founder Martha Lane Fox – would host all key public information, building on the services delivered through the Directgov website, as well as offering additional features and reducing the need for individual government sites.

Rumours that the HSE website could be under threat began to circulate following publication of the minutes of the HSE’s Tyre and Rubber Industries Safety Action Group’s meeting in April. The minutes read: “HSE’s website – this may become part of the ‘DirectGov’ website, along with all other Government departments and agencies. Safety Action Group (SG) members expressed their concern at this possibility.”

On seeing these minutes, John Hamilton, head of safety, health and well-being at Leeds Metropolitan University, made some inquiries last month to the HSE, which replied: “There are no current plans to close down HSE’s website and it remains an important resource for both employers and employees.”

Indeed, the wealth of information on the website was one of the main reasons why the HSE decided to sacrifice its Infoline telephone service, which closed in September as part of an efficiency measure. Since then, the Executive has been encouraging businesses and members of the public seeking information and official guidance on health and safety to visit its website, which it describes as “a huge knowledge bank where people can access and download information free of charge and use interactive Web tools”.

The HSE website currently receives 26 million visits a year and had 11,546,036 unique users in 2010/11. It has recently been enhanced with interactive tools for low-risk businesses and an expanded ‘frequently-asked questions’ section.

Only 134 of the 444 central government websites currently live have been given approval to stay open. However, although a Cabinet Office spokesperson confirmed to SHP that Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith had requested that the HSE website be retained “for the time being”, he added: “The list of websites that may be retained pending decisions around the single domain will continue to be reviewed from the perspective of cost-efficiencies in effective communication with the intended audiences.”

User data from the Cabinet Office show that the HSE site performs very well against other government sites – a factor that should be taken into account when any decision is made on its future. A snapshot of the statistics show that:

72.9 per cent of users – got most, or all of what they needed;
81.7 per cent – said they were satisfied, or very satisfied;
91.2 per cent – described the site as good, or very good for ease of use;
79.8 per cent – described the site as good, or very good for ease of finding information;
83.8 per cent – described the site as having a good, or very good search facility; and
92.7 per cent – would definitely or probably recommend the site to others.

The Cabinet Office spokesperson told SHP that the HSE is not part of the beta project for the single domain and that “there are no plans to migrate HSE content on to the test site”. He added: “The beta development of a single government domain will go live in early 2012. The project will then be assessed and the way forward developed following the results of the beta launch.”

Work-related injury and ill health levels continue downward trend

2011-11-03T17:46:00.002Z

Levels of work-related injury and ill health in Britain continued to fall last year, according to new statistics released today (2 November).

HSE figures for the period between April 2010 and March 2011 show that there was a 6-per-cent drop in both major and serious injuries among employees. The former – which include amputations, fractures and burns – decreased from 26,268 in 2009/10 to 24,726 last year, while over-three-day injuries went down from 96,427 to 90,653. The latest figures correspond to injury rates per 100,000 workers of 99 and 363.1, respectively.

The most common causes of major injuries were slips and trips, and falls from height. Most over-three-day injuries were caused by handling, lifting, or carrying, and slips and trips. Transport and storage, construction, manufacturing and health and social work had significantly higher rates of injury than other sectors, while the occupations with the highest injury rates included process, plant and machine operation and skilled trades.

As in previous years, the construction and agricultural industries reported the highest levels of major work-related injuries, with rates per 100,000 workers of 173.2 and 221.9, respectively.

In terms of ill health, some 1.2 million people suffered from an illness caused, or made worse by their work, down from 1.3 million in 2009/10. Around half a million were new cases, i.e. arising among workers in the last 12 months, and around three-quarters of these were either musculoskeletal or stress disorders. The latter, which includes anxiety and depression, gave rise to the most working days lost.

The new figures follow the announcement in June this year of the number of workplace deaths in 2010/11, which, at 171, represented an increase of 16 per cent on the previous year’s record low.

Altogether, the figures confirm that Britain has the lowest rate of fatal occupational injuries and one of the lowest levels of work-related ill health in Europe. Its record on workplace injuries is in line with that of other large economies, such as Germany, France, Italy and Spain.

HSE chair Judith Hackitt said: “The fall in the number of people being injured by work is, of course, to be welcomed but we did also see an increase in the number of fatalities during the year. Britain can be proud that it has one of the best health and safety records in Europe but as the increase in the number of fatalities makes clear, we can never let up in our commitment to addressing the serious risks which continue to cause death and injury in workplaces.”

She concluded: “The HSE will continue to work with employers, employees and other organisations to maintain and, where necessary improve, health and safety standards. We all have a responsibility to make sure serious workplace risks are sensibly managed.”
But construction union UCATT said the figures were “a terrible indictment of the dangers faced by construction workers”. Acting general secretary George Guy added: “The rise in deaths came at a time when workloads are low. As work levels increase and new workers enter the industry, I fear that death rates will rise.”

IOSH welcomed the “slightly improved” injury and ill-health figures but emphasised there was more to be done. Said head of policy and public affairs, Richard Jones: “In the current climate it can be difficult to tell whether these figures show genuine improvement in occupational safety and health management, or whether they reflect lower levels of industrial activity during this period of austerity.”
Enforcement levels in 2010/11 – before the 35-per-cent cut to the regulator’s budget and its subsequent scaling back of enforcement in certain sectors – rose, with the number of health and safety cases prosecuted by the HSE up 9 per cent. Its conviction rate among the 551 cases that came to court was 94 per cent. The total amount of fines levied was £18.6 million, giving an average penalty on conviction of £35,938 per case. Local authorities prosecuted 129 cases – an increase of 10 per cent on the previous year.

A total of 11,020 enforcement notices was issued by the HSE – up 13 per cent on 2009/10 – with Improvement Notices showing the greatest increase (up 23 per cent).

No trade-off between protection and growth, minister tells regulators

2011-11-03T17:45:00.002Z

Businesses taking on more regulatory responsibilities and enforcement authorities giving greater recognition to companies’ efforts to comply with the law are two of the tenets of the Government’s vision for a better regulatory environment, Business minister Mark Prisk said yesterday (1 November).

Addressing the Local & National Regulators annual conference, Mr Prisk called for a more mature relationship between business and regulators, as well as a more accountable and transparent system of local regulation.

Following on from Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s speech to small businesses last week, Mr Prisk highlighted the importance of regulation in creating economic growth, but insisted that a trade-off between protection and growth is not inevitable. Instead, he concentrated on proposals designed to build on the relationship between business and regulators, including:

more use of co-regulation – where business shares a degree of regulatory responsibility – for example, through industry bodies setting professional standards;
greater ‘earned recognition’ – where regulators recognise business activities that support compliance and reduce intervention;
creating Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) – where businesses and regulators are brought together to improve the transparency and accountability of local regulation; and
clearer, more straightforward guidance – so that businesses, particularly SMEs, have greater access to clear guidance on what they need to do to comply.

The minister explained that when regulation becomes “heavy-handed, inefficient, prescriptive and risk-averse” it prevents businesses from growing and creating jobs. But, he added: “It is nonsense to say that there must be a trade-off between protection and growth. That is a simplistic way of looking at a complex issue.

“The challenge is to transform the regulatory landscape so that the system delivers essential protections while avoiding unnecessary interference in the day-to-day work of hard-working business people seeking to innovate and grow, and thereby delivering the jobs and wealth we need.”

Mr Prisk went on to praise the Local Better Regulation Office’s (LBRO) Primary Authority Scheme, which allows businesses spanning local-authority boundaries to nominate a particular authority under whose regulatory regime they will operate. He said he would like to see the Scheme extended to cover more businesses, more policy areas, and deliver more earned recognition for businesses.

Commenting on the minister’s speech, John Walker, national chair of the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), said: “We know that a third of FSB members view regulation as the most significant obstacle faced by their businesses and that includes inspections too. The FSB has, for many years, called for a more cooperative inspection regime, where all inspectors understand the needs of small businesses, provide advice and support, work with them in a positive way to achieve compliance, and focus on real risks, not box-ticking.

“Guidance also needs to be clearer and more accessible for small firms and, when small businesses have a proven track record of good compliance and procedures, this should be taken into account by the inspector.”

In a separate development, a new Common Approach to Competency for regulators has been launched. The framework comprises a set of agreed core skills for regulators to acquire and develop, and is supported through Web-based resources for personal development planning.

Developed by the HSE, the Regulators’ Development Needs Analysis (RDNA) has been used within health and safety regulation for more than two years. In partnership with a coalition of local and national government regulators, including the HSE, the LBRO has now built on the Executive’s work and devised the Common Approach to Competency to be used across other local-authority regulatory services functions, such as trading standards and environmental health.

Said Kevin Myers, deputy chief executive of the HSE: “Our experience shows that the RDNA approach provides more tailored and cost-effective learning and development for regulators, and an effective means to build and maintain relevant competence. This is, of course, good for them as individuals, good for the organisation, and, most importantly, good for the businesses they regulate and the people protected by it.”

The LBRO, meanwhile, is to be replaced by a new organisation within the Department for Business. The new body will retain the LBRO’s independence and draw on its staff and expertise.

Supermarket giant failed to address slip risks

2011-11-03T09:20:00.001Z

Morrisons Supermarkets has been fined £17,500 after a worker fractured her elbow when she slipped at a store in Ipswich.

In June 2008, an environmental health officer from Ipswich Borough Council made a routine visit to a Morrisons store in Sproughton Road. She warned the store’s management about a potential slip hazard behind one of the food counters, where smooth terrazzo tiles had been installed.

The tiles are highly polished and smooth and become extremely slippery when oil or grease is split on them. The store’s risk assessment had identified the issue but had failed to introduce any control measures. The EHO recommended that the company either provide workers with protective footwear, or add a resin coating to the floor to increase slip resistance.

On 4 December 2008, an employee at the store slipped on some tiles, which were positioned behind a counter in the oven-fresh area, after there was a spillage of grease. She suffered a serious fracture to her right elbow and had to undergo three operations to repair the damage. She was unable to return to work for seven months and still suffers constant pain in her elbow.

As part of the investigation into the incident the council worked with experts from the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) to measure the slip resistance of the tiles. The results showed that there was a high risk of slips when the floor was contaminated with water, or oil.  Ipswich Borough Council issued three Improvement Notices to the supermarket for failing to take action to protect workers from slipping on the tiles in three separate areas at the store.

 Investigating EHO Rosemary Naylor revealed that the slip risks were present in other Morrisons stores across the country where the same tiles had been installed. She said: “This serious accident could have been easily prevented had the company acted on my previous written warning and reduced the risk of staff slipping in these areas by improving the floor surface and/or providing anti-slip footwear.

“Our investigation revealed this type of accident continues to occur in food preparation areas in their stores across the UK. I hope this prosecution sends a message to all food businesses that they need to protect their staff from slipping hazards in their kitchens."

  WM Morrison Supermarkets plc appeared at Ipswich Magistrates’ Court on 5 September and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974. In addition to the fine it was ordered to pay full costs of £32,482.

Bully Boys are Dangerous!

2011-11-02T15:06:00.000Z

Richard Cummings, HR Insight, HR Consultant

Bully Boys are Dangerous!

November 2011

Introduction
Is political correctness going mad or are managers slowly realising the danger of taunting employees in the workplace?
As responsible managers, we know not to taunt our colleagues but we all know people that do – and what do we do about it? Do we ignore it? Is that dangerous?
Bullying & Harassment
Bullying has no legal definition. It is generally understood however to be behaviour that is offensive, intimidating or malicious involving the misuse of power that can make a person feel vulnerable, upset, humiliated, undermined or threatened.
Harassment is legally defined. It is unwanted conduct related to a relevant ‘protected characteristic’ which has the purpose of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
Both are increasingly being attached to claims of discrimination.
Who’s Responsibility?
As an employer, you will have policies and procedures to help you deal with bullying and harassment. In deliberate cases, this may result in employees being summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. Whilst employees have a responsibility to abide by the rules that employers lay down, you have the responsibility of enforcing them and ignoring them will likely lead to absence (citing stress) and a tribunal claim.

Work Related Stress
This word is so completely ‘over-used’ that it tends to lose meaning! Although not an illness, it can contribute to ill health and is very real.
According to the Health & Safety Executive, 13.5 million working days are lost each year as a result of employees claiming stress-related absence.
How Do You Know?
As an employer, there are some very simple steps you can take to identify if there is a problem that you should be investigating.
Self Certification Sick Forms should have a field for the employee to indicate if this was a work related absence. If it is ticked, you must investigate.
Return to Work Interviews done routinely for every employee on their return are an easy way of checking the situation and asking questions.
Work related absences due to stress must be investigated. It may not be being caused by bullying or harassment; claims of stress can come from a multitude of areas including high work loads or confused responsibilities, training, organisational change or internal conflicting relationships.
The Law
Employees are protected by the Health & Safety at Work Act 1994; Protection From Harassment Act 1997; a Common Law Duty’ (for negligence).

Expensive Not to Act!
In Green v DB Group Services (2006) a secretary who had been bullied by her colleagues brought a claim under the Act and was awarded £800k in damages.
Under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 an employee has six years to bring a claim against their employer.
STOP PRESS
Will Dismissal Be Easier?
Much has been made of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s announcement to increase the qualifying period from one to two years of service before an unfair dismissal claim can be made. This will inevitably make it easier to dismiss but beware, we expect the number of discrimination claims to increase as these can still be made from Day One.
The most positive change that was announced relates to the plan to charge employees a fee for making a Tribunal claim and we believe this will make a huge impact on reducing the amount of spurious claims being made.
These are planned to come into effect in April 2012.

Lifting diagram followed by workers was "impossible"

2011-11-02T14:47:00.001Z

A fitter suffered fatal head injuries when he became trapped between two massive nine-metre steel structures during a lifting operation.

Quarrying plant and equipment manufacturer Parker Plant was sentenced on 27 October and fined £180,000, plus £47,500 in a contribution to costs. It had pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA by not ensuring the safety of its employee, Michael Tilley, 55, at its Leicester site.

Leicester Crown Court heard that on the date of the incident, 13 December 2008, a 500-tonne concrete batching-plant installation was being manufactured for a project in Sudan.

Mr Tilley and a colleague had been attempting to load large parts of structural steelwork into a shipping container using an overhead crane. However, because the parts would not fit into the container, they were being placed on the ground next to it.

The two workers were directed to place one 1.5-tonne steel section on top of the other. As they released the lifting chains from the load, the top section slid off the bottom one and fell on Mr Tilley’s head, killing him instantly.

The court was told that Mr Tilley and his colleague had been working with an incorrect diagram that showed the two steelwork structures fitting on top of each other, which, in fact, was not possible. The structures were not strapped together, causing the load to be unstable and liable to fall unexpectedly. The work was not properly planned, or supervised and the lifting equipment provided to do the job was defective.

Principal Inspector Sue Thompson told SHP that Mr Tilley had been given no information on the size, weight, or the centre of gravity of the large structures, which would have enabled the men to sling the load correctly.

She told SHP: “It was routine practice to do difficult lifting operations and the company did not have a competent person to manage them. Mr Tilley was left to his own devices to make the best of a bad situation.”

She said the fatal incident was “utterly preventable” and occurred as a “direct result” of Parker Plant’s approach to the safety of its workers, adding that the company failed to provide the proper training for the work it was undertaking.

“If that work had been adequately planned and supervised, this tragedy would not have happened,” said PI Thompson. “Because of this company’s failures, one man lost his life and another will have to live with the after-effects of witnessing such a horrific incident."

Parker Plant expressed regret and mitigated that it had made a lot of improvements since the incident, bringing in a bigger health and safety team and introducing new systems and procedures. In a statement issued after the case, the firm said: “Mr Tilley was a long-standing, highly-valued and much-respected colleague and his death affected everyone within the company.

“Following the incident the company has worked very closely with the HSE, and working practices have been thoroughly reviewed and strengthened in attempting to ensure that this kind of accident never happens again.”

Appearance on TV led to appearance in court

2011-11-02T14:46:00.001Z

A Cambridgeshire stonemasonry contractor has been in the dock after it featured in a BBC2 television programme.

Atelier 109 Ltd had quantities of hazardous stone dust at its Peterborough premises more than three times the maximum legally-safe level, a local court heard.

The dangerous practice was spotted by a viewer when the firm appeared on Monty Don’s Mastercrafts programme on BBC2 in March 2010. The individual contacted the HSE to express his concern over the inadequate precautions taken to protect workers from silica dust, which can cause serious lung diseases.

The court was told that HSE inspectors had first visited the company’s workshop on 6 May 2010, serving an Improvement Notice (IN) on 24 May, which compelled Atelier to take immediate action to cut exposure to stonemasonry dust to within the legal limit.

When a further check was made on 5 November 2010, it was clear that, although improvements had been made, a local exhaust ventilation (LEV) system at the firm had still not been thoroughly examined and tested, so a second IN was served.

However, a third visit by HSE inspectors on 16 June 2011 revealed that the recommended action had not been carried out, despite earlier tests revealing that dust quantities in the workshop were between 100 and 300 per cent the level deemed safe by law.

Alison Ashworth, the investigating HSE inspector who prosecuted the case in court, told SHP: “There is a large number of measures the firm could have taken to control exposure to stonemasonry dust. It could have considered using stone with a lower silica content; it could have segregated the very dusty processes from the rest of the workshop when power tools were being used; it could have pre-soaked the stone before cutting it; or it could have cleaned the area by vacuuming, or using damp cloths.”

The inspector said that although the company did have an extraction system in place it had not been enclosed by walls or a roof, and so it had not been effective.

The company mitigated that it had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, it had cooperated with the HSE’s investigation, and had been experiencing genuine difficulty in finding a suitable engineer to put the system right. It also said it sent larger pieces of stone to France to be cut, rather than cutting them in its workshop.

After the first IN, the company said it had taken actions to improve control. It also said it had provided storage for dust-covered respiratory protective equipment outside the workshop and had started vacuuming the area. But Inspector Ashworth said that the improvements the company made did not meet the standards she expected. The LEV system was inadequate and had only been put in place after her first visit.

She commented: "Atelier was happy to get its moment on television, but rather less quick to protect its employees from a wholly avoidable risk that can have serious consequences and cause respiratory diseases.

"We understand the pressure that small businesses are under and this company was given ample opportunity on a number of occasions to make the necessary improvements. HSE only brought this prosecution when it became clear that the company was dragging its heels and failing to treat this issue with the seriousness it deserved.”

Atelier pleaded guilty on 25 October at Peterborough Magistrates’ Court to breaching s33(1)(g) of the HSWA 1974 by contravening the requirements of an Improvement Notice. It was fined £5000 and ordered to pay full costs of £1400.

Food firm to pay £230,000 over two guard-overriding incidents

2011-11-02T10:01:00.000Z

A large international food-processing company has been hit with fines totalling £230,000, following two incidents where machinery guards had been deliberately overridden, leading to serious injuries to a supervisor and a forklift-truck driver.

Norwich Crown Court, sitting on 25 October, imposed the fines on 2 Sisters Food Group after the incidents at its factory in Flixton, South Norfolk.

Julie Jarvey, the HSE inspector who investigated the case, explained to SHP that the factory dealt with the whole process from receipt of live chickens, through to slaughter, preparing and packing them, ready to be sent out to supermarkets.

In the first incident, on 1 December 2009, night-shift cleaning and hygiene supervisor Shaun Alexander, 42, had been helping a member of his team clean a machine that crushed chicken feet into fine particles to be used in animal feed.

“Part of the machine was driven by two rotating cogs, the fixed guarding over which had been removed so that chicken debris could be cleaned out,” the inspector explained. “It had been custom and practice at the firm to leave the machine running while the operatives cleaned it, but it should have been isolated when the guard was removed.”

Mr Alexander’s right hand was pulled into the cogs and crushed, causing four fingers, part of his thumb and some of his palm to be amputated.

In the second incident, a few weeks later on 11 January 2010, forklift driver Malcolm Raven, 54, suffered a broken arm. The court heard that he had been left in charge of a lairage, where live birds were held before being offloaded into crates and transported via conveyor to an outflow system, which was guarded by an interlocked mesh-fence enclosure. The guard had been permanently overridden with a bypass device.

Inspector Jarvey explained that the crates of chickens frequently jammed in the enclosure. The custom was for operatives to enter the enclosure while the machinery was still powered, using a pole, or their hands, to jiggle the crates in an attempt to unblock them. While doing exactly this, Mr Raven’s arm was pulled into the machine, trapped, and broken.

2 Sisters Food Group, based in West Bromwich, pleaded guilty to two breaches of s2(1) of HSWA 1974 by failing to ensure the safety of its employees. It was fined £90,000 for the offence regarding Shaun Alexander and £140,000 for that concerning Malcolm Raven. It was also ordered to pay full costs of £24,302.

Inspector Jarvey commented: “Both these incidents were wholly avoidable. Shaun Alexander was failed by the company’s lack of proper training, inadequate assessment of risks, absence of safe working practices, and [lack of] effective measures stopping access to dangerous equipment. He will have to live with the consequences of someone else’s mistakes for the rest of his life.

She added: “Malcolm Raven’s injuries could have been much more serious. Similar failings were shown up in his case, made worse by the fact that he hadn’t been properly trained for a task that was outside his normal working duties.”

In sentencing the case, Judge Peter Jacobs said: “The only control measures the company had in place were safety rules requiring operatives to keep hoses clear of moving parts. No suitable instruction had been given in dealing with the wedged items. There were no provisions to ensure that the machine was properly isolated.”

The company said in mitigation that Mr Alexander may have been negligent. It had done all it could to rehabilitate him, had a good safety record, and made genuine efforts to remedy the defect. The judge did not conclude that Mr Alexander was negligent but said: “The whole purpose of guarding is to ensure that employees, negligent or not, do not come into contact with moving machinery.”

The judge commented that the process in the second incident involved such force that it is vital the machine is guarded, or gated, especially as the ramming and movement on the conveyor belt is computer-controlled and sometimes unpredictable.

Matters were further aggravated by the company having a previous conviction for a similar incident at a factory in Stowmarket, which resulted in a £95,000 fine.

Exeter firm fined over worker's injury

2011-10-19T12:46:00.000+01:00

A visiting worker suffered severe leg injuries when he was hit by a reversing telehandler vehicle at a waste transfer site near Exeter.

Andrew Grist, of Newton Abbot, suffered a detached calf muscle, a near severed toe and broken bones in his foot and was off work for six months after the incident at Kenbury Wood Waste Management Centre.

Leese's Ltd, the site operator, was fined £4,500 and ordered to pay £818 costs by Exeter magistrates today (18 October) following a prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

The court heard that the telehandler was one of a number of similar vehicles working on the site. The telehandler had a blindspot because of its size, but there was no device, such as a reversing camera, fitted to the vehicle which could have prevented the incident. Site operators are required to ensure drivers of vehicles which might cause a risk of injury have all round visibility.

Mr Grist had got out of his vehicle on the site, believing he had received a "thumbs-up" signal from the operator of the machine emptying his lorry. He understood this to mean he could leave the site and get his lorry ready to go. It was at this point he was struck by the telehandler.

HSE Inspector, Simon Jones, speaking after the hearing, said:

"This incident could easily have resulted in a fatality at the site. All employers should ensure that vehicles they provide for use by their employees do not have blind spots.

"Site operators should ensure that only vehicles that have had blind spots eliminated are allowed to operate on their site."

Leese's Ltd, of Oak Tree Place, Manaton Close, Matford Business Park, Exeter pleaded guilty to a breach of Regulation 28 (e) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

Proposals on Revised Control of Asbestos Regulations

2011-10-19T12:40:00.001+01:00

This consultation sets out HSE's proposals to introduce revised Control of Asbestos Regulations to implement the changes required to comply with the European Commission's reasoned opinion on the UK Government's transposition of Directive 83/477/EEC as amended by 2003/18/EC on the protection of workers from the risks of exposure to asbestos at work. The reasoned opinion confirms the European Commission's view that the UK has not fully implemented Article 3(3) of the Directive which provides for the exemption of some types of lower risk work with asbestos from three requirements of the Directive: notification of work; medical examinations; and record keeping.

The required changes mean in future fewer types of lower risk work will be exempt from the three requirements. Views are sought on: the proposals; the guidance to be produced to explain how the changes will work in practice; and the impact on business.

New portal for finding CDM-compliant construction contractors

2011-10-11T19:15:00.000+01:00

Safety Schemes in Procurement (SSIP) has introduced a new internet portal that aims to improve standards of health and safety in the construction industry and simplify the process of contractor assessment.

SSIP says the portal provides instant verification of thousands of construction contractors who have successfully completed a rigorous CDM 2007 Core Criteria Stage 1 assessment. Contractors that have been assessed by an SSIP scheme can demonstrate to any client, or main contractor that they meet the recognised standard for health and safety performance without filling in additional questionnaires.

Unlimited access to the portal will cost £100 a year. SSIP says all revenues from the portal will be ploughed back into improving its service to the construction industry. 

Simon Mantle, chair of SSIP, said: “Clients seeking complete assurance that a contractor is CDM-compliant can quickly type the company’s name into the portal and check if they hold current certification from an SSIP member. This saves time and cost for the client company, enabling them to get on with Stage 2 assessments.”

According to SSIP, an estimated 5000 clients collect information on 180,000 contractors every year, using more than 2 million questionnaires, at a cost to industry of £1 billion. “The streamlined SSIP process and our new portal will save everybody time and money while providing assurance that robust and consistent assessment processes have been followed,” Mantle said.  

The SSIP portal has been developed and is maintained by SSIP member Altius Vendor Assessment, which also provides the online payment process. Another scheme member, Exor Management Services, has provided the administration process for handling customer log-ins.

£144,000 to pay after “tragic death” of worker in jammed press

2011-10-11T19:12:00.000+01:00

A County Durham car-components manufacturer has been fined £100,000 after a maintenance engineer was crushed to death whilst clearing a jam on a production line.

Paul Clark, 52, a multi-skilled fitter at Tallent Automotive, died on 8 July 2009 after becoming trapped between a moving carriage and the support structure at the end of its tracks while working alone in an isolated area of the plant.

Durham Crown Court heard on 30 September that Mr Clark had been working in the press shop of the company’s Newton Aycliffe plant, which manufactures parts for the car industry.

The Court was told that a de-stacker – a pneumatically-powered carriage that is part of a large, 2500-tonne press, which produces chassis components – had jammed and stopped halfway along its tracks. The carriage was used to move empty magazines previously containing metal blanks away from the press. Mr Clark had been attempting to find the fault with the pneumatics and had opened the interlocked safety gates to gain access inside the fenced enclosure of the machine.

However, although opening these gates isolated the equipment from the electricity supply, it did not isolate the pneumatic power element of the machine. Moreover, the equipment for controlling movement of the carriage was located between the tracks the carriage ran on, which meant Mr Clark had to work in an extremely dangerous area to try to establish the cause of the jam. He was trapped when the de-stacker moved suddenly and died as a result of traumatic asphyxia due to crush injuries.

Martin Baillie, the HSE inspector who investigated the case, told SHP there had been no safe procedures for carrying out work within the de-stacker area. Although electrical hazards were recognised by the company, risks from the pneumatically-operated equipment were not.

The inspector said: “This tragic death could have been avoided had the company put in place a safe system of work that ensured that risks from all energy sources had been identified and made safe before employees could gain access to the enclosure where the equipment was located.

"It is vitally important that safe isolation procedures are developed and used before attempting to make repairs to equipment.

"In this instance, Tallent Automotive instead relied on the training and experience of individuals. This was a significant cause of the incident that led to Mr Clark’s death."

The inspector concluded: “This is an engineering company. They should know about these things. They had the expertise and knowledge, but did not recognise the hazards associated with the de-stacker being pneumatically energised. Other workers also routinely enter the enclosure, so they too were at risk.”

The firm said in mitigation that the company who had manufactured the de-stacker unit had gone out of business during the machine’s installation. Consequently, Tallent had not received the pneumatic drawings, information and documentation that would have informed its risk assessment and which it would have been able to give to workers to show how the pneumatic supply worked and how they could safely make any necessary adjustments.

Tallent said took safety very seriously, had a good safety record and employed a full-time health and safety manager. It has since adapted the equipment so that nothing like this can happen again.

Tallent Automotive was fined £100,000 after pleading guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974 by failing to ensure its employees’ safety. The company was also ordered to pay a contribution to costs of £44,000.

Retail "Wake Up Call for M&S"

2011-07-26T13:52:00.000+01:00

High-street retailer Marks and Spencer and two of its contractors have been convicted for potentially exposing workers and members of the public to asbestos.

In 2006, the HSE received a complaint from an electrician who had been involved in the refurbishment of a Marks and Spencer store in Reading. He informed the HSE that he believed asbestos removal work was not being carried out safely. When HSE inspectors visited the store they found that asbestos-containing materials were present in ceiling tiles that were being removed from the store. Styles and Wood Ltd was the principal contractor for the overall refurbishment, while PA Realisations Ltd (formerly Pectel Ltd) was contracted to remove the asbestos.

The work was carried out at night in enclosures on the shop floor in order to remove the tiles bit by bit, to allow the shop to stay open to the public each day. During the investigation inspectors found evidence that asbestos had been spread around the store. The HSE alleged that Marks and Spencer had failed to allocate sufficient time and space for the asbestos removal.

The investigation also learned that PA Realisations had failed to ensure that the protective tent, which it used to prevent asbestos from spreading when removing the tiles, was in a suitable condition. Workers should have tested the tent by filling it with smoke to see if there were any gaps that would allow asbestos to escape. Instead, they used a glass vial to let out a small amount of smoke, which made it harder to identify if any fumes had leaked out. Although the solicitor for Marks and Spencer said the test was carried out differently.

In February 2007, the HSE visited a Marks and Spencer store in Bournemouth, which was also being refurbished. It found that the principal contractor at the store, Wilmott Dixon Construction Ltd, had failed to plan, manage and monitor the removal of asbestos materials. It had also failed to carry out an extensive asbestos survey and inspectors found evidence that asbestos had been spread around the store.

Earlier this week, on 18 July, Willmott Dixon Construction was found guilty, following a trial at Winchester Crown Court, of breaching s2(1) and s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. The charges relate to refurbishment work it carried out at the Bournemouth store.

Marks and Spencer plc was found guilty of the same breaches, in relation to the work carried out at its Reading store from 24 April to 13 November 2006. 

PA Realisations was also found guilty for contravening reg. 15 of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations, on account of the work it carried out at the Reading store.

At an earlier hearing, Styles & Wood Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) and s3(1) of the HSWA 1974, in relation to its role at the Reading store.

All four companies will be sentenced on 26 September 2011.

After the hearing, HSE Principal Inspector Charles Gilby said: “This prosecution exposed serious failures by Marks and Spencer and its contractors that we hope others will learn from. This verdict is a wake-up call for the retail industry. Client accountability and responsibility is at the heart of this case, because asbestos can and does kill.

“There are very real lessons here for the country's large retailers and other organisations engaging in programmes of refurbishment, that they must allow enough time and resource to carry out work without endangering anyone.”

A fifth company, Clarence Contractors Ltd, was prosecuted and sentenced in relation to asbestos removal at a Marks and Spencer store in Plymouth. The company, which at the time of sentence was in liquidation, appeared in court on 12 January 2010 and pleaded guilty to breaching reg. 10 and reg. 15 of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002, for offences committed between September 2004 and September 2006. It also pleaded guilty to contravening reg. 11 and reg. 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, in relation to asbestos removal work it carried out at the Bournemouth store. It was fined £50 for each offence and £100 in costs.

Asbestos exposure during nightclub refurbishment

2011-04-18T14:57:00.001+01:00

A property developer put his workers at risk by failing to identify the presence of asbestos before allowing them to start work on a nightclub in Wrexham.

Michael Murton, 36, of Bewdley, near Kidderminster, instructed contractors to remove sprayed coating containing amosite (brown asbestos) from steel beams while refurbishing the nightclub. The workers were exposed to the deadly substance between 11 and 24 February 2010 at 33-35 Brook Street, Wrexham.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found Mr Murton had failed to survey the property before the work started. This led to the unlicensed and uncontrolled removal of the asbestos-containing material and its subsequent spread in and around the building.

Michael Murton, of Bewdley, near Kidderminster previously pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 5, 8(1), 11(1)(a) and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 at Mold Magistrates Court.

He also pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to Regulation 19 of the Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005, two duty of care offences contrary to Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. He also pleaded guilty to a charge of treating and disposing of asbestos in a manner likely to cause harm to human health or pollution of the environment contrary to Section 33 (1)(c) Environmental Protection Act 1990. These charges were brought by the Environment Agency Wales.

At Mold Crown Court today, Murton was given a suspended sentence of eight months for breaching the Control of Asbestos Regulations. He was also given a 12 month suspended sentence for breaching Section 33 (1)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and eight months suspended sentence for the offence contrary to Regulation 19 of the Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005.

Mr Murton was also ordered to carry out 200 hours of community service and to pay costs of £10,000 over two years.

HSE Inspector, Debbie John, said:

"This is a serious incident and one that could have easily been avoided.

"Had Mr Murton surveyed the property for the presence of asbestos prior to the start of construction work, the sprayed coating would have been identified and arrangements made for its controlled removal by an HSE-licensed contractor.

"Instead, Mr Murton; construction workers; waste management contractors and others were exposed to potentially deadly asbestos-containing materials."

Speaking after the case, Environment Agency Wales officer Sally Connah, said:

"There are specific rules and laws around the disposal of any waste, but specifically hazardous substances like asbestos. If we do not enforce these laws people's health and the environment can be put at risk.

Reforms proposed for “out of kilter” civil-justice system

2011-03-31T18:07:00.000+01:00

30 March 2011

The Government is pushing ahead with plans to reform ‘no win no fee’ deals and overhaul the civil-justice system, as part of its efforts to release businesses from the fear of a compensation culture.

In a new consultation launched yesterday (29 March) and aimed at creating a simpler, quicker and more proportionate civil-justice regime, the Government is proposing to expand the use of an online system for resolving road-traffic accident personal-injury claims of up to £10,000, by making it available to process employers’ liability and public liability personal-injury claims.

The Government also plans to introduce automatic referral to mediation in small-claims cases, automatic referral to mediation-awareness sessions in higher-value cases, and consulting on making mediated settlements enforceable by courts.

Other proposals include raising the maximum value for small claims from £5000 to £15,000, enabling more cases to be heard through the small-claims process rather than through a costly trial.

Announcing the plans, Justice secretary Kenneth Clarke said: “With no major reform for 15 years, the civil-justice system has got out of kilter. Businesses and other people who have been sued can find that spiralling legal costs, slow court processes, unnecessary litigation, and the ‘no win no fee’ structures, which mean greater payments to lawyers than to claimants, are setting them back millions of pounds each year.”

According to the Government, statistics provided by insurers show that in 1999 claimant solicitors’ costs were equivalent to just over half the damages agreed, or awarded. By last year, however, average claimant costs represented 142 per cent of the sums received by injured victims.

Seeking reform in this area, the Government also confirmed it would be implementing Lord Justice Jackson’s blueprint to reform the cost of civil litigation. These plans include:

•Abolishing recoverability of success fees and associated costs in ‘no win no fee’ conditional-fee agreements. Under the current regime, defendants must pay these additional costs if they lose. Under the reforms, claimants will pay their lawyer’s success fee, and will therefore take an interest in controlling the costs being incurred on their behalf.
•Allowing damages-based agreements (also known as contingency fees) in litigation before the courts. These are another form of ‘no win no fee’ agreement, under which lawyers can take a proportion of the claimants’ damages in fees, and would increase the funding options available to claimants.
•Introducing a 10-per-cent increase in general damages, and introducing a mechanism to protect the vast majority of personal-injury claimants from paying a winning defendant’s costs.
Justice minister Jonathan Djanogly said the reforms would help tackle “the perverse situation in which lawyers can be awarded a greater proportion of payouts than claimants” and “help put an end to the fear of a compensation culture”.

Following the announcement, EEF head of health & safety, Steve Pointer, said: “This is a welcome step forward in delivering a system that reflects a fair balance between rewarding those who have been harmed, and the significant efforts of companies to manage risks. The current system of high legal costs for small claims is encouraging poor claims and is failing to meet the needs of genuine claimants, insurers and employers.”

He added: “Today’s reforms must now be followed by further action. The HSE is already doing a great deal to reduce the paperwork burden imposed by regulation, and this needs to be followed through into the compensation system, where straightforward changes could make a real difference.”

But TUC general secretary Brendan Barber attacked the proposals, saying: “This review has nothing to do with justice. It is simply lining the pockets of insurers at the expense of claimants seeking compensation for injuries caused by the negligence of others.”

Planning loading and unloading of vehicles

2011-03-17T14:55:00.001Z

Three million people in Great Britain work on or near vehicles as part of their regular job. Getting on and off a vehicle to carry out loading/unloading operations and working at height on the vehicle are often viewed as incidental to the main job. Because of this, the risks involved may not be properly considered by both workers and their managers. The economic and human cost of the falls from vehicles that we know about was over £36 million in 2004/05.

Careful assessment of the tasks involved and implementation of simple and cost-effective safety controls can reduce the risk of falls from vehicles significantly and avoid potential losses for your company.

Get help from the workers who use the vehicle – they know how the job is really done and normally have good ideas about how to make it safer and more efficient.

You must think in terms of a hierarchy of controls:

plan to avoid work at height where you can;
where you can’t, make sure you use work equipment to prevent falls:
first choice – vehicle-based systems;
second choice – on-site systems;
where the risk of a fall can’t be eliminated, use work equipment to minimise the distance and consequences of a fall;
always consider measures that protect everyone at risk (eg platforms and guardrails) before measures that only protect the individual (eg safety harness).

Unprotected Blade

2011-03-17T14:53:00.000Z

A theme park worker severely injured his right hand as he was cutting wood using an unguarded rotating saw blade.

Steven Gardiner was working at Loudoun Castle Theme Park in Ayrshire cutting up sheets of plywood on 29 October 2009.

As the saw he normally used was not available for this task due to an operating fault, Mr Gardiner was using a table mounted circular saw that he had never used before. When setting up the saw he saw he noticed that the blade guard was not attached to the riving knife but, as he did not know how to fit this guard he left it to one side.

Mr Gardiner started working with a colleague, but after he left he decided to carry on alone as he only had a few sheets of plywood left to cut. As he pushed a long strip of wood through the blade using both hands to keep it straight, his right hand slipped forward and came into contact with the blade, cutting it badly.

He bound his hand up with his t-shirt and called for help. He was taken to hospital, where he needed a six hour bone graft operation to save his fingers. Doctors used bone from his hip and wire to rebuild his thumb, fingers and tendons. He needed two further operations to have metal plates inserted into his hand and remove scar tissue. He will need further surgery.

Mr Gardiner still cannot bend his thumb and doctors do not know if full movement to his fingers will ever return. He has difficulty tying laces and doing buttons, cannot clench his hand and has had to give up his hobby of DIY. Before the park closed, he was moved from his former post as a maintenance worker to an office based role as he was no longer able to carry out his previous duties as a maintenance worker.

Today at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court Parkware Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) and (2) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and were fined £5,000.

HSE Inspector Eve Macready said:

"This was an entirely avoidable incident which will affect Mr Gardiner for the rest of his life. Not only has he had to change his line of work, but he has also had to give up a hobby and has difficulty performing tasks as simple as tying his shoelaces.

"Mr Gardiner's injuries would not have happened if the blade guard had been fitted. Employers have a duty to make sure machinery made available as work equipment is safe."

Health and Safety Fine for Printers

2011-03-17T14:52:00.001Z

A Tunbridge Wells printing firm has been fined after intentionally removing safety guards from its printing machines, potentially putting staff at risk of injury.

Printwells Limited, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for not ensuring machinery guards were in place when employees used the machines, despite being served two Improvement Notices for the same offence in 2003.

Sevenoaks Magistrates' Court heard that on the 13 April 2010 two HSE Inspectors visited the company's premises unannounced.

The Inspectors found machine guards, known as safety interlocks, had been deactivated on two machines. The guards should have been in place to protect employees from accessing dangerous parts of the machinery.

HSE's investigation found the interlocks had been removed to allow the supervisor for the department to undertake routine maintenance work, found to be common practise within the Tunbridge Wells branch of Printwells.

Printwells Limited, of Chapman Way, North Farm Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent pleaded guilty to two counts of regulation 11(1)(a) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The firm was fined a total of £3,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,500.

HSE's inspector Guy Widdowson said:

"Printwell employees were needlessly put at risk. There could easily have been a serious injury during the maintenance of these machines. It is purely down to luck that a serious incident did not occur at this company before.

"As this case demonstrates, HSE will take robust enforcement action against any company found removing safety devices, whether an injury has occurred or not."

HSE Visiting Construction Sites

2011-03-17T14:50:00.000Z

During 2009/10 there were 1,287 injuries and four workers died while working in construction across London, all of these occurred during refurbishment, repair and maintenance activities. These will be the main focus of the latest inspections by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

On the unannounced visits - starting on 14 February - regional inspectors will ensure that sites are managing work at height safely and that they are in good order, as well as checking that the risk of exposure to asbestos is being properly managed.

Last year inspectors visited 230 sites and 202 contractors. They were forced to issue more than 35 prohibition notices to stop dangerous work relating to working from height.

HSE's Principal Inspector Barry Mullen said:

"This will be the fifth year that we have run the inspection initiative across London and we anticipate that that there will be examples of both good and bad practice - those where employers are taking all the measures they can to protect their workers and those where safety is way down the list of priorities.

"A lax attitude to health and safety in one of the more dangerous industries is not acceptable, especially when many of the incidents are completely avoidable by taking commonsense actions and precautions. As we've demonstrated in previous years, we will not hesitate to take action if we find poor practice that is putting the lives of workers at risk.

"This year, as part of ensuring risks from asbestos are properly managed, we will also be checking that, where appropriate, asbestos surveys have been carried out prior to any refurbishment work. Many workers believe that, because asbestos has been banned as a building material, it's no longer a threat to them. But that simply isn't true. Any premises built or refurbished before 2000 could contain asbestos."

Construction Sites Still Dangerous

2011-03-17T14:48:00.000Z

Nearly a third of the construction sites visited in High Peak last week were found to be so dangerous that workers' lives were being put at risk.

Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) visited 56 sites in the borough on 8 and 9 March, as part of an initiative aimed at reducing deaths and injuries in one of Britain's most dangerous industries.

A total of 17 sites were found to be so far below the required standards that inspectors had to issue formal enforcement notices.

[1]
A site inspected in New Mills
The four-week initiative, which was launched on 14 February, saw inspectors across Great Britain target refurbishment projects − the worst performing sector of the construction industry.

Several of the sites visited received more than one enforcement notice either stopping work activities immediately, or requiring improvements to be made within a set time period.

In total, inspectors issued 23 prohibition and 11 improvement notices in High Peak, with the vast majority relating to unsafe work being carried out at height.

The latest figures show that, on average, a construction worker is injured in High Peak every three weeks. Across the East Midlands, four workers were killed and there were 645 injuries during 2009/10.

Nationally, nearly three quarters of all deaths occurred during refurbishment, repair and maintenance activities.

Nic Rigby, HSE Principal Inspector for Construction, said:

"We saw a total of 68 different contractors in High Peak and it's disappointing that so many of them are ignoring their health and safety responsibilities - especially after we publicised the fact we would be visiting the area.

"It's particularly concerning that so many of the enforcement notices we issued related to unsafe work being carried out at height. This is the number one cause of deaths in the construction industry.

"HSE will not hesitate to use its powers to stop work that isn't being carried out safely, and we expect to see a significant improvement in standards over the next few months."

More information on construction safety is available at www.hse.gov.uk/construction[2].

HSE Vibration Clampdown in progress

2011-02-28T13:32:00.000Z

The Health effects of hand-arm vibration at work
What is hand-arm vibration?
Hand-arm vibration is vibration transmitted from work processes into workers' hands and arms. It can be caused by operating hand-held power tools, such as road breakers, and hand-guided equipment, such as powered lawnmowers, or by holding materials being processed by machines, such as pedestal grinders.

When is it hazardous?
Regular and frequent exposure to hand-arm vibration can lead to permanent health effects. This is most likely when contact with a vibrating tool or work process is a regular part of a person’s job. Occasional exposure is unlikely to cause ill health.

What health effects can it cause?
Hand-arm vibration can cause a range of conditions collectively known as hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS), as well as specific diseases such as carpal tunnel syndrome.

What are the early symptoms?
Identifying signs and symptoms at an early stage is important. It will allow you, as the employer, to take action to prevent the health effects from becoming serious for your employee. The symptoms include any combination of:

Tingling and numbness in the fingers;
Not being able to feel things properly;
Loss of strength in the hands;
Fingers going white (blanching) and becoming red and painful on recovery (particularly in the cold and wet, and probably only in the tips at first).
For some people, symptoms may appear after only a few months of exposure, but for others they may take a few years. They are likely to get worse with continued exposure to vibration and may become permanent.

What effects do these symptoms have?
The effects on people include:

Pain, distress and sleep disturbance;
Inability to do fine work (eg assembling small components) or everyday tasks (eg fastening buttons);
Reduced ability to work in cold or damp conditions (ie most outdoor work) which would trigger painful finger blanching attacks;
Reduced grip strength, which might affect the ability to do work safely.
These effects can severely limit the jobs an affected person is able to do, as well as many family and social activities.
Do you have a hand-arm vibration problem at work?
This will depend on whether your employees regularly and frequently work with vibrating tools and equipment and/or handle vibrating materials. It will also depend on how long your employees are exposed to vibration and at what level. As a simple guide you will probably need to do something about vibration exposures if any of the following apply:

Do your employees complain of tingling and numbness in their hands or fingers after using vibrating tools?
Do your employees hold work pieces, which vibrate while being processed by powered machinery such as pedestal grinders?
Do your employees regularly use hand-held or hand guided power tools and machines such as:
Concrete breakers, concrete pokers;
Sanders, grinders, disc cutters;
Hammer drills;
Chipping hammers;
Chainsaws, brush cutters, hedge trimmers,
Powered mowers;
Scabblers or needle guns.
Do your employees regularly operate:
Hammer action tools for more than about 15 minutes per day; or
Some rotary and other action tools for more than about one hour per day.
Do you work in an industry where exposures to vibration are particularly high, such as construction, foundries, or heavy steel fabrication/shipyards?
Which jobs and industries are most likely to involve hand-arm vibration?
Jobs requiring regular and frequent use of vibrating tools and equipment and handling of vibrating materials are found in a wide range of industries, for example:

Building and maintenance of roads and railways;
Construction;
Estate management (eg maintenance of grounds, parks, water courses, road and rail side verges);
Forestry;
Foundries;
Heavy engineering;
Manufacturing concrete products;
Mines and quarries;
Motor vehicle manufacture and repair;
Public utilities (eg water, gas, electricity, telecommunications);
Shipbuilding and repair.
What kinds of tools and equipment can cause ill health from vibration?
There are hundreds of different types of hand-held power tools and equipment which can cause ill health from vibration. Some of the more common ones are:

Chainsaws;
Concrete breakers/road breakers;
Cut-off saws (for stone etc);
Hammer drills;
Hand-held grinders;
Impact wrenches;
Jigsaws;
Needle scalers;
Pedestal grinders;
Polishers;
Power hammers and chisels;
Powered lawn mowers;
Powered sanders;
Scabblers;
Strimmers/brush cutters.

RHSS Limited PAT testing services

2011-02-24T16:18:00.002Z

Visual Inspection

Firstly we carry out a visual inspection of the appliance checking:

• The Flex. We check to see it is in good condition and is free from cuts, fraying or damage
• The Plug. We check that the cable is tight and secure and that there are no signs of overheating and it is free from cracks or damage. We also check that the plug has been wired correctly and the terminal screws are tight
• Socket Outlet. Are there any signs of overheating? Is it free from cracks and damage?
• The Appliance. We check the appliance for signs of cracks and damage to the casing

Testing the Appliance

Then, subject to the appliance passing the visual inspection, we connect it to a specialist PAT Tester which checks:

1. Earth Continuity
2. Insulation Resistance
3. Polarity – Power leads only

The Results

Each appliance is then labelled appropriately with a PASS/FAIL vinyl label and the results are logged

Testing IT Equipment
Due to the delicate nature of IT equipment, a reduced current is applied to these appliances.
A visual inspection only will be carried out on servers and they will NOT be turned off

Any appliance that fails the test will be brought to your attention immediately

For your convenience, and to avoid any possible disruption
to the office, the testing can be done out of office hours
for NO extra charge

We are fully certified and insured and our
pricing structure is extremely competitive

* FREE plug replacement
* FREE fuse replacement
* FREE mains lead replacement for computers
* FREE microwave emission checks
* SAME DAY certification if required

Anyone who lets residential accommodation as a business activity is required by law to ensure that the electrical equipment they supply as part of the tenancy is safe

The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 requires that all mains electrical equipment (cookers, washing machines, fridges, kettles etc) supplied in rented accommodation must be safe

The ‘supply’ of the electrical equipment occurs at the time of the tenancy contract. It is, therefore, essential that PAT Testing is carried out prior to the start of the tenancy

A report, detailing the equipment checked, the tests carried out and the results will be sent to you for your records

We offer a special rate for landlords and agents
Please call us for details

EU orders UK to tighten asbestos laws

2011-02-24T15:58:00.000Z

The European Commission has requested that the UK amend its regulations on asbestos at work because they do not comply fully with the parent EU Directive.

Delivered in the form of a reasoned opinion under EU infringement procedures, the Commission wants the UK to change provisions in its legislation that exempt some maintenance and repair activities from the application of the EU Directive on the protection of workers from asbestos.

It follows a complaint received by the Commission that Article 3(3)(a) and (b) of the asbestos Directive 2009/148/EC has not been correctly transposed into UK law. Article 3(3) offers the possibility for an exemption from three obligations set out in the Directive for activities that involve only sporadic and low-intensity exposure to asbestos – for example, in the case of some maintenance and repair activities.

However, in the Commission’s view, the UK law omits specific parts of Article 3(3)(a) and (b), and so widens the scope of the exemption. The Commission says the UK legislation focuses on the measurement of exposure to asbestos but not enough on how the material can be affected by the work involved. The Directive deals with both exposure and the material.

The UK now has two months to bring its legislation into line with EU law, or risk the matter being referred to the EU’s Court of Justice.

Commenting on the development, TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, said: “This is another nail in the coffin of the myth that the HSE has been ‘gold-plating’ regulation. European regulations are there to protect workers, and governments should see them as being minimum standards rather than trying to weasel out of their commitments.”

Alan Ritchie, general secretary of construction-workers’ union UCATT, added: "Construction workers, especially those involved in maintenance work, are now at the greatest risk of being exposed to asbestos and developing asbestos-related diseases.

“It is essential that they are given the greatest possible training, education and protection when it comes to dealing with asbestos. UCATT’s advice is clear: if you are not a specialist, do not work with asbestos. If, at any point, you think you are working with asbestos, stop work immediately and get it checked out.”

How many slips have happened in your kitchen?

2011-01-26T12:54:00.001Z

When kitchen worker Amy slipped on water from a leaking drinks dispenser, she instinctively reached out to stop her fall, in the process she plunged her arm into boiling hot oil. Chef Ahsan was even more unlucky; he slipped on a floor still wet from mopping and in the process of falling, pulled the entire contents of a hot deep fat fryer over him. These are two examples of serious slip accidents that have happened in a professional kitchen. In 2006/07 1863 people received an injury that kept them off work for more than three days, 640 received a major injury (many resulting in broken bones). As well as the personal cost, accidents can leave you short handed and can cost you money (e.g. sick pay, compensation claims, increased insurance costs).

Everyone has a part to play when it comes to stopping slips. Chefs, managers and business owners need to set up effective systems for preventing slips and trips and then need to ensure staff are informed, trained and following those systems. Staff can make a big difference by adopting a ‘see it, sort it’ mentality.

Materials have been produced, designed to help you reduce the risk of slipping in your kitchen and help you comply with health and safety legislation. Electronic copies can be viewed by clicking on the links below;

http://www.hse.gov.uk/slips/kitchens/goodpractice.pdf

How many slips have happened in your kitchen?

2011-01-26T12:54:00.000Z

Occupational Safety Consultants Register (OSCR) Q&A

2011-01-18T13:04:00.000Z

What is the register designed to do?The Occupational Safety Consultants Register (OSCR) is a first step to resolving the problems identified by Lord Young in the Raising Standards section of his report. While many businesses develop in-house competence, and do not need to use health and safety consultants (because, for example, they already employ competent persons to provide the assistance required by regulation 7 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999), some will need help. Those that use a consultant who is on the OSCR can have confidence that such a person has complied with the high qualification standards of a recognised professional body.

Who can sign up?The scheme is voluntary for individuals who provide commercial third party advice services on general safety management issues. To register, you must be a chartered member of IOSH, CIEH or REHIS or a fellow of IIRSM. Consultants with the highest qualifications and experience are eligible to apply to the OSCR: those who are recognised by a professional body have a commitment to continuing professional development, a degree level qualification, assessed experience, professional indemnity insurance and are bound by a code of conduct to only provide sensible and proportionate advice.

Why can't people who are not members of professional bodies sign up?The professional bodies provide the verification that those on the Register have a commitment to continuing professional development, a degree level qualification, assessed experience, professional indemnity insurance and who are bound by a code of conduct to only provide sensible and proportionate advice. Other consultants may regard themselves as well qualified and are not prevented from continuing their business. Consultants not yet affiliated to a professional body may wish to join one and once Chartered or Fellow status is achieved, they can apply to register on OSCR.

Will there be a joining fee or ongoing costs for being on the register?Yes, there will be a small fee to cover administration costs. This is not about making profits. The fee is yet to be established.

Who is involved in the scheme and what are their roles? Will HSE always be leading the work?HSE is working with the professional bodies and other stakeholders (listed below) as a facilitator in ensuring that OSCR is established by professional bodies as a not-for-profit company. The intention is that once it is up-and-running, HSE will no longer need to be directly involved. The exact structure of the company is yet to be finalised. The professional bodies and other stakeholders involved are: Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH ); Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH); International Institute of Risk and Safety Management (IIRSM); Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland (REHIS); British Safety Council; British Safety Industry Federation (BSIF); National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health (NEBOSH); Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA); British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS); and Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors (IEHF).

Will businesses still be able to use Trade Associations for advice?Yes, HSE recognises that many employers approach their Trade Associations and obtain competent advice from them. Trade Associations cannot register with the OSCR simply because individuals are only eligible to register and not groups.

What are the key milestones for the scheme over the next few years? For example, what is going to happen in January 2011?The scheme will go live early in 2011 and employers will be able to access the online database of safety consultants from then. An announcement will be made later in the year regarding the not-for-profit company, whose membership will comprise the professional bodies, that is intended to run the scheme and the precise mechanism for safety consultants to register. HSE will, in parallel, be considering the whole of Lord Young’s suggestions on the issue of raising standards.

Does membership of the register have to be renewed every year or few years?While the detail is yet to be agreed, a renewal requirement is anticipated and a small annual registration fee will be payable to ensure that the register is kept up to date and to cover administration costs. The fees have yet to be set.

Does being registered mean that a contractor is of proven good quality like bearers of a kite mark?Organisations using a consultant from the register can have confidence that such persons are highly qualified and experienced, and have been recognised as such by the relevant professional bodies which, through their codes of conduct, will require them to only give advice which is sensible and proportionate. It also means that consultants will have to be clear about those areas in which they are professionally competent. Employers are ultimately responsible for safety in their workplaces and have a duty in law to appoint sufficient number of competent persons to advise them. In complying with this duty, doing this, some will wish to have external safety advice. They should take the same steps to check the suitability and the value for money of the service as they would do when selecting any commercial service.

How will the scheme help prevent poor quality health and safety advice being given?It will create a single recognised national scheme for identifying safety consultants who have attained high degrees of qualifications and experience as recognised by the participating professional bodies.

Why is the register being set up as a not for profit company?It is simply a mechanism to administer the scheme. The details are not yet decided, but the professional bodies will be members of the company and decide together how it will be run. HSE will not be a member.

How will HSE and local authority inspectors use the register?If they encounter an organisation which has a clear need for external safety advice on general safety management issues, they can refer them to the OSCR. If they need specialist advice (for example, on managing a health surveillance programme) they will be referred to a relevant professional body.

New Services

2011-01-10T20:05:00.002Z

We are delighted to continue to offer the following services that some of you may not be aware of:
Fire Extinguisher Provision and Servicing (build in with Health and Safety visits to save at least 10%)
CDM-Coordinator Services for your Building Project - helping with CDM compliance
Assessment of competence of your contractors or associates
High Level Fire Safety Consultancy "RHSS Fire" web site and blog will launch in March 2011 as well as advanced services in Fire Risk Assessment, Fire Auditing, Fire Training and related Fire Services
RHSS Signs providing standard and bespoke signage of all kinds www.rhss-signs.co.uk
RHSS Limited are in the final stages of gaining ISO9001 Quality Management System to ensure that our systems reach the highest standards to benefit our customers
Our First Aid Training Courses go from strength to strength throughout 2011
Refer a client scheme - we work with a variety of clients and we try to introduce them to each other if we see a business link or opportunity - do the same for us and if successful in line with our criteria we will knock upto 20% off your next bill!

Gas Safe Register

2011-01-02T23:16:00.000Z

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

HSE advises that you should arrange for regular maintenance and an annual safety check to be carried out on your gas appliances and installation by a Gas Safe registered engineer. Landlords have a legal duty to ensure that this is carried out.

Unsafe gas work can lead to a gas leak, fire, explosion and exposure to carbon monoxide, which could result in you, your family or friends being seriously injured or killed.

Better Gas Safe than sorry. Always check the card.

Go to the Gas Safe Register [1] or phone 0800 408 5500 to find out more about how to make sure your engineer is Gas Safe registered and how to protect yourself and your family from unsafe gas work.

Seasons Greeting

2010-12-23T13:22:00.002Z

All at RHSS hope you have a wonderful break this Christmas and New Year.

Untrained Banksman Killed

2010-12-14T13:28:00.000Z

A Buckinghamshire metal fabricator has been fined £30,000 after a worker was crushed to death at its premises.

Bryn Evans, 52, from Milton Keynes was acting as a banksman at Bletchley-based Trevett Engineering Ltd and was guiding a reversing heavy goods delivery vehicle towards a doorway when he was killed.

As Mr Evans was guiding the lorry into the loading area he became trapped between the back of the vehicle and the building’s brick wall. He died at the scene from crush injuries to his chest.

Milton Keynes Crown heard Mr Evans had not received training as a banksman. An investigation by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) also showed there was no specific need for a banksman during the reversing process, it had merely become customary at the site.

As well the £30,000 fine, Trevett Engineering was ordered to pay costs of £11,630.

HSE inspector Karl Howes said: "This tragic case illustrates the risks that are associated with deliveries and reversing vehicles. It is vital that employers fully assess the risks involved in deliveries to site. Banksman should only be used when there are no safer available methods to control reversing and then only when people have been fully trained to undertake that role."

Skip Warning

2010-11-29T22:38:00.000Z

The Health & Safety Executive has issued a warning notice on the dangers of 'false' engagement of tipping hooks on builders' skips. It warns that many skips have a lip on which tipping hooks may appear to be engaged but do not have a safe hold.

With no British or European standards for skips, they are often made with the base plate extending beyond the end plates, producing a lip. If the tipping hooks snag on this lip instead of the engaging properly with the tipping bar, it is not necessarily visible from the operating position. The problem only becomes apparent when the angle of tipping is reached and the hooks are pushed off the lip. With the skip no longer restrained, it swings out over the back of the lorry. The momentum can lift the front of the lorry off the ground. The potential for the lorry to overbalance is further increased if the stabilisers have not been deployed correctly.

Although there is no established industry standard, the Container Handling Equipment Manufacturers (CHEM) Association has produced a technical standard TS14 "Standard Specification for Skip Containers", which the HSE advises manufacturers to refer to. In section 4.6.3 it states: "There must be no projection of the base plate in the area of the tipping hook engagement with the tipping bar thus preventing inadvertent hooking on the skip."

The HSE advises that skip operators should check all their skips and modify any that have protrusions that hooks could catch on. Driver-operators should perform a visual check to ensure the proper engagement of the hooks on the catch bar during tipping-out, to ensure no hook is just caught on the lip.

New skips should be manufactured without a protrusion that could give rise to false engagement with the tipping hooks, in line with the CHEM association standard TS14

Fire Extinguisher Offers

2010-11-29T16:45:00.002Z

We now have an extensive range of Fire Extinguishers on offer, along with signage, stands and wall fixings.

Extinguishers start at £75.00 + VAT for a single with deals available on multiple purchases.

Please contact rob@rhssltd.co.uk for a quote or call 0333 577 0248.

Services from RHSS Limited

2010-10-29T11:52:00.004+01:00

Just a taste of what we can now offer our clients:
Portable Appliance Testing
Periodic Inspection Certificates for Electrical Installations
Asbestos Awareness Training
Fire Alarm Design and Installation
Fire Alarm Servicing
Emergency Lighting Servicing
Asbestos Surveys
CDM C0-ordinator
Health and Safety Management Systems
Guaranteed pass for Accreditation Schemes (subject to our guidance)
Fire Extinguisher Provision
Health and Safety Signage
Fire Risk Assessment
Fire Training
DSE Assessments
Manual Handling Assessments
CDM Awareness Training
Risk Assessment Training
First Aid Training

Please call us on 0333 577 0248 to discuss your requirements.

Lord Young

2010-10-29T11:51:00.001+01:00

I want to strip away mystique around health and safety, says Lord Young
26 October 2010

“It is something that you would think yourself. You know it when you see it. The things you would normally do.” Thus did Lord Young of Graffham define common sense at a gathering in London yesterday (25 October) to discuss his recently-published review of health and safety.

But the Tory peer was also quick to point out that Common sense, common safety “doesn’t really have too much to do with health and safety at all”. It’s about perception, he said, and the fact that, despite all the good it has done, health and safety has become “a joke”.

Lord Young was taking part in a panel discussion entitled ‘Insuring a safer future?’ at the Chartered Insurance Institute, alongside the managing director of Zurich Insurance, David Smith, and Gerard Forlin QC, organised by Cardinus Risk Management and the IIRSM.

He told the audience of mainly insurance and health and safety professionals that when he was responsible for health and safety as Employment Secretary in the mid-1980s “I doubt I spent two and a half minutes on health and safety in those two and a half years because it did a solid, sterling job in the hazardous occupations”. (He failed to mention that the number of fatalities in 1986/87, at more than 400, was two and a half times the number in 2009/10.)

Emphasising repeatedly that his review and recommendations are not about health and safety in the major-hazard occupations Lord Young said the essence of his report is simple: “Reduce bureaucracy in low-hazard occupations, and eliminate those ludicrous stories that face the average reader over breakfast every day.”

He cited offices, schools and shops as examples of what he sees as low-risk environments and lauded the HSE’s new online interactive risk assessment as a major step forward in reducing bureaucracy for those workplaces. He explained: “It takes just 15 minutes. Print it, complete it, sign it – that’s it. No need for consultants, which is something we are telling the insurance industry, especially.”

In response, David Smith said his company, Zurich Insurance, doesn’t require its policy-holders to engage outside consultants and that, done properly, risk assessment doesn’t have to be bureaucratic. “It is,” he added “an excellent tool for insurers in defending civil-liability claims.”

But he then appeared to undercut Lord Young’s enthusiasm for the 15-minute online risk assessment by warning: “We are not interested in tick-box exercises; we want a practical assessment of the risk.”

Nevertheless, Smith said the insurance industry applauds the “pragmatism and practical measures” in the peer’s report – although he confided that when the industry first learned about it, it set alarm bells ringing.

He explained: “It wasn’t that we didn’t agree that the system needed reform but that we were worried how he would succeed where others before him have failed. But having seen his report now, we think it can work.”

Gerry Forlin QC was more circumspect, however, warning that any changes to the current health and safety system must be carefully thought through. Likening Lord Young’s recommendations to the children’s game Kerplunk, in which the supports for a bunch of marbles are removed one by one until all the balls fall, Forlin said: “One of the dangers of fiddling with stuff is if you take something out, you have to ask why it was there in the first place. The UK has an excellent health and safety record, and we have to be careful and not meddle with that too much.”

Taking Lord Young’s examples of low-risk workplaces, Forlin reminded the audience: “The leading case on risk in this country was a school-playground death [R v Porter (2008)]. The decision there was that risk has to be real, not fanciful or hypothetical. It is about the consequences of the risk, should it be realised. So we have to be careful; the bereaved, the injured, and juries might not see things as ‘low-risk’ as others do.”

He also argued that the ‘fear factor’ is a powerful motivator in ensuring compliance with health and safety laws and that any lowering of the bar at this stage would be inadvisable. Said Forlin: “Unless we have certain sticks and carrots, the system won’t work. Essentially, we need to get the idea of collective board responsibility into directors’ minds – otherwise Lord Young’s proposals won’t work. The reason why our fatalities are going down is because there is that fear there.”

He continued: “In my opinion, the HSE/IoD guidance for directors is the most important document we have because it sets out everything boards need to know – especially if they find themselves in front of the courts. This is stuff we cannot take out.”

Lord Young was quick to respond by emphasising that his report is “not about rolling back health and safety – it’s about getting rid of some bureaucracy”. He also surmised that had he not been asked to do this review now, “fatalities would start to rise again because people will ignore health and safety because it has become such a joke”.

The floor was then given to the audience, to put their questions to the panellists. Lord Young, in general, answered along the lines of what he wrote in his report, offering little further insight into how some of his recommendations might be implemented in practice.

His aforementioned views on common sense were given in response to a simple request from the floor to “define it” and provoked some degree of muttering among the audience.

On the new accreditation scheme for health and safety consultants, Lord Young said: “I can’t think of any other area in which people can charge a fee for their advice without having any qualifications. My report is aiming to set a standard so that people who practise health and safety in the future can achieve a recognised standard and qualification.”

Asked if it was really necessary to have a degree-level qualification to be competent, the peer replied: “No, but if you haven’t passed a standard, how does your client know that you know what you are talking about? It is dangerous to allow consultants to practise without qualifications.”

Another member of the audience wanted to know why not all organisations with an interest in health and safety standards had been involved in setting up the accreditation scheme. Lord Young said the aim was for it to eventually come under UKAS – “paid for and supported by the industry, and independent of government” – before he passed the buck to HSE chief executive, Geoffrey Podger, who was sitting in the audience.

Said Podger: “We limited the field [of organisations involved] initially to get it started but before the New Year we will look at how to extend the scheme and improve it. There is no question of any one organisation getting preferential treatment.”

The event came to a conclusion with an intriguing hint from Lord Young on the reasoning behind his recommendation that police officers and fire-fighters be immune from prosecution under health and safety duties for putting themselves at risk by carrying out a heroic act.

Responding to a question from a fire-fighter in the audience, who wanted to know if the recommendation extended to the employing organisations as well as individuals, the peer replied: “The inquiry into the 7/7 bombings in London may have had some bearing on my recommendations in this sphere but I won’t say more than that.”

So, no detail as yet on how his proposals will be implemented, and no insight into how the subjective ‘skill’ of common sense will be assessed and determined in practice but there has been at least one concrete, positive result of Lord Young’s report: the peer revealed that his contacts at the Daily Mail and The Sun have been on to him to complain that he’s going to ruin their livelihood!

Fire Risk Assessments

2010-10-19T16:53:00.002+01:00

Fire Risk Assessments – Why they’re needed to meet regulations and look after your employees

Fire Risk Assessments are required by The Fire Safety Order 2005 UK Fire Regulations – and for good reason too! In a nutshell, a fire risk assessment is used to determine the chance of a fire occurring in any workplace premises. This assessment can then be used to create precautions within the workplace which reduce fire risks and help prevent fires from occurring.

This has three distinct benefits:

1. Applies with essential regulations
2. Makes sure that you and your employees are working in a safe environment when it comes to the risks of fire
3. Limits the potential for fire damage to your premises

How do Fire Risk Assessments work?
•Under the UK Fire Regulations, someone must be legally-designated the “Responsible Person”. This person then as the duty and responsibility to carry out the fire risk assessment and deal with the outcome.
•This can be anyone; either you, or a member of staff, or a separate company/individual if you cannot find anyone within your business who has the knowledge and expertise to confidently carry out a reliable fire risk assessment.
•The responsible person must use a fire risk assessment form, and then analyse the entire premises for any potential hazards which carry a risk of causing a fire. Any hazards which could cause further damage or danger in the event of a fire should also be taken into account.
•Once fire hazards have been identified and noted, precautions must then be decided upon if actions are required to reduce the risk of fire harm or damage
However, it may not be simple as that, as there’s one catch:
The UK regulations state that the responsible person must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of risks. The responsible person must also comply with the requirements and prohibitions stated in the order. If you do not have someone available who has the knowledge and expertise to do this, then your fire assessment may not meet requirements, and you may break the law. As well as requiring the ability to carry out the fire assessment, the responsible person must also be able to correctly remedy any hazards which are found. This may require knowledge of fire extinguishers, emergency plans, fire-resistance and so on.

For the sake of complying with the law, protecting your staff and protecting your premises, it may be worth hiring someone who can help. With Veritas Consulting, you can hire one of our fire risk assessors to assess your premises, carry out a detailed professional assessment, and make sure that fire risks are as limited as possible.

RHSS Limited complete Fire Risk Assessments in line with PAS79 and our assessors hold various levels of membership of the Institute of Fire Engineers.
We guarantee the quality of these assessments to be of the highest standards and we will discuss them on your behalf with any enforcing authority free of charge.
Beware of Fire Extinguisher Companies offering this service as some will advise on unneccesary controls such as Fire Blankets and Excessive numbers of extinguishers to boost profits and subsidise cost of the assessment!

Consultants Register

2010-10-18T15:43:00.001+01:00

A new register for safety consultants is likely to form part of a suite of government recommendations on health and safety. The report is authored by Lord David Young, the Conservative peer charged with reviewing health and safety law and perceptions in the UK.

Lord Young has voiced concerns that some consultants either overcomplicate safety, or miss important hazards. In his speech at the Conservative party conference, he said:

“We cannot allow untrained, unqualified and inexperienced consultants loose on the business world.”

The register, known as the Occupational Safety Consultants Register, or OSCR, is seen by the government as the first step to resolving problems Lord Young has identified around standards during his review. OSCR is designed to help businesses who don’t need to employ full time safety professionals, or need specialist help on a specific issue, and aims to give clients confidence in the consultant they choose.

The national register, which clients will be able to search online, is due to go live in early 2011. The Health and Safety Executive is leading the project to develop the register, and has worked in consultation with several organisations, including IOSH. The plan is to set up a not-for-profit company to run the scheme in the long term.

To register, consultants will need to have a degree level qualification and assessed experience in safety, as well as an active commitment to Continuing Professional Development. They also need to be signed up to a code of conduct and have current professional indemnity insurance. Chartered Members of IOSH, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland, and Fellows of the International Institute of Risk and Safety Management, will be eligible.

Initially, the register will only cover safety. The HSE has said that the register is for:

“…individuals who primarily provide commercial third party advice services on general safety management issues. We will keep this under review and will not rule out occupational health consultants in future.”

The enforcing body believes that the register will drive up standards:

“The benefit for safety consultants is that this will establish a new benchmark for high standards in the sector. The register will be the only independent and HSE-recognised way of demonstrating the highest professional standing and competence in occupational safety consultancy.”

The HSE and local authority inspectors will be referring businesses needing general external safety advice to OSCR. Lord Young has made it clear that if this voluntary scheme fails to raise standards, a statutory scheme can’t be ruled out.

The costs of joining and staying on the scheme haven’t yet been hammered out, but the HSE has described the joining cost as a “small fee” to cover administration.

Waste Site Fire

2010-10-18T15:41:00.001+01:00

A clean-up operation is under way after a fire at a waste management site in Lancashire injured three people.

Up to 60 firefighters were called to PHS Waste Management in Burscough, Lancashire, after a fire broke out, emitting plumes of black smoke approximately 100ft into the air.

One of the injured was airlifted to the Royal Preston Hospital, while the other two were taken by ambulance to Whiston Hospital. All three suffered burns to their hands and faces.

Early reports suggested that a chemical explosion had taken place, but it later emerged that this was not the case after the fire crew successfully tackled the blaze and began an investigation to discover the cause.

A PHS spokeswoman said: "We can confirm that three people have been hurt. One of these has been taken to Royal Preston Hospital and the other two have been taken to Whiston Hospital.

"Meanwhile, Lancashire Fire and Rescue has confirmed the fire has been put out and the clean-up operation is now under way. All other operations on site have been shut down and safely isolated.

"A full internal investigation will be launched shortly and we are committed to co-operating with any external investigations to establish how this incident occurred so that it does not happen again."

Lord Young review

2010-10-18T15:39:00.000+01:00

Review “turning point” for health and safety
A Government review published today could mark a “turning point” for health and safety in the UK, the profession’s largest international body said today.

IOSH (Institution of Occupational Safety and Health) said it broadly welcomed Lord Young’s recommendations, which include a clampdown on “absurd” applications of health and safety legislation and measures to make it easier for teachers to organise school trips.

IOSH Chief Executive Rob Strange said:

“We warmly welcome this review. We are sick and tired of hearing of misinterpretations of health and safety laws which end in the cancellation of perfectly safe activities.

“Lord Young is absolutely right: The standing of health and safety has been lowered by ridiculous applications of the rules. This has to end.

“We think this review could see a turning point for health and safety in the UK by turning the focus away from daft decisions about conker competitions and hanging baskets and back onto saving people’s lives in genuinely hazardous areas of work and public life.”

In a report published today, Lord Young said the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act remains an “effective framework” and had brought about the lowest number of non-fatal accidents and second lowest number of fatal accidents at work in Europe. But health and safety had been given a bad name, said the former Government minister, by misinterpretations of the rules.

Lord Young is recommending controls on no win-no fee lawyers, the simplification of risk assessments for some businesses and the accreditation of health and safety consultants.

He is also advising the Government to cut red tape for school trips, apply extra scrutiny of councils which ban events on health and safety grounds and to ensure the emergency services are not at risk of litigation for acts of heroism.

Mr Strange said:

“It’s a little early to comment on the specific recommendations made by Lord Young, which have been made public only this morning. But we do think the Government is broadly on the right track and we will support it in whatever way we can.”

Jason Anker, 42, of Farndon, in Nottinghamshire, was paralysed in 1992 when the ladder he was on slipped and fell between two buildings. He has had an 18-year-struggle to get his life back on track, including lengthy spells in hospital, the collapse of his marriage, drink and drug problems, and compensation issues which were only resolved in 2007.

Jason is backing IOSH in raising awareness about the dangers of poor health and safety.

He said:

“Health and safety does have a bad image because people presume it’s about rules and restrictions. At the end of the day, it’s about saving lives and preventing accidents at work.

“If the laws in 1992 were as tight as they are now I would be standing, not sitting in a wheelchair, saying this today.”

Guards

2010-10-05T13:45:00.000+01:00

A chicken-processing company has been criticised for failing to protect its employees following two serious incidents at its factory in Norfolk.

Thetford Magistrates’ Court heard that the first incident took place on 24 July 2009 at Crown Chicken Ltd’s facility in Norwich. An employee was using a de-skinning machine, which is used to skin chicken carcasses, when his glove got caught and his hand was pulled into the blade. The skin on the back of his hand, from his knuckles to his wrist, was torn away from the underlying tissue.

The HSE found that the machine did not have adequate guards, or an emergency stop button. It also identified that the gloves provided for workers failed to give suitable protection. A Prohibition Notice was issued on 25 August 2009, which required the machine to be removed from service until safeguards were put in place.

On 2 December 2009, another employee severed a finger when his hand was crushed by the lifting mechanism of a forklift truck, as he stood on the forks to access the back of some refrigerated trailers.

HSE inspector, Saffron Turnell, revealed that guidance from both the HSE and the forklift manufacturer warns that it is unsafe to stand on the forks of a forklift truck, but the company had not provided a safe way for workers to access the back of the trailers.

Crown Chicken Ltd appeared in court on 27 September and admitted two breaches of s2(1) of the HSWA 1974, It was fined £4000 for each offence and ordered to pay £5500 in costs.

SHP contacted the company to offer it the chance to provide mitigation, but it declined to comment on the incidents.
After the hearing, inspector Turnell said: “These two incidents resulted in very serious and painful injuries to both men. What is more, both could easily have been avoided if Crown Chicken had taken the correct health and safety precautions.

“The company failed to ensure that simple measures were in place to protect employees using the de-skinning machine. Similarly, the company had no safe method for staff to access the refrigerated trailers.”

Fairground Inspectors in court

2010-10-05T13:44:00.000+01:00

A serial-offending fairground inspection company has appeared in court after two people were thrown out of a faulty fairground ride at Silverstone race circuit.

The incident took place on 6 July 2008, the day of the British Formula One Grand Prix, and the ‘Tagada’ ride was part of a fun fair being held in a field adjacent to the racetrack.

The Tagada is a ground-level spinning machine that bounces its riders as it turns. Riders sit in a round bowl and hold on via bars proved but there are no restraints to secure individuals in place. Sections of seating can be removed so the ride can be folded when it is packed away.

On the day of the incident, two passengers were sat on one of these sections when the seating collapsed while the ride was in motion. They fell backwards out of the ride and landed on the ground. One of them was knocked unconscious but both escaped with only back injuries and bruising.

The HSE’s investigation found that the ride failed due to corroded structural steelwork on the seating. Inspector Karl Howes told SHP that the corrosion was significant and clear to see, and should have been identified by the ride owner, Michael Searle, and during the machine’s annual safety inspection, which was carried out by Fairground Inspection Services (FIS) Ltd.

On 21 July 2008, a Prohibition Notice was issued against the ride, which required Searle to make significant improvements to restore it to a safe condition before it could be returned to service.

Inspector Howes said: “Fairground rides should be exciting but safe. Everyone on this ride faced a real risk, because the owner and inspector failed to comply with the law.

“The two injured men were fortunate because they could easily have suffered more serious injuries.

“It is the responsibility of those who operate, or inspect fairground rides to ensure they carry out their duties thoroughly by identifying and repairing corrosion and wear on the equipment.

“This incident should remind all ride operators and ride examiners that public safety on fairground rides is of paramount importance.”

Searle appeared at Aylesbury Crown Court on 30 September and pleaded gulty to breaching s3(2) of the HSWA 1974. He was fined £3000 and ordered to pay £1000 in costs.

In mitigation, he told the court that he had no previous convictions and had only owned the ride for nine months before the incident took place. He accepted that he should have identified the corrosion on the ride but said he believed the ride to be safe after it was passed during its annual safety inspection, which was carried out by FIS director Michael Rodgers.

Searle has subsequently completely rebuilt the ride to comply with the Prohibition Notice and it has been permitted to return to service by the HSE.

Rodgers appeared at the same hearing and pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. He was fined £3000 and must pay £1000 towards costs. FIS pleaded guilty to the same offence and was fined £7000 and £2000 in costs.

Rodgers told the court that he had no previous convictions and revealed that the company has now ceased trading.

The court heard that the firm had two previous similar convictions. In November 2009, it was fined £8000 and £1000 in costs after a fairground ride it had declared safe collapsed at a bonfire display in Suffolk.

In June 2010, FIS was sentenced over an incident in which a pod containing passengers on an Orbiter ride detached and flew ten metres through the air. FIS had inspected the ride and deemed it fit for use.

Wall collapse injury and prosecution

2010-10-05T13:42:00.000+01:00

A Wiltshire construction company has been prosecuted after a teenager was seriously injured in a wall collapse.

Marlborough-based Simon Jones Restoration and Re-design pleaded guilty to health and safety breaches at Chippenham Magistrates Court on 4 October.

The prosecution was brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) which investigated the incident which took place on 24 August 2009.

Two employees were carrying out refurbishment work to a large domestic property in Chirton, Devizes, which had been in a poor condition for a number of years. They were creating an opening in a lime mortar gable end wall when the wall collapsed, injuring both workers.

The seriously-hurt teenager, who does not want to be named, was aged 17 at the time of the incident. He suffered a fractured pelvis, ligament damage to his ankle and chipped teeth.

Mark Renouf, HSE inspector, said: "This was a serious case which could easily have been fatal. The job was complex with a substantial element of temporary works. It needed to be carefully and meticulously planned with the involvement of a competent engineer. Unfortunately this was not done and as a result led to terrible consequences.”

The company pleaded guilty to breaching section 28(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and was fined £4,000, with £3,000 costs, and ordered to pay £1,000 compensation to the injured teenager.

Telehandler fatality

2010-10-05T13:40:00.000+01:00

A Scottish construction firm has been prosecuted after one of its workers died following an accident involving a telehandler.

Charles Wilkinson, 51, from Berwick, was struck by the telehandler as it was being reversed the wrong way along a one-way residential street in Tweedmouth.

Newcastle Crown Court heard the company, Hawick-based James Swinton Co, was carrying out refurbishment work in the street on 10 November 2008.

The company had not requested a road closure from Berwick District Council and there were still residents' cars parked in the street.

The telehandler driver was reversing his vehicle up the street the wrong way when it mounted the pavement and struck Wilkinson, who was taken to hospital with injuries to his pelvis, spine and ribs but later released.

However, he died four weeks later as a result of a blood clot. A Home Office pathologist later determined the clot was caused by the incident.

James Swinton pleaded guilty to one breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £4,063 costs.

After the case, HSE inspector Dr Dave Shallow, said: "This was a tragic accident that could and should have been avoided.

"Site transport activities should be managed to minimise as far as possible the need for reversing. But where it is necessary to reverse, site managers should ensure that it is done in a safe and controlled manner, using a banksman, reversing aids on the vehicles and segregation of pedestrians and vehicles.

"The company could have asked Berwick District Council for a road closure which, along with these measures and the removal of residents' vehicles, would have allowed safer movement of construction plant and vehicles."

Princincipal Contractors - What you need to do..

2010-09-17T14:30:00.002+01:00

What you need to do
The law [1] requires that principal contractors (PC) must undertake the following actions:

Project management – plan, manage and monitor the construction phase so that it is carried out safely and without risks to health;
Contractor engagement – provide information and directions whilst facilitating co-operation and co-ordination between contractors;
Workforce engagement – make sure the workforce is being inducted, informed, trained and consulted on health and safety;
What you need to know – three key questions
Question 1: Which projects require appointment of a principal contractor?

Answer: The client must appoint a PC on projects that are likely to involve more than 30 days or 500 man days of construction work (notifiable projects[2]). The client will carry the PC duties if a separate appointment is not made.

Question 2: When should the PC be appointed?

Answer: The client must appoint a PC as soon as practicable and at the latest before the construction phase starts.

Question 3: Who needs to be informed of the PC appointment?

Answer: The co-ordinator must inform HSE of the PC details as soon as practicable after the PC is appointed.

Project management
The PC must plan, manage and monitor the construction phase of the project.

Key actions include:

Planning: preparing a construction phase plan [3] that ensures the work is carried on without risk to health or safety;
Implementing: arranging for the plan to be implemented including facilitating co-operation and co-ordination between all persons on the project;
Reviewing: the PC must from time to time update, review, revise and refine the plan;
Site access: taking steps to prevent unauthorised access to the site by fencing and other controls;
Welfare facilities: making sure that facilities are sufficient throughout the construction phase;
Site rules: drawing up rules that are appropriate to the site and the activities;
Notification: displaying the required formal notice on site (F10) and;
Design: liaising with the CDM co-ordinator regarding any design or change to a design;
Contractor engagement
The PC must ensure the co-operation and co-ordination of contractors carrying out the construction work. Key actions include:

Time for planning: informing contractors of the minimum amount of time alllowed for their planning and preparation before their work begins;
Consultation on the plan: consulting contractors before finalising relevant parts of the plan;
Access to the plan: giving every contractor access to relevant parts of the plan and any other information needed to carry out their work safely and with proper welfare facilities;
Directions: giving directions to contractors to enable the PC to comply with his own duties and;
Health and safety file: letting contractors know what information is required for the file and providing it to the CDM-C.
Workforce engagement
Contractors [4] must provide their workforce with the required information and training to carry out work safely. In addition, the PC must check this happens so that every worker is provided with:

Induction: a suitable site induction on health and safety matters;
Information and training: needed for the particular work to be carried out including information on risks and required control measures. Workers must be able to inspect and take copies of relevant information relating to project health and safety.
The PC must also take steps to secure:

co-operation: arrangements so that workers can co-operate on devising safety measures and checking their effectiveness; and
Consultation: arrangements to consult the workforce on health, safety or welfare matters where they have not been so consulted by any employer.

Worker Involvement is key in Health and Safety

2010-09-17T14:30:00.001+01:00

Many factors affect how you can engage your employees:

The business
Structure of the business
Management style
Organisational and safety cultures
Trade union recognition and employment relations
The workplace
Size of workplace
Location of sites
Types of work done
Degree and nature of inherent dangers
The workforce
Size of workforce
Diversity of the workforce
Employment structures (for example, direct employees, agency and contract workers)
Work patterns (for example, shift systems, part-time working)
Offsite, remote or mobile workers.
Questions you will need to ask yourself include:

Do we consult individuals or representatives?
How do we consult them?
How can we organise inspections and investigations?
How can we co-ordinate between committees?
For example:

A high-risk workplace with a large unionised workforce spread over multiple sites may have trade union representatives from different sites as members of a site-based health and safety committee that meets regularly, and feeds into a corporate health and safety committee.

A non-unionised smaller workplace located on one small, low-risk site, is more likely to consult directly with employees on a day-to-day basis.

Case study: BSkyB
BSkyB created a single forum for the whole business bringing together separate structures that had previously engaged with staff at their cross UK workplaces. They established an effective two-way communication channels that “plugged in” employees from all over the UK and created a partnership between management and employees...

What is Reach?

2010-09-17T14:27:00.000+01:00

REACH is a European Union regulation concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals. It came into force on 1st June 2007 and replaced a number of European Directives and Regulations with a single system.

Aims
REACH has several aims:

To provide a high level of protection of human health and the environment from the use of chemicals.
To make the people who place chemicals on the market (manufacturers[1] and importers[2] responsible for understanding and managing the risks associated with their use.)
To allow the free movement of substances[3] on the EU market.
To enhance innovation in and the competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry.
To promote the use of alternative methods for the assessment of the hazardous properties of substances e.g. quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) and read across.
Scope and exemptions
REACH applies to substances manufactured or imported into the EU in quantities of 1 tonne or more per year. Generally, it applies to all individual chemical substances on their own, in preparations[4] or in articles[5] (if the substance is intended to be released during normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of use from an article).

Some substances are specifically excluded:

Radioactive substances
Substances under customs supervision
The transport of substances
Non-isolated intermediates[6]
Waste
Some naturally occurring low-hazard substances
Some substances, covered by more specific legislation, have tailored provisions, including:

Human and veterinary medicines
Food and foodstuff additives
Plant protection products and biocides
Other substances have tailored provisions within the REACH legislation, as long they are used in specified conditions:

Isolated intermediates[7]
Substances used for research and development

Asbestos and Shop Fitting...

2010-09-03T14:10:00.001+01:00

Five workers were potentially exposed to deadly asbestos fibres while removing old shop fittings at the Arndale Centre in Manchester.

The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted Eastern Regional Shopfitters Ltd after the company ignored a report stating that asbestos was present in the shop.
Two of the company's workers were potentially exposed to the deadly fibres in October 2009 after spending five days ripping out shop fittings before they discovered asbestos had been used in some of the ceiling panels. As well as the workers, three management staff from the Arndale Centre were also potentially exposed after they carried out routine checks on the work at the shop.

Eastern Regional Shopfitters was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,215 after admitting three breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and one of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Mark Green, 45 from Cambridge, was one of the two shop fitters to be exposed to asbestos fibres. He said: "It plays on my mind. I am more aware of the possibility I may become ill and that my life has unwittingly been put on the line. I hope that companies in the construction industry, no matter what their size, now begin to take asbestos more seriously. They should put everyone who works for them on asbestos awareness courses because workers need to be more aware."

Mr Green concluded: "When I go on a job now, the first question I ask is 'Have you done an asbestos report?' and then, if it is present, 'What will your actions be?'."

Tom Merry, the investigating inspector at HSE, said: "Eastern Regional Shopfitters knew asbestos was present in the shop but it didnÃt inform its workers and it didnÃt ensure it was dealt with safely. Abestos only becomes a risk if it is disturbed so the shop fitters could have worked safely if they knew where the asbestos was. It should either have been sealed or removed by a licensed contractor before the work started."

Inspector Merry concluded: "Five people now have to live with the knowledge that they may become ill with a life-threatening lung disease. Shop fitting and property maintenance companies must treat the risks from asbestos seriously so more lives arenÃt put in danger in the future."

CDM in brief...

2010-09-03T08:12:00.001+01:00

If it is accepted that good management involves;

•The use of competent persons/organisations
•The availability of background information
•The pre-planning of work activities
•The recording of crucial data
•Reviewing work on completion to learn from mistakes and experiences
Then one needs look no further than the CDM Regulations for an ideal management model to follow (notwithstanding the statutory obligation to do so). Pragmatic application of the Regulations will bring business benefits as well as compliance and will also go a long way to achieving the aims of the ‘rethinking construction’ agenda.

The Approved Code of Practice for the CDM Regulations makes it very clear that the client has a major role to play in the management of risk. This is particularly so during the design stage when the tone of the project is often set by the client, and a number of important actions are carried through, for example,

•Appointment by client of competent organisations
•Provision of information
•Provision of any existing Health and Safety Files
The Client may have little involvement during the construction phase, unless the site is an integral part of his business – or undertaking as the HSW Act calls it – when there will be an obligation to monitor the contractor to a greater extent. The law is complex in the area of monitoring and checking of those engaged to undertake work and has been largely determined by various landmark cases (see Port of Ramsgate Case: ‘Ramsgate Walkway Collapse: Legal Ramification’ The Structural Engineer Vol 76, No 1, Jan 98 ).

Designers are, of course, at the heart of the process during the design stage; in most projects however they are also still involved during the construction phase, as not all design is complete prior to commencing on site. Their responsibilities however stretch beyond these phases into the operational life of the facility and its eventual de-commissioning.

It is the manner in which this responsibility for risk is managed that makes the difference between a mediocre designer and a good one. The latter will:

•Think as a contractor or maintenance engineer when considering the risks introduced as a consequence of his design. (How would I wish to construct/maintain this item safely?)
•Liaise with other designers, and if at all possible the contractor and specialist suppliers, in order to ensure that the best expertise is brought to bear and that issues are viewed from a broad perspective.
•Consult with the client and end user, if known, in respect of assumed maintenance philosophies.
•Have a particular regard to site wide issues (site access, contamination, adjacent third parties) and the adequacy of the site and its services for the contractor.
This holistic approach is often best implemented through ‘risk management’ meetings where all those present may contribute, and ‘thinking out of the box’ is encouraged.
The role of CDM Coordinators is largely one of Management; it is the duty of the CDM Coordinators for example to ‘ensure that designers communicate and co-operate’. The effective CDM coordinator therefore is able to significantly influence the management of risk and encourage best practice.

The role of Principal Contractor is wholly devoted to the management of risk. Although the duty holder will often also be the ‘main contractor’, and hence be involved in construction itself, there is no requirement for this. As is the case for the CDM Coordinator, the manner in which this role is implemented has a major impact upon the management of the project. A pro-active principal contractor that understands the needs and benefits of good health and safety management will bring the same added value to the project as has been described elsewhere. This is likely to be manifested through:

•Regular meetings with sub contractors to discuss work activities, interfaces, access to the workplace etc.
•Involvement of the workforce.
•Review of accidents and near misses.
•Provision of training and appropriate inductions.
Contractors, as employers in their own right, will have their internal procedures for managing health and safety risk, and are also obliged to liaise with other contractors and the principal contractor. The good contractor will see this obligation as a benefit rather than a burden, and will seek to gain advantage from close working relationships.

The essence of good management is clearly set out in the Management of Health and Safety at Work (MHSW) Regulations, Regulation 5 ‘Health and Safety Arrangements’ which emphasises that the arrangements should be integrated with management for other purposes. The four elements are, quoting from the Regulations:
Planning:
Adopting a systematic approach which identifies priorities and sets objectives. Whenever possible, risks are eliminated by the careful selection and design of facilities, equipment and processes or minimised by the use of physical control measures.
Organisation:
Putting in place the necessary structure with the aim of ensuring that there is a progressive improvement in health and safety performance.
Control:
Ensuring that the decisions for ensuring and promoting health and safety are being implemented as planned.
Monitoring and Review:
Like quality, progressive improvement in health and safety can only be achieved through the constant development of policies, approaches to implementation and techniques of risk control.
It will be noted that although this advice is directed at health and safety issues, it will apply equally to any aspect of management eg ordering goods, employing sub contractors, programming the works. This again emphasises the benefits of treating health and safety risk as an integral part of project risk management.

Summary
Construction projects are complex technological processes involving the management of people, processes and products. Although in respect of health and safety issues there is a legal obligation to manage the risks emanating from the project, this note demonstrates that there is a business advantage in doing so, and furthermore, that health and safety frameworks such as the CDM regulations, provide an excellent tool for achieving this overall aim.

Current industry initiatives such as Rethinking Construction are providing additional management tools in the form of key performance indicators and benchmarking standards in order to facilitate the essential monitoring and review associated with all good management systems.

Keyboards 'dirtier than a toilet'

2010-08-11T15:53:00.001+01:00

Some computer keyboards harbour more harmful bacteria than a toilet seat, research has suggested.

Consumer group Which? said tests at its London offices found equipment carrying bugs that could cause food poisoning.

Out of 33 keyboards swabbed, four were regarded as a potential health hazard and one harboured five times more germs than one of the office's toilet seats.

Microbiologist Dr Peter Wilson said a keyboard was often "a reflection of what is in your nose and in your gut".

During the Which? tests in January this year, a microbiologist deemed one of the office's keyboards to be so dirty he ordered it to be removed, quarantined and cleaned.

It had 150 times the recommended limit for bacteria - five times as filthy as a lavatory seat tested at the same time, the research found.

Should somebody have a cold in your office, or even have gastroenteritis, you're very likely to pick it up from a keyboard

Dr Peter Wilson
Consultant microbiologist

The equipment was swabbed for bugs, such as those that can cause food poisoning like E.coli and staphylococcus aureus.

Dr Wilson, a consultant microbiologist at University College London Hospital, told BBC Radio 5 Live sharing a keyboard could be passing on illnesses among office workers.

"If you look at what grows on computer keyboards, and hospitals are worse, believe it or not, it's more or less a reflection of what's in your nose and in your gut," he said.

"Should somebody have a cold in your office, or even have gastroenteritis, you're very likely to pick it up from a keyboard."

Which? said one of the causes of dirty keyboards was users eating lunch at their desk, with crumbs encouraging the growth of bacteria.

Poor personal hygiene, such as not washing hands after going to the toilet, could also be to blame, it said.

Cleaning techniques

Which? computing editor Sarah Kidner advised users to give their computer "a spring clean".

"It's quite simple to do and could prevent your computer from becoming a health hazard," she said.

She said dust and food crumbs should be shaken out of keyboards and they should be wiped with a soft, lightly dampened, lint-free cloth. They should also be disinfected with alcohol wipes.

Research by the University of Arizona last year found the average office desktop harboured 400 times more bacteria than the average office toilet seat.

They also found that, compared to men, on average women have three to four times the amount of germs in, on and around their work area.

We recommend Mobile Computer Cleaning as a specialist in this area:

http://mobilecomputercleaning.co.uk/

Architects and construction firm fined after worker falls nine metres to his death

2010-08-02T14:03:00.001+01:00

An architect's practice and a construction company involved in a Somerset development have today been fined a total of £195,000 following a fatality on the site.

Express Park Construction Company Limited (EPCC), of Harley Street, London, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for failing to safely manage subcontractors working for it.

[1]
The platform access point from which Mr Cairns fell
The architects involved, Oxford Architects Partnership, of Bagley Croft, Hinksey Hill, Oxford, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 13, and 14, of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994, which require designers to take safety considerations into account.

EPCC was fined £75,000 and ordered to pay costs of £68,000 and Oxford Architects Partnership was fined £120,000 and ordered to pay costs of £60,000 at Bristol Crown Court today.

The court heard that on 26 January 2005 David Cairns (64) was working for EPCC sub-contractors H&F Air Conditioning Limited, at the newly-built 'Exchange' building at Express Park in Bridgwater, Somerset.

Mr Cairns was working on the air conditioning plant, which was built on a platform accessed via a ladder at the edge of a flat roof. The roof only had a low parapet, which was not high enough to prevent Mr Cairns falling nine metres to the ground.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Sue Adsett, said:

"This is a tragic case where both the failings of the construction firm and the architects led to Mr Cairns' death.

"While it is rare for designers to be charged with breaching health and safety legislation, they must be aware they can be held responsible where bad design is an important contributory factor to a work-place fatality.

"Designers must ensure that plant and equipment can be accessed safely, and that safety harnesses are only used as a last resort.

"HSE will not hesitate to take enforcement action against any company or individual who fails to carry out their health and safety duties, especially when that failure results in a tragedy, as in this case."

Mr. Cairn's family, who were at court, said:

"The loss of David has deeply affected us all and he will be greatly missed. Our hope is that lessons are learnt within the construction industry so that other similar incidents are prevented. Safety should be paramount during all stages of the building process so that another family doesn't have to suffer the loss that we have."

Too Hot! Or Not?

2010-07-12T18:18:00.000+01:00

The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 lay down particular requirements for most aspects of the working environment

Regulation 7 of these Regulations deals specifically with the temperature in indoor workplaces and states that:

During working hours, the temperature in all workplaces inside buildings shall be reasonable.

However, the application of the regulation depends on the nature of the workplace i.e. a bakery, a cold store, an office, a warehouse.

The associated ACOP goes on to explain:

'The temperature in workrooms should provide reasonable comfort without the need for special clothing. Where such a temperature is impractical because of hot or cold processes, all reasonable steps should be taken to achieve a temperature which is as close as possible to comfortable. 'Workroom' means a room where people normally work for more than short periods.

The temperature in workrooms should normally be at least 16 degrees Celsius unless much of the work involves severe physical effort in which case the temperature should be at least 13 degrees Celsius. These temperatures may not, however, ensure reasonable comfort, depending on other factors such as air movement and relative humidity.'

Where the temperature in a workroom would otherwise be uncomfortably high, for example because of hot processes or the design of the building, all reasonable steps should be taken to achieve a reasonably comfortable temperature, for example by:

insulating hot plants or pipes;
providing air-cooling plant;
shading windows;
siting workstations away from places subject to radiant heat.
Where a reasonably comfortable temperature cannot be achieved throughout a workroom, local cooling should be provided. In extremely hot weather fans and increased ventilation may be used instead of local cooling.

Where, despite the provision of local cooling, workers are exposed to temperatures which do not give reasonable comfort, suitable protective clothing and rest facilities should be provided. Where practical there should be systems of work (for example, task rotation) to ensure that the length of time for which individual workers are exposed to uncomfortable temperatures is limited.

HSE Pledge

2010-07-12T18:14:00.001+01:00

www.hse.gov.uk/strategy/pledge

Sign up to the Pledge
We, the undersigned:

Agree to play our part in reducing the numbers of work-related deaths, injuries and ill-health in Great Britain.
Call on employers to put health and safety at the heart of what they do and to take a common sense approach to health and safety.
Commit to debunking myths around health and safety that trivialise the impact of injuries, ill health and deaths on individuals and their families.
Recognise the importance of health and safety in difficult economic times and the dangers of complacency.
Pledge to work with the Health and Safety Executive and its partners to Be Part of the Solution.

On the Up?

2010-07-05T11:24:00.000+01:00

Construction activity continues to grow, according to new figures from the Construction Products Association and the Construction Purchasing Managers Index.

The latest Construction Activity Barometer from Ernst and Young and the Construction Products Association shows an overall score for the second quarter’s overall of 77. A figure above 50 represents an improvement in sales compared to a year earlier with below 50 representing a fall.

The score for heavy side manufacturers rose to 79 in the second quarter, the highest level since the second quarter of 2007, while light side manufacturers were also positive with a score of 66.

The majority of construction products manufacturers expect their sales to continue to rise in the third quarter, compared with the same quarter one year earlier.

Noble Francis, economics director, said: “This latest survey illustrates that the situation for the construction products industry is substantially better than it was one year ago but, with major public spending cuts looming, manufacturers fear that sales will fall sharply once again.”

Meanwhile, the Markit / CIPS Construction Purchasing Managers’ Index, which uses a similar scoring system as the Construction Products Association, posted a score of 58.4, broadly in line with the previous month’s 58.5.

But recruitment levels remained flat, as many construction companies expressed concern over the implications of public spending cuts and the VAT rise scheduled for 2011.

David Noble, chief executive officer, said: “Although the UK construction sector maintained a steady pace of growth in June, question marks loom over the sustainability of this recovery in the longer-term.

“Most tellingly, modest rises in order books did little to boost employment levels and confidence over future activity dropped. Meanwhile, curbing inflation continues to be a big issue facing firms and from our experience they are likely to be nervous about offsetting their higher costs by passing them on to clients.

“The sector is also bracing itself for another spell of troubled times following the public spending cuts and forthcoming VAT rises announced by the Government last month.”

Asbestos Information Points

2010-07-01T11:51:00.002+01:00

1. All persons who survey asbestos should have taken a training course titled “British Occupational Hygiene Society’s Proficiency Module P402 (building surveys and bulk sampling for asbestos), this however does not deem full competence and it advises working with experience samplers for 6 months after as a minimum.

2. Organisations who are involved in the surveying of asbestos should be accredited by UKAS to ISO/IEC 17020. This will have demonstrated to the accrediting board that they operate impartially, have a robust and effective QMS and employ competent individuals etc.

3. So by having an organisation accredited to the following level duty holders can be sure that surveyors have P402.

4. There are many P402 holders who are sole-traders or work in small businesses which can’t afford to be accredited as above so the HSE introduced a scheme. The Asbetsos Building Inspectors Certificate (ABICS) this now certifies surveyors against ISO 17024.

5. There is no suggestion that UKAS and ABICS are mandatory but competence is. It just means those individuals companies outside of the accreditations will have to prove their competency that much more.

Fall in Worker Deaths (31% over last 5 years average)

2010-07-01T11:45:00.000+01:00

The number of people killed at work in Britain fell to a record low of 151 in 2009/2010 – down from 178 the previous year, and 31 per cent lower than the average figure for the last five years.

In what could be seen as a message to the new government and its advisor Lord Young, who is currently carrying out a review of health and safety, HSE chair Judith Hackitt said the reduction means “continuing to strive to drive these numbers down further – not getting complacent about what we’ve collectively achieved, and recognising the new challenges as we emerge from the recession”.

The provisional figures cover the period between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2010 and reveal that agriculture was the most dangerous industry. It recorded a massive 52-per-cent increase in fatalities, with 38 workers losing their lives on farms last year compared with the record low of 25 deaths in 2008/09.

The National Farmers’ Union is to call for an industry coalition to address the situation. Speaking yesterday, NFU president Peter Kendall said: “The NFU notes the latest workplace fatality statistics with considerable sadness, as there is a tragic story that sits behind each one of the numbers. Any fatal accident or serious injury has a devastating impact on the families and businesses involved.

“In the coming months, we will establish an industry coalition with our partners and through a concerted effort will look to spread the health and safety message. We have already started to remind our members to take care but, as harvest gets underway, we will step this up and continue to support the HSE’s efforts to minimise farm deaths.”

The construction industry – traditionally on a par with agriculture as the most dangerous sector – saw a significant fall in the number of deaths on sites last year. A total of 41 fatal injuries was recorded, down from 52 deaths the previous year and way below the average for the last five years of 66.

Alan Ritchie, general secretary of construction union UCATT, said: “The reduction in construction deaths is good news. Yet it must never be forgotten that each death is an individual tragedy.”

Manufacturing improved also, with 24 fatalities in 2009/2010 compared with 33 the previous year. In the services sector, 42 workers died – 20 fewer than in 2008/09, and 30 fewer than the five-year average of 72. Steve Pointer, head of health and safety policy at EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, commented: “"We are encouraged that the number of fatalities in manufacturing fell to an all time low of 24. Many directors, managers, employee representatives and health and safety advisors throughout manufacturing deserve credit for their sustained hard work in difficult economic times.  

"These figures are welcome but there is no room for complacency. As the industry continues to recover from recession, good, practical management of risk is even more important.”

While the HSE emphasised the contribution of “good practice, leadership and employee engagement” in the record low figures it was also pragmatic about the reasons for the improved performance, acknowledging that the recession has resulted in lower levels of activity in some sectors and a decrease in the number of new, inexperienced recruits.

The Executive would not explicitly comment on any likely effect the statistics may have on Lord Young’s ongoing review but it agreed that now is not the time to ease off the throttle. A spokesperson told SHP: “Of course this is a welcome reduction in the number of work-related deaths but the evidence on economic cycles shows that while there are fewer fatalities during recessions, as we move into recovery the injury rate will rise. We cannot be complacent – we don’t want to be talking this time next year about an increase in fatalities, so we need to be extra vigilant, not less so, for when the recovery happens.”

Alan Ritchie was more forthright, saying Lord Young’s review could lead to a weakening of safety standards. He added: “Prior to the General Election the Conservatives proposed introducing private safety audits. Once a company had obtained an audit, HSE inspectors would be barred from sites unless an emergency occurred. In construction, an emergency is likely to mean a worker being killed or maimed.   

“The challenge for everyone concerned about safety is to ensure that the number of deaths in construction continues to be reduced as the industry recovers and activity increases. Rather than looking to reduce safety provisions the Government should be ensuring workers are safe by increasing the number of inspections and enforcement activity.”

We have moved!

2010-06-24T16:58:00.002+01:00

Due to recent expansion and development of our training services please note that we have moved office.

Our new address is:

Suite 438
Davis House Business Centre
4th Floor
High Street
Croydon
Surrey
CR0 1QQ

Our new low rate phone number is 0333 577 0248

Fire Warden Training London

2010-06-08T11:03:00.001+01:00

Date: 10th September 2010 Venue: 78 New Oxford Street London Time: 09.30am Cost: £99 + VAT per delegate
Course Overview:
This 1/2 day course is aimed at employees with a designated role in relation to workplace fire safety. The course builds on the understanding of the phenomenon of fire that all of us can recognise, but the majority of people fail to fully appreciate. The course material and handouts are used in conjunction with Fire Safety Employers Guide and current legislation.
Aim:
The training aims are designed to enable employees identified in your emergency plan who have a supervisory role in the event of a fire (e.g. heads of department, fire wardens or marshals and, in some large workplaces, fire fighting teams) to meet the training requirements of “Fire safety An Employer’s guide” and current legislation.
Learning Objectives: By the end of the course delegates should:
• Be aware of key fire safety duties under the law.
• Be able to recognise habitual human behaviour in a fire situation.
• Know the typical role of a fire warden in relation to workplace fire safety.
• Be able to state the basic principles of risk assessment.
• Be aware of how to prevent fire or limit its impact.
• Be able to state the common modes of building evacuation.
• Recognise the need for fire drills and pre-planning for fire.
• Recognise active and passive fire safety measures and facilities.
• Be able to identify and use a range of portable fire extinguishers.

Prerequisites: None. Although ideally delegates should have attended a Fire Awareness course or have a basic understanding of fire safety in the workplace.
Who should attend? All employees will benefit from the training, particularly new staff and managers. It is especially useful to those employees and managers with a fire safety designated responsibility.
Programme:
 Review of modern fire safety law.
 Human behaviour in a fire situation.
 The role of the fire warden.
 Basic principles of risk assessment.
 Routine fire prevention measures.
 Modes of evacuation.
 Fire drills & pre-planning
 Fire safety features and facilities.
 Fire-fighting equipment.

Certification: Delegates will be awarded a certificate of attendance on successful completion of assessment.

For a booking form e mail info@rhssltd.co.uk

Is there a maximum weight a person can lift during their work?

2010-06-08T11:01:00.000+01:00

The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (as amended) set no specific requirements such as weight limits.

The ergonomic approach shows clearly that such requirements are based on too simple a view of the problem and may lead to incorrect conclusions. Instead, an ergonomic assessment based on a range of relevant factors is used to determine the risk of injury and point the way to remedial action.

The Regulations establish the following clear hierarchy of control measures:

1.Avoid hazardous manual handling operations so far as is reasonably practicable, for example by redesigning the task to avoid moving the load or by automating or mechanising the process.
2.Make a suitable and sufficient assessment of any hazardous manual handling operations that cannot be avoided.
3.Reduce the risk of injury from those operations so far as is reasonably practicable. Where possible, you should provide mechanical assistance, for example a sack trolley or hoist. Where this is not reasonably practicable, look at ways of changing the task, the load and working environment.
Modern medical and scientific opinion accepts the scale of the problem and stresses the importance of an ergonomic approach to remove or reduce the risk of manual handling injury. Ergonomics is sometimes described as 'fitting the job to the person, rather than the person to the job'. The ergonomic approach looks at manual handling as a whole. It takes into account a range of relevant factors, including the nature of the task, the load, the working environment and individual capability and requires worker participation.

When a more detailed assessment is necessary it should follow the broad structure set out in Schedule 1 to the Regulations. The Schedule lists a number of questions in five categories:

1.the task;
2.the load;
3.the working environment;
4.individual capability (this category is discussed in more detail under regulation 4(3) and its guidance); and
5.other factors, for example use of protective clothing.
Each of these categories may influence the others and none of them can be considered on their own. However, to carry out an assessment in a structured way it is often helpful to begin by breaking the operations down into separate, more manageable items.

Manufacturing Fine - High Voltage Shock

2010-06-08T10:59:00.000+01:00

A stationery manufacturer has been fined after admitting exposing a worker to a high voltage shock that left him permanently disabled.

The man was investigating a fault on a plastic welding machine at Chart Design Ltd in Wembley in June 2007 when his fingers came into contact (or very close contact) with components carrying several thousand volts.

The shock severely burned his right hand and forearm, and damaged several muscles. He was hospitalised for 14 days and has since had to undergo skin grafts. He has not regained full use of his right hand and has been unable to return to work.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation into the incident revealed that guard panels which should have prevented access to live circuits had been removed. Inspectors discovered that no record of maintenance checks was kept for any of the machines at the factory.

The company also had no first aiders.

Chart Design Ltd - of Luxton Close, Dury Way, Wembley - pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 at the City of London Magistrates' Court. It was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,330.

HSE Inspector Kerry Williams said: "A man's life has been turned upside down because of entirely preventable and basic safety failings. It is the responsibility of all managers to make sure that all maintenance work is properly planned and recorded and that adequate guards are fitted to all machinery when it is in use.

"If these simple things had been done it is unlikely that he would have suffered these horrendous injuries. But this incident could have been much worse - instead of losing the feeling in his fingers, he could have lost his life."

Asbestos Fines for Local Authority and Contractor

2010-06-08T10:57:00.002+01:00

A local authority and its contractor have been fined after a worker left a family exposed to dangerous asbestos fibres for three days.

City of Lincoln Council and County Waste (Lincs) Ltd were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after allowing asbestos insulation boards to be incorrectly removed.

Lincoln Magistrates' Court heard that in June 2008 the city council was refurbishing the bathroom of a property in Winn Street in the city and contracted County Waste (Lincs) Ltd to investigate the fixing of asbestos insulation boards, with a view to their removal. However, County Waste (Lincs) Ltd was not licensed to work with asbestos.

The employee carrying out the work lacked adequate information or training about the hazards from exposure to asbestos. The court was told he simply prised off the panels with a crowbar, breaking them in the process, before putting the pieces in a sack to transport to a yard for disposal.

Broken panels and pieces of asbestos debris were left on the bathroom floor of the property, and the worker walked around for the rest of the day in clothing that may have been contaminated with asbestos fibres.

After the tenant complained to the Council, employees visited the property to inspect the damage. However, they failed to tell the tenant there was a problem and did not move the family to another property for three days.

City of Lincoln Council was fined £10,000 and County Waste (Lincs) Ltd, of Exchange Road, Lincoln, was fined £4,250 and ordered to pay costs of £12,000 and £6,000 respectively after pleading guilty to a number of health and safety breaches.

HSE inspector Martin Giles said:

"The Council failed to ensure the contractor was competent to carry out the work and had no procedures in place to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to its employees. It failed to protect its tenants and ensure that they were not exposed to risks to their health following the release of asbestos fibres.

"Not informing the family about the seriousness of the problem and leaving them in the property for three days before rehousing them was an irresponsible and unacceptable act for a landlord.

"Because County Waste (Lincs) Ltd failed to provide adequate information, instruction and training to ensure employees liable to be exposed to asbestos were able to safeguard themselves and others, it did nothing to prevent the spread of asbestos from the bathroom and removed the material from the property without being in an appropriately sealed receptacle or wrapping.

"Asbestos is a hidden killer and the HSE has a wealth of information on its website to help employers manage the risks of working with the material. There is no excuse for ignorance when dealing with people's lives."

Migrant Workers

2010-06-08T10:57:00.001+01:00

All construction workers have a right to work on sites where they do not get hurt or ill through work.

Your employer and the main contractor on site are responsible for health and safety, but you must help by being aware of your own and your employer’s responsibilities.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is the government agency responsible for enforcing health and safety legislation in Great Britain.

This website will help overseas construction workers and their employers understand their roles and responsibilities under British health and safety law.

If you are working here from overseas, this website will help you:

find out about your rights and responsibilities under health and safety law; and
find information on health and safety including your basic rights, good practice, legal standards and conditions of work.
If you are an employer or main contractor this website will enable you to provide written guidance for employees who do not speak English.

You can contact the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) by calling one of these Helpline numbers (English also spoken):

0207 556 2181 - Gujarati
0207 556 2206 - Hindi
0207 556 2294 - Punjabi
0207 556 2239 - Polish
0207 556 2200 - Romanian
Please note: All calls made to these numbers are confidential and you do not have to give your name if you don’t want to.

2010-06-07T12:46:00.000+01:00

The pressures of the economic crisis have hit private company owners, with a survey revealing 41% of bosses have seen a rise in their stress levels as compared with a year ago.

Grant Thornton polled 500 privately held firms, including family, entrepreneurial and SMEs (PHBs) to find 34% of them selecting the recession as the main cause of workplace stress.

Twenty-six per cent said a heavy workload caused them most stress, while 26% picked the pressure on cash flow.

Privately owned business bosses in Northern Ireland were found to be the most stressed in the whole of the UK. The survey revealed 54% claimed their stress levels have increased in the past 12 months, while those in the East (48%) were second. Those in London and the South gave the third highest response, with 45% claiming a rise in stress levels in the past year.

PHB heads in the Midlands too said the crunch caused them the most stress at work, with 32.9% saying the recession made them tense, 28.6% citing pressure from a heavy workload and 27.1% pressure on cash flow.

Office managing partner at Birmingham's Grant Thornton Dave Munton said: "The pressure on cash flow has been driven by several factors, not least of which are the tightening of credit lines and customers renegotiating and often lengthening payment terms in order to keep cash within their own businesses."

Eye Care for Workers

2010-06-07T12:44:00.000+01:00

Nearly one in 10 British businesses are failing to meet their legal responsibilities to protect their workforce's sight, a new study commissioned by national sight charity the Eyecare Trust and healthcare provider Simplyhealth found.

"Screen fatigue" is regularly suffered by 90% of office workers, and the symptoms include headaches, sore or tired eyes, impaired colour perception and blurred vision. During their working life, the average office worker will spend 128,740 hours staring at a screen.

The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) regulations place a legal obligation on all employers to make sure they care for the eye health of staff who regularly use a VDU (computer screen) at work in order to combat the visual stress associated with prolonged screen use.

There is no eye care policy at all amongst one in 10 businesses, while regular sight tests, which forms the most basic element of the legislation, are not provided by 44% of employers, the ScreenSmart study found.

Small businesses employing fewer than 10 people are the worst offenders. Absolutely no provision for eye care is provided by one in five (21%) small businesses, and the offer to pay for sight tests is only offered by a third, while three-quarters fail to ensure workstations are designed to minimise glare or reflections - two factors that can lead to screen fatigue and cause visual trauma.

When it came to big businesses, one in five (18%) did not meet the costs of regular sight tests, while two-fifths (40%) point blank refused to pay a contribution towards the cost of spectacles required solely for VDU work.

Fire Warden Training Course 10th September London

2010-05-28T11:09:00.002+01:00

First Aid Course - Last few places!!

2010-05-28T10:42:00.003+01:00

Our One day First Aid Appointed Persosn Course is nearly full!

17th June at 78 New Oxford Street

If you would like a place email info@rhssltd.co.uk for a booking form.

Landlord jailed

2010-05-17T18:52:00.000+01:00

A landlord who failed to provide "even the most basic protection" for tenants has been jailed after a teenager was "lucky" to survive a flat fire.

Barmaid Layla Skalli, who was 19 at the time, suffered devastating 80% burns in the inferno.

Michael Billings, of Beccles, Suffolk, was sent to prison for two-and-a-half years. The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted Billings following the blaze at Miss Skalli's home in April 2009.

At Norwich Crown Court, Billings pleaded guilty to charges of breaking health and safety and fire safety legislation. He was ordered to pay court costs of £20,000.

"Only pioneering skin grafting techniques saved Layla Skalli's life after she suffered 80% deep tissue burns all over her body," said a HSE spokesman.

"Virtually all the skin below her neck was destroyed by the intense 600 degree heat as the property above a mobile phone shop became a raging inferno."

The spokesman said Billings, in his 50s, failed to provide "even the most basic protection" for tenants.

He said the landlord had not fitted a working fire alarm system, installed the correct number of fire doors or provided adequate means of escape.

Gas appliances in the flats above the shop had also not been serviced or properly inspected, he added.

Miss Skalli had been unable to escape because her sash window could only be opened 4in and the staircase was blocked by smoke, said the spokesman.

The cause of the fire has never been conclusively proven.

Miss Skalli's brother Andrew added: "The actions of Michael Billings have ruined my sister's life.

"We want to remind every landlord that they have a legal and moral obligation to the safety of their tenants, something Billings gave no thought to hence why he has been sentenced."

HSE inspector John Claxton said: "This is the most distressing case I have worked on during my 31 years as a HSE inspector."

1 Day Emergency Aid Course HSE Approved 17th June London

2010-05-10T17:02:00.001+01:00

Emergency First Aid at Work (1 day) (HSE recommended)
Date: Thursday 17th June 2010 Venue: 78 New Oxford Street London 09.30am – 15.30pm
Cost £90+VAT per delegate
First Aid equipment and first aid trained personnel at the workplace are requirements of Health & Safety law. In emergencies, Emergency First Aiders can act to prevent situations becoming major issues and can limit potential sick leave through prompt action.

This course is for:
Employees who have been nominated as Emergency First Aiders for their workplace. If your risk assessment has shown that First Aiders are not necessary, then this course will provide the skills and knowledge required for Emergency First Aiders to render necessary First Aid in an emergency situation. The course is also suitable for those who wish to gain knowledge of emergency procedures & a HSE approved qualification in First Aid.

Syllabus
Introduction
• Identification of learning needs
• The role of the Appointed person
• Emergency Aid (what is it?)
Primary Survey of a casualty
• Recovery Position
• Rescue Breathing
• CPR
Secondary Survey
• Examination of an unconscious casualty
• Choking
• Recognition & Treatment of Minor and Major bleeding
• Recognition & Treatment of Medical Shock
Duties of an Appointed person
• Emergency communication
• Contents & use of a workplace First Aid kit
• Open plenary session to include subjects identified by students
• Revision

Aim
To provide Emergency First Aiders with the knowledge & skills to summon help & give safe, prompt & effective emergency first aid to a casualty in the workplace following an injury or illness using materials to hand and/or HSE approved first aid equipment.

Objectives
By the end of this course, the student will be able to:
State the role of the Emergency First Aider
Carry out a primary survey of a casualty
To place an unconscious casualty into the recovery position
Carry out effective rescue breathing to current Resuscitation Council guidelines
Carry out effective CPR to current Resuscitation Council guidelines
Recognise and deal with Minor & major cases of bleeding
To recognise and treat a patient suffering from medical shock
Recognise & treat medical emergencies as identified by student group.

Certification
A 3 year Certificate of Competence (Health & Safety approved) will be awarded on successful completion of the course and assessment.

For a booking form contact sarah@rhssltd.co.uk

Contractor fined over Asbestos breaches - closes golf club

2010-04-29T10:05:00.001+01:00

A construction company has been fined after refurbishment work triggered the temporary closure of country club near Darlington over fears of exposure to asbestos.

Nationwide Building Contractors from Fareham, Hampshire was yesterday fined a total of £4,500 at Darlington Magistrates' Court over the incident.

The company was found guilty, in its absence, of breaching Regulations 5, 11 and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, between 7 January and 6 March 2008. Nationwide is now in liquidation.

The contractor had been contracted to refurbish Hall Garth Hotel Golf and Country Club, at Coatham Mundeville, near Darlington.

When HSE inspectors visited the site, they found that work was carried out without adequate checks for asbestos or asbestos-containing materials, and served a Prohibition Notice - immediately stopping construction work. Further investigations found large amounts of asbestos pipe lagging in walls and floor voids where work had been undertaken.

HSE worked with local Environmental Health Officers and the hotel management to ensure that asbestos fibres had not spread to the occupied areas of the hotel. The hotel was voluntarily closed while tests were undertaken. Fortunately the test results in the public areas were negative.

After the case, HSE inspector Victoria Wise said: "Construction and maintenance workers are the most at-risk groups from asbestos-related diseases due to the nature of their work. The widespread occurrence of asbestos as a product in buildings constructed or refurbished prior to 2000, means that inadvertent disturbance of asbestos-containing materials can be frequent and regular where asbestos products have not been adequately identified or managed.

"Nationwide Building Contractors could have prevented this risk and should have ensured that the asbestos containing materials in the work areas had been identified and, where necessary, removed - then the information passed on to those who were liable to disturb the fabric of the building.

"This prosecution should act as a reminder to those in the construction industry, and those in control of the repair and maintenance of buildings, of the importance of ensuring that a suitable and sufficient assessment for asbestos has been carried out and that the correct control measures are in place to ensure that exposure to asbestos is prevented, so far as is reasonably practicable."

Asbestos products have been widely used in the UK since the end of the 19th century and were used in the construction and refurbishment of buildings until 1999.

Asbestos can cause a number of fatal or serious respiratory conditions if fibres are inhaled. Asbestos exposure is the most serious occupational health issue in the UK, and is responsible for approximately 4,000 deaths each year.

RHSS NOW OFFERS IN HOUSE ASBESTOS AWARENESS TRAINING FROM AS LITTLE AS £40 + VAT PER PERSON

If you ask for it check it!

2010-04-19T16:42:00.001+01:00

An unregistered gas fitter who illegally carried out work on properties across Nottingham with falsely issued gas safety certificates has been given a 12-month community service order and ordered to carry out 200 hours unpaid work.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Paul Anthony Bailey (54) of Bridgnorth Drive, Nottingham, who traded as P A Bailey Plumbing and Heating. He pleaded guilty to breaching three sections of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 at Nottingham Magistrates' Court.

He was also ordered to pay costs of £750.

The court heard that Mr Bailey falsely claimed to be CORGI (Council of Registered Gas Installers) registered, when he carried out gas fitting work between 1 October 2008 and 31 January 2009 at premises on Broadfield in Calverton, and Radford Road in New Basford.

In addition, Mr Bailey issued gas safety certificates, using a false CORGI number, to premises on Radford Road in New Basford, Leander Close in Wilford and Long Hill Rise in Hucknall.

He also installed a gas boiler in industrial premises on Radford Road in New Basford, without the competence to do so.

Two complaints were received about Mr Bailey's work. One following an industrial job where he incorrectly installed a boiler in a garage, putting workers at risk, and the other related to the installation of a new boiler for a domestic heating system.

HSE Inspector David Butter said:

"Mr Bailey was not qualified to carry out this work on both private and commercial properties and by doing so put other workers at risk. While he had completed training at night school and was qualified, he had not registered with CORGI.

"In order to work legally in the UK, gas installers must be registered with the appropriate approved body. It is essential that homes and businesses check this before having work carried out to ensure the job is completed to a high standard and most of all, is safe."

Crushed to Death by Steel

2010-04-19T16:39:00.001+01:00

Multinational steelmaker Corus has been fined £240,000 after a lorry driver was crushed to death at its site in Staffordshire.

The firm was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after three tonnes of steel plates fell on 22-year-old Netherton man, Ross Beddow, at the firm's base in Wombourne.

Corus (UK) Ltd, registered at 30 Millbank, London, was also ordered to pay £112,500 costs at Stafford Crown Court today after it pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

The court heard how on 4 January 2007, Mr Beddow, who was employed by A Hingley Transport Ltd, was helping to load steel plates onto a lorry. A Corus employee was operating a crane to lift a three-tonne pack of steel from a trailer, however, the load was not level, and as it was lifted it fell on top of Mr Beddow and killed him.

An HSE investigation showed the system of work for loading steel was unsafe. Not all the individual tasks involved had been evaluated and there was scope for misunderstanding between workers.

HSE inspector Dr Wai-Kin Liu said:

"This was a tragedy that could and should have been avoided. All the steps involved in an overall task should be analysed to create a safe system of work, and the consequences of something going wrong should always be taken into account.

"Anyone can make errors - no matter how well trained and motivated they are - but employers must develop a safe way of working that helps to prevent mistakes and reduces the severity of the consequences if they do occur. If Corus had a safe system of working then Mr Beddow would not have been killed simply doing his job."

5 meter fall....

2010-04-19T16:38:00.001+01:00

A plant hire company has been fined £200,000 for health and safety failings that lead to an employee falling five metres to his death.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) showed that the company failed to follow its own health and safety guidelines for work at height.

HSE prosecuted Ashtead Plant Hire Co Ltd trading as APlant who admitted breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

The company, based at Dalton Ave in Birchwood Park, Warrington was also ordered to pay £15,698.30 in costs at Maidstone Crown Court today.

Phillip Pearce, aged 55, from the Medway area, had worked as a fitter at the company's depot at Tovil, Maidstone - where they provide portable accommodation units to the construction industry - for less than three months when he died on 16 August 2006.

Mr Pearce's job was to prepare the accommodation units - including site huts, welfare units and storage containers - which were then hired out to construction companies.

With two units stacked on top of each other, Mr Pearce climbed onto the top of the stack to help attach lifting chains so that the top unit could be lifted down. He fell more than five metres and died at the scene.

Ashtead Plant Hire Co Ltd had a written procedure for work on top of accommodation units in its depots and at customers' sites. This required people to wear a safety harness and inertia reel line and climb a secured ladder. If they slipped or fell, the line would lock and prevent a serious fall.

HSE's investigation found that workers at the depot had not been issued with this kit or been trained to use it and most did not know the company had a special procedure for doing this work.

The court heard that despite the depot handling up to 15 accommodation unit movements a day, management at the depot did not ensure that workers were aware of the procedure and did not ensure that the work was only done by those trained, equipped and authorised.

HSE Inspector John Underwood said:

"This was a wholly avoidable incident which led to a tragic and totally unnecessary loss of life.

"It is completely inexcusable that the company had indentified the risks, prepared an adequate procedure to manage the risk, and then failed to implement that procedure to protect their workers.

"Health and safety is not just about filling in forms or thinking about risk, it's about taking action to prevent people being killed or injured while trying to do their job.

"I hope this case will be an example to other companies that not only must health and safety be taken seriously but also followed through."

Last year more than 4,000 employees suffered major injuries after falling from height at work, and 21 workers in the construction industry died. For more information go to www.hse.gov.uk/shatteredlives

Fall through Skylight

2010-04-06T17:07:00.000+01:00

A Llanelli cladding firm has been fined after an employee fell through an open skylight at a retail unit he was working on.

Stephen Armstrong-Esther was re-cladding a retail outlet roof at the Parc Trostre retail outlet when the incident occurred on 2 August 2005.

In a prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Llanelli Magistrates' Court heard Mr Armstrong-Esther was working for Ammex Ltd, of Llannon Road, Pontyberem.

He was carrying a roof panel with a colleague when he fell almost four metres through an unprotected skylight onto a mezzanine floor below. He sustained serious injuries including fractures to his ribs and back, nerve damage to his leg and also memory and hearing loss.

Ammex Ltd was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £6,750 costs after pleading guilty yesterday (29 March 2010) to charges under Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

In warning of the dangers of working at height, HSE Inspector Anne Marie Orrells said:

"This case has concluded at a time when HSE is reminding those in the construction industry of the dangers of working at height and the devastating effects of slips trips and falls through its Shattered Lives campaign.

"The HSE is currently carrying out visits in Wales to highlight the possible dangers involved in refurbishment and roofing work.

"Mr Armstrong-Esther has suffered long lasting effects from his injuries since the incident which is now four years ago, and which could have been prevented. Openings, such as skylights, in roofs must have suitable protection around them to prevent workers from falling into them."

One worker died and 243 were injured as a result of a slip, trip or fall in the construction industry in Wales in 2008/09.

Take a Risk?

2010-04-06T16:57:00.001+01:00

There's a video on YouTube of a woman holding fistfuls of methane bubbles which are then ignited – a great tower of flame leaping from her hands. A group of schoolchildren look on.

Surely there are all kinds of health and safety rules about playing with fire in front of children?

But, no, the woman in the “flaming hands” clip is none other than Judith Hackitt, chair of the Health and Safety Executive. The idea is to show that spectacular science demonstrations should, with proper precautions, be taking place in schools.

While her job is to ensure the safety of every workplace, Hackitt's public role has also been to dispel the burgeoning myths about health and safety.

“It's one of the reasons I took on the job, because I was absolutely fed up with it,” she explains.

Soon after we sit down in the MediaCityUK marketing suite at Salford Quays she says warily: “You're going to ask me about conkers now, aren't you.”

I am..but not quite yet.

We're in a world of cranes, earth-movers and high-visibility jackets, and Hackitt is here to take a look at “one of the biggest construction sites in the country”.

She expects to find best practice here, and does, describing contractor Bovis Lend Lease's work at the 36-acre site as “truly impressive”.

But bad things still happen elsewhere every day.

“People continue to fall off things, whether it's ladders, platforms or whatever; people continue to have things dropped on them from a height, and the other is people getting knocked over and crushed by moving machinery,” she says.

In 2008/9, 180 workers were killed at work and 131,895 other injuries were reported.

Challenge

“There are some sectors that stand out as a continuing challenge. Construction is one – not so much large projects like this , but at the smaller business end,” says Hackitt, who worked for 25 years in the chemical industry. “Agriculture is an industry where there seems to be an alarming sense of 'That's just the way it is'. The fact is that one person a week dies in agriculture, still. It doesn't have to be dangerous any more than any other sector has to be dangerous.

“One area of growing concern for us is waste and recycling, from collection on streets to recycling facilities. Very often they are very primitive in terms of lots of conveyor belts, people sorting broken bottles and goodness knows what.”

It's not a boast we can often make these days, but Britain leads the world on health and safety, our accident statistics being the lowest, our safety strategies copied by many other nations.

And yet health and safety – or, more likely, “elf and safety” - is often seen as a byword for rule-bound, killjoy, nonsensical bureaucracy. The HSE's website has a long list of “elf and safety” myths: graduates told not to throw mortar boards, poles in fire stations banned, regulations meaning trapeze artists would have to wear hard hats, snowball-throwing deemed too dangerous and panto actors banned from throwing sweets into the audience.

Like conkers and goggles, these stories often have a grain of truth. A well-meaning but misguided headteacher did once tell pupils to wear safety goggles when playing conkers. The myth is that the HSE is behind such rules.

“The problem is this: people are afraid of being sued,” says Hackitt. “ They're afraid that if something happens, someone will make a claim against them, so they hide behind the excuse 'I can't do this because of health and safety'. The no win, no fee provision allows people to see whether there's anything in it for them.”

We have become a more risk-averse society, says Hackitt.

“The more you take the big risks out of society, the more people start worrying about things that really shouldn't matter,” she adds. “What we are starting to see, which worries me a great deal, is the extent to which over-protective parents in particular get the whole notion of risk out of proportion.They wrap their kids in cotton wool, and it's creating a bigger problem because you create some cossetted kid who thinks he's indestructible because he's never been exposed to risk. So when he comes up against risk, whether it's on a school trip or, worse still, when it comes to work, he looks around and says 'Who's looking after me, because that's not my job'.”

Hackitt's own two daughters, now aged 25 and 22, each took gap years before university, travelling alone to Mexico and Tanzania. They were given advice and some useful contact details, but otherwise the message was “You're on your own”.

“You reach a point where you have to let go,” she adds.

The HSE has been involved in producing a new, simplified risk assessment for school trips, aiming to reverse an increasing trend for schools to opt out of such activities.

“In some cases, it is because their local authority has handed them a risk assessment package which may be 40 or 50 pages long, and said 'You've got to fill this in for everything you do'. Our answer is, no, that's not what we want.”

The HSE's example of a risk assessment for a school trip runs to just three pages.

You wonder how much Hackitt blames the media for public antipathy towards “elf and safety”.

“The media has done what the medai is paid to do – you pick up stories, ridiculous stories and print them,” she says. “The sad bit is that someone, somewhere has used health and safety as an excuse for can't be bothered, don't want to buy the insurance, just too lazy or whatever.”

First Aid at Work Course

2010-03-22T21:43:00.003Z

Book now for our special rate £1395 plus VAT for full 3 day HSE approved First Aid at Work Course at your place of work (depending on space)
12 delegates maximum...Just £116.25 per person.

Alternatively if you don not have the numbers contact us for details of our public courses in and around London and the South East.

Contact us on 0208 274 2926 or info@rhssltd.co.uk

Directors prosecuted over ladder fall

2010-03-22T21:38:00.002Z

Two directors of a decorating firm have been prosecuted after a worker was left brain damaged while working at a residential refurbishment.

Self-employed Trevor Dawson from Ravensthorpe, West Yorkshire, was working as a painter on a student accommodation refurbishment when the incident happened 15 August 2007.

Huddersfield Magistrates' Court heard Mr Dawson, 58, was working at Ashenhurst Student Village in Newsom when he apparently fell from a ladder, though no witnesses could confirm this.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) yesterday (16 March) prosecuted, Liversedge Decorating Contractors Ltd, two of its directors, and a second company Foster Turn-Key Contracts Ltd for health and safety breaches.

The HSE investigation found principal contractor Foster Turn-Key Contracts Ltd and Liversedge Decorating Contractors Ltd, contracted to decorate the flats, had allowed work to be carried out that was not adequately planned or supervised and had used inappropriate equipment.

Liversedge Decorating Contractors Ltd of Mountain Road, Thornhill, Dewsbury, pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 4 (1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005, and were fined £2,000. Paul Daniel of Smithy Carr Lane, Brighouse, and Clive Dewhirst of Mountain Road, Thornhill, Dewsbury, both directors of the firm, also pleaded guilty to the same charge. They were fined £1,000 each.

Foster Turn-Key Contractors of Plover Road, Lindley, Huddersfield, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 22 (1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. They were fined £2,000.

Mr Dawson is unable to recall any details of the incident because of his injuries sustained to his head.

After the hearing HSE Inspector David Stewart said:

"The ladder Trevor Dawson used, which we believe may have caused or contributed to his fall, was simply not suitable for the work he was doing. It was a domestic step ladder which should not have been allowed on the site.

"In this situation, a tower scaffold would have been much more appropriate.

"Falls from height remain the single most common cause of fatality and serious injury in the construction industry. The law is quite clear and HSE provides freely-available guidance on how work at height should be managed.

"In this instance, individual directors of a company were found guilty for not planning and supervising the work properly. This case should send a clear message to company directors about their responsibilities for health and safety."

First Corporate Manslaughter Case on hold

2010-03-01T12:24:00.000Z

The first case to be brought against a UK company under the new Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act has been adjourned due to concerns over the health of its director.

Charges were laid by the Crown Prosecution Service in April 2009 against Cotswold Geotechnical (Holdings), following the death of one of its employee, Alex Wright, on a Gloucestershire site in September 2008.

The company and its managing director Peter Eaton were charged with manslaughter by gross negligence and a health and safety offence in his own personal capacity.

Mr Justice Field heard submissions in private on 26 February 2010. He directed that the trial be adjourned for at least 18 weeks and be listed to resume in early October 2010.

Field said Eaton must undergo urgent medical treatment of a character which would render it unfair and oppressive for him to have to participate in the trial at the same time.

Eaton could be jailed for life if convicted, while Cotswold Geotechnical faces an unlimited fine.

Appointed Person Emergency First Aid Course

2010-02-10T19:27:00.003Z

This HSE approved course is now available to you at your place of work where you can put upto 12 delegates onto it from as little as £45 plus VAT per person or if you have a single person requiring this training our courses will be held in Central London Locations from April 2010 from as little as £85 plus VAT per person.

Ideal for the small business this course is suitable for lower risk environments with staff numbers under 50.

The course is fun, active and enjoyable delivered by highly experienced trainers using the latest techniques.
Please e-mail info@rhssltd.co.uk to register your interest in this course or to find out more about our other courses.

Call 0208 274 2926 to discuss specific or bespoke courses for your business.

Landlords and Asbestos

2010-02-03T19:34:00.003Z

A Bristol-based company has been fined for putting its workers at risk of asbestos-related diseases while working on a property in the city.

Frank Bruce and Company Ltd, of Bristol pleaded guilty at Bristol Magistrates in relation to refurbishment work at Lawrence Hill Industrial Park in the city during February and March 2009.

The court heard HSE inspectors visited industrial units where the defendant had organised refurbishment work involving the removal of a large quantity of asbestos insulation board without taking statutory safety precautions.

This led to exposure of the workers to the asbestos and also the contamination of the units being renovated.

The court heard the company plead guilty to breaches under Regulation 14 of the Construction (Design and Management) [CDM] Regulations 2007 by failing to appoint a CDM-coordinator or principal contractor for notifiable construction work and Regulation 4 (10) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations by failing to review or implement a plan to manage materials containing asbestos.

Frank Bruce and Co was fined £18,000 on 27th January 2010 for breaching the regulations and ordered to pay £6,679 costs.

Speaking after the hearing, HSEP Inspector Sue Adsett said: "The decision not to have large quantities of asbestos insulation board removed by licensed contractors before the general refurbishment work began, put the workers at risk and contaminated the site.

"The work was stopped and the defendant paid to make the site safe, but this doesn't change the fact that seven construction workers were exposed to asbestos, which we know can cause fatal diseases.

"Landlords and property developers need to be very wary of organising construction work themselves if they have not got appropriate experience of managing health and safety in building projects."

Around 500,000 buildings built before 2000 could contain asbestos, according to HSE estimates. If managed properly and kept in good condition, asbestos need not pose safety concerns.

Landlords need to arrange for a suitable survey to be done before refurbishment or demolition and pass this information on to builders before asking them to start work. Some asbestos products - such as Asbestos Insulation Boards or Asbestos Insulation - can only be removed by specially licensed contractors.

Workplace Transport

2010-01-28T20:55:00.000Z

7 January 2010 - A construction company from Gateshead has been ordered to pay £4,500 after one of its workers was seriously injured when a forklift truck telehandler he was operating overturned.

HSE prosecuted Meldrum Construction Services Ltd following the incident at its site, near Corbridge, in Northumberland, on 16 July 2008. The company pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. It was fined £4,500 and ordered to pay costs of £2,342.20 and a victim surcharge of £15.

The court heard that Tom Lincoln, 39, of Dudley, Northumberland, was lifting roof trusses onto the roof of the development when the forklift truck telehandler that he was operating overturned. The machine fell onto its side throwing Mr Lincoln against the machine's window and controls. Mr Lincoln was not trained to use the machine and was not wearing a seat belt when the incident happened. He suffered multiple fractures to his right arm, leaving him with limited mobility in his shoulder. He still requires medical treatment and is unable to return to his job.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-ne-00110.htm?ebul=cons/jan10&cr=14

15 January 2010 - A Wales construction company has been fined £80,000 after one of its employees had his head crushed at a site in Gloucestershire.

HSE prosecuted Macob Administration Limited, based in Bridgend, after 23-year-old. Lance Taylor from Thornbury, Bristol, was killed while working on a construction site in Abbeymead, Gloucester on 11 February 2005. Mr Taylor was driving a mini digger ? which he was not qualified to operate - and unintentionally hit a lever as he leaned out of the cab window. The digging arm of the vehicle was raised, crushing his head between the cab and the arm. He suffered fatal injuries and was pronounced dead on site.

Macob Administration Ltd pleaded guilty to breaches under Regulation 9(1) and 28(a) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company was fined £40,000 for each charge and ordered to pay costs of £29,798.14
http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-sw-655sww10.htm?ebul=cons/jan10&cr=15

Asbestos

2010-01-28T20:54:00.002Z

12 January 2010 - HSE has initiated criminal proceedings against Marks and Spencer plc and four other companies for asbestos-related breaches during refurbishment work at shops in Reading, Bournemouth and Plymouth, where it is alleged that the companies failed to ensure that staff and members of the public were not exposed to risks from asbestos-containing materials.

A committal hearing date has been set for 2.15pm on Tuesday 9 February 2010 at Bournemouth Magistrates' Court.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-se-0201.htm?ebul=cons/jan10&cr=9

27 January 2010 - Bristol-based company, Frank Bruce and Company Ltd, has been fined £18,000 and ordered to pay £6,679 costs for putting its workers at risk of asbestos-related diseases while working on a property in the city.

HSE inspectors visited industrial units at Lawrence Hill Industrial Park during February and March 2009 where the defendant had organised refurbishment work involving the removal of a large quantity of asbestos insulation board without taking statutory safety precautions. This led to exposure of the workers to the asbestos and also the contamination of the units being renovated.

The court heard the company plead guilty to breaches under Regulation 14 of the Construction (Design and Management) [CDM] Regulations 2007 by failing to appoint a CDM-coordinator or principal contractor for notifiable construction work and Regulation 4 (10) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations by failing to review or implement a plan to manage materials containing asbestos.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-sw-ww681.htm?ebul=cons/jan10&cr=26

Prosecutions

2010-01-28T20:50:00.000Z

6 January 2010 - A company has been fined a total of £16,000 after a worker fell five metres at a construction site in Tunbridge Wells.

A self-employed timber frame erector subcontracted to the company, was working at height on a self-build project when he fell some five metres to the bottom of an inadequately covered stairwell. He suffered multiple fractures, including his skull.

HSE prosecuted ECH Ltd - trading as Maple Timber Frames. The company pleaded guilty to breaching sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £16,000 and ordered to pay £5,000 towards the HSE investigation costs.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-se-0601.htm?ebul=cons/jan10&cr=5

7 January 2010 - A builder whose negligence put his employees and sub-contractors at risk was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay £2,244 costs for using unsafe scaffolding.

Angus William Naylor pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. Mr Naylor, from Driffield, East Yorks is a partner in the firm trading as WM E Naylor & Son.

The court heard that during a routine inspection on 29 April 2009, HSE witnessed people working on scaffolding that was unsafe and posed a risk of serious, if not fatal, injuries.

An HSE investigation revealed that between 2 April and 29 April 2009 employees working at a new housing build were put at risk of falls of up to 5 metres. The internal and external scaffolding was poorly erected and there was no edge protection in place.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-yh-00310.htm?ebul=cons/jan10&cr=6

2010-01-28T20:47:00.002Z

The Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations 2010 (the ‘Regulations’) come into force on 6 April 2010. The Regulations require certain information about conventional tower cranes used on construction sites to be notified to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

This leaflet sets out:

The types of tower crane that need to be notified to HSE;
Who needs to ensure notification is made;
When the notification needs to be made;
What information needs to be notified; and
How the information should be notified.

See the HSE website for more details:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/indg437

Health and Safety Offers for 2010

2010-01-01T18:40:00.010Z

If you are interested in Asbestos Awareness Training for your workforce please e-mail us at info@rhssltd.co.uk . From as little as £50 per person plus VAT (Central London Venue or if numbers in excess of 10 for your business we can deliver in house)

If your Fire Risk Assessment is a year old or you do not have one please call us for a free quote on 0208 274 2926. Our bespoke assessments are designed to satisfy all legal requirements and keep Fire Officers happy.
Based on the size of the property and activities taking place within it we can carry these out on the smallest of budgets.

If your Health and Safety Policy is a year old or in need of upgrading please e-mail us at info@rhssltd.co.uk
Our policies are designed to enable clients to win accreditations such as Safe Contractor, CHAS, Exor, Constructionline and even ISO 18001.

If your PAT testing is coming up for renewal we would be pleased to carry this out for you for a surprisingly low rate (over half the price of national insurers and contractors)

For Fire Extinguishers and Servicing please call us and we will provide a no obligation quote.

E-mail us for a FREE Business Continuity Pack which includes risk analysis, plan template and guidance documents: info@rhssltd.co.uk

We appreciate any feedback on the services we provide or if you have specific requirements not currently catered for. Please do not hesitate to contact us.

RHSS would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas!

2009-12-17T20:44:00.005Z

Merry Christmas from all at RHSS Limited!

We are available throughout the Christmas Holidays and over the New
Year through our 24/7 on call service:

T: 0208 274 2926

E: info@rhssltd.co.uk

London fire demonstrates need for Fire Risk Assessment

2009-12-07T19:36:00.001Z

About 310 people were forced to leave their homes after a fire broke out in south London in the early hours on 26 November.

More than 150 fire fighters tackled the fire which engulfed a construction site in Carisbrooke Gardens in Peckham at about 0430 GMT. It spread to two blocks of maisonettes and a destroyed a pub. Ten people, including two police officers, have received hospital treatment for minor injuries. Police said four of the injured were taken for treatment by ambulance, while four others arrived at hospital asking for assistance. The two police officers were treated for the effects of smoke inhalation.

A local resident, identified only as Elizabeth, was one of those who had to leave her home. She told BBC London 94.9FM: "We just woke up into this total blaze from the construction site across the road and we were told to leave.

"There was flying debris all over the place and there were cars ablaze and we were told to get out of the area."

John Osagie, 31, said he saw the fire when he came back from work in the early hours. He said: "I stood there and waited for the fire brigade to turn up. They tried to stop it but it was getting worse and worse. Then they evacuated everybody.

"I was scared and I had to take some of my stuff and come and stand out in the cold." He said he did not know whether his home had been damaged.

The fire, which began on a development where 39 flats were being built, has damaged property and buildings in Sumner Road and Rosemary Road.

Some 260 residents were being housed in temporary accommodation provided by Southwark Council and a rest centre has been opened at the Damilola Taylor Centre, East Surrey Grove.

It comes nearly five months after six people died when a fire destroyed the Lakanal House block of flats in nearby Camberwell.

These fires highlight that there is a greater need for improved fire risk assessment, not just within corporate companies, but residential properties as well. If you need need help with your fire risk assessments, call RHSS on 0208 274 2926.

RHSS Limited launches new website!

2009-12-04T15:14:00.002Z

RHSS Limited have today launched a new website : www.rhssltd.co.uk
You can find a link to our on line safety shop for signage and basic safety equipment on our home page. (www.rhss-signs.co.uk)
You can also find information about us, our services and training.
We will soon be going live in our client area where you can find guidance, information and our newsletter as well as useful templates and discounts.

Please sign up to our blog www.rhssltd.blogspot.com so you can receive regular updates on legislation and prosecutions direct to your inbox.

Engineers lacked half a century of records

2009-12-02T21:48:00.001Z

A structural engineering firm that had no record of maintaining electrical equipment over a fifty year period has been fined after a worker suffered a shock when he connected a portable welder to an extension cable.

Stewart Baxter, 24, sustained burns to his fingers at DA Green & Sons factory in Whapload, Linccolnshire. Other employers of DA Green & Sons said they too had suffered minor shocks from equipment at the factory over the years.

An HSE investigation revealed much of the electrical installation was in a very poor state. Some of the electrical equipment had been installed 50 years earlier adnd DA Green had no record of it ever being tested or maintained.

"DA Green & Sons Ltd employs 50 staff whose health and safety has been at risk over many years," said HSE inspector Jo Anderson. The company admitted breaching Regulation 4(2) of the Electricity at Work Regualtions, by failing to maintain electrical systems. Spalding magistrated fined it £2750 plus £1950 costs.