Updates on new and changing regulations plus best practice in health, safety, quality and environment
We listened with interest during a recent IOSH webinar on Corporate Manslaughter / Corporate Homicide. It feels that in the talks we run for clients at our breakfast and lunch clubs I’ve been talking about little else since the act was introduced and Cotswold Geotech faced the first prosecution.
At the time talk was of how one person / company must be first and that the legislation needed to the tested before moving on to larger game. Something mentioned in the webinar changed this.
We have always spoken about major disasters and how, in the past, the many layers of management within the businesses responsible for Zeebrugge and Hatfield made it impossible for them to face prosecution as a ‘controlling mind’could not be found – what wasn’t so clear at that stage was that this test was never fully removed.
There are currently 141 cases opened and 56 prosecutions ongoing, almost all against very small businesses. Further, in almost all cases the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has also charged both the company and individuals with health and safety offences under HASWA (S.37 and similar).
Given the rhetoric before the Act was introduced the current situation seems bizarre. An Act which was written to address the imbalance between large and small businesses which retained the crucial Achilles heel of the old legislation and a new piece of legislation which does much the same job as the existing but with much higher fines (a minimum of £500,000 in fines) which can only be applied effectively against small businesses.
It leads you to question who wrote the legislation and for what purposes? Its true to say that it has brought health and safety into sharper focus for most large businesses but in terms of their being brought to book for serious failings… well, the jury is still out.
If you need help or advice on health and safety please contact us or request a call back – or call and speak to a friendly expert on 01453 800100
It doesn’t seem like three years have passed since the governments last budget review in 2010 but that time is here again and HSE is likely to be facing further budget cuts.
I can hear readers thinking ‘why should we be worried about that?’ and its a fair question but the impacts of further reductions in the HSE budget are likely to be felt by all of us as the regulator adapts to its new role as an enforcement agency with the power to collect fines.
The relationship between those who are regulated by HSE and the executive was changed by the introduction of Fee For Intervention (FFI) last October. It’s simply not possible to maintain this same relationship whilst charging a client £124 per hour. Similarly, it affects the old partnerships between clients and HSE where a partnership has been established over years of careful actions building trust between regulator and regulated.
By way of example, you would have to wonder now at the logic of asking an inspector to visit with the hope of gleaning some advice and information to improve safety management. Surely an Inspector must treat all of those regulated in the same manner, if this is true then any material breach which comes to light must then be handled under FFI, turning an innocent enquiry with the best intentions into something which will start to strip away the budget for beneficial change as the FFI charges begin.
We are aware that a great many within HSE remain uncomfortable with their new position as regulator and money collector but its no longer possible for Inspectors to resist the momentum of FFI, its become part of the working processes and targets must be reached if budgets are to be balanced and colleagues jobs secured.
Reference to our earlier post in March of this year gives the statistics on the acceleration of the FFI Scheme; HSE’s FFI Scheme starts to accelerate, refurbishment, solar PV / renewables and contracting to be hardest hit this can only continue as budgets are pared.
Beyond this, we will soon approach the anniversary of the introduction of FFI, at that point it seems very likely that the target (currently £37m each year) and the hourly chargeable rate (currently £124) will both rise.
If you need help or advice on health and safety please contact us or request a call back – or call and speak to a friendly expert on 01453 800100.
FREE Working Well Together Event: Snakes and Ladders (Considering Working at Height)
This is one of a series of free partnership events run by the industry for the industry, as part of the UK-wide Working Well Together (WWT) campaign.
This event will look at working at height – how to do it safely and the reasons why. The vent is key to those working at height including electrical installers, building maintenance engineers, facilities management specialists, steel frame erectors, roofers, solar panel installers, renewables companies, wind turbine installers and similar.
The South West Working Well Together group are pleased to introduce keynote speaker Jason Anker.
Jason was paralysed due to an avoidable incident on a building site many years ago when he fell off an unsecured ladder. He was 24 years old. Jason speaks on the emotional perspective of why Health and Safety is not just about ticking boxes and highlights the importance of listening to key behavioural safety messages when working on site.
Jason’s story is really about being at rock bottom, having the determination to pick yourself up, change direction in life and then trying to make a difference to others. www.jasonankerlive.co.uk
Agenda BOOK NOW!
WWT campaign reserves the right to amend this programme
REGISTRATION opens at 08.00 with TEA/COFFEE AND BACON ROLL
The start time is 08.30 and the event will be finished by approximately 12.00
This event is free to attend and all refreshments will be provided free of charge.
If you’ve got questions or need support on safety in the industrial, contracting or construction sectors please contact us for sensible and proportionate advice on 01453 800100
Strict liability, sometimes called absolute liability, is the legal responsibility for damages, or injury, even if the person or company found strictly liable was not at fault or negligent. It has been an integral part of health and safety legislation but something which the governments red tape review has hoped to change.
Employers complain that they are liable beyond the measure of common sense, even if they have acted reasonably they are still at fault. Insurers also dislike the current situation as it increases the likelihood of a payout on the policy even when a good client takes all reasonable measures to control their risk.
The Government appears to have won the battle to overhaul the law that makes employers liable to pay compensation to injured employees if they have breached statutory health and safety duties.
This amendment to the wide-ranging Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill is just one of a number of Government reforms aimed at addressing the perception of a compensation culture and to reduce employers’ fear of being sued.
Viscount Younger of Leckie commented
“it is not reasonable or fair that employers should be held liable to pay compensation when they have done nothing wrong and taken all reasonable steps to protect their employees”, and stressed that the reform “does not undermine core health and safety standards”.
Whilst we have sympathy with employers we must always ensure that injured persons have the right to adequate compensation when an accidents occurs, but there is a balance to be found. We feel that the review of current legislation is likely to replace many current instances of strict liability with the “reasonably practicable” wording as an alternative. This simple change will have much the same effect but avoid the hammer blow of complete removal.
If you have questions on this subject and how it may affect your business please contact us, we’re here to help and talk is not just cheap its free on 01453 800100
A wind turbine in north Devon collapsed in January causing some concern for the renewables industry. It is understood to be the first such reported incident in the UK although blades have fallen from turbines in a small number of cases.
A spokeswoman for Dulas the energy company responsible for the erection of the wind turbine said:
If you have questions on the safety of renewables please contact our renewables team on 01453 800 100
If you’ve got questions or need support on safety in the industrial, contracting or construction sectors please contact us for sensible and proportionate advice on 01453 800 100
Two former directors of a transport company have been order to pay £1,835,793.00 by HH Judge Hughes following a Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) hearing at Carlisle Crown Court.
On 25 March 2013, 67 year old Patrick James Boyle and 38 year old Mark Anthony Boyle, who are both from Newry, Northern Ireland and former Directors of Boyle Transport Limited, were found to have benefited from their criminality to the sum of £10,016,810.
On 2 May 2012 Patrick Boyle and Mark Boyle were handed two year and 18 month sentences respectively at Carlisle Crown Court, after they pleaded guilty to conspiring with drivers to make the false tachograph records on 18 February 2011.
After a year long investigation, It was revealed that each digital tachograph owned by the company had been interfered with and the drivers had, in fact, been driving up to 22 hours per day (the law states the maximum should be 10 per day) and failing to take their lawful breaks.
Heather Cruickshank, VOSA’s Operations Director added:
“Operators and drivers should be in no doubt that if they choose to work outside the law there will be serious financial consequences as this case highlights. VOSA’s number one priority is road safety and our investigators will always seek to take robust action against those who risk the lives of other road users through arrogance or just blatantly ignoring the rules.”
Contact us on 01453 800 100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost or request a call back.
The recent prosecution of Renishaw by the Health and Safety Executive has brought back to light the dangers present for advanced engineering businesses using additive manufacturing from the mixture of fine dust (metal powders commonly aluminium nickel or titanium dust) and associated flammability hazards which they can create.
{Click here to see what services we offer to additive manufacture}
It would be true to say that the dangers of mixing metal powder and water would be lost on most staff within these businesses, accidents are typically followed by a moment when those concerned remember from the dim and distant past what could occur. For this reason it is worth re-examining the risks and exploring what situation could give rise to a fire.
In the case of Renishaw, the incident involved aluminium powder and a specialist vacuum cleaner (but this could just as easily have been a simple wet and dry vacuum which could be present in almost any engineering business).
A worker had used the vacuum to remove some fine aluminium dust from a workbench. Water was present in the waste container of the vacuum and the worker may or may not have been aware of this fact. The container was not emptied but left to stand over a weekend, during which time the aluminium powder reacted with the water to give off hydrogen gas.
When the machine was switched on it ignited the hydrogen gas cause a fire and explosion which resulted in a two week hospital stay for the employee.
Combustible metals that are common in manufacturing and machining operations include aluminum, lithium, magnesium, niobium, tantalum, titanium, zirconium, and cold rolled steel.
One particularly vigorous reaction which you must seek to avoid is aluminium and steel. Their combination produces a ‘thermite’ like reaction (thermite is actually iron oxide and aluminium) which is very difficult to control and results in a huge amount of heat energy.
One area which is often overlooked is the build up of aluminium and steel within the extract system itself, particularly if it is heavily used or if maintenance has been lacking. The mixture of the steel and aluminium dusts can start a ferocious fire.
If you’ve got questions or need support on safety in the industrial, additive manufacture, contracting or construction sectors please contact us for sensible and proportionate advice on 01453 800100 or request a call back from us
Operators of care homes have strict duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act and are also audited by the CQC (Care Quality Commission). We have services which give access to a competent person for safety and provide unlimited support for safety documents including risk assessments, fire risk assessments, manual handling assessments and similar.
“They failed to carry out a suitable risk assessment for him, neglected to make provision for his deteriorating eyesight, which had been identified in his care plan notes, and did not act on his apparent disorientation,” said HSE Inspector Georgina Speake. “The fire door to the stairwell was regularly left open, which should not have happened at all, and the obvious risk this posed should have been identified.”
If you’ve got questions or need support on safety in the industrial, contracting or construction sectors please contact us for sensible and proportionate advice on 01453 800100
Operators of care homes have strict duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act and are also audited by the CQC (Care Quality Commission). We have services which give access to a competent person for safety and provide unlimited support for safety documents including risk assessments, fire risk assessments, manual handling assessments and similar.
The owners of a West Yorkshire care home have been told to pay £183,000 in fines and costs after a frail 93 year-old widow died because established safety measures were neglected.
Mrs Elsie Beals asphyxiated after becoming trapped in the gap between her mattress and incorrectly-fitted bed safety rails at Aden Court Care Home in Huddersfield on 24 April 2010.
New Century Care Ltd of Sidcup, Kent, a private company with around 27 UK care homes,was prosecuted for a serious safety breach by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after it investigated the incident.
Leeds Crown Court was told today (10 September) that the company, which has some 1,700 employees, had failed to train staff at Aden Court to fit bed safety rails.
HSE found also that staff were not trained to carry out regular ‘in-use’ checks to make sure bed rails remained properly adjusted, or to carry out risk assessments for their use.
The court heard that Mrs Beals, formerly of Lepton, Huddersfield, who had been resident at Aden Court for two years, had been helped to bed the previous evening by two care assistants. She had been checked just before midnight and was due another care check two hours later.
When the care assistants entered the room in the early hours of 24 April, Mrs Beals could not immediately be seen in bed. As they went to the side near the window they saw she had become trapped in the gap created between the mattress and the safety rail. It was obvious to staff that she was dead.
New Century Care Ltd of River House, Maidstone Road, Sidcup, Kent, was fined £160,000 and ordered to pay £18,000 in costs for breaching Section 3(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The firm had pleaded guilty at a previous hearing.
After the case HSE Inspector Jacqueline Ferguson, who investigated the incident, said that New Century Care’s safety failings came despite widespread Government medical advice on the safe use of bed rails in the health and social care sector.
She said:
“This was a terrible tragedy that could have been so easily avoided. Bed safety rails are used extensively in the health and social care sectors to protect vulnerable people from falling out of bed. The risks of their use are well documented, actively published and widely recognised in the health care industry.
“There are several causes of injury involving bed rails used incorrectly. The most serious is asphyxiation as a result of being trapped by the head or neck. This can happen because a rail is not designed for use with a particular bed, or because of poor bed rail design leading to too much space between the rails.
“Staff at Aden Court, owned and operated by New Century Care, had no instruction in how to carry out risk assessments for the safe use of bed rails and no training how to fit them correctly and keep them safely adjusted.
“If anything positive is to come out of this very sad incident, it is that other employers take note and be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take action against those who fall so far below the required standards.”
In the five years to 2005 there were at least ten deaths and a number of major injury incidents in which the use of bed rails was implicated. More recently, in 2010 a NHS Foundation Trust in the South East was fined £50,000 after the death of a disabled man whose head became trapped between bed rails. The following year, a nursing home was fined £70,000 when an elderly lady died of asphyxiation when she became trapped between a mattress and a bed rail in 2008.
If you’ve got questions or need support on safety in the industrial, contracting or construction sectors please contact us for sensible and proportionate advice on 01453 800100
In each of the first four months of 2013 the Crown Prosecution Service has announced it is to charge a company with corporate manslaughter.
Mobile Sweepers (Reading) Ltd is being charged of gross-negligence manslaughter along with its sole director, Mervyn Owens. The charge relates to the death of an employee, Malcolm Hinton on 6 March 2012, from crush injuries after working on a repair underneath a road-sweeping truck at the companies premises at Riddings Farm, near Basingstoke. He had inadvertently removed a hydraulic hose, and in doing so, caused the unsupported back of the truck to fall on him – it is good practice to never work underneath a body which has not been propped for this reason.
Colin Gibbs, senior lawyer in Special Crime for the CPS, said:
“I have carefully reviewed all the evidence gathered by Hampshire Police and the Health and Safety Executive during their investigation into the tragic death of Malcolm Hinton [and] have concluded there is sufficient evidence to charge Mobile Sweepers (Reading) Limited with corporate manslaughter under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.
“I have also decided there is sufficient evidence to charge the company’s sole director Mervyn Owens with gross-negligence manslaughter.“In addition, I have authorised charges against both Mobile Sweepers (Reading) Limited and Mr Owens with an offence under section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and also with an offence under regulation 5(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.
The first hearing will take place at Basingstoke Magistrates’ Court on 21 March.
Notes on previous three corporate manslaughter cases in 2013
In November, the CPS announced a charge of corporate manslaughter against Norfolk garden nursery Belmont, run by PS and JE Ward Ltd, in relation to the death of an employee in July 2010.
In January, the company that owns Welsh colliery Gleision, where four miners died in a flooding incident in September 2011, was charged on four counts of corporate manslaughter.
In February, Prince’s Sporting Club, of Middlesex, was charged under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 following the death of an 11-year-old girl who fell from a banana-boat ride.
If you’ve got questions or need support on safety in the industrial, contracting or construction sectors please contact us for sensible and proportionate advice on 01453 800100
