The problem seems to be that a myth has built up over the years; this myth is that every portable electrical appliance in the workplace needs to be tested once a year; and this becomes expensive.

We have worked with and advised a significant number of businesses to move away from this costly route but when they talk to the PAT testing companies they are advised that yearly testing is the easiest way to go.  Easiest maybe, but when you add the costs up it’s a mad decision to make.  In fact, we have gone back to two businesses in 2012 who had wished they had heeded our previous advice because the realisation hits home that a year goes by very quickly and they are soon paying the same bill again.

The problem seems to come from misleading advice and advertising, often by companies who offer the testing.  This contributes to low-risk businesses such as offices, shops and hotels, paying unnecessarily for over-the-top maintenance regimes.

“So what is required?” you might ask.  The law simply requires an employer to ensure that electrical equipment is maintained in order to prevent danger – it does not state that every item has to be tested or how often testing needs to be carried out.

It is however true that testing appliances to ensure that they are safe to use can contribute to an effective maintenance regime, but in a low-risk environment the risk of significant damage occurring is generally unlikely.  Instead, simple systems of checking the appliances for obvious signs of damage (for example, frayed cables) can save a significant amount of money.

Clearly, not all faults are always visible and more importantly, not all staff will carry out the visual checks so some testing will be necessary; the key is to make the testing proportionate to the risk.

Both the HSE and the Association of British Insurers has said that they do not believe businesses should be undertaking unnecessary portable electrical appliance tests which are not proportionate to the risk.

The HSE has issued new guidance that is simple and clear to follow.

It has been said that the changes to RIDDOR will most likely see a fall of around 30,000 less reports per year; which has been estimated as a saving of around 10,000 hours per year to UK businesses.

In reality, for the many businesses that we represent at MESH, the change will only have a limited effect as most only had limited numbers of incidents to report as the law previously stood.  It also remains the requirement that all businesses should investigate over three day incidents in order to review its risk assessments and to prevent an incident recurring.

The options available for reporting have also changed because now the only method available in most instances is online.  For fatalities and the most serious injuries a reporting phone line is available during daytime hours.

From our discussions with employers it seems that the key benefit to the changes is to remove the need to report when an individual decides to take the opportunity of taking a few days off after a workplace incident occurs.  Many have complained in the past to us that reporting under RIDDOR did not seem always fair when it seemed obvious that the individual was more than likely just swinging it.

What seems more obvious to most is that the reduced reporting levels and therefore the need to follow up on the reports will mean less work for the HSE, which means that it’s the government who will see most of the savings.

The committee would then look to provide guidance on whether the advice really was in keeping with what health & safety law requires.  The panel has only been given an advisory role but hopes are that their findings will encourage bad decisions to be reversed.

The government has stressed that it sees “common sense” to be the key to successful health & safety.  At MESH we wholeheartedly agree that health & safety needs to be based upon sensible decisions; and THAT over regulation really does need to be challenged.

All too often non-sensible decisions are made by people who fail to properly understand the reality of a situation; often because of a lack of experience or because they are afraid of being sued. The type of decisions the committee will review will in reality most likely come from those made by local councils; schools and other similar bodies.

It seems unlikely that the committee will judge on individual consultancy advice; which leaves employers in the same position that they will need to make careful checks before employing credible consultants.

The changes are in response to research that has shown that unwanted fire calls are costing around £1 billion per year.  Added to this where repeated false alarms occur, the persons occupying the buildings often become complacent, which could put lives at risk.

Up until April 2013 fire engines will continue to be sent between 18:00 – 06:00 when an automatic alarm is raised and where a procedure is not in place to confirm a fire.

We understand from Kent Fire & Rescue that around a third of all calls attended have been found to be false alarms.  In many instances these have resulted from poorly maintained alarm systems.

These changes will mean that businesses will need to review their fire procedures to be clear what to do in the event an alarm goes off.  They will need to have procedures for checking for signs of fire and the need to confirm the findings to the brigade.  All of this will need to be reflected in the fire risk assessment.

As many businesses have taken the approach to advise staff and others to vacate if the alarm goes off; then these changes will need a rethink and may require some changes to staff training.

Cammell Laird Ship repairers & Shipbuilders Ltd, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an investigation found he had been able to drive the forklift despite not having any training.

In court it was identified that keys were routinely left in the ignition of forklifts, and that the worker had driven a truck on several occasions without being challenged about his lack of training.  No procedures were in place to inform employees who was and who was not authorised to drive the trucks.

The frustrating part about this is how many companies we see that also fail in this area; only recently at a company in the North West we challenged the lack of properly trained fork lift truck drivers. The company had felt that one employee demonstrating how to use the fork lift truck to another was sufficient training.  Clearly this case demonstrates how dangerous fork lift truck operations can be and that properly planned training is critical to maintaining a safe workplace.

Cammell Laird admitted breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by failing to ensure the safety of its employees.  The company, which has around 500 employees, was fined £120,000 and ordered to pay £12,294 in prosecution costs.

The HSE inspector on the case commented that the worker may well have thought he was doing his employer a favour by moving the welding equipment as quickly as possible, but instead he has ended up losing his life. This is something we blogged about last month http://www.consultmesh.co.uk/blog/2012/04/people-dont-set-out-to-get-hurt-at-work/

The dangers of fork lift trucks are well known in the manufacturing industry and Cammell Laird has since introduced new procedures to ensure keys are safely locked away, and that a list is available of trained drivers. These simple procedures could have prevented this tragic incident if the company had fully risk assessed its fork lift truck operations.

The importance of well trained personnel cannot be over emphasised because it’s people that make health and safety systems work – this is especially so at manager and supervisor level.

We have commented in the past about the importance of real life health and safety experience and how it adds to the value of the training received.  We know that when the candidates can see how health and safety relates to their workplace it helps them to relate to the subject, and through relating to health and safety it helps them to retain the knowledge and pass the course.

We have now worked with a number of large companies that have set the standard for their managers and supervisors to pass the IOSH Managing Safely course.  They have done this as it demonstrates a level of health and safety competence that others (such as the HSE) would expect to see in managers and supervisors.

However the course should provide much more than achieving a pass because that’s what the company expects.  It should also challenge the candidates to think differently.  We like to ask our clients to comment, letting us know what they think.  They gives us comments such as:

The IOSH course was interesting & fun. The trainer was good at answering our questions; whilst making us think outside of the box.

Kelly Stevens, Systems Administrator, HV Wooding

We recommend that any business would benefit from the IOSH training.  It won`t make managers and supervisors health and safety experts but if delivered well it will help to improve the way they approach health and safety in the future.

We see many that undertake DSE assessments and provide a wide selection of workstation equipment for staff to use but without tackling the key risk area – operator awareness.  The first thing that often strikes us is how badly the workstations are set up or how poorly the persons sit at their workstations.  So why is this?

The DSE regulations have been around for a long time as has the knowledge that repetitive working at computers can lead to long term health problems; but the risks are clearly not really understood.  The regulations do call for DSE workstation risk assessments to be undertaken but also require businesses to train staff to understand what the health risks are.  The problem is that businesses often overlook the critical training step and just go for the risk assessment, which just leads to a short term approach and fails to manage the longer term risks.

So why does this happen?  We think it comes down to seeing DSE risk management as a low priority because the health risks are not readily apparent; so therefore don`t really exist in many businesses mindset.  However, in the long term, if awareness is not raised then problems will more likely occur.  Only recently we spoke to a young lady at a client’s London premises who sat hunched forwards and was unable to reach the floor with her feet; at the moment she had no discomfort so failed to appreciate the risks.  But we bet in a few years’ time if she carried on working like this then the answer would be very different.

We know that surveys have found that a high proportion of DSE workers report aches, pains or eye discomfort. The surveys have also shown that health risks can be avoided if users follow effective practice, set up their workstations properly and take breaks during prolonged use.  By just taking a few simple precautions, work with DSE can be more comfortable and productive.

So when you stop and think about it, how much of a burden is it to provide some training that could most likely prevent long term suffering in the future?  Training does not need to be complex and as we suggested to this London- based business, could easily be addressed through maybe an online training option or through the use of a well delivered DVD package.

So why is it that the press fail to pick up on this and do not challenge what the failings are? Is it because they are so sensitive that they cannot be disclosed or is it that the words ‘health & safety’ are just becoming an easy excuse that people feel won`t be challenged?

We know that in these hard economic times corners are sometimes cut and that changes are made to working practices, but wonder if a high risk industry such as the Petrochemical would shortcut health & safety that far that it would take a threat of a strike to put it right?  Of course we are not saying they haven’t but just wonder why the failings have not been outlined in more detail.

The tanker drivers’ union are not the first and probably not the last to raise health & safety concerns but are they trying to mask the reason of wanting more money by playing the health & safety card?  It seems that talks have overcome the health & safety problems yet it is still not clear (at the time of writing) if the dispute has been fully resolved!

Compare this to what you get from MESH where the pass rate has for 2 out of the last 3 years has been 100% and on the other year it was 95%.  If you take results such as these out of the calculation what would the national level be we wonder?

In truth, although NEBOSH is a hard course to pass because it requires utmost focus and effort from the students, it is a fact that  a NEBOSH pass only requires a student to achieve a minimum of 45% in each of the 3 exam papers they sit, which many still fail to achieve throughout the country.

As we have commented on previously, it’s about setting out to achieve much more than a simple pass – by setting standards at a high level the students know they have to work hard to achieve what they want.  Of course this needs to be supported by the high level of tuition provided.  This is why MESH provides a guarantee that is completely unique in the UK.

As NEBOSH training is the most widely recognised foundation training for aspiring health and safety professionals, isn`t it important to receive the best training possible?  If the right base training is received it will go a long way to developing a competent health and safety practitioner.

In this case a court has heard how a Cheshire worker could have been killed when he fell from the top of a chemical storage tank.  The man had been carrying out maintenance work on the tank at a plant in Widnes when the chemical vapour inside set alight, causing an explosion. The worker was thrown from the tank and fell around two and a half metres, landing on a metal girder below.

His employer, Hutchinson Technical Services (HTS) Ltd, was prosecuted by the HSE following an investigation into the incident.  Runcorn Magistrates Court was told the worker was knocked unconscious when he fell to the ground, and suffered burns on his right arm and right leg, as well as bruising to his ribs. He was kept in hospital overnight and was off work for several weeks as a result of his injuries.

The court heard the employee had been allowed to work on top of the tank without any measures in place to prevent him being injured in a fall. The HSE immediately issued HTS with a Prohibition Notice following the incident, preventing workers from carrying out work on top of tanks without suitable protective equipment.

The company, which services and repairs tanks for the chemical and other industries, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £3,588 in prosecution costs.

So why is it that a company that is apparently experienced in this type of work failed to properly assess the risks fully?  The HSE prosecution concentrated on the work at height issue which we agree that if it had been planned out with the right controls it would have prevented the man falling.  However the issue of the explosion appears to have been overlooked in the prosecution; which if it had not occurred probably would have meant the man would not have fallen.

This basic failure to understand the risks posed by hazardous flammable substances appears to have meant that the correct controls had not been implemented.  Any tank that has contained a flammable liquid is likely to contain a residue and therefore a flammable vapour and so before the maintenance work was authorised then the tank should have been purged and checked thoroughly.  The problem we see all too often is that most businesses fail to understand DSEAR risks, which is what appears to have happened here.