Experience has shown us that where businesses are prepared to consider there is room to improve, and that health & safety is not just a burden, then many benefits can be achieved. However, to make this happen then the business needs to understand where and how these improvements can be made; this is where competent advice comes in.

We have a recent example of how this works effectively for a company planning to install a new process on one of their sites and we received great comments back from the client:

‘Investigating a business opportunity it was apparent that internal knowledge was not sufficient to deliver a fully considered project. MESH consulting rapidly provided the specialist assistance we required delivering unique tailored guidance specific to our plant and proposal – a very refreshing change from those others who arrive armed with a simple tick list. – John Mitchell, Group QHSE Manager, 2K Polymer Systems.’

The overall rate of sick days taken per employee is at its lowest in the 23 year history that the survey has been run. However the survey did identify that although many organisations have been successful in bringing down levels of absence, the gap between best and worst has widened. Overall it is calculated that sickness cost business £17 billion in the last year.

The timing of this coincides with a campaign from IOSH aimed at offering resources to help businesses save cash, keep their workforce safe and healthy, and stay on the right side of the law. IOSH has provided a number of case studies where businesses have saved millions and it believes that there are billions more to be saved by businesses across the UK.

From September the HSE will move to online reporting of most RIDDOR reports, in an effort to reduce costs. The HSE has identified that over half of RIDDOR reports are already notified through the HSE website. Reporting of a workplace death or serious injury will still be able to be notified by phone.

The Infoline telephone service will cease on the 30th September; with people and businesses being encouraged to seek information and guidance on the HSE website. The website currently receives 26 million visits per year (100 times more visitors than Infoline).

However, the company that owned the hotel was fined £142,000 in fines and costs for the incident in 2007. The company admitted two breaches under the Regulatory Reform order (Fire Safety) 2005, relating to failure to provide proper fire detection and alarm systems, and failing to make a proper risk assessment.

The fire that destroyed the 54 bedroom hotel was described by fire fighters as the worst hotel fire in Britain for 40 years.

The consultancy informed the court that it was not engaged to provide fire risk assessment services prior to the fire.

In fact the assessment in place at the time of the fire had been carried out by one of the members of staff; who most likely was not trained in fire safety to a suitable level.

A clear message is that businesses should ensure that fire risk assessments are carried out by persons who are competent and that adhering to fire safety legislation and managing fire safety precautions is a very high priority. In many instances companies who suffer a major event such as a fire fail to recover and statistics indicate that 80% go out of business.

In this incident three people lost their lives which could have been avoided if the company had implemented suitable fire safety procedures; something it has since done after the event.

While stopping short of any mandatory measures, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) says it welcomes the fire sector’s lead in developing criteria against which fire risk assessors can be assessed.

The 38-year-old man was reaching inside an outlet pipe to remove a piece of raw potato at Swancote Foods’ Horton Wood premises when he touched a rotating screw, which severed the first two fingers on his left hand.

The employee has returned to work at the factory, but to a different job, and suffers restricted movement and reduced grip in his hand, which means that everyday tasks are difficult for him.

A HSE investigation into the incident found the guard on the machine had not been maintained properly.

Swancote Foods pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £5,614 costs.

Commenting the HSE inspector identified this very serious incident was entirely preventable. Companies must ensure that they have robust procedures in place to provide and maintain suitable, effective guarding.

Clearly this case shows that it is not enough just to have a guard in place but companies must also keep the guard in effective working order and train staff in the risks of by-passing any guarding system.
Failure to implement effective controls over this work has left a man with life changing injuries and the company with a significant fine and damaged reputation. We would urge all businesses to look at machinery and equipment in use and ensure a suitable risk assessment has been completed (and check compliance with the PUWER requirements).

If you are unsure then why not take the time to check using either the HSE website or a suitably qualified and experienced health & safety professional? 

Salisbury Crown Court heard how a man from Yorkshire was working as a casual worker, harvesting crops at a farm in Upper Chute. The 21-year-old stopped the machine to clear it, but did not realise that the grain spout was in contact with overhead power lines.  As he stepped down from the harvester, he was electrocuted with a fatal shock of 6,300 volts.

Velcourt Ltd was responsible for recruiting the casual farm workers and managing health and safety at the site. An investigation by the HSE found that the company did not sufficiently inspect, monitor, supervise or audit health and safety at the farm.

HSE discovered Velcourt had also failed to ensure the farm manager received adequate health and safety training. As a result, no risk assessments had been carried out at the farm for working in fields with overhead power lines, nor had the farm workers received adequate training on how to work safely.
In addition, no assessment of the risks of operating the combine harvester model being used had been carried out.

Cardiff Crown Court heard that work was being carried out to insert equipment into a large deep pit in the water cooling system, to hold back the seawater when the tide rose. Sections of the floor gratings at the top of the pit had been removed to allow the work to proceed.

The man was working with eight other workers who had been called in to carry out urgent modification work on the equipment in order to ensure an effective seal of the pit.

As the natural light faded, electric lights were turned to face those doing the grinding work which left the top of the pit in near darkness. The man fell through the opening in the walkway to the floor below. He died of multiple injuries to his chest and pelvis.

An investigation by the HSE showed that a large opening in the walkway was left unprotected after the floor gratings had been removed, and inadequate precautions had been taken to protect people working near it.

The investigation also identified that there was confusion and misunderstanding between RWE npower and principal contractor AMEC Group Ltd as to who was responsible for controlling the work at the time of his death.

The HSE Inspector prosecuting the case commented that this tragic case highlights the consequences of failing to do something as simple as adding protection to an opening in a walkway. This awful incident could so easily have been prevented had the correct safety measures been taken.

It is vitally important that all tasks involving such risks are properly planned and that suitable controls are put into place. Clearly where two parties are involved it is critical that a suitable risk assessment is undertaken and that all parties understand who is responsible for controlling the risks.

The HSE inspectors had found safety issues related to the fixed electrics and portable appliances at the company premises, during a visit in 2009. The inspectors also found workers having to work in gloves, scarves and hats to keep warm in the near freezing conditions in the workshop.

The HSE immediately issued a prohibition notice on the electrics and an improvement notice on the failure to provide adequate heating to the workshop. After five days they returned to find the electrics were still unsafe and that only one standalone heater had been provided.

ThyssenKrupps was also fined in relation to the fire, with some reports saying the fine was 1 million Euros and others reporting as much as 9.26 million Euros. The company was also barred from receiving state subsidies for six months.

This is a large company that has expressed its deepest sympathies and regrets that such a tragic accident could have occurred at one of its plants.

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.