C&G Safety & Environmental has been contracted by engineering firm Mabey Bridge to act as CDM Co-ordinator under the Construction (Design and Management Regulations) for the development of a new manufacturing facility at its Chepstow base.   The project will make the £70m firm the UK’s biggest manufacturer of towers for wind turbines. The £38m investment will double the size of the 13,140 square metre plant to enable it to fabricate monopiles and wind turbine towers up to 5m in diameter and 40m in length for onshore and offshore applications. 240 new jobs will be created.

The appointment of a CDM Co-ordinator is a legal requirement for larger engineering and construction projects. The co-ordinator provides specialist advice on health & safety and risk management, ensures competent firms are appointed to do the work and sees that the requirements of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 are met. John Oldmeadow of C&G Safety & Environmental is taking the lead role on this one and we will also be completing a series of site visits, attending meetings to advise the client on key safety issues and assist them in assessming the safety performance of contractors.

C&G Safety & Environmental has introduced Safety 247, an on-line service for companies who are struggling to manage complex health & safety requirements. It allows companies to put all their training needs, statutory tests, checks and inspections, documents and other details on a web database which will automatically remind them when they need to take action.

The system collects all the necessary data through audits and inspections and keeps it up to date.   A training matrix is prepared with the various course types and due dates entered.  The client is alerted by email whenever a test or inspection needs to be arranged, documents need to be updated or someone’s training is due for a refresher.   The user can see an audit report summary which shows all sites and outstanding issues, inspection dates, copies of reports and so on.  Sub-contractor assessments and approvals can also be monitored.  All safety documents are stored on line for ready access.

“Many of our clients are finding it a major headache to keep on top of the increasing body of safety legislation” says Roger Hart of C&G Safety & Environmental.  “Safety 247 looks after it all.  It also allows clients to present a more professional image to clients, and to keep costs down.”  More information at www.safety247.co.uk

HSE and Local Authority inspectors will soon embark on a round of over 3,000 inspections centered on those with LPG installation at their sites. If you are within scope you should have received and completed a questionnaire within the past few months.

However, if you received but choose not to complete the questionnaire then prepare yourself for a visit. A selection has been made and this will be a mix of people who completed and returned the questionnaire but all of those who choose not to.

If you think you might be one of those who will be visited (or simply if you have a LPG installation at your site) use the following key points to review your current arrangements;

• Storage vessels. Details of the type, size and number of bulk tanks, their condition, separation from buildings etc.
• Environment. The safety of the location, e.g. whether the tank is protected from vehicle impact, the presence of safety signs and delivery facilities.
• Pipework. The safety of both visible and underground pipework including the materials used, condition, protection from damage and the inspection regime.
• Risk of fire/explosion. Factors which increase the likelihood of a leak entering buildings, e.g. routing of pipework.
• Management. The overall management approach, including the training of staff and the implementation of plans to replace buried metallic pipework.

If you require any assistance with this matter please contact us.  Our expert Dangerous Goods Safety Advisors (DGSA) and safety consultants are here and ready to help you.  Just call 01453 800100 or contact us using the form on this website.

As most businesses will already be aware, at present a person who has suffered some loss can bring a personal injury compensation claim with no financial risk to themselves whatsoever. If they win the defendant pays the solicitor’s costs and fees, including a special bonus – the “success fee”. If they lose their solicitor agrees not to charge you for their work – the no win no fee arrangement.

In addition, their solicitor will have arranged an after-the-event insurance policy (ATE insurance) which will pay for medical reports, court fees, mediator’s fee and the defendant’s costs which normally they would pay if they lost the case. Further if they win, the defendants have to pay the premium for the ATE insurance (which may be thousands of pounds) and if they lose the premium is self-insuring so they don’t have to pay for it then either.

However, all of this could be set to change. Lord Jackson has completed a review of personal injury litigation costs and has recommended that ATE premiums are no longer payable by defendants who lose personal injury claims. Also he has proposed that the success fee – instead of being paid to the claimant’s solicitor by the defendant – is paid by the claimant out of the their compensation. Hence if you win there is a fee.

Whilst it is true that these proposals are revolutionary they do have the strong backing of the senior judges so it is likely that they will be put in to force in the not too distant future. Rest assured that we will keep you posted on any further developments.

If you need any help or assistance with health and safety our expert health and safety consultants can help you From health and safety policy development to noise and COSHH risk assessment, safety audits and staff development, just call us on 01453 800100 or visit us at www.outsource-safety.co.uk. We also provide safety services to the construction industry including CDM Coordinator, construction site safety visits, method statement and risk assessment development and health and safety policy work.

The Employment Agency Standards (EAS) inspectorate has reported that eleven out of twelve employment agencies it investigated were failing in their health and safety duties. If you do use agencies you should be aware that they share the burden of good health and safety with you and must play their role to ensure that their staff are safe whilst working on your premises.

The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 (CEAEBR) clearly sets out the safeguards which should be in place. In total, the investigation found evidence of 57 infringements. Of particular concern were the breaches of the CEAEBR health and safety requirements. These state that an employment agency may not, “introduce or supply a work-seeker to a hirer unless the agency or employment business has obtained sufficient information from the hirer”. Specifically, the agency must identify from the hirer “any risks to health or safety and the steps the hirer has taken to prevent or control such risks”.

If you’re using employment agencies:
• Supply your agency with copies of relevant risk assessments.
• Set out details of the experience, training, qualifications and any particular authorisations required.
• Remind the agency of their legal responsibility under the CEAEBR to pass on the information about the risks of the job and to check that the workers they supply will meet all of your requirements.
• Ask them to sign to confirm that they have fulfilled all of these responsibilities.

If you need any help or assistance with health and safety our expert health and safety consultants can help you From health and safety policy development to noise and COSHH risk assessment, safety audits and staff development, just call us on 01453 800100 or visit us at www.outsource-safety.co.uk. If you would like to be able to manage all of your risks online use our tool at www.safety247.co.uk, contact us for a guest log in.

On April 26 2007, a fire ripped through New Look’s flagship store in London. The damage was so severe that what parts of the building were left standing had to be pulled down.

The retailer was found guilty as none of its staff had of what to do – to the extent that they did not even inform the Fire & Rescue Service, this was left to a neighbouring organisation.  By the time the rescue services arrived the fire was too well established.  The trial of mistakes continued with investigators also finding that one of the evacuation routes used was right underneath the seat of the fire.

The court  heard that New Look had failed to comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. It was fined £250,000 for failing to supply a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment and £150,000 for failing to train staff adequately. In addition to the above it also had to pay £136,052 in costs.