PREVIOUS NEWSLETTERS

Recent newsletters are in pdf format and are opened from the links below.  The content of previous newsletters since December 2006 are seen by scrolling down this page.

October 2009

 

April 2009

 

 

 EDITORIAL - November 2008

I have to worry that no-one looks at this newsletter. For the past three months the July newsletter has been displaying the March heading - and no-one has mentioned it!

I hope you like the new photos in the gallery. My interest in the plug was first raised by the exposed inner cables and the absence of any cable grip. I then realised the original screw for holding the plug together had been replaced by a much longer wood screw (mind you, someone had thought to file down the sharp point!). Opening the plug I then found the fuse had been wrapped in silver paper (well it saves the hazzle of changing the fuse when the vacuum cleaner catches fire!!). And my name is on the company risk assessment that says equipment is maintained in good condition!!!

Following on from news of the increased penalties for health & safety offences is some information lifted from the HSE website about prosecution guidelines. They are actually quite lucid and link in with the information put out by HSE on sensible risk assessment. So why do I get the feeling that, just maybe, some enforcement officers are not quite as even handed and transparent in their decision making as we are promised?

Maybe it was a couple of years ago when I was told by an HSE Inspector that he was not allowed to tell me why his boss had instructed him to take a prosecution. Or, maybe, it was recently when HSE prosecuted because someone had died when there was absolutely no evidence of any relevant company defects and, in fact, an inspection a couple of days earlier had given them a clean bill of health!

Unfortunate as it may be, but risk assessments only control risk - they do not remove risk; we must accept that on rare occasions something will still go wrong that is outside of any reasonable control.

However, there is some great news, the government have pledged to accelerate their deregulation programme to help businesses get through the recession. The massive reduction in health & safety red tape already achieved is detailed below!

Finally, a range of different court cases is reported; inadequate risk assessments, unsafe systems of work and failure to follow advice / comply with notices seem to crop up quite often. In the future a few clients will certainly be reminded about the Director going to jail because he did not follow the advice of his Safety Consultant!!

Stay safe out there.                                               

 

Ken Rock

 

 

2007/08 STATISTICS (produced by HSE)

 

2.1 million people were suffering from an illness they believed was caused or made worse by their current or past work.

229 workers were killed at work, a rate of 0.8 per 100 000 workers.

136 771 other injuries to employees were reported under RIDDOR, a rate of 517.9 per 100 000 employees.

299 000 reportable injuries occurred, according to the Labour Force Survey, a rate of 1000 per 100 000 workers.

34 million days were lost overall (1.4 days per worker), 28 million due to work-related ill health and 6 million due to workplace injury.

 

LESS ONEROUS REQUIREMENTS for EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY INSURANCE ?

 

GOODBYE CORGI - HELLO CAPITA (GAS SAFE)

Gas installers and engineers will, from April 2009 to 2013, need to be registered with CAPITA. Until March they will continue to be registered with CORGI. After running a registration scheme for 17 years CORGI failed to get the new 5 year contract from HSE.

It is essential that anyone installing or servicing gas appliances is qualified and has the appropriate registration. Two brothers that ran a gas fire company and claimed to be CORGI registered were recently send to jail for 12 months.

 

 

 

QUOTE

 

- Spokesperson for chain of lapdancing clubs.

"It's quite clear we are not part of sex industry, we never have been and we don't intend to be."

 

HEALTH & SAFETY OFFENCES ACT 2008

If you are thinking of committing any health & safety offences it is probably worth doing them before next January! The effect of the Act, which comes into force on 19 January 2009, is to:

a) raise the maximum fine which may be imposed in the lower courts to £20,000 for most health and safety offences;

b) make imprisonment an option for more health and safety offences in both the lower and higher courts (provision is included for increasing the existing six months for certain offences to twelve months but this is not being brought into force at present);

c) make certain offences, which are currently triable only in the lower courts, triable in either the lower or higher courts (thus allowing higher penalties).

PROSECUTION GUIDELINES

There are strict guidelines which are observed by the regulators in their approach to the prosecution of health and safety offences. The HSE Enforcement Policy Statement makes it clear that prosecutions should be in the public interest and where one or more of a list of circumstances apply. These include:

• where death was a result of a breach of the legislation; or

• there has been reckless disregard of health and safety requirements; or

• there have been repeated breaches which give rise to significant risk, or

• persistent and significant poor compliance; or
  
  

• false information has been supplied wilfully, or there has been intent to deceive in relation to a matter which gives rise to significant risk.

WASTE CONTROL

Fines of upto £2 million could be imposed on Councils that fail to meet European waste targets. Councils have until 2013 to meet landfill targets set by the EU Landfill Directive. A recent report by the Audit Commission warns that many Councils are not on track to meet their targets and need to improve their facilities to reduce, reuse and recycle.

 

RECENT CASES

 

A company was fined £18 750 and their electrical contractor £45 000 after two men were killed inside an animal feed mixer. The men had switched the machine off and pressed the emergency stop button before entering the machine but did not isolate and lock-off the power supply. Another operator accidently started the machine and the men died from horrendous injuries. The emergency stop button, which had been incorrectly wired 4 years earlier, had never been tested!

A quarry company has been fined £75 000 plus £30 000 costs after a worker was crushed by a rotating flywheel. It appears that he must have leaned or fallen against the mesh guard which gave way due to missing and loose bolts.

Safety & Health Practitioner, Oct 08

A company was fined £30 000 plus £55 000 costs after a worker was killed by climbing into a paper shredding machine to clear blockages. The machine had not been isolated and locked off and the electrical controls were contaminated with dust. A Company Director, who chose to ignore the recommendations of a Health & Safety Consultant, was found guilty of manslaughter and sent to prison for 12 months.

An activity centre was fined £12 000 and £10 690 costs for allowing an eight year old child to fall 6 metres from a climbing wall. Investigation showed that the karabiner on the safety line had not been tightened; this was accredited to inadequate training and supervision allowing prescribed safe systems of work to be ignored.

HSE Health & Safety Newsletter, Oct-Nov 08

A sheet metal factory has been fined £2 500 for failing to carry out a noise risk assessment, another £2 500 for failing to to take measures to reduce machine noise plus costs of £3 390. They had supplied hearing protecion to the workforce but had not actually assessed the noise or made any attempt at noise reduction or containment; the HSE Inspector considered the factory to be "ridiculously noisy" as it was necessary to shout very loudly just to be heard.

A Landlord has been fined £24 840 plus £13 481 costs for not having gas safety certificates for 12 flats. He had ignored an informal request and an Improvement Notice requiring the gas installations to be serviced and certificated.

Fines of £18 000 plus £21 000 costs for an asbestos survey company that failed to find asbestos in two schools they surveyed for the local council. Apparently they sampled floor tiles that may have contained asbestos but ignored ceiling tiles made of asbestos insulating board. Contractors working in the schools were then exposed to asbestos dust during maintenance operations.

The inadequate guarding of a 40 year old machine allowed a factory worker to slice off the tip of her finger when she tried to clear a blockage without switching off the machine. Failure to provide modern standards of guarding or to adequately train operators resulted in the marmalade manufacturer being fined £4 000 and £2 855 costs. (PUWER requires dangerous machinery to be guarded as far as practicable which tends to mean to modern standards).

Safety & Health Practitioner, Nov 08

You will no doubt be pleased to hear that the man found making kebabs next to a corpse has been fined £3 861 and banned for life from managing a food business. Actually there was probably more of a food hygiene risk from the rat and fly infestations and the thawing chicken oozing blood onto the floor than from the dead body. It appears the friend of the kebab shop owner had died of natural courses (but I never eat doner kebabs anyway!).

Environmental Health News, 24 Oct 08

 

Top of page

 

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

EDITORIAL - July 2008

Another mad rush to try and get the newsletter published only slightly behind schedule. As well as personal commitments I have been spending considerable time in Norfolk running a series of training courses for a large food manufacturer. The CIEH certificate for supervisors (now branded as a Level 3 Award) has been extremely popular. I have also been rushing around the West Country inspecting a chain of Italian restaurants (Bottelino’s). Their pastas and pizzas are so good I have had to buy another bicycle to avoid putting on even more weight!

No new horror pictures from work in the Photo Gallery - just a very colourful photo of a competent guy carrying out safety checks. I was happy to put my life in his hands for an extremely enjoyable trip.

Do you think HSE feel the need to increase their income? They have recently brought out the third edition of PUWER 98 ACoP, the third edition of RIDDOR 95 Guidance and new guide to LEV to consolidate and replace the previous two guides (see below for an explanation of the safety shorthand!).

A recent £2 fine plus £1 costs seems rather derisory for an explosion in 2005 that killed one worker and seriously injured three others. The accident happened because the company had changed from using LPG to a non-hazardous gas some weeks previously. Unfortunately, stocks of LPG were still present and were released by mistake to form a fireball that engulfed the factory.

The Judge said going into liquidation had saved a £250 000 fine! HSE had taken the case to enable them to investigate and ensure the liquidation was genuine rather than a means of avoiding justice. Of course, if it happened today the Company Directors would be under investigation for Corporate Manslaughter (albeit with probably the same result!).

The theme of Recent Cases, below, is the folly of not learning from experience or listening to advice. In every instance it was known that there was "an accident waiting to happen" but no-one had bothered to take the appropriate action.

Finally, may I correct a misconception about the properties in Rock’s Frolics – it is not my house where these disasters happened (but thinking about it there have been a few interesting situations I could use in future editions).

Ken Rock

PUWER 98 ACoP = Approved Code of Practice for the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

RIDDOR 95 = Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995

LEV = Local Exhaust Ventilation

LPG = Liquefied Petroleum Gas

BODY ART

Confused messages around at the moment about body piercing and tattooing. It seems ridiculous that tattooing a person under the age of 16 is illegal but there is no age limit for body piercing; the rationale being that a body piercing is usually reversible! It is also thought that setting an age limit for body piercing would result in even more youngsters piercing themselves and their friends!

It is thought that more than a quarter of the people pierced suffer from swelling, infection and bleeding; the number of infections is certainly increasing as piercing of body parts other than the ear lobes becomes more fashionable. MRSA, C difficile, Hepatitis and HIV are just a few of the potentially life threatening infections from unhygienic piercing and tattooing.

Many years ago I was involved with the police in a joint stake-out and raid of an unlicensed tattoo parlour. It was in the living room of a rather grubby house with horrendous hygiene problems (needles were supposedly boiled in a saucepan on the domestic cooker). The police successfully prosecuted for tattooing minors (not miners!) and I prosecuted for the rather trivial offence of not being licensed. Because they were not licensed they had no statutory obligation to operate in a hygienic manner!

ROCK’S FROLICS

During the inspection of a house I opened the toilet window moments before the householder shouted that I should not open the window because it was difficult to close. Sure enough, the casement was larger than the frame so I got a good grip on the handle and exerted considerable pressure. The casement banged into the frame as the glass popped out onto the pavement below!

My Guardian Angel must have, yet again, been working hard because the sheet of glass landed flat and unharmed! 

 

 

 

 

 

We’ve often heard of teachers, volunteers and carers being told to ask parents for permission, or even requiring parents to drive over and put the plaster on themselves. This persistent myth causes a lot of unnecessary hassle and worry.

The reality

There is no rule that says a responsible adult can’t put a plaster on a child's minor cut. Some children do have an allergy to normal plasters. If you know a child is allergic you can use the Hypo-allergenic type of plaster. The important thing is to clean and cover the cut to stop it getting infected.

Taken from the HSE website myth

 

 

APPEAL COURT SUPPORTS COMMON SENSE

The Court of Appeal have recently declared that if you take part in a dangerous sport and get injured you do not have an automatic right to compensation.  Actually, that is nothing new; there never has been a right to compensation unless you could prove someone had been negligent.

However, over the past 20 years or so the Courts, to a certain extent, and the insurance companies, to a very large extent, have simply accepted almost anything as evidencial proof of negligence. This judgement simply takes us back to the previous situation where someone must have been demonstrably and culpably negligent for a claim against them to be successful.

The specific case that triggered this decision was a young man who was paralysed after jumping off a climbing wall at a leisure centre and falling badly onto the safety matting below. Initially the Crown Court found the leisure centre 25% liable because they had not specifically warned him that the safety matting did not make the wall safe (albeit there were signs prohibiting jumping from the wall).

The appeal judges considered it obvious that safety matting would not protect from an awkward fall and that climbing involved an inherent risk. The leisure centre could not be held negligent and hence liable because someone had failed to read the displayed safety notices.

It is considered that this judgement sets a precedent that will protect the leisure industry from future litigation; maybe we shall soon see a return to common sense in other areas such as the workplace!

RECENT CASES

Yet another prosecution relating to a cook suffering severe scalds from boiling oil. A table top fryer was located on the top of a fridge when the cook’s apron caught the handle and tipped the fryer over as she squeezed through a 30 cm gap. A similar accident had happened previously but no-one had been hurt because the oil was only warm. The business owner was only fined £5 000 plus £1 205 costs to reflect his financial position and his prompt guilty plea.

Waitrose have recently been fined £20 000 for failing to provide a safe system of work, £5 000 for not having a risk assessment and £4 792 costs after an employee broke 2 bones in his arm while operating a cardboard compactor. Apparently similar instances with less serious consequences had happened in two other stores. The maximum fines allowable in a magistrates court were imposed; the magistrates said that if the company had not pleaded guilty they would have sent the case to the Crown Court for sentencing (where the fines are unlimited).

Environmental Health News, 20 June 08

Failure to implement the recommendations of their own risk assessment resulted in a £60 000 fine and £15 347 costs for a bus company after an employee was injured falling into an inspection pit. Amazingly, another employee had died after falling into a pit at the same garage a year earlier –yet the company had still failed to implement simple control measures!

You might think that advice from an HSE Inspector, attendance at an HSE Advice Day and having your insurance company condemn your Local Exhaust Ventilation system for unsatisfactory performance would suggest the need for urgent action. Not so for an engineering company with poor machine guarding and worker exposure to toxic dust hardwood dust. A second visit by HSE was followed by 2 Prohibition Notices, 8 Improvement Notices and 2 Summonses (resulting in a £12 500 fine and £5 000 costs)!

£18 000 fines and £34 361 costs split between 2 contractors because the giant screen built in central Birmingham to display the World Cup collapsed (fortunately no-one was hurt). An independent engineer had refused to sign off the rigging because he did not consider it capable of withstanding foreseeable winds. However, his report, including a warning not to add banners, was ignored to enable the screen to be ready for the start of the big event. Birmingham City Council were extremely lucky not to find themselves in the dock with their contractors.

Safety & Health Practitioner, July 08

 

 

 Top of page

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

EDITORIAL - March 2008

Most Recent Cases (see below) have been chosen to support the HSE “Shattered Lives” campaign and involve a range of trips, slips and falls. More than 1000 workers a month suffer serious injuries from risks that are mostly obvious and fairly simple to reduce.

Of course, falls from height resulting in death or permanent disability get the most publicity but you do not need to fall a great height to suffer a fractured skull, broken wrist or broken ankle.

Although the Working at Height Regulations are making people more aware of the need for a sensible working platform more than a quarter of the injuries from falls are from ladders and steps. The idea that ladders and steps have been banned is a common myth but they should only be used for low risk, short-duration work. However, the contractor added to the Photo Gallery was obviously totally oblivious to the safer method of using steps (and he had a suitable mobile platform in the room but could not be bothered to move it!).

I thought it was a basic tenet of English Law that costs should not form a substantial part of the punishment. That seems hard to believe if you look at some of Recent Cases below. In particular, one construction case where the 3 companies and one manager prosecuted were all hit for high costs (the total being well in excess of £100 000).

One prosecution that did not make it was a Shisha Lounge prosecuted for allowing customers to smoke!

Ken Rock

HSE TARGET CONSTRUCTION REFURBISHMENT

HSE recently targeted 1000 refurbishment construction sites and stopped work on 300 of them! Major risks related to working at height, machinery without guards and asbestos (no checks before demolishing walls).

More than half of the construction site deaths (23 last year) are on refurbishment sites. There is no doubt that in recent years the major construction companies have vastly improved their health & safety standards on large newbuild construction sites; major refurbishment works are some way behind and there are still an awful lot of “cowboys” working in home improvement!

ROCK’S FROLICS

Climbing the stairs of a domestic house I noticed the wall plaster was uneven so I tapped it to see if it sounded hollow. There was a low rumbling sound as the vast majority of the wall plaster slid down the wall to end in a massive pile at the bottom of the stairs.

I stood, horrified, in a great cloud of dust as the wallpaper strips (only attached at the top of the wall) waved gently in the breeze. The lady of the house, ahead of me up the stairs, turned round and casually said, “We’ve been expecting that to happen. Would you like to look at the main bedroom first”.

FOOD ADDITIVES & HYPERACTIVITY

The Food Commission (a not for profit campaigning company) has identified 1000 products that contain additives associated with hyperactivity in children. Although they are all “approved” additives the Food Safety Agency (the UK Government watchdog) actually advises parents of hyperactive children to avoid giving them foods containing colouring additives. However, the foods most likely to be coloured with the suspect substances are often those targeted at children!

Finding the additives means scrutinising the small print for the names or “E” numbers. The ones to look out for are:-

Tartrazine - E102           - artifical, yellow food colouring
Quinoline yellow - E104   - artifical, yellow food colouring
Sunset yellow - E110      - artifical, orange / yellow food colouring
Carmoisine - E122          - artifical, red food colouring
Ponceau 4R - E124         - artifical, red food colouring
Allura red - E129               - artifical red food colouring
Sodium benzoate - E211   - artifical preservative

At present Cadbury’s are the most prolific user of suspect additives (37 confectionary products) with KCB group (30 baked products) coming second and Woolworths (23) third. Other well known names on the hit list include Lidl, Coca Cola, Tesco, Mars and Morrisons. More detail available at

http://www.actiononadditives.com/Media/1000_additives/.

 

 

Toy weapons used in a play had to be locked up and registered with the police.

Reports said that the theatre company were just following HSE’s guidance sheet.

Actually HSE’s guidance is clear; it deals with real weapons and the kind of accurate replicas that can cause serious injury or be used in robberies. Not plastic toys.

We trust the play did well with all the free publicity!

Taken from the HSE website myth

 

 

CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER

 

Coming into force in April 2008 the guidance on sentencing will almost certainly lead to vastly increased fines for companies that allow employees or others to be killed by work activities.

The largest fine under health & safety legislation was a pretty substantial £15m for killing 4 people in a gas explosion. That was about 1% of the company turnover. Current indications are that fines for Corporate Manslaughter are likely to be anywhere from 2.5% to 10% of turnover with 5% being the starting point (aggravating features such as ignoring warnings will increase the amount while mitigating factors such as a good safety record will reduce the figure).

Note that the calculations will be based upon average turnover (not profit) for the past 3 years. A fine of 10% turnover could easily push many companies into liquidation.

 

RECENT CASES

Slipping on a floor made wet by a leaking ice machine resulted in a 16 year old employee falling into a deep fat fryer. Her hand and arm were severely burnt by the 350oC oil. Her employer was fined £15 000 for failure to maintain a safe system of work or undertake a risk assessment of slip risks.

A similar accident to a Commis Chef resulted in major burns to his hand arm and face requiring surgery and 5 months off work. His employer was fined £14 000 plus £2 000 costs.

HSE Newsletter, Feb/Mar 08

A fine of £3 000 plus costs of £695 for a theatre company that allowed its Project Manager to use a 4 metre high tower scaffold that was unstable and without a fully boarded work platform or edge protection. The company actually had carried a risk assessment and provided training but had failed to ensure its employees conducted themselves in a safe manner.

A butcher’s shop producing cooked meats in a rear preparation room was responsible for an E. coli 0157 outbreak that affected over 60 people. Fortunately, no-one died from this food poisoning organism that has a tendency to cause kidney failure and death! The company were fined £15 000 plus £5 000 costs  and have since gone out of business.

Environmental Health News, 29 Feb 08

A 17 year old scaffolder that died after falling from an unsafe scaffold while his harness was unattached was claimed to have had 4 years experience! His company were fined £50 000 plus £17 500 costs, the project sub-contractor was fined £75 000 plus £70 000 costs and the principal contractor was fined £75 000 plus £20 000 costs. The contracts manager was fined £7 500 plus £15 000 costs.

An employee was injured when the 50kg sack of rice he was unloading from a container fell on him. His employer has been fined £25 000 plus £28 000 costs.

Coventry City Council has been fined £125 000 plus £40 000 costs after a reversing refuse vehicle ran over and killed an 11 year old girl. Six members of the public have been killed by reversing waste collection vehicles in England & Wales in the past 3 years.

 

A Coventry scrap dealer was fined £200 000 plus £55 000 costs after a reversing lorry killed an employee. There was no segregation of pedestrians and vehicles at the time of the accident but the company have now developed a one-way system, reduced the amount of reversing required and erected barriers to segregate pedestrian workers from vehicles.

The absence of a risk assessment or any control measures resulted in the death of en employee who fell through a rooflight while repairing a fragile roof. The employer was fined £25 000 and £2 300 costs for health & safety offences; a separate manslaughter investigation is still being carried out by the police.

Safety & Health Practitioner, Mar 08

 

Top of page

  ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

EDITORIAL - September 2007

Rather a mixed bag this quarter without any specific theme. A couple of short items using statistics - that workplace deaths have increased slightly is no surprise but I am staggered that Scotland considers the smoking ban reduced heart attacks within the first 10 months; let’s hope it is correct and that a similar reduction occurs in England and Wales.

After major disagreements between Commons and Lords we now have corporate manslaughter legislation. Arguments about whether it goes far enough (or too far!) are still raging; see the article below as well as one of the recent cases where the employer was found guilty of health & safety breaches causing death but was found not guilty of manslaughter (and there are other deaths where possibly guilty individuals have not been prosecuted for manslaughter).

Another case relates to someone relying upon an interlocked guard to prevent a machine operating (i.e. when the guard is open the power is cut off – like your microwave oven or washing machine at home). Good practice says you should never rely upon an interlock; certainly if I was going to put my arm in a machine that had to potential for amputation I would want to make sure the power was completely isolated and locked off with a padlock (and I had the padlock key in my pocket!).

Not having come across any humorous accident reports this quarter I have started a new section where I admit to mistakes I have made in my career. Hopefully you will see this as proof that EHP’s are human and not that I have always been incompetent. (Since writing this I have come across an article in a Health & Safety magazine where an ex-HSE Inspector admits to a much worse mistake).

 

Ken Rock

 

CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER & CORPORATE HOMICIDE ACT 2007

 

At long last the government have managed to decide on new legislation relating to corporate manslaughter. The new law comes into force on 6 April 2008 and basically allows an organisation to be found guilty where there has been gross negligence at a senior management level. Deaths in the custody of the police and prison services are excluded for three years.

The first thing to realise is that existing law is not being changed. Anyone that kills someone else by gross negligence (or during the commission of a criminal offence) can be held liable. In the past, Managers or Directors of small businesses, where responsibility can be proven, have been found guilty of manslaughter where their health & safety management has been found to be extremely weak or non-existent. In larger operations, where the spread of responsibility is wider, it has not been possible to blame an individual Manager or Director for the faults of the organisation; it has been necessary to prove the "controlling mind"..

The new law allows that where management failure amounted to a “gross breach” of the duty of care owed to the deceased the organisation  can be found guilty of corporate manslaughter (corporate homicide in Scotland). Failure to comply with health & safety legislation will be a major factor in deciding guilt but organisation culture, policies and systems will be taken into account.

The penalties allow for an unlimited fine and a “Remedial Order” requiring the appropriate action to remedy the management defects (rather like an Improvement Notice). However, the strongest punishment is likely to be the “Publicity Order” requiring the organisation to publicise their offence and the penalties.

Some unions are claiming that the new legislation does not go far enough and that it should have included provisions for the imprisonment of company directors. However, this has always been the case where individual negligence can be proven and randomly picking someone from the Board to serve time on behalf of the company does seem rather draconian. Requiring an organisation to have a specific director with health & safety responsibilities has been suggested; unfortunately, this could result in a “Scapegoat Director” being appointed with all other Directors feeling they had no responsibility.

 

ROCK’S FROLICS

As a Pupil Public Health Inspector (how that ages me!) I attended a house that had a blocked drain. Council workmen had ascertained the public sewer was clear but they could not rod from the house to the sewer. I quickly decided there must be an interceptor trap under the pavement and, using my newly acquired knowledge of Victorian drainage systems, ordered the men to open up the pavement. Much to my delight they immediately found the metal cap covering an access point to the drain.

As two men got down on their knees to open the cover I never considered the fact that the house was well back from the road and up a steep drive. As the cap came off it was rather like striking oil and a fountain of raw sewage shot 3 metres into the air. Standing nearby I was able to back off before the plume came back down, the guys on their knees were not so lucky!

The next drain job I attended I found the team were ready for me – they were all wearing complete waterproof gear!!

SMOKING BAN REDUCES HEART ATTACKS

An amazing 17% reduction in heart attack admissions to Scottish hospitals has been recorded in the first year of smoking being prohibited in public places. The figure was even better for non-smokers (20%) and the Government are now hoping for a similar reduction in England and Wales.

Other findings from Scotland (where the ban was a year ahead of England and Wales) was a 39% reduction in non-smokers exposure to second hand smoke and an 86% reduction in second-hand smoke particles in bars. There is also evidence to suggest that smoking is reducing and that smokers have not increased the amount of smoking in their own homes.

Recent research by the World health Organisation claims that tobacco smoking and alcohol are the main risk factors for cancer in France.

 

 

This is one of the oldest chestnuts around, a truly classic myth. A well-meaning head teacher decided children should wear safety goggles to play conkers. Subsequently some schools appear to have banned conkers on ‘health & safety’ grounds or made children wear goggles, or even padded gloves!

 

Realistically the risk from playing conkers is incredibly low and just not worth bothering about. If kids deliberately hit each other over the head with conkers, that’s a discipline issue, not health and safety.

Taken from the HSE website myth

 

 

STATISTICS

 

241 workplace deaths in 2006/7 has returned us closer to the normal average after the record low figure of 217 fatalities in 2005/6. Contrary to what you may see on television (in programmes such as Casualty and The Bill) the services sector is easily the best workplace to avoid premature death (0.35 deaths per 100 000 workers). Manufacturing is not bad at 1.1 deaths per 100 000 and construction is pretty poor at 3.7.  However, agriculture remains easily our most dangerous workplace with 8.1 deaths per 100 000 workers.

At the time of writing HSE had not released the 2006/7 figures for injuries or diseases.

RECENT CASES

A South Wales Butcher has been jailed for 12 months after being found responsible for an E. coli food poisoning outbreak. 157 people were affected and one 5 year old died. As well as not having an effective cleaning regime (blood splashes, cobwebs, dead insects) it was common practice to use the same machine to vacuum pack both raw and cooked meats.

The owner of a fancy dress shop in Merseyside has been fined £1 000 plus £930 costs after an elderly customer fell down an unguarded cellar entrance. Subsequent compliance with Improvement and Prohibition Notices requiring the area to be made safe cost all of £20!

An optician in Manchester has been fined £25 000 plus £555 costs for two offences of dumping shop rubbish.

Environmental Health News, 14 Sept 07

A fine of £620 000 with £80 000 costs has been imposed on an animal rendering company for breaches of confined space rules. An employee lowered into a tank to clear a blockage was overcome by fumes and collapsed; a would-be rescuer also collapsed and the Fire Brigade were needed to rescue both men. Unfortunately, one of the men died. A company director was found not guilty of manslaughter but the company were found guilty of offences relating to the lack of an effective risk assessment and the absence of suitable rescue provisions. Apparently, the company had not learned from previous incidents but, after this fatality, they invested £4million in a health & safety programme.

A worker somehow survived having his life-support machine turned off although he will probably never work again. He was struck by a falling lintel while demolishing a wall; he was working from an improvised platform made from two planks, did not have any PPE and had not received any training. His employer has been sentenced to 6 months in prison, fined £1500 and been ordered to pay £90 000 compensation (although he is appealing against both the conviction and the penalty).

A bottle filling line started unexpectedly causing severe arm injuries that put an employee off work for a year. He had been relying upon an interlocked guard to prevent the line from running; unfortunately, the interlock had failed and the company did not have a routine of checking the effectiveness of such guards. The company was fined £5 000 with £3 599 costs.

Safety & Health Practitioner, Sept 07

 

Top of page

  ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

 

EDITORIAL - June 2007

 

I think I shall just about manage to get this newsletter out in the correct month. It has been slightly delayed because I thought it was time the website had a new look and I hoped to have it all completed. Unfortunately, work managed to interfere so, although there have been a few changes to the website, the “look” remains mostly the same.

 

This month I have put in a considerable number of Recent Cases where the common thread is the absence of risk assessments and their associated control measures. In almost every instance it should have been obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that “here is an accident waiting to happen!” In fact, most of the situations would have been fairly standard operations that could probably have been covered by a fairly simple generic risk assessment and standard precautions.

 

Good news is that the EU have finally accepted UK health & safety laws (see below); maybe instead of worrying about the technicalities of a particular phrase the European Commission can now spend some effort in getting other countries to actually improve their standards of health & safety.

 

The Health & Safety Executive have been castigated in some quarters for wasting resources on debunking health & safety myths (see below). My opinion is that these myths actually detract from the real health & safety message – so good luck to the HSE.

 

Ken Rock

 

EU COURT SUPPORTS UK H&S LAWS

 

After a ten year argument the European Commission has finally taken the UK Government to the European Court of Justice claiming the use of the “so far as is reasonably practicable” does not satisfy the European directive requiring laws to cover health & safety at work. In most of Europe the laws tend to be written in absolute terms but the courts are allowed flexibility in their rulings whereas UK laws tend to include any necessary flexibility.

 

In January of this year the Advocate General for the court gave his opinion that the UK achieved the aims of the Directive and this has now been confirmed by the European Court of Justice.

 

It could be claimed that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the UK has Europe’s lowest rate of workplace fatalities with 1.1 deaths per 100 000 workers (European average is 2.5).

 

Bill Callaghan, HSE chair, response to the ruling was, “We continue to believe the way forward is a proportionate and risk based approach, while allowing common sense to be applied when deciding on what protective measures to adopt.”

SMOKING BAN - 1ST JULY 2007

The indoors of England becomes pretty much smoke-free from 1st July. Workplaces and public areas are included so private homes and privately used cars are very nearly the only places inside that people can smoke (there are some exemptions such as care homes). Even smokers shelters as found in many factory yards must have over half of the sides open.

As there can be very few people that are not aware of the new law it seems rather over the top to require large "no-smoking" notices at every entrance to a building; even if no-one has smoked inside the premises for years. Hopefully, the enforcement officers will turn a blind eye to this requirement unless, of course, people are actually smoking.

Many organisations are using the new law as an opportunity to completely ban smoking on their site. As well as reducing fire risk this is also aimed at preventing staff in work uniforms congregating outside the back door. We have even heard of smoking being banned within 100 metres of the employers premises so that employees cannot nip out the front door for a puff!

Health education people are hoping that many smokers will now decide to stop smoking completely; it seems rather bizarre that some Primary Care Trusts have chosen this year to cut back their anti-smoking budgets!

 

 

The HSE are trying to reduce some of the nonsense spouted about health & safety by having a “Myth of the Month” page on their website. This month they debunk the claim that trapeze artists are required to wear safety hats! Check out health safety myth

 

RECENT CASES

 

Network Rail (Railtrack) have “only” been fined £4 million for the Paddington rail crash because a higher fine would reduce funds available for on-going safety issues. Thames Trains were considered to be less liable and were fined £2 million. 31 people died in the crash between two trains just outside Paddington in 1999. The Judge expressed his concern at the delay in bringing the matter to court and pointed out this was not the fault of the defendants.

 

Cleaning a dangerous machine without isolating the power resulted in a worker losing the fingers and a considerable amount of flesh from one hand. Because the company had not carried a risk assessment and did not have a safe system of work they were fined £50 000 plus £6750 costs.

 

A restaurant owner has been fined £4000 plus £2000 costs after a waiter spilled flaming alcohol over a customer causing horrific burns. Having had two major skin grafts the customer will need to wear pressure bandages on her hands for the next two years. No risk assessment or control measures were in place.

 

A roofer almost died when he fell over 6 metres through the fragile roof he was supposed to be repairing. He suffered multiple fractures and was unconscious for 4 weeks. The roofing company were fined a total of £20 000 plus £10 000 costs for not protecting its employee or having a risk assessment; the premises occupier was fined £60 000 plus £17 937 costs for not properly controlling the work and not safeguarding non-employees.

 

A 15 year old work experience student broke his leg when he jumped off the fork lift truck being driven by an untrained and unlicensed 16 year old employee! Although the company had not carried out a suitable risk assessment relating to young persons they were actually prosecuted for inadequate training and supervision (total fine of £10 000 plus £3046 costs).

 

A crane with a metre square pallet was used as a working platform for two men fitting a 70 kg window in at second floor level. There was no accident but HSE served a Prohibition Notice and the construction company was subsequently fined the maximum £20 000 plus £686 costs.

 Safety & Health Practitioner, May 2007

 

A worker was killed when the electrical circuit he had switched off was turned on by mistake. No risk assessment had been carried out and there was no method of locking off or even adequately signing the circuits being rewired. Excessive working hours to complete the contract were considered to be a contributory factor. The contractor was fined £100 750 plus £33 000 costs.

 

The absence of a risk assessment into transport movements and the lack of transport and pedestrian segregation resulted in an employee being run over and killed as he tried to cross the yard of a distribution company.  The company were fined £120 00 plus £32 576 costs.

 

Safety & Health Practitioner, June 2007

A filthy kebab shop in Great Yarmouth was closed using Emergency Prohibition procedures and the owner was subsequently prosecuted. The premises had been without running water for some time so cleaning and personal hygiene were impossible (and the less said about the toilet the better!). There were also beetle infestations in the flour bins and rotting meat in the fridges. The owner was sentenced to four months in prison and banned from running a food business for life.

Environmental Health News, 8 June 2007

An indoor go-cart track did not carry out a risk assessment relating to ventilation requirements and the woefully inadequate ventilation resulted in clients suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning and a track worker requiring hospital treatment. The company, who were fined £12 000 plus £5047 costs have now fitted a ventilation system to the premises and catalytic converters to the go-carts.

After three warnings about standards of hygiene Bath Council prosecuted a cafe owner for grease deposits and food waste. After being fined £10 000 plus £1273 costs the owner told a local newspaper he was embarrased by the charges.

Environmental Health News, 11 May 2007

 

Top of page

  ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

EDITORIAL - March 2007

There is quite a mixture of public health, food hygiene and safety in this newsletter. More safety issues than usual are covered in Recent Cases but they tend to have a common theme - an absence of common sense or industry standard operational skills. But, as I often say in training courses, "the trouble with common sense is that it ain't very common".

And OK, let's be honest - I did not really know what to write about this quarter so I decided to blow my own trumpet! Hopefully, this will not turn too many people off and there are a few other snippets of interest.

The press are still having a go at H & S for the many "conkers bonkers" type stories they dredge up. However, when you read the stories there is rarely any mention of a qualified health & safety practitioner being involved in the daft decisions! And talking of daft decisions; if the EU ban all tungsten light bulbs how do we avoid the strobe effect on lathes and other machines with accessible rotating parts? (The strobe effect is when the flicker of a long-life bulb is in sequence with the rotation so the moving part appears stationary).

And finally, I try to avoid advertising as much as possible but if you want a good holiday in Cyprus check out the recommended site on the links page.

Ken Rock

INCREASE IN BED BUGS

Anecdotal information suggests that the bed bug is on the increase in this country (and many others). Although these blood-sucking insects thrive in dirty and neglected premises they are increasingly being found in better class homes, hotels and hospitals. They live for upto 4 years and are usually found in bedrooms where they hide inside furniture or under wallpaper during the day. Dark brown specks around their hiding places are the usual giveaway although, in heavy infestations, the room has a definite almond smell.

The good news is that they are not known to carry any diseases although their bites can cause intense irritation. The bad news is that recent research has proven that many bed bugs are now resistant to the usual insecticides.

Although I have not personnally seen a bed bug for over 25 years I am not sure whether I should be proud or sorry to report that I still remember their latin name, Cimex lectularius.

p.s. If you are not scratching already you may care to know that scabies is also on the increase, especially in care homes and schools. (Scabies is a microscopic mite that burrows under the skin causing intense itching and an eczema like rash)

 

KEN ROCK - CHARTERED

You may not have noticed last year that I changed from being an Environmental Health Practitioner (that's an EHO not necessarily working as an enforcement officer) into a Chartered Environmental Health Practitioner. The Privy Council had decided that EHP's can now be professionals in the same way as accountants, surveyors, engineers etc. It was quite an interesting exercise to jump through the required hoops to prove my professional competence after practising for 35 years!

Anyway, this year I have done it again and jumped through another set of hoops to become a Chartered Safety & Health Practitioner. The main drawback to being qualified in two professions is the need to comply with two systems of Continuing Professional Competence.

I am also a member of the Chartered Management Institute but I do not think I shall proceed to become a Chartered Manager - I would need to spend so much time on CPD I would not be able to manage my business!

 

RECENT CASES

A homemade couch constructed with chicken wire and foam matting was used by an alternative treatment centre for both acupuncture and steam treatments (the later achieved by placing a rice boiler under the couch). The poor standards of hygiene and the absence of washing and disinfection facilities resulted in the service of a Prohibition Notice and two Improvement Notices. These were followed by a prosecution (£2 500 fine plus £2 000 costs) and the cancellation of their registration.

Slough seems to be a good place to go for a cockroach pizza. In February the proprietor of one pizza takeaway was banned indefinitely from the catering trade and the proprietor of another premises was fined £1 500 plus £1 000 costs; both for operating food businesses in premises that were heavily infested with cockroaches. Mitigation in the prosecution related to the prompt guilty plea and also because the gent in question had given up his food business after he had attended a food hygiene course!

A scrap trader has been fined £900 plus £150 costs for an illegal operation. He was cutting up a drum when vapour in the drum exploded. The drum travelled over the roof of a nearby house and severely damaged a vehicle. The trader suffered burns, lacerations and temporary loss of hearing.

Environmental Health News, 23 March 2007

£15 000 fine plus £30 000 costs for a factory that killed a worker in a fireball. It appears that a tank containing a highly flammable liquid was accidently pulled off a shelf, soaking his clothing, while the tank landed on a heat box below breaking the bulb and allowing the hot filament to ignite the flammable vapours. The tank had only recently replaced an older and smaller tank; the new tank was too large for the shelf. A risk assessment of the task had completely failed to identify the use of a flammable liquid.

A teacher removed the guard from a bench circular saw so that he could cut a groove in a piece of wood; the guard was not replaced. The next day another teacher used the circular saw without the guard and was fortunate enough to only suffer cuts to his fingers. The local authority were fined £12 000 plus £4 884 costs, primarily for inadequate risk assessments, training or instruction.

A teenager fainted during work experience (no comment - Ed); unfortunately he was standing next to an unguarded lift shaft on a construction site and fell six metres to receive a fractured skull and brain haemorrhage as well as lesser injuries. Both of the partners in the company were individually fined £10 000 plus £1 290 costs.

Amazingly a roofing company Contracts Manager sent away a tower scaffold and instructed his workers to replace roof panels on a 7 metre high fragile roof from a ladder. A method statement identified the risks but failed to identify how roof sheets were to be lifted or how the workers were to be protected from falls. One worker fell through the roof and suffered three broken limbs, a fractured skull and a brain haemorrhage. The company was subsequently prosecuted and fined £15 000 with £6 939 costs. (The accident happened in May 2004; if a similar situation took place today we would expect the Contracts Manager to be in the dock as well as the company-Ed).

No-one fell from another roof but a self-employed builder was still fined £2 000 plus £1 500 costs for putting himself and his two employees at risk. They had been found working on a roof without any edge protection or other means to prevent falling or to mitigate the effect of a fall.

Highest recent fine (£400 000) to a North Sea oil platform that leaked over 8 tonnes of gas over an eight hour period before anyone noticed a valve had been left open during maintenance work. If the gas cloud above the platform had ignited there could easily have been multiple deaths and major injuries.

Safety & Health Practitioner, March 2007

 

 

TRAINING CHARTER

Ken Rock has a CIEH Trainer Charter Certificate to go with the Centre Charter Certificate below. A copy of the Trainer Charter Certificate will be supplied to anyone that is interested.

 

Top of Page

  ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

EDITORIAL - December 2006

Due to various circumstances you are excused from seeing my holiday photos; I still haven’t managed the October holiday I was expecting! One of the reasons is pressure of work (for some reason Fire Risk Assessments are very popular at present – see article below) and another has been a health hiccup (allowing me to see at first hand just how marvellous and how inefficient the NHS can be!).

On a personal basis I am delighted with the response to my last update which included a photo of my new grandson; on a professional basis I am worried that the best response I have ever received comes from a cute baby photo! Feedback or comments about the other issues raised would be gratefully received (and, yes, my four month old Grandson is growing very nicely).

Something else new is the one day food safety course in catering. Although I have reservations about the need for separate courses for catering, manufacture and retail, I consider the new course to be excellent. See our Food Hygiene Training page for more details.

Under recent cases, below, are yet more major fines for companies that have adequate procedures in place for risk assessments and training staff but were let down by staff cutting corners. Remember the HSW Act requires information, instruction, training and supervision – it is a complete package and the employer is likely to be held liable if they cannot supply evidence they have supplied all four elements. Domino Risk Management specialises in developing simple, specific forms to provide an audit trail – but a few clients still fail to complete them!

Ken Rock

REGULATORY REFORM (FIRE SAFETY) ORDER 2006

At last we have the long promised reform of fire safety legislation in England and Wales (Scotland has its own law and Northern Ireland is still under review). Rather better than expected we also managed to get 9 of the promised 11 guidance notes published on time.

Instead of fire safety being an Act, 3 main sets of regulations plus orders and being a mishmash of self-regulation and prescription we now have a simplified system based upon the health & safety model of risk assessment. Everyone in control of a non-domestic premises is responsible for ensuring a fire risk assessment has been undertaken and suitable precautions are in place and operational. Goodbye to Fire Certificates.

Where the premises is shared by different organisations it is likely that each organisation will be responsible for their own area with the “landlord” responsible for common parts. However, the old requirement for co-ordination and co-operation is likely to be interpreted more strictly in future; it is absolutely essential that organisations do ensure their neighbours are aware of risks and precautions.

For many years we have operated on the principle of getting people clear of the building and then waiting for the fire brigade to put out the fire (or to decide the fire is so far advanced the best course of action is to let it burn itself out). Modern concepts are rather more sophisticated and we need to add property and environmental damage into the equation.

Risk assessments should consider the most likely causes and locations of fires; from this it should be feasible to identify remedial action. For instance, electrical defects are a substantial cause of fires. Preventative measures such as annual checks by a competent person have a certain validity but daily checks of equipment by operators and monthly audits of the workplace by a supervisor may also be necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level. Even then a fire may still occur, so means of raising the alarm and evacuating the area are obviously needed – but this is not enough! Most workplace fires could be successfully put out in the early stages, if they were attacked in the most suitable fashion with the appropriate extinguisher – but that requires staff trained and experienced in fighting fire.

While all staff should have basic fire safety training a core of staff that are capable of handling small fires should also be available. Unfortunately (within this context) fires are comparatively rare so our “Fire Attack Team” will probably never deal with a real fire. Because of this their initial training and regular refresher training are crucial.

 

        
An electrician working in the basement of a financial bank was feeling rather warm so he decided to get a drink of cold water. As he climbed the stairs he met a Fireman in full breathing apparatus coming down the stairs. The bank was on fire but the alarm did not sound in the basement and bank staff had forgotten they had contractors working on site!

EMPLOYERS NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR EMPLOYEES WHEN THEY ARE NOT EVEN AT WORK!

Under normal circumstances health & safety legislation only applies to people at work in a workplace. However, the definitions are quite wide and we recently had a company found guilty because a worker had a road traffic accident as he was driving home after work.

The rationale for this decision is that the worker was suffering from chronic fatigue caused by his employer allowing him to work for an average 17 hours per day for 11 consecutive days. This was in 2002 (before the Working Time Directive) but a court recently held that by failing to monitor the hours its employees were working the company had failed to ensure the health of employees and others. A fine of £30 000 plus £24 000 costs was imposed.

STRESS AWARENESS

Did you do anything for National Stress Awareness Day? What about Euroweek 2006 (Safe Start for young workers) or the Better Backs Campaign? While they are all worthy causes I sometimes wonder if having so many campaigns actually causes stress to safety personnel and, perhaps, also dilutes the safety message.

 

 

 

RECENT CASES

A £400 000 fine for Scottish Power after a linesman working on a decommissioned circuit received a 5500 volt shock from the adjacent line. Earth protection devices that would have provided protection had been removed as short cut. Although adequate training had been supplied it was felt that monitoring and supervision of the field staff was inadequate; even worse, staff did not speak out when they knew procedures were at fault and they were being put in danger.

BUPA has been fined £90 000 plus nearly £20 000 costs after an elderly resident in a care home was dropped from a bath hoist being operated by an inadequately trained or supervised care worker.

Although an inquest returned a verdict of accidental death the NHS Trust was subsequently fined £10 000 plus £4 500 costs because a patient drowned in a decorative pond in hospital grounds. A simple grid has now been fitted just under the water surface to ensure a repeat accident does occur.

Fortunately there were no injuries when the raised back of a lorry brought down overhead power lines in a commercial yard. The transport company reported the dangerous occurrence under RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations) but when an HSE Inspector visited the site 3 weeks later the power lines had simply been replaced without any effort to prevent a recurrence; this lack of precautions resulted in £5 000 fines and £1 500 costs.

Safety and Health Practitioner, October 2006

A two year prison sentence for manslaughter has been handed down to a gas fitter that failed to carry out the required tests on a gas fire he had fitted. A young girl died of carbon dioxide poisoning. Apparently a valve had not been calibrated correctly by the manufacturer; however, this would have been obvious if the standard tests had been completed.

Safety and Health Practitioner, November 2006

 

Top of page