We ask this question because in our experience the answer is often that it’s not as simple as perhaps it’s promoted in the HSE five steps to risk assessment. Often, because of the burden in time and effort, organisations approach risk assessment as an activity done to comply with the law; rather than view it as an opportunity to improve the business.

The HSE identifies that risk management involves the employer, looking at the risks that arise in the workplace and then putting sensible health and safety measures in place to control them. By doing this the employer can protect its most valuable asset, its employees, as well as members of the public from harm.

On the HSE website it identifies that the 5 step approach is not the only way to do a risk assessment, there are other methods that work well, particularly for more complex risks and circumstances. However the HSE believe this method is the most straightforward for most organisations.

This is where we have found that organisations have often not produced suitable and sufficient assessments; and therefore fail to meet the requirements of legislation. An example being where the employer believes that a general risk assessment (as required by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999) covers all aspects of what the law requires. However in taking this approach they may identify significant manual handling risks but fail to understand fully what they should be considering as part of a manual handling assessment; where consideration should be given to:

• The task – what the activity involves;
• The individuals involved – what size, strength and limitations they may have;
• The load – what characteristics have an impact e.g. size, shape, ability to hold or any other special considerations;
• The environment – the space in which the activity is to be undertaken, including temperature, lighting, housekeeping etc.

This blanket approach would also not sufficiently cover other areas of risk such as hazardous chemicals (requiring a COSHH assessment), certain work equipment and machinery (which would need to consider the requirements of PUWER) along with a range of other risk areas such as DSE and DSEAR.

The HSE recently reminded health and safety professionals that the ability to read and understand health and safety guidance may depend on an individual’s literacy level.

As a result, the HSE says, employers need to ensure that health and safety issues are explained to their employees in an appropriate and accessible way.

A 2003 survey, by the then Department for Education and Skills, found that in England, 16% of 16 to 65-year-olds had the literacy skills expected of an 11-year-old or a younger child.

Another study conducted by the Confederation of British Industry in April 2008 found that businesses operating in the agriculture and construction sector felt that poor literacy skills impact most on health and safety measures.

Similarly, the union Unison has identified that literacy, language and numeracy skill gaps are a fundamental health and safety concern.

It has been estimated that 70% of men with poor literacy and numeracy skills are in manual jobs and found to have fewer work-related training courses.

However, recent statistics indicate that there are 720,000 people studying to obtain literacy qualifications and there are currently a number of ongoing initiatives that are trying to achieve improvements in literacy and numeracy skills.

Guidance on how to ensure that health and safety issues are explained in an appropriate way is available on the HSE website.

A manufacturing company has been fined £16,000 after a worker’s finger and thumb were severed as he tried to unblock machinery. The worker, a Production Supervisor, was in charge of the night-shift at Saint-Gobain Weber Ltd, in Flitwick, Bedfordshire. His finger and thumb could not be saved, despite extensive surgery.

The Bedfordshire plant was manufacturing façade tiling and materials for the construction industry when a waste extraction system – which took dust out of the workplace – became blocked. The supervisor attempted to clear the blockage with his left hand and it became entangled in the rotary valve.

Investigations by the HSE found the machine’s safety guards could be removed by members of staff using tools the company had provided, which is against the legal requirement for guarding to be in place (under PUWER). Inspectors were also concerned about the system for isolating the power from machinery, which was below expected standards.

The firm admitted breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Magistrates fined the company £16,000 with £3,560 in costs.

The lead HSE inspector commented that unfortunately this kind of horrific injury is all too common.

Clearly an accident such as this would not have happened if a suitable system of work had been used, including effective power isolation arrangements and safety guards that were not so easily bypassed. Employers have a legal obligation to protect the safety of their workers and if suitable and sufficient risk assessments had been completed then appropriate risk controls could have been identified.

Do your risk assessments identify all foreseeable risks? At MESH we have extensive experience of helping companies to improve their risk assessments and in many cases this challenges the “way we have always done it” attitude and helps to improve performance.

An enforcement notice was issued requiring her to remedy the faults but, despite extensions being given, she failed to correct all of the problems. She was fined £14,000 and ordered to pay £6,300 costs

The HSE investigation found that employees who had tried to help the driver did not know the type of operation that was being carried out, nor the nature of the gas being released. They had no appropriate training and they had no idea what to do. It took about an hour after the appearance of the gas cloud for Walkers to realise the gravity of matters, and to get employees out of the area. Walkers had no planned evacuation procedure for a chemical emergency at this location, which was a major failing. There were insufficient written procedures for deliveries of chemicals and for the receipt of chemicals, and the tanks were also insufficiently labelled.

Do your risk assessments identify the risks of working with dangerous machinery and the implications to both employees and contractors? At MESH we have extensive experience of helping companies to improve their health and safety and to comply with relevant legislation such as PUWER for machinery assessments.

A building materials manufacturer and its director have been fined a total of £20,000 after a former soldier was killed by an industrial mixing machine blade.

The HSE prosecuted Bury-based Building Chemical Research and company director Stuart Reich, 62, following the mans death at the company’s premises in Radcliffe.

The 44-year-old father of one from Radcliffe had climbed into the machine – a powerful, slow speed mixer – to clean it when it was switched on by another employee. Bolton Crown Court heard that it should have been impossible to switch on the machine while someone was inside.

His brother commented that he can’t understand how manufacturing companies can become complacent over health and safety in this day and age. He hopes that by highlighting his brother’s death it will stop it happening to someone else.

BCR was fined £16,000 and ordered to pay £8,000 towards the cost of the prosecution and the director, was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,000. Both admitted breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by failing to ensure the safety of employees.

The HSE investigation identified that it was a totally avoidable incident that resulted in the tragic death; the guard on the mixer was totally inadequate and both the safety switches failed. Had the machine had a proper guard and a working cut-out switch, he would still be alive today.

Encouragingly, the study found that the vast majority of sprayers (85 per cent) do wear air-fed breathing apparatus. However, many continue to put their health at risk by lifting their visors to check the finish before the paint is dry, potentially exposing themselves to the isocyanate-containing mist.

If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter please just reply to this email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.