From our experience at MESH this would make a lot of sense as many organisations appear to not report due to staff too easily taking 3 or 4 days off after an incident. If the regulations were more transparent then it is likely that reporting levels would likely improve.

The change would align the incident reporting threshold with that for obtaining a ‘fit note’ from a GP for sickness absence, and would ensure that someone who has suffered a reportable injury has had a professional medical assessment.

Part of the HSE funding comes from charging for all permissions and licensing activities for high hazard industries, and the group did identify support to extend this further. The group also identified scope for charging for activities that take place as a result of non-compliance. An example being where an enforcement notice has been issued and the inspector has to revisit the workplace to check the issue has been put right.

The Occupational Safety and Health Consultants Register (OSHCR) is being set up in response to recommendations in the Government-commissioned report on the UK health and safety system – Common Sense Common Safety.

It aims to increase employers’ confidence in accessing good quality, proportionate advice and also to address concerns that some employers – especially SMEs – can find it difficult to know how and where to get external health and safety advice.

OSHCR has been established by a number of professional bodies representing general safety and occupational health consultants across the UK, with support from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

The register, which is voluntary, is open to individuals who provide commercial advice on general health and safety management issues and who have achieved an accepted level of competence.

In addition, all consultants wishing to join the register will be asked to declare that they will:

• Demonstrate adequate continuing professional development;
• Abide by their professional body’s code of conduct;
• Provide sensible and proportionate advice; and
• Have professional indemnity insurance or equivalent to cover the nature of their duties.

At the moment we are not convinced but were swayed to join by the potential that the register will be able to be referred to by HSE and Local Authority inspectors when they recommend consultants to businesses.

If the register (as intended) over time becomes the norm for companies to find a suitable health & safety consultant then this would perhaps drive out consultants without the necessary qualifications or experience. However from experience just by reaching say the level of Chartered Health & Safety practitioner does not always ensure the consultant is actually competent in the field they are being employed. We have heard only recently of a Chartered consultant providing a noise assessment using a £40 noise meter from Maplins; not the competent level of advice a client should expect.

The HSE has stated that it will remain the responsibility of the duty holder (employer) to ensure both the suitability of the consultant they employ and that the advice they obtain is competent advice. Given this, small businesses groups have commented that a scheme without a guarantee of expertise may prove to be worthless.

At MESH we believe that it is of primary importance to build trust with our clients and this can only be achieved through providing consistent proportionate advice that both assists in achieving legislative compliance but also makes the workplace safer in a manner that is sensitive to the individual business needs.

The proposed bill would introduce two new offences:

• Corporate manslaughter – providing criminal liability for corporate fatalities;
• Grossly negligent management causing death – providing criminal liability to individuals serving in a senior management role within the entity.

Directors and managers found guilty under the second part could face a prison sentence of up to 12 years. In the UK they can be charged with gross negligence manslaughter for which the average prison term handed down in recent years is between 1 – 3 years.

Health professionals initially gave him just a 5% chance of survival, and needed further surgery after developing post traumatic hydrocephalus. He later underwent intensive rehabilitation.

The man who is now 26, lives with round-the-clock support in a bungalow close to the family home in Bembridge. He is doing “surprisingly well” despite having problems with fatigue, memory and concentration, said counsel David Wilby QC.

He told Judge Gary Burrell QC at London’s High Court that injured man had a good quality of life and helped out in a local charity shop, but would not be able to live independently.

Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court heard how the man had only been working for the firm for 10 weeks before the incident. The subsequent HSE investigation found that the standard of training given to him was seriously deficient and failed to instruct him about the machine’s guards or how to use them properly.

The worker, an electrician, was working alone when he came into contact with exposed, live electrical conductors and suffered a 33,000 volt shock. He had been cleaning the conductors and circuit breaker units in a control room at Works plant.

Cardiff Crown Court heard that normally, when carrying out maintenance, the room would be securely isolated to prevent the re-energising of the conductors. However a HSE investigation found on this occasion, that had not happened and as a result, when the man touched the conductors, he received the massive electric shock.

He was hospitalised for several weeks and has not returned to work since the incident in 2008.

HSE found that Celsa Manufacturing (UK) Ltd. had failed to ensure the necessary precautions had been taken to prevent employees coming in to contact with the electrical conductors.

The company pleaded guilty to failing to properly safeguard high voltage electrical conductors under Section 2(1) of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974. The company was fined £80,000 and ordered to pay full costs.

Canterbury Crown Court heard that on the 19 March 2007, the man was helping to lay a new horseriding surface of crumbled rubber at Brambles Stables, Minster, Ramsgate.

A colleague was driving a telescopic materials handler (a forklift truck with an extendable arm or boom – commonly referred to as a telehandler). The vehicle was fitted with a loading bucket containing the rubber and it had extended its boom more than six metres. It was resting on its wheels and the hydraulic stabilisers fitted at the front of the machine were not being used.

It was found that he had walked across the path of the boom just as the telehandler had reached its balance point and tipped forward. The bucket hit him on the head and forced him to the ground. The telehandler operator managed to bring the vehicle upright by lowering the front stabilisers; but the man died in hospital two days later from multiple injuries.

The telehandler was fitted with a ‘Safe Load Indicator’ device. These devices help operators to stay within safe limits by using a series of lights and an alarm. The Safe Load Indicator should be calibrated so that when the alarm goes off there is still sufficient capacity to prevent an overturn. The HSE investigation found that the Safe Load Indicator was not correctly calibrated and was unusable at the time. In addition, the machine’s previous safety certificate (called a Certificate of Thorough Examination) had expired prior to the incident. Although an engineer had visited on two separate occasions to inspect and repair the telehandler they were unable to complete this due to the poor condition of the machine.

The operator had not been told how much the bucket weighed when it was empty or full, or how heavy a load of crumbled rubber was. Lastly, the operator lacked understanding of the machine instructions, which showed how much it could lift and to what maximum distance the boom could be extended.

The HSE Inspector commented that this should serve as a reminder to owners and operators of machines fitted with older style Safe Load Indicators that these need checking and recalibrating on a regular basis as some older machines do not tell the operator when they have decalibrated.

Clearly it is vital that the owner and operator have a robust procedure to cover operator training, calibration and maintenance.