Associated Training - Health and Safety Blog

New Look - New Problems?

2010-06-29T07:02:00.000-07:00

It has been a little while since my last blog posting, but I thought the recent New Look fine is worth a mention, particularly for those with fire safety responsibilities.

To give the background to the story, a fire broke out at the retailer's Oxford Street store on 26 April 2009, and around 400 people had to be evacuated. No one was hurt. 35 engines and 150 fire-fighters were needed to tackle the blaze and crews remained at the scene for the three days, disrupting trade at more than 50 Oxford Street shops.

It was found during the subsequent investigation that there was an inadequate fire risk assessment, a lack of trained fire marshals to assist with evacuation, and that escape routes were not clearly identified and obstructed by combustible materials. However, none of these contributed to the fire itself. The cause of the fire remains unknown.

The company were found guilty of breaching the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 at Southwark Crown Court, being fined £400,000 with £136,052 costs. The company thereafter launched an appeal; however this was rejected in June 2010 by the Court of Appeals.

New Look's prosecution came from two breaches of the Order:

failure to identify via appropriate assessment of the specific risks posed to individuals, the precautions necessary to ensure compliance with the regulations;

failure to ensure that employees were provided with adequate safety training.

The court acknowledged that the £400,000 fine was severe, but did not consider it to be disproportionate in the circumstances. The judge said: "The absence of death and injury is plainly an important matter in this case, but I consider there are circumstances in which a court may not need to wait for the onset of human tragedy to send out a clear message that safety of customers and staff, or indeed anyone who may be affected, must be regarded as of paramount importance."

The appeal judges also agreed with the trial judge that a starting point for a fine in these circumstances was £600,000. This was reduced to £400,000 in view of nobody being killed or injured, the company pleading guilty and co-operating with the investigation at the earliest opportunity, and the company demonstrating that it had taken significant steps to remedy fire safety shortcomings across its stores.

The message appears to be that allowing a fire safety risk creates a significant risk to individuals and that this will be reflected in any penalties. In passing sentence, the Court's three principal considerations were:

the seriousness of the breach;

the capacity of the organisation to meet the fine;

the need for the fine to make an impact on shareholders and senior managers.

New Look was also criticised for having just one fire safety advisor for a group comprising of more than 600 shops together with the fact the risks could have been removed at relatively little cost or inconvenience.

The hefty fine removes any doubt that organisations responsible for fire safety cannot be complacent when it comes to complying with the Fire Safety Order. This was a penalty imposed because of a failure to control risk rather than as a result of any personal injury.

So what does this mean for "responsible persons" under the Fire Safety Order?

you should review your policies and fire risk assessments to ensure compliance;

consideration should be given to the structure and layout of premises, and what goes on in them;

you must not overlook the location of buildings or their immediate setting, because there may be a higher level of obligation in a highly populated location or due to the features of neighbouring structures;

outside areas and vacant premises must also be considered;

training must be thorough and up-to-date;

there should be a sufficient number of trained fire marshals with cover throughout the working day;

and now more than ever it highlights the need for suitable competent advice in relation to fire safety management.

If you would like to discuss this article or share with me some good practice please do get in touch.

Matthew Joyes is Head of Risk Management Services at Associated Training and Consultancy, a leading provider of health, safety, environmental and quality management solutions.

All of the entries in this blog provide general advice and should not be interpreted or used as specific health and safety guidance to your organisation – you must always consider your own circumstances and take appropriate action. If in doubt, contact us for professional and specific advice.

Original Article:

http://www.associatedtraining.co.uk/blogs/health_and_safety/new_look_new_worries.php

The Director’s Duty?

2010-04-16T06:57:00.000-07:00

It’s been a busy few months here at Associated Training & Consultancy so my blog has taken a slightly back seat role. On looking back since my last post there has been many big events, not least the calling of a general election with many of the parties making commitments that will have an impact on health and safety legislation.

A key issue within the industry has been the long running debate over director duties, and this was brought to the fore in a 2009 report by Rita Donaghy (One Death Is Too Many).

This report called for statutory duties on directors, amongst many other recommendations. However, the Government has recently announced that it will not support this recommendation and will investigate the issue further. They commented that “the opinion [is] that there is sufficient legislation already in place, the full impact of which is still to be seen”.

The Government has not ruled out further action including:

• imposing a general duty on directors by way of an amendment to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (a Private Member’s Bill has already been laid to this effect);

• a self-standing regulation made under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, supported by an Approved Code of Practice; and

• reviewing the threshold in the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 for prosecuting directors and other individuals for health and safety breaches.

So the question to be asked is does the current law encourage top level commitment to health and safety?

There are many who advocate for further duties on directors claiming there will be little further improvement until a new duty is imposed. I fall into the category of people who disagree with this view.

The Health and Safety at Work Act was founded on the principle of effective risk management; the principle of each business identifying and controlling its own risks and setting up its own system of health and safety management.

The way to engage directors with health and safety is not by enforcing further mandatory duties through regulation, but by involving them and by showing the benefits of effective health and safety. This is a view shared by business; a recent Institute of Directors survey found that 60% of businesses now see improvement of health and safety regulation as a key priority. In fact, I would suggest that further regulation would encourage directors to remove themselves from day to day issues rather than engage with them.

So what can be done to engage directors with the health and safety message?

• A key consideration should be training such as the IOSH Directing Safely or IOSH Safety for Senior Executives courses;

• Health and Safety should be considered as a Board level issue – particularly in issues of setting the policy statement (including aims and objectives) and reviewing performance.

• The health and safety performance of the company should be reported to the Board and could be included in company annual reports.

• A non-executive director could be appointed as a “scrutineer” of safety performance.

• Appraisals of senior managers can include an assessment of their contribution to health and safety performance.

The HSE recently published a joint guidance document with the Institute of Directors, and I would strongly suggest all directors receive a copy for their review. It can be downloaded free from the HSE website.

I understand the difficulty some of my health and safety colleagues in industry face – the sometimes difficult challenge of changing the culture of directors. I would simply say that is takes time to change a culture, but it is better to change it positively than try to force through change by regulation which will often be resisted.

If you would like to discuss this article or share with me some good practice please do get in touch.

Mathew Joyes is Head of Risk Management Services at Associated Training and Consultancy, a leading provider of health, safety, environmental and quality management solutions.

All of the entries in this blog provide general advice and should not be interpreted or used as specific health and safety guidance to your organisation – you must always consider your own circumstances and take appropriate action. If in doubt, contact us for professional and specific advice.

Original Article: http://www.associatedtraining.co.uk/blogs/health_and_safety/the_directors_duty.php

What next after the NEBOSH General Certificate?

2010-04-13T04:56:00.000-07:00

After successfully gaining the NEBOSH General Certificate qualification, many delegates go on to take the NEBOSH Construction Certificate or the NEBOSH Fire Certificate.

The NGC1 unit (the first week of the NEBOSH General Certificate course) is a required unit for all of the NEBOSH Certificate courses, so those who have already achieved the General Certificate within the last 5 years will not need to repeat this when going on to do the Construction and Fire Certificates.

Whilst some training providers may only offer the full NEBOSH Construction Certificate and NEBOSH Fire Certificate courses, forcing you to have to sit through a week of learning the NGC1 unit that you've already done (and charging you for the privilege!), at Associated Training & Consultancy Ltd we offer 'Conversion Courses' for those who have already done the NEBOSH General Certificate and obtained the NGC1 unit, and just need to do the extra units necessary to obtain the NEBOSH Construction or Fire Certificates. Not only does this save you a week in terms of time, but the conversion courses are also hundreds of pounds cheaper than the 'Full Courses'.

Another option is to go down the NVQ route, with the NVQ Level 3 and NVQ Level 4 in Occupational Health and Safety Practice. At Associated Training & Consultancy Ltd we offer the City & Guilds accredited NVQs. These highly-respected health and safety qualifications are workplace project-based, avoiding the need to attend hours and hours of classroom teaching, and are a much more cost effective option than something like the NEBOSH Diploma which can cost around £7,000 from some training providers!

To find out more information including course outlines, scheduled dates and prices, simply use the links below to go to the relevant section of our main site:

•NEBOSH Construction Certificate - Full Course
•NEBOSH Construction Certificate - Conversion Course

•NEBOSH Fire Certificate - Full Course
•NEBOSH Fire Certificate - Conversion Course

•NVQ Level 3 in Occupational Health and Safety Practice
•NVQ Level 4 in Occupational Health and Safety Practice

All of the entries in this blog provide general advice and should not be interpreted or used as specific health and safety guidance to your organisation – you must always consider your own circumstances and take appropriate action. If in doubt, contact us for professional and specific advice.

Original Article: http://www.generalcertificate.co.uk/what_next.php

Feeling Fit?

2010-02-16T02:53:00.000-08:00

The first Monday of February is national “sickie” day – not an officially declared day I hasten to add, but more a statistically determined day on which the highest level of employee sickness takes place. Apparently this is due to the Christmas hangover and the dark dreary mornings. The estimated cost to industry is more than £30 million.

For years Government, industry and the professional bodies have tried many schemes to tackle both short term and long term illness.

The latest initiative is the much heralded “Fit Note” which comes into force on 6 April 2010.

However there are some changes from the initial proposal last year: doctors will not have to determine whether patients are ‘100-per-cent fit for work’, as originally proposed, but instead declare that they are ‘not fit for work’, or ‘may be fit for some work.’

The ‘may be fit for some work’ will include the doctor’s statement of ‘taking account of the following advice’.

This puts the emphasis fully on employers to conclude what a patient who is declared ‘may be fit for some work’ could or could not do at work.

Preparation for this change is vital. Now is the time for employers to review their health at work and absence policies in advanced of these changes. The very real risk is in deploying workers into unsuitable temporary roles, perhaps putting that employee or others at risk. Training for managers and access to professional occupational health and safety advice will be a key solution in helping to manage this change.

Mathew Joyes is Head of Risk Management at Associated Training and Consultancy, a leading provider of health, safety and environmental solutions.

All of the entries in this blog provide general advice and should not be interpreted or used as specific health and safety guidance to your organisation – you must always consider your own circumstances and take appropriate action. If in doubt, contact us for professional and specific advice.

To Grit or Not To Grit...

2010-01-25T02:43:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year, and welcome to the first of my 2010 blog entries. My first blog is somewhat topical given the weather, and asks the question to grit or not to grit?

It seems every year the media fuels more silly health and safety stories scaring organisations and business away from doing the sensible thing. If we believed some headlines then occupiers of property taking sensible precautions against an accident - such as gritting their own paths and roadways - are liable to find themselves in court.

If we look at the law then the position of employers and property owners is pretty clear. The Occupiers' Liability Act states that property owners have a duty to maintain reasonable safe access to persons on site. This means taking reasonable steps to clear ice or snow from access ways.

The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations and its accompanying approved code of practice is clearer: "Arrangements should be made to minimise risks from snow and ice. This may involve gritting, snow clearing and closure of some routes, particularly outside stairs, ladders and walkways on roofs."

The risk of legal action from clearing snow and ice comes if you acted completely unreasonably, and somehow created a new hazard that had not existed before your actions. With any properly planned and managed control measure this should not be the case.

Often the concern comes when companies and organisations consider snow clearing outside of their site - such as public highways and pavements. In this case there is no legal duty requiring the employer to clear the snow and ice, as this is the duty of the relevant highways authority. But if a business or organisation chooses to do so - for example to prevent staff or customers having accidents on their entrance and exit - then the same conditions apply, in that as long as the business acts reasonably and does not create a new hazard then it should not attract any liability.

So what's the answer to the original question: the answer is be reasonable, be sensible, and make sure your staff and visitors can move onto and around your site safely. Treat the snow and ice as you would any other risk to people's safety. Make sure you get competent advice, and make sure your risk assessments identify and address the entirely foreseeable risk of snow and ice.

Mathew Joyes is Head of Risk Management at Associated Training and Consultancy, a leading provider of health, safety and environmental solutions.

All of the entries in this blog provide general advice and should not be interpreted or used as specific health and safety guidance to your organisation – you must always consider your own circumstances and take appropriate action. If in doubt, contact us for professional and specific advice.

Health and Safety for Site Supervisors

2009-11-18T04:14:00.000-08:00

Construction site supervisors have a lot of responsibility on their shoulders, as they are the ones tasked with ensuring that sufficient health and safety practices are not only in place, but are also understood and followed correctly. Failure to do so can result in injury or death to those working on the site. Not only would this be extremely distressing, it could also have serious financial consequences for the construction firm. As well as compensation claims from the victim, governments can also implement heavy fines for breaches of health and safety regulations. In extremely serious cases, managers and supervisors can face jail on manslaughter charges if a worker dies as a result of inadequate health and safety systems.

With such serious potential consequences in the event of an accident on the construction site, it is imperative that site supervisors are sufficiently trained in good health and safety practices to implement on the construction site, and the current legislation affecting their operations and environmental impact. One such course is the Site Supervisors' Safety Training Scheme (SSSTS) by the CITB/CSkills. This accredited and well-known course is designed for those with, or about to have, supervisory responsibilities on a construction site. This 2-day course covers topics including the identification of specific construction site issues including COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) and working at height, control of subcontractors, and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and relevant regulations.

At Associated Training & Consultancy, we offer the 2-day Supervisors' Safety Training Scheme (SSSTS) course, as well as the more comprehensive 5-day Site Management Safety Training Scheme (SMSTS) course. To find out more information, click on the course titles below to visit the relevant pages on our website. Alternatively, if you would like to discuss which course would be most suitable for you or your company with one of our health and safety experts, call us on 0115 984 9940 or contact us online. We also offer a range of other accredited health and safety training courses, such as the NEBOSH General Certificate and the IOSH Managing Safely course. To see the complete list, visit the health and safety section of our website by clicking here.

Links:

Site Supervisors' Safety Training Scheme

Site Management Safety Training Scheme

All of the entries in this blog provide general advice and should not be interpreted or used as specific health and safety guidance to your organisation – you must always consider your own circumstances and take appropriate action. If in doubt, contact us for professional and specific advice.

An Avoidable Disaster

2009-11-18T04:10:00.000-08:00

Many of us in the health and safety profession will remember the tragic events of 11 May 2004 - namely the explosion of the ICL factory at Grovepark Mills, Glasgow. This explosion claimed the lives of nine people, and seriously injured 33 others. It was a completely avoidable tragedy. Factory operators ICL Plastics and ICL Tech were fined £400,000 by the courts after admitting health and safety offences last year.

The explosion was caused by the ignition of an explosive atmosphere that had formed in the basement of the building. A quantity of Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) had leaked from a crack in a corroded and unprotected underground pipeline that had been laid 35 years earlier. The LPG then migrated into the building.

The inquiry was told that the damaged pipe work would have cost about £400 to replace.

The public inquiry has now published its final report and the inquiry chair Lord Gill has said there could be no doubt as to the cause of the blast. He said the pipe carrying liquid petroleum gas into the factory was "out of sight and out of mind".

The Health and Safety Executive has also come under some criticism. The families of those affected released a statement to the inquiry stating: "The time has come for the HSE to accept that soft-touch regulation does not work and that workers throughout the UK, whether they work with LPG or not, should have confidence that health and safety regulators have employers quaking in their boots."

The report has identified serious weaknesses not just in the factory but also in health and safety legislation and a lack of effective communication between government agencies, suppliers and users of the gas.

Lord Gill himself has levelled some criticism at the HSE: "Nearly five years after the explosion HSE has not produced a coherent action plan to deal with underground metallic pipework and the risk of a recurrence."

So are there lessons for business? The answer is yes, many. The final report details a number of recommendations in managing LPG installations across the UK. These are now being considered by Government.

But regardless of whether a business has LPG installations or not there are some basic lessons - the necessity for accurate and relevant health and safety risk assessments and access to competent professional advice. The message is clear; all significant hazards need proper assessment and control.

Mathew Joyes is Head of Risk Management at Associated Training and Consultancy, a leading provider of health, safety and environmental solutions.

All of the entries in this blog provide general advice and should not be interpreted or used as specific health and safety guidance to your organisation – you must always consider your own circumstances and take appropriate action. If in doubt, contact us for professional and specific advice.

Developing the Health and Safety Profession

2009-11-18T03:57:00.000-08:00

Welcome to my first health and safety blog. Choosing a topic to discuss is actually a difficult task and no more so than this first entry. What makes it more difficult is the choice of topics available - I could have discussed the ICL explosion inquiry, swine flu, the HSE proposals on a tower crane register, or the first prosecution for corporate manslaughter.

Instead I will discuss something that has gone largely unnoticed, yet is vitally important - the push for the accreditation of the health and safety profession. I admit, it isn't the most exciting of topics, but this could have a major impact on the level of professionalism within the industry.

The issue of accreditation has been around for some time - last year a Parliamentary Committee proposed the initiative which as welcomed by the Government. However, the HSE is adamant that it will not run such a scheme, nor control or regulate the professional bodies that do establish it.

IOSH has long advocated some form of official accreditation with their view that the current situation in which anyone can act as a health and safety consultant or advisor is not good for business.

The current ideas being floated include a voluntary scheme, and more detail will be published in coming weeks. That said I don't expect a scheme up and running this side of the next election.

So what does this mean for business? Well, it should mean that business has access to competent professional advice. But just what is competent advice? And isn't there a requirement for this already?

During my time in the profession I have seen it professionalise year on year, backed up by an increasing recognition at senior levels that health and safety is more than just a compliance issue.

These days you would expect to see health and safety professionals with qualifications and experience - such as NEBOSH or NVQ's in Health and Safety. But that isn't always the case. Perhaps this is because the perception of the profession still needs some work to move us away from the killjoy, clipboard carrying stereotype.

If there is a message for business in this issue then it is review your sources of health and safety advice and in IOSH's words - get the best. Would you have an accountant with no qualifications or experience?

Developing the professionalism of the health and safety profession is a passion of mine, and I would look forward to speaking to anyone about how their business, or even themselves, can develop their competency.

Mathew Joyes is Head of Risk Management at Associated Training and Consultancy, a leading provider of health, safety and environmental solutions.

All of the entries in this blog provide general advice and should not be interpreted or used as specific health and safety guidance to your organisation – you must always consider your own circumstances and take appropriate action. If in doubt, contact us for professional and specific advice.