 |
|
Welcome to the August 2010 edition of the MESH Consultants Safety Matters email newsletter. This newsletter is available on free subscription only and is our way of keeping you informed about developments in Health and Safety. To review or amend your subscription details, please see the notes at the end.
In this issue …
Employer liability crackdown urged
Report claims that health and safety has been ‘undermined’ by decline in enforcement
Prime Minister appoints advisor on health and safety
Midlands based building firm fined £10k after man loses finger
Arsonist aged 19 pleads guilty to Tesco fire
Airline fined £70k after worker crushed
Compensation for lifting injury sustained by service engineer
Death of Cornish vineyard owner
Biscuit giant prosecuted for worker losing two fingers
Are your company’s safety systems up to scratch or are you risking prosecution? At MESH we have extensive experience of helping companies to improve their health and safety and in many cases improve their competitiveness.

|
 |
Employer liability crackdown urged |
The Government is being urged to crack down on companies failing to purchase Employers’ Liability insurance to protect staff. The Association of Insurance and Risk Managers (Airmic) also claims some employers buy less than they are required to do.
Following the Cabinet Office’s Review of Health and Safety and the Compensation Culture, Airmic claims the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act is seeing “woefully inadequate” efforts at implementation. It also criticises the lack of implementation of health and safety laws generally.
Airmic cites that apart from the obvious moral and legal imperative to protect staff, it is unfair that some companies are placed at a competitive disadvantage because they observe the letter of the law. They are concerned that firms that save money by taking shortcuts on employee safety are getting away with it because of inadequate enforcement.
The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 generally requires employers to insure their liability to their employees for personal injury, disease or death sustained in the course of their employment in Britain. There is a penalty of up to £2,500 per day that an employer does not have cover.
Employers are required by law to insure for at least £5 million. The Association of British Insurers (ABI) claims most policies offer £10m minimum cover in practice.
|
Back to top |
 |
|
 |
Report claims that health and safety has been ‘undermined’ by decline in enforcement |
Shifts in health and safety policy over the past decade have compromised workplace safety, according to a report by University of Liverpool and Liverpool John Moores University. The authors claim their findings cast doubt on public perceptions that health and safety has ‘gone mad’.
The report, ‘Regulatory Surrender: death, injury and the non-enforcement of law’, pointed to policy changes which have affected the ability of the HSE to enforce health and safety law. Researchers found business premises inspections had fallen by 69% over the period, while investigations of health and safety incidents had declined by 68%. The report also found a 48% reduction in prosecutions of companies who had breached HSE regulations.
The Government recently announced a wide-ranging review of health and safety laws in response to claims that UK industry had been ‘saturated’ by legislation under the Labour government. Researchers at Liverpool, however, found that the HSE’s power to inspect and enforce health and safety regulations has been reduced, resulting in increased numbers of employees at risk from accident or injury at work.
Dr David Whyte, Reader in Sociology at the University of Liverpool, said: “The idea that health and safety has ‘gone mad’ does not seem to hold true. The collapse in inspection, investigation and enforcement has dramatically reduced the chances of businesses being detected and prosecuted for committing safety offences. Most serious injuries now are not even investigated.”
|
Back to top |
 |
|
 |
Prime Minister appoints advisor on health and safety |
Lord Young has been officially appointed by the PM to the role of advisor on health and safety law and practice. He has been assigned the task of reviewing the operation of health and safety laws and the growth of the compensation culture.
The PM commenting on the review expressed concerns over the rise in the compensation culture over the last 10 years and the way that health and safety rules are sometimes applied. He wants a sensible new approach that makes clear the rules are there to protect people and not to overwhelm businesses with red tape.
The new safety minister, Chris Grayling has welcomed the appointment and hopes the review will continue to identify how to protect people but ensures that people can still use their common sense without fearing they are breaking the law.
This view is not shared by the TUC who feel that the focus on making business easier misses the point that businesses are responsible for injuring 250,000 people per year and making a further 500,000 employees ill. The TUC would like to see an increase in the number of HSE inspections and enforcement against employers who put staff at risk by ignoring existing laws.
|
Back to top |
 |
|
 |
Midlands based building firm fined £10k after man loses finger |
A West Midlands building firm has been fined after one of its workers lost part of a finger during an incident involving a rubber conveying machine last year. Building Adhesives, from Trentham, near Stoke, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £4,000 costs for failing to ensure the machine was properly safeguarded prior to the incident in July 2009.
Newcastle-under-Lyme Magistrates’ Court heard how the firm had replaced a fixed guard protecting employees from moving mechanical parts within the machine with an interlocking guard, which allowed users to access the screw conveyor.
The worker had to have his middle finger amputated past the first knuckle after damaging it while loading rubber-filled fabric bags into the hopper for distribution around the factory.
Building Adhesives pleaded guilty to breaching the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.
The HSE inspector commented after the case that the incident would have been prevented had the guarding on the machine been fitted properly, or if there had been adequate systems in place to detect the failed guard before the accident. He added that the fixed guard had been replaced with an incorrectly fitted interlocked guard meaning this was an incident waiting to happen.
Although the man sustained serious injury he was lucky that it was not worse.
Has your company looked at whether it is compliant with PUWER or could you find yourself in front of the courts? At MESH we are highly experienced in assisting companies across the U.K. to improve their PUWER compliance. Compliance will not only improve the health and safety of staff but will help to protect your company from prosecution.
|
Back to top |
 |
|
 |
Arsonist aged 19 pleads guilty to Tesco fire |
A teenager has admitted starting a fire which destroyed a Tesco Express store in Hampshire last month.
The 19-year old from Havant, pleaded guilty to two counts of arson, by setting fire to bread crates at the rear of the store in Waterlooville. When crews arrived at the store on 7 July they found the single storey brick building well alight. The roof of the building eventually collapsed and the fire was extinguished using seven jets, an aerial ladder platform monitor and six breathing apparatus.
A 37-year-old man who worked at the store was taken to hospital suffering from the effects of smoke inhalation.
Detective constable Mark Leonard from Hampshire’s arson task force said: “Witness accounts and timely phone calls from the public to the emergency services have helped greatly with this investigation. Arson is the largest single cause of fire in the UK, leading to the loss of life, serious injury, and financial hardship in our communities. This case should send out a clear message to arsonists and the public that arson is a serious problem and arsonists will be caught and face the legal consequences.”
|
Back to top |
 |
|
 |
Airline fined £70k after worker crushed |
American Airlines was fined £70,000 and ordered to pay costs of £10,581 after a worker was seriously injured at Heathrow Airport. The airline pleaded guilty to failures under PUWER 1998 in respect to not fitting warning devices to the vehicle, nor ensuring it was safe to use in the dark.
The ground support worker was preparing an aircraft for departure from Terminal 3. A 70 tonne tug had pulled the aircraft away from the departure gate and onto the runway. Once he disconnected the tug from the plane he was informing the pilot that he was clear to leave when the tug reversed and knocked him to the ground. The tug ran over his right leg which as a result had to be amputated.
It was identified that it was dark when the incident occurred and that the tug had neither reversing lights nor audible reversing alarm. The airline has subsequently installed reversing lights and audible alarms on all of its tugs.
|
Back to top |
 |
|
 |
Compensation for lifting injury sustained by service engineer |
A former service engineer has received a five figure compensation payment after he sustained a rotator cuff tear to his right shoulder from his work for a shower installation company.
The engineer was employed by the company in February 2006 and in the course of his employment was required to install and fit shower units. His job involved travelling 50,000 miles annually installing shower units at retail and trade showrooms, undertaking all the carrying and lifting of items and often working alone.
The shower units weighed about 17–30kg and it was found that gripping the edges of the units would require a significant span of the arms in order to lift and move them.
Several months after he started with the company, the man reportedly developed pain in his right shoulder and was subsequently diagnosed with a superior labrum anterposterior tear. He underwent an operation including a decompression, excision and repair to his shoulder, which was followed by physiotherapy and steroid injections.
He claimed compensation from the employer and the claim was vigorously defended by the company, which initially denied liability. However, a five figure settlement was finally agreed.
The solicitor, who handled the claim, commented that: “The case highlights the importance of health and safety policies. Employers have a duty of care to their employees, which includes ensuring training is provided so their exposure to excessive levels of lifting is kept to a minimum.”
Have you assessed the manual handling risks your staff are exposed to? At MESH we can help by either assisting you to develop suitable and sufficient risk assessments and we can train your staff in the correct handling techniques needed. Both of these are requirements of the Manual Handling regulations so if you need assistance why not contact MESH?
|
Back to top |
 |
|
 |
Death of Cornish vineyard owner |
A distribution company has been fined after the owner of a Cornish vineyard died when a delivery of empty wine bottles crashed onto him, having fallen from the tail lift of a lorry.
The incident happened in April 2008, when the owner of Polmassick Vineyard at St Ewe, near St Austell, was helping to unload a delivery of empty wine bottles from the back of a Gregory Distribution Ltd lorry, driven by an agency driver. The load fell from the tail lift onto the owner, causing fatal head and chest injuries.
Gregory Distribution Ltd of North Tawton, pleaded guilty to breaching s.3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974 which covers the duty of the employer to ensure, as far as reasonably practical, the health and safety of affected non-employees.
The company was fined £200,000 and ordered to pay £16,993 in court costs.
The HSE have commented that clearly this tragic accident highlights the dangers involved in unloading large and heavy loads using a tail lift. Employers should ensure that employees are given the right equipment, information, instruction and training to allow them to unload loads safely.
|
Back to top |
 |
|
 |
Biscuit giant prosecuted for worker losing two fingers |
One of the UK’s leading food manufacturers was recently prosecuted after a worker severed two fingers in a mixing machine.
The incident took place at a cake baking site in Halifax. Halifax magistrates heard how the employee of United Biscuits (UK) Ltd lost two fingers on her right hand when she attempted to clear a blockage in an industrial-sized mixer, used to combine ingredients for flapjacks.
The HSE investigation into the accident found the employee had to scale a two-metre fixed step ladder in order to reach the machine, empty the mixture inside and then restart it. Although the mixer had stopped, the blades inside were still rotating and when she reached in, her fingers were severed.
The company pleaded guilty to breaching s.2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, was fined £10,000 and also ordered to pay £2,889 in court costs.
The HSE have made it clear that an incident like this should not happen in any company; and as it occurred in such a large-scale food manufacturer it is absolutely unacceptable.
|
Back to top |
 |
|
|
 |
|
Thank you for reading this edition of our email newsletter. Please do feel free to pass it onto colleagues, who can also subscribe for free via our web site.
All information supplied to us in order for you to receive our newsletters is protected by our privacy policy.
If you would like to send feedback or ask us anything at all about health and safety, please do contact us. We are always happy to give no-obligation advice.
If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter please just reply to this email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. |
 |
|
 |
|
|