 |
|
Welcome to the May 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 …
How does MESH consistently beat the NEBOSH National General Pass rates?
HSE introduces new arrangements for RIDDOR online reporting
IOSH members support plans to change RIDDOR reporting to 7 days
What do the latest HSE provisional injury stats tell us?
HSE publishes its plans for the next 18 months
Tragic work at height accident could have been easily avoided
Company fined for poorly planned Forklift Truck operations
Landlord pays £158,000 for Fire Safety breaches
East Sussex council fined for failure to take proper care of adults with learning difficulties
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.

|
 |
How does MESH consistently beat the NEBOSH National General Pass rates? |
MESH pass rates for NEBOSH National General Certificate have consistently exceeded the National average. The National pass rate is generally between 60-70%.
MESH, for a period of 12 months, has achieved a 100% pass rate for its candidates. “How is this achieved?” is often asked; is it through pre-selection of our candidates?
The answer to this is NO; at MESH we achieve these results by employing the best tutors and by going the extra mile for our candidates.
The extra mile includes providing a comprehensive workbook of more than 600 pages, regular homework and feedback on performance, access to our tutors mobile phones and e-mail and an excellent revision day. All of this is included in the up-front prices we advertise and there are no hidden extras.
This is why we have the confidence to provide our unique pass guarantee.
|
Back to top |
 |
|
 |
HSE introduces new arrangements for RIDDOR online reporting |
Businesses will still be able to notify fatal and major incidents and injuries by phone following changes to reporting arrangements, the HSE has confirmed.
From 12 September 2011, all other reportable work-related injuries and incidents under RIDDOR (the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995) will move to a predominantly online system, with a suite of seven forms available on HSE’s website to make the statutory reporting process quick and easy.
The HSE has commented that already more than half of reportable injuries are already notified to HSE through the website and this proportion has been increasing steadily over the past seven years. Taking advantage of the growing use of the internet allows HSE to be more efficient in the way it works.
The HSE does recognise, however, that people reporting a traumatic event still need that personal interaction, so the notification of fatal and major incidents and injuries will still take place by phone.
In a move to improve efficiency further and deliver value for taxpayers, HSE’s Infoline telephone service, which currently provides a basic information service to callers, will end on 30 September 2011.
Businesses and members of the public seeking information and official guidance on health and safety can use HSE’s website – a huge knowledge bank where people can access and download information free of charge and have use of interactive web tools.
The HSE website features information on the most frequent health and safety enquiries such as those on RIDDOR reporting, First Aid and the health and safety responsibilities of new businesses. It currently receives 26 million visits every year and is regularly updated and improved to help businesses and members of the public quickly access the information they need.
|
Back to top |
 |
|
 |
IOSH members support plans to change RIDDOR reporting to 7 days |
A change in the type of work-related accidents businesses must report has been backed by members of the UK’s leading independent health and safety body. Around 65 per cent of responding members of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) supported government plans to move from a “three-day injury” reporting regime to seven days.
At present, employers must contact the regulator when an employee is incapacitated for more than three days with an injury sustained at work. However, many IOSH members (who advise on health and safety across the industry), think this can be unhelpful for some firms.
They are calling on the government to link reporting to the ‘fit note’ to trigger action and save bosses time by only requiring reports for incapacity of over seven days.
But IOSH wants to see any reporting change supported by clear guidance, advising that businesses must still record “three-day injuries” and still need to prevent them. IOSH want to make sure that health and safety needs to be seen as being proportionate, with the amount of time and energy spent on reporting accidents reflecting the severity of the failures.
However, IOSH warns that businesses mustn’t trivialise workplace accidents that mean workers are absent for less than seven days. This would give the completely wrong message. Employers still need to treat them seriously, record them in the accident book, and make sure they don’t happen again.
This certainly fits with what many of our clients at MESH would like to see. Many times we have been asked why the 3 day system is so confusing, and whether they should report where it appears someone may have extended their time off where it does not warrant a report. A key issue for us is that the changes provide a more proportionate regime, which is more indicative of the severity of the injury.
Are you confident that your health & safety system will protect both your workers and your business or do you need an independent opinion? If you need advice on how you can make sensible improvements then why not take a look at how we have helped a number of other companies.
|
Back to top |
 |
|
 |
What do the latest HSE provisional injury stats tell us? |
The HSE has issued the fatal injury stats for the first 9 months of the 2010/11 period. The figures are in line with the same period the year before which was the lowest on record.
The Construction industry still tops the fatality list (38 deaths) but is closely followed by the Agriculture sector (26 deaths). In the period there have also been 19 deaths in the manufacturing sector. For details see: http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatalquarterly.htm?ebul=stats/apr-11&cr=02
Clearly, the fact that fatal injuries are continuing to run at a reduced level, shows progress, but can this be maintained in light of government cuts to the HSE? This is a question that will only be answered over time.
What is apparent to us is that employers really need to ask themselves:
• Why is it important for us to manage health & safety?
• Why do we undertake risk assessments?
Most businesses respond to the first question with: ‘to keep our employees, customers, and business safe’. If this is the case, then is the relaxation of legislation on low risk businesses really important? The legislation is only in place because historically, businesses have been poor at achieving what they say they want to do – keep people safe.
As for risk assessments (which are the foundation of how we manage health and safety risks), businesses need to consider if risks are only seen as being negative. Certainly at MESH Consultants we have found that a positive view of risk identification can often yield benefits to the businesses we work with. If we therefore look to undertake risk assessments because it can help us to improve profits, then again is it important to reduce the legislative burden?
It is clear that when it all goes wrong, it will be the courts that will decide whether a business has fulfilled its duties or not. Fines over the last 5 years have quadrupled, and for large organisations, the threat of a fine of over £100k, or even £200k, is a real possibility. Added to this is the very real concern of how negative publicity will affect the business.
What is vitally important is that each business must have access to suitable, competent health and safety advice, and one of Lord Young’s Common Sense Common Safety recommendations was for the development of a consultants register. The OSHCR register is now up and operational, and can currently be accessed through the HSE website. This register should allow businesses to find persons with the relevant skills and experience, but be warned, it is still down to your business to make the necessary checks. Not all consultants will have the necessary experience for your business, and therefore may not provide you with sensible and proportionate advice to keep your business safe and free from prosecution.
This register only covers consultants, and we would suggest that you make sure that those people you employ internally have the right level of training to help ensure you are getting the right advice and input across the business. This applies to both safety professionals and managers (as managers need to understand the importance of safety systems and risk assessments).
The key is to get everyone involved in getting it right and to make sure that health and safety is seen as a positive business driver (and to dispel the negative image).
|
Back to top |
 |
|
 |
HSE publishes its plans for the next 18 months |
The plan reveals how the HSE is to adapt and change its role to that of a business enabler. The plan states the steps to be taken to “enable innovation that brings economic growth while ensuring risks are managed properly and proportionately”.
The plan is split into four main headings:
• Transforming the HSE approach;
• Avoiding catastrophe;
• Clarifying ownership of risks and improving compliance;
• Securing justice.
The plan gives more detail to proposals previously revealed by the HSE and includes achieve by dates for the measures. Included is an implementation date of April 2012 for the proposed new charging regime.
The plan has drawn criticism from the Construction Union UCATT.
|
Back to top |
 |
|
 |
Tragic work at height accident could have been easily avoided |
A Hertfordshire-based electrical company has been fined £120,000 after a man was left paralysed when he was knocked from a scissor lift. Skanska Rashleigh Weatherfoil Ltd admitted the charges and was fined a total of £120,000, with full costs of £81,927.
The HSE prosecuted Skanska Rashleigh Weatherfoil Ltd after the incident happened at Manor Royal Industrial Park in Crawley. Lewes Crown Court heard the company had been subcontracted to design and build the mechanical and electrical systems in a number of new buildings.
The man was working in a scissor lift with two colleagues tying cables into overhead trays when they collapsed, knocking the man out of the lift and causing him to fall eight meters to the floor below.
He suffered severe spinal injuries and is now paralysed from the waist down.
The HSE told the court that Skanska Rashleigh Weatherfoil Ltd had failed to ensure the safety of its employees while carrying out the installation of the cable tray systems.
From the evidence presented it appears there were a number of opportunities for the company to prevent this tragic accident, but Skanska failed to respond and ensure that a safe system of working was devised. Clearly, if the company had undertaken a suitable risk assessment, this accident would most probably have been avoided.
Was the accident a result of a series of oversights, or was it because the work was sub-contracted and communications broke down? The HSE has stressed that when construction work is subcontracted, whether it is design or installation work, it is essential for companies to have adequate systems in place to manage this effectively.
Failure to implement effective controls over this work has left a man with life-changing injuries, and the company with a heavy fine and damaged reputation. If you sub-contract works, then why not check how your systems work?
Is this an issue for your business and are you certain that you have effective controls in place? If you need advice from experienced safety consultants with experience of assist clients with these issues then why not talk to us?
|
Back to top |
 |
|
 |
Company fined for poorly planned Forklift Truck operations |
Metaltech Precision Limited has been fined after one of its workers suffered serious injuries when a forklift truck tipped over, trapping his leg under the load. The company pleaded guilty and was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £4,940 in costs.
Yeovil Magistrates Court heard how he was guiding a load of angle irons being moved with a forklift when the incident occurred at his employer’s premises at Yonder Hill works. The forklift tipped and the load landed on the worker, fracturing the knee and ankle on his left leg. The breaks were so bad his knee had to be pinned and he suffers from ongoing pain.
The HSE investigation found that the load was being moved using an extension attached to the forklift, which had been made in-house. The extension had not been tested to ascertain what maximum weights could be positioned along the extension arm without risk of the forklift tipping. In addition, there had been no training for either the operators or the supervisors on lifting loads of angle irons, nor had the supervisor undertaken any training for his supervisory role.
The HSE inspector commented that the load was large and heavy, but despite this, the lifting operation was not properly controlled and there was no planned safe system of work.
At MESH we have seen similar situations where employers are unaware of the dangers of working with forklift trucks, including poor maintenance, a lack of training, and failure to implement effective supervision.
More often than not the lack of appreciation of what is safe is the key, which is why training is also required for persons in the supervisory role.
Further advice and information on managing forklifts can be found at the HSE website at http://www.hse.gov.uk/workplacetransport/personnel/lifttrucks.htm
Does your business have effective control systems in place for forklift truck operations or do you need help? If you need help why not discuss with us what improvements could be made.
|
Back to top |
 |
|
 |
Landlord pays £158,000 for Fire Safety breaches |
A residential landlord has been found guilty of fire safety breaches following a fire where his tenants were forced to flee for their lives. The Landlord of a premise in Ilfracombe, Devon, pleaded guilty to four offences under the Fire Safety Order 2005.
Appearing at Exeter Crown Court on 29 March, he was ordered to pay a total of £135,000 in fines and £23,000 in costs.
It follows a fire at the four-story building in 2008. The building had been subdivided into flats. The fire, which started on the ground floor, spread throughout the property and forced some of the 13 tenants to make their escape by clambering over the roof.
The fire investigation team found that the door giving entrance to the ground floor flat was inappropriately constructed to resist fire, which would enable a fire in the flat to spread into the escape route. The offence carried a fine of £75,000.
The three other offences cost £20,000 each, for three doors that had no self-closing device fitted. This would also have impacted on fire spread to the means of escape.
Devon and Somerset area manager Nick Manning said: “Landlords and owners of properties used as flats should take notice of the outcome of this case – it has sent a clear message with the level of the fine awarded.”
It is vitally important that all businesses have an up to date fire risk assessment to ensure the safety of everybody that could be put at risk. Failure to implement simple measures, such as not installing door closers cost this Landlord a heavy fine. Could your business be at risk under the Fire Safety Order 2005?
|
Back to top |
 |
|
 |
East Sussex council fined for failure to take proper care of adults with learning difficulties |
The council pleaded guilty and was fined £50,000 with £23,670 costs for failing to take proper care of six adults with learning difficulties.
The charge came after the group suffered horrific internal injuries and one died when a carer confused dishwasher fluid with orange squash and gave it to the group to drink.
The group was on a visit to Plumpton Agricultural College when the carer poured them a drink from a container that had been prepared at the day centre, and should have contained orange squash. What was in the container was actually sodium hydroxide, which is used as a dishwasher fluid.
The container somehow became mixed, and when the contents was drunk the group immediately became distressed and started vomiting blood, and began to have seizures.
The HSE was unable to establish who packed the wrong bottles for the trip as the staff were too traumatised by the incident.
Clearly such a horrific incident could have been easily avoided by keeping the sodium hydroxide safely stored. As well as this, employers must make sure that any hazardous substance must not be decanted into another container, unless the appropriate hazard labels are applied. This case shows how dangerous everyday substances can be if appropriate controls are not applied.
Are your companies COSHH system up to scratch or are you risking a serious incident? At MESH we have consultants with years of experience of working and advising on the safe use of hazardous substances.
|
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. |
 |
|
 |
|
|