Group Newsletter

1

• Group Newsletter
• Issue 9 Volume 4
• March 2013

2
Contents

• Group News Page 3
• Members Pages Page 5
• Dissertation winner presentation Page 7
• Visit to BBC Media City Report Page 8
• Exhibitions Information Page 12
• Exhibitions report Page 14
• SGUK News Page 15
• HSE Information Page 16
• Other stories/information Page 22

3
Group Info

• Please remember that if you are employed by an
  SME or are an individual wishing to do a NEBOSH
  Certificate then please contact us as some
  sponsorship may be available if you meet the
  criteria. Courses are provided either by SETA in
  Stockport or ACT Associates
• Please contact the Secretary for details
  cathy.nixon_at_mohsg.org.uk

4
Members pages

• Craig McAdam, Partner, Slater and Gordon
• A campaign for fees
• During the annual month long drive to improve
  standards in the construction industry the HSE
  commenced their campaign on the 18 February 2013
  which is set to conclude on 15 March. The annual
  month long site inspection drive has been running
  for 7 years and in the last year involved the
  inspection of 3,237 sites for 4,080 contractors.
  This is the first year that the fee for
  intervention scheme is up and running. You will
  recall that from October last year HSE now have
  the right to bill for any intervention costs as a
  result of finding material breaches at any
  inspection.
• Material breaches where there has been a breach
  in Health and Safety Law serious enough for the
  inspector to warrant notifying you of that in
  writing or taking such other enforcement action
  as he sees fit. The costs accrue from the moment
  the inspector enters the sites and charge at 124
  per hour. The first set of invoices for fees for
  intervention and charges went out in late January
  and I have not as yet seen any data with respect
  to numbers and costs but will hopefully be able
  to update you in a later article.

5
Feature continues

• The head of Construction at the Health and Safety
  Executive Philip White stated in an article I
  read in late February 2013 that construction was
  going to generate a larger amount of cash not
  because it is easier but because its a higher
  risk industry.
• Many businesses were cynical about the fee for
  intervention being a drive to make the Health and
  Safety Executive self sufficient and inspectors
  to be given targets on. As the invoices have
  started to be sent out these can now be examined
  to determine whether any particular sector has
  been targeted to a greater degree then there
  previously had been. In addition we will now
  start to see whether companies have an appetite
  to challenge the HSE on the terms of what a
  material breach is. The first stage of
  challenging an invoice is to contact the fee for
  interventions team and raise your concerns. With
  the aim of getting a response within 15 days if
  you are not satisfied with the outcome then the
  query becomes a dispute that is escalated to a
  HSE Senior Manager.
• All disputes become Level 1 disputes with a
  decision made within 15 days to which if you are
  not satisfied you can raise it to a Level 2
  dispute which goes towards the dispute panel with
  a decision in a further 15 days. Of course any
  decision made within this process could be
  challengeable in the administrative court.
• I would be interested to hear any members
  experiences of ever receiving a fee for
  intervention and whether they have engaged in any
  dispute of that fee for intervention. This would
  assist in the transparency in the process so that
  duty holders know what is fair or an unjust
  outcome when in receipt of an invoice.
•  
• Craig McAdam, (Partner) Slater Lawyers
  CMcAdam_at_slatergordon.co.uk
•  

6
Courtesy of Eleanor Ford, TSK Group

• I attended the Coniac meeting at HSEs Rose Court
  in London on 13th March and thought the
  information below which I noted from the meeting
  may be useful to other members
• Philip White (Chief Inspector of Construction)
  noted that the response to FFI from contractors /
  duty holders had been mixed so far with some
  contractors reportedly doing their utmost to
  reduce the Inspectors intervention time as much
  as possible, while others reported not being
  aware of the scheme and some even thanked the
  visiting Inspector for informing them of it!
  Generally the HSEs view of the impact of the FFI
  scheme was positive.
•  
• Philip White made a point during the meeting of
  categorically stating that HSE Inspectors FFI
  scheme work is not target driven (contrary to
  much speculation within the industry).
•  
• Anthony Lees (Head of HSE Construction Policy
  Unit) stated that the HSE would continue to
  expect the use of head protection in appropriate
  situations even after the Head Protection
  Regulations had been revoked (expected soon).
•  

7
News about our recent Dissertation
WinnerCourtesy of IOSH Connect

• A BBC employee was awarded for her research in
  the field of occupational health and safety, at
  flagship event in London, last night (26
  February).
• Sarah Davidson, health and safety adviser for the
  BBC, was commended by the Institution of
  Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) for her
  research into laser use in the entertainment
  industry, at the IOSH 2013 Conference and
  Exhibition.
• Sarah, who advises on health and safety for
  programmes including Top Gear, The One Show and
  Bang Goes the Theory, conducted the research as
  part of an MSc in Occupational Health and Safety,
  at the University of Salford.
• She said I was really pleased to obtain
  recognition for the research and I feel winning
  has enabled the research topic to be more widely
  understood and of course, it has given me
  confidence and encouragement to further the
  work.
• The commendation came as part of the
  Institutions Bright Spark student research
  poster competition - a contest run to recognise
  and disseminate the work of up-and-coming
  researchers in occupational safety and health.
• As overall winner of the competition, Sarah
  scooped a 1,000 prize and a pass to the IOSH
  2013 Conference and Exhibition. Runner-up Garry
  McGauran bagged a 500 reward and free pass for
  his research into building design.
• Sarah, from Chiswick, London, added Im in the
  process of raising funds to support me to be a
  crew member on 2013 Clipper round the world yacht
  race and the money is a great contribution. It's
  the first money to go in the sailing money jar.
• My research gained positive feedback from the
  Health Protection Agency and the Safety Advisory
  Group in Entertainment.
• As a result of this research, I have now been
  asked to contribute to a working group to advance
  current guidance on safe laser use.
• The study, commended by the Institution,
  identified that there was limited information on
  the perceived risks associated with laser use in
  the entertainment industry.
• According to the research, there is a wider trend
  for audience scanning in pubs and clubs. The
  research also highlighted key barriers to the
  application of safe working practices and
  considered that users of the technology and
  regulators can fail to consider safety risks.
• Mary Ogungbeje, research and development adviser
  at IOSH, said Research plays an instrumental
  role in improving occupational safety and health
  policy.
• Everyone loves the wow factor when it comes to
  entertainment. So it was great to see a stunning
  poster as well as research into the very real and
  technical risks of using high powered laser
  displays at events
• The competition is an annual event where
  universities running IOSH-accredited BSc and MSc
  courses can put forward two of their best
  students.  The judging panel not only took into
  account the presentation of the posters but also
  the context of the research, approach, methods
  used, results and conclusions made.

8
Report on visit to BBC Media City

• On Wednesday 20 March, 2 Groups of members and
  invited guests from the University of Salford
  M.Sc. course board visited the BBC at Media City,
  Salford.
•  
• The first party left Bridge House reception for a
  tour round some of the studios that are operated
  by an independent company. These included the BBC
  Philharmonic and Sports Studios. Unfortunately,
  as they were setting up the Blue Peter Studio for
  a recording later, we were unable to see in that
  particular one. The array of lights in the sports
  studio had to be seen to be believed.
•  
• It is possible for a studio to be hired for as
  little as 24 hours and this includes rigging,
  filming and derigging increasing the potential
  risks.
•  
• The studio manager takes responsibility for all
  that happens in the studio. All studio doors are
  2 hour fire rated and sound proofed.
•  
• Statutory checking of lifting equipment is a
  marathon task that needs to be carefully
  programmed into the diary.
• After the tour, the first party assembled in the
  Morecambe and Wise room, meeting up with those
  who had arrived for the presentations and second
  tour which followed later in the afternoon.
•  
• We were welcomed by the Head of BBC Safety,
  Stephen Gregory. He explained how his role works
  in the BBC and then introduced Aileen Spankie,
  Head of Vision Production who gave us a brief
  overview of what type of programming is covered
  by her department.
•  
• Some examples of factual programmes are
•  
• Top Gear
• 80 Faiths around the World
• School Choir of the Year

9
Report continued

• Dominic then handed over to Helen Foulkes who
  described some of her work as Executive Producer
  of BBC Learning.
•  
• Most of the Learning programmes are either on
  BBC2 or online.
•  
• The majority of the educational programmes are in
  bite size chunks that can be used by teachers
  during class lessons.
•  
• Some of the programmes that are covered are
  various types of roadshow where matters including
  cost per head are very important.
•  
• Time on these types of event is critical.
•  
• Security features highly on shows that are on
  location, volunteers are also required to assist.
  With some of the programmes, e.g. Stargazing,
  local astronomy clubs will assist.
•  
• A question and answer period followed, and then
  Mike thanked all the presenters for the day and
  Sarah Davidson for organising the event on behalf
  of the Group with assistance from her colleagues
  Kat and Sandeep.
•  
• Those who were to go on tour 2 then left for
  their tour, those of us who had been on the
  morning tour departed for home.

10
Report continued

• Dominic explained how different the programming
  is for children. The station is essentially
  divided into two channels CBBC (for 6 12 year
  olds) and CBeebies (for 0 6 year olds).
•  
• Childrens programmes started on radio in 1922
  and transferred to Television in 1946. Blue Peter
  was first broadcast in 1958.
•  
• Working with children is far more difficult than
  with adults, for one thing, child protection
  needs to be considered particularly when working
  on location.
•  
• Various risks require to be assessed, including
•  
• Work at Height
• Sports and other high risk activities
• Driving
• Working hours and fatigue
• First Aid
• Extreme weather
• Fire and Water
•  
• As with all departments in the BBC there are
  always budgetary constraints to be met.

11
Photos from visit
BBC building, Philharmonic studio, BBC Sport
studio x 2, Typical sound control unit, Quiz
from Dominic
Stephen Gregory, Aileen Spankie, Dominic Parry
Helen Foulkes
12
Exhibition Information

• Please add these dates to your diary and consider
  visiting the shows . These shows are supported by
  Safety Groups UK

13
Other Exhibitions etc.

• The following additional Exhibitions are to be
  supported by Safety Groups UK with Mike and Cathy
  manning the stand.
• April 23 SHE Show South, Doubletree by Hilton,
  Milton Keynes
• May 14 16 Safety Expo, NEC, Birmingham
• June 25 SHE Show North West, Hilton Hotel,
  Blackpool
• Other local events taking place, though not
  supported by Safety Groups UK include
• 18 September North West Regional Association
  Conference, Barton Grange Hotel, Barton, nr.
  Preston
• Exhibition enquiries to Mike Nixon on
  exhibition_at_nwra.org.uk
• October South Cumbria Conference contact Martin
  Fishwick on mgfishwick_at_live.com

14
SGUK Exhibitions report

• Mike and Cathy recently manned the stand at the
  Health and Safety Show at Sandown Park , Esher on
  12 and 13 March.
• Despite snowy weather in some parts of the South,
  we had a respectable 46 visitors to the stand,
  including some from other Groups who kept us
  abreast of what is happening in their areas.
• The second day was not so good for visitors to
  the stand, however an overall 73 was not too
  bad, considering that this event was only two
  weeks after the IOSH Exhibition.
• Bob Rajan presented an update on Health Risks at
  Work . Unfortunately the attendance at these
  events was not as good as last October at Bolton.
  However some approx. 36 delegates attended the
  three presentations.
• Next year this show moves to the NEC in mid March
  and co-locating with Maintec.
• Thanks are given to Tim Else and his team for
  providing us with an excellent stand and any
  support necessary over the two days.
• We look forward to Scotland in April for our next
  Exhibition , followed by the SHE Show South at
  Milton Keynes the following week.

15
SGUK Info

• Discounts available through SGUK
• Please remember if you work for a small company,
  or Consultant, who perhaps do not receive a
  discount at Arco to request a Safety Groups UK
  card which gives 15 off in Arco shops only (not
  online). You must produce a card to obtain the
  discount.
• (only available to members).
• Members 15 Exclusive discount
• Safety Groups UK has negotiated corporate
  benefits for Group members. ACT is working with
  Safety Groups UK to provide an exclusive discount
  to all Safety Groups UK members.
• ACT offer an exclusive 15 discount off the list
  price of any product or service to all Safety
  Groups UK members.
• ACT is established as a high quality single point
  solutions provider of auditing, consultancy and
  training services. We have evolved into an
  integrated provider of all learning solutions
  including conventional, e-learning and blended
  learning options.
• Obtaining the 15 discount
• Call ACT on 01384 447915
• E-mail actsales_at_actassociates.co.uk

16
HSE Info

• Macclesfield window firm fined over severed
  finger
• A Macclesfield window manufacturer has been fined
  after one of its employees had a finger cut off
  by a rotating saw.
• East Cheshire Glass Ltd was today (25 February
  2013) prosecuted by the Health and Safety
  Executive (HSE) following the incident at its
  factory on London Road on 30 July 2010.
• The poorly guarded rotating saw at East Cheshire
  Glass in Macclesfield
• Macclesfield Magistrates' Court heard that the
  26-year-old from Cheadle Hulme was positioning a
  piece of uPVC plastic under the circular blade
  while it was still running. His left hand came
  into contact with it and his index finger was
  severed to below the second knuckle.
• The court was told that, in order to keep
  production moving swiftly, the machine would not
  be switched off in between cuts. This meant it
  was common for the unguarded saw blades to be
  raised and left running while pieces of plastic
  were placed underneath by hand.
• The guard on the blade had also been adjusted to
  stop it hitting the pieces of plastic as the saw
  came down, but this meant several inches of the
  blade were left exposed.
• East Cheshire Glass Ltd was fined 1,000 and
  ordered to pay 3,342 in costs after admitting a
  breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment
  Regulations 1998 by failing to prevent access to
  dangerous parts of machinery.
• Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Jane
  Carroll said
• "These kinds of injuries are sadly all too common
  in the manufacturing industry so it is vital
  companies make sure suitable guards are in place.
• "If the guards on the blades were causing
  problems then East Cheshire Glass should have
  adapted them in a way that meant the blades were
  still fully protected when they were raised.
• "The company's priority should have been the
  safety of its employees but instead one of its
  workers suffered a permanent injury when his hand
  came into contact with the unguarded rotating
  blade."
• Information on improving safety in the
  manufacturing industry is available at
  www.hse.gov.uk/manufacturing.

17
Council in court for ignoring asbestos threat in
school

• Thurrock Council has been fined after admitting
  to failures in how it managed asbestos across its
  schools.
• Basildon Crown Court heard today (1 March 2013)
  that despite being made aware of asbestos
  concerns in a boiler room at Stifford Clays
  Junior School, no action was taken.
• A specialist contractor tasked with carrying out
  an asbestos survey by the council in 2004 said
  that dust and debris found in the boiler room
  containing asbestos fibres should be removed
  immediately under licensed conditions.
• However, an HSE inspection in April 2010, as part
  of a national initiative to ensure that local
  authorities understand their duties in managing
  asbestos across their school estate, found that
  nothing had been done.
• This was despite school staff and contractors
  alike regularly entering the boiler room in the
  intervening six year period.
• HSE served a Prohibition Notice on 24 April 2010
  barring entry to the boiler house until it was
  made safe.
• Thurrock Council was also served with two
  Improvement Notices regarding the management of
  asbestos in its schools elsewhere in the county.
• Thurrock Council, of Civic Offices, New Road,
  Grays, Essex, was fined a total of 35,000 and
  ordered to pay 15,326 in costs after pleading
  guilty to a Regulation 10 breach of the Control
  of Asbestos Regulations (CAR 2006) and a breach
  of the Management of Health and Safety at Work
  Regulations 1999 - both in relation to failings
  across the school estate.
• The council also admitted a Regulation 11 breach
  of the Control of Asbestos Regulations (CAR 2006)
  in relation to the specific incident at Stifford
  Clays Junior School.
• After the hearing HSE inspector Samantha Thomson,
  said
• "This was a clear example of a local Authority
  failing to manage asbestos across its schools for
  a number of years.
• "At Stifford Clays Junior School, the caretaker
  regularly worked in the boiler room with dust and
  debris over a period of six years. She will have
  been exposed to asbestos fibres and now faces an
  anxious wait to see if it results in any
  long-term health issues.

18
Useful HSE Info

• Some useful info from HSE
• http//www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg462.htm?ebulhsege
  ncr5/18-mar-13
• http//www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/l117.htm?ebulhs
  egencr6/18-mar-13
• http//www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg457.htm?ebulhsege
  ncr7/18-mar-13
• http//www.hse.gov.uk/health-surveillance/index.ht
  m?ebulhsegencr1/18-mar-13
• http//www.hse.gov.uk/toolbox/transport.htm?

19
Worcestershire man prosecuted for illegal gas
work

• A Worcestershire man has been prosecuted for
  carrying out illegal and dangerous gas work which
  put lives at risk at a home in Worcester.
• Self employed unregistered gas fitter Mark Crake,
  of Worcester Road, Malvern was prosecuted by the
  Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after he left a
  resident with a newly-installed gas hob leaking
  gas.
• Despite not being registered, Mr Crake fitted the
  gas hob on 29 July 2011 without carrying out a
  pressure test to confirm there were no leaks and
  without tightening the connections to the gas
  hob.
• Worcester Magistrates were told today (11 March)
  the home owner smelt gas after returning home in
  the evening and went to bed with windows open. In
  the morning, she contacted the National Grid and
  was advised to immediately turn off the gas
  supply at the inlet valve.
• National Grid sent a First Call Operative to the
  house that morning, who confirmed there was a
  significant leak from the gas hob, and isolated
  and turned off the supply. Mr Crake also returned
  some days later to tighten the connections to the
  gas hob.
• An investigation by Gas Safe Register confirmed
  the boiler had not been fitted correctly and to
  current standards.
• Mark Crake pleaded guilty to a breach of
  Regulation 3 (7) and Regulation 3 (3) of the Gas
  Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 as
  well as a breach of Section 3 (2) of the Health
  and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was sentenced
  to four months in prison for each of the three
  offences with the sentences to run concurrently,
  but suspended for 12 months, alongside 250 hours
  of unpaid community work. He was ordered to pay
  3,500 towards costs.
• After the hearing, HSE inspector Chris Gregory
  said
• "Mark Crake carried out potentially lethal work
  at a home in Worcester. Poorly maintained, faulty
  or badly installed gas work can cause explosions
  or carbon monoxide poisoning, which can be fatal
  or cause serious long-term health problems.
• "This is why it is essential that only people who
  are registered as competent, qualified gas
  engineers with Gas Safe should carry out work on
  gas fittings.
• Russell Kramer, Chief Executive of Gas Safe
  Register, added
• "A quarter of a million illegal gas jobs are
  carried out every year by people who don't have
  the skills or the qualifications to work safely
  with gas.
• "It's therefore vital that people always make
  sure the person working on their gas appliances
  is on the Gas Safe Register. If they don't, they
  could be putting their family's lives and homes
  at risk from gas fires, explosions, leaks and
  carbon monoxide poisoning.
• "You can check if your engineer is legal and safe
  to work with gas by asking for the Gas Safe ID
  card. You can also check the engineer's
  identification number by calling us on 0800 408
  5500, or visiting the website at
  www.gassaferegister.co.uk" .

20
Firm in court after teenager scarred by toxic
chemical

• A Cannock vehicle repair company was today (20
  March) fined after a 16 year-old on work
  experience suffered burns when toxic paint
  stripper splashed into his eyes and face.
• The school pupil should not have been exposed to
  the risk of being splashed with the dangerous
  chemical, and should have been provided with
  appropriate safety goggles to prevent this
  happening.
• Bret Thomas, from Cannock, now 17, had his vision
  seriously affected for a month and has scarring
  on his face. He still suffers vision sensitivity
  and will be prone to suffering from migraines for
  the rest of his life.
• Stafford Magistrates were told that Bret, a pupil
  of Cannock Chase High School, had been on an
  extended work placement at Motorhouse 2000 Ltd at
  its Adini House site on Wolverhampton Road since
  September 2011.
• On 18 January 2012 he was told to assist an
  employee who was refilling the wheel stripping
  tank. The employee poured toxic paint stripper
  from plastic containers into the tank and then
  passed the containers to Bret who was removing
  all the labels and cutting them in half in order
  to dispose of them.
• However, as Bret was cutting the last container
  with a Stanley knife, the plastic container
  flicked up and remnants of the toxic substance
  splashed into his eyes and face. He was not
  wearing any face or eye protection.
• Bret suffered burns to his face and eyes. After
  initial treatment at Cannock Hospital, he was
  transferred to the specialist eye unit New Cross
  Hospital. It was approximately a month before his
  sight returned sufficiently enough for him to go
  outside and even then, he needed to be
  accompanied and wear sunglasses.
• The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which
  investigated, told magistrates that Motorhouse
  2000 Ltd had changed to chemical stripping from a
  mechanical process to save time. It failed to
  risk assess this process, which involved
  employees coming into contact with toxic
  substances, nor ensured face or eye protection
  was worn by employees.
• Motorhouse 2000 Ltd, of Watling Street, Cannock,
  pleaded guilty to contravening Regulation
  19(2)(b) of the Management of Health Safety at
  Work Regulations 1999. The company was fined
  4,000 and ordered to pay costs of 6,319.

21
Story continues

• After the hearing, HSE inspector Katherine Blunt
  said
• "This young man has suffered an extremely painful
  ordeal in an incident that was totally
  preventable. The impact will be long lasting but
  Bret could have been blinded for life.
• "The substance involved contains dichloromethane,
  hydrofluoric acid and methanol, which have been
  known to cause death through inhalation, burns
  when in contact with skin and eyes, and
  irreversible damage.
• "Motorhouse 2000 Ltd gave little consideration to
  the health or safety of its employees when
  working with chemicals by not ensuring protective
  equipment, including face and eye protection, was
  worn. They failed to adequately assess the risks
  of the chemicals used which resulted in poor
  control measures being put in place for everyone
  working in that area.
• "Work experience is very important for young
  people in order for them to gain an understanding
  of the world of work. However, employers must
  fulfil their responsibilities to assess risks and
  protect young people by putting the appropriate
  control measures in place."

22
The following courtesy of SHP

• Roadworks firm charged with corporate
  manslaughter
• For the fourth time in as many months the Crown
  Prosecution Service has announced it is to charge
  a company with corporate manslaughter.Mobile
  Sweepers (Reading) Ltd is being charged with the
  offence, along with its sole director, Mervyn
  Owens, who faces a charge of gross-negligence
  manslaughter, in relation to the death of
  employee, Malcolm Hinton on 6 March 2012.Mr
  Hinton died from crush injuries after working on
  a repair underneath a road-sweeping truck at
  Mobile Sweepers premises at Riddings Farm, near
  Basingstoke. He had inadvertently removed a
  hydraulic hose, which caused the back of the
  truck to fall on him.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.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.Last month, Princes 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.On Tuesday, 23
  April SHP will be running a free webinar on
  Corporate manslaughter five years on featuring
  a panel of some of the UKs foremost legal
  experts in this area. Click here for more
  information.

23
Bigger penalties likely under new environmental
sentencing proposals

• New proposals aimed at bringing greater
  consistency to how the courts in England and
  Wales deal with environmental crimes have been
  issued by the Sentencing Council.The draft
  sentencing guidelines, which could result in
  larger fines for serious offenders, aim to
  provide clear guidance on sentencing
  environmental offences, and ensure that the
  penalties handed down to offenders match the
  seriousness of the breach and provide a strong
  deterrent. The Sentencing Council is proposing
  that magistrates make greater use of the highest
  levels of fines available to them, which would
  likely increase fines for those that cause the
  most damage, or risk to health. For less
  serious offences, it is not expected that fines
  will rise from current levels, and the overall
  proportions of offenders receiving the various
  types of sentence, such as fines, community
  sentences, discharges and imprisonment, are
  unlikely to change.The draft guidelines cover a
  wide variety of offences relating to the disposal
  of waste and rubbish, mostly covered by the
  Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the
  Environmental Permitting (England and Wales)
  Regulations 2010. They include fly-tipping and
  offences whereby a company or individuals have
  not handled, or disposed of waste properly. Other
  areas covered include nuisance offenders who
  cause noise, smoke, dust or smells, or who run
  premises that pose a health, or pollution risk.
  Sentencing Council member and magistrate
  Katharine Rainsford said Offences like
  fly-tipping and illegal disposal of hazardous
  waste can cause significant damage to the
  environment and put peoples health at risk.
  Were improving guidance for courts to help
  ensure consistent and appropriate sentences for
  offenders, particularly for corporate offenders,
  who can be guilty of the worst offences. These
  offences are normally motivated by making, or
  saving money at the expense of the taxpayer. Our
  proposals aim to ensure that sentences hit
  offenders in their pocket.
• The Sentencing Council is seeking views from the
  public, those working in the criminal justice
  system, and environmental professionals. The
  consultation, which runs until 6 June, can be
  found at http//sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk
  /docs/Environmental_Consultation_web_final.pdf
  Responses can be made online at
  www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk and via e-mail to
  consultation_at_sentencingcouncil.gsi.gov.uk

24
Sole trader in the dock for lorry death

• A worker at a demolition company was run over and
  killed by a tipper lorry at the companys head
  office in Reading.Brian Gutteridge, 67, was
  crossing a road outside the J Mould (Reading)
  head office in Burghfield Bridge, when the
  vehicle struck him on 9 November 2010.The
  driver of the tipper lorry had pulled over at the
  side of the private road, so he could talk to
  another colleague. He pulled back out just as Mr
  Gutteridge was crossing the road to get to his
  car. He was pronounced dead at the scene when the
  emergency services arrived.The HSE visited the
  site and found there were no designated crossing
  points on the road, and nothing to segregate
  vehicles and pedestrians. The site rules also
  didnt specify whether vehicles or pedestrians
  had the right of way on the road. It was also
  established that John Mould, who owned the
  business as a sole trader, had not created a
  formal workplace-transport risk assessment,
  despite having received advice from an
  independent health and safety consultant about
  pedestrian-vehicle interactions at another site
  in Reading.HSE inspector Daniel Hilbourne said
  John Mould has operated from the Burghfield
  Bridge site for more than 20 years, but failed to
  properly manage workplace transport prior to
  Brians tragic death.
• There was a clear need for a formal traffic
  management system, including a designated
  pedestrian crossing, pedestrian walkways, a speed
  restriction and a strict rule to wear
  hi-visibility clothing at all times.John Mould
  appeared at Reading Magistrates Court on 14
  March and pleaded guilty to breaching reg.3 of
  MHSWR 1999, and reg.17 of the Workplace (Health,
  Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, for failing
  to control traffic at the site. He was fined a
  total of 40,000 and ordered to pay 17,060 in
  costs.In mitigation, Mould said his safety
  consultant hadnt properly advised him about
  traffic at the site. He has subsequently
  appointed a new consultant, which has led to the
  creation at the site of a crossing point with
  lights, and the erection of barriers around
  pedestrian routes.After the hearing, inspector
  Hilbourne added Had vehicle-pedestrian
  interactions been better controlled and managed,
  then Brian would not have been killed. It
  demonstrates the need for proper risk
  assessments, to undertake regular reviews, and to
  be wary of complacency.

25
Fatal-blast pie firm not in a position to pay
250,000 fine

• A pie manufacturer currently in administration
  has been ordered to pay fines and costs of
  375,000 after a gas explosion in an industrial
  bakery oven killed one worker and seriously
  injured another.Huddersfield-based Andrew Jones
  Pies, which fell into administration in 2011, was
  sentenced today (8 March) at York Crown Court.
  Imposing the penalty, the judge said the company
  had failed dismally and that, although he
  understood it was not in a position to pay the
  250,000 fine and 124,896 costs, the sentence
  reflected the level of the firms failings.
  According to the Huddersfield Examiner, assets
  of Andrew Jones Pies Ltd have since been sold to
  a new company called AJ Pies and Pastries Ltd,
  which has retained some of the same staff.The
  court heard that David Cole, a supervisor, had
  started work early at the site in Old Leeds Road,
  on 10 April 2009. He tried to light two large
  ovens prior to other workers arriving, but one of
  them, which was around 30 years old, apparently
  failed to light. It is believed he was unaware
  that an increasing amount of gas was building up
  to a critical flashpoint inside the baking
  chamber and, at around 5am, it exploded, killing
  Mr Cole, injuring his colleague, Marcus
  Cartwright, and causing severe damage to the
  building. The judge attributed no blame to Mr
  Cole who had worked at the firm for 12 years
  describing the incident as an ongoing situation
  rather than an isolated event.?
• When the gas ignited, the blast blew the large
  oven door off its hinges. Mr Cole, who was
  standing in front of the oven, was hit by the
  door and then trapped when part of the roof
  collapsed.

26
Story continues

• A jury at an earlier hearing at Leeds Crown Court
  found Andrew Jones Pies Ltd guilty of three
  health and safety breaches. The contraventions
  related to regulation 5(1) of the Dangerous
  Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations
  2002, between 26 April 2007 and 10 April 2009
  and regulations 8(1) and 9(1) of the Provision
  and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998,
  between the same dates. ?The HSE investigation
  found the companys procedures for operating the
  ovens were inadequate and informal. The bakery
  workers had not been given sufficient instruction
  or training in their use, or in the potential
  hazards arising from their operation.??The
  company failed to recognise that direct-fired
  ovens can potentially fill with a flammable mix
  of gas and air if repeated unsuccessful attempts
  are made to light them. ??The investigation
  also revealed that an explosion-relief panel on
  the back of the oven, which should have safely
  vented excess pressure, had at some time been
  rigidly fixed in place. It is unclear whether the
  modification pre-dated the firms ownership of
  the ovens.
• In 2010, the CPS issued a statement confirming
  that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute
  any individual or company for gross-negligence
  manslaughter, in relation to the death of Mr
  Cole.??After the hearing, HSE inspector John
  Micklethwaite expressed his hope that the
  conclusion of the case might provide some closure
  for Mr Coles family, friends and former
  colleagues. ??The explosion could have been
  avoided if the correct lighting-up procedures had
  been followed, said the inspector. No more than
  two attempts to light the oven should have been
  made. If the oven still failed to light,
  engineers should have been called
  in.??Following the incident, the HSE issued a
  safety alert to similar companies, advising them
  to check the explosion-reliefs on all
  direct-fired bakery ovens.

27
Flooring firm fined after worker dragged into
machinery

• A flooring manufacturer has been found guilty of
  safety failings after an employee was dragged
  into an unguarded machine at its factory in
  Greater Manchester.
• Polyflor Ltd was prosecuted by the Health and
  Safety Executive (HSE) following the incident at
  its plant on Radcliffe New Road in Whitefield on
  17 May 2011.
• During a four-day trial at Manchester Crown
  Court, the jury heard that the male worker, who
  has asked not to be named, was working on a
  nightshift when a conveyor belt became jammed.
• Maintenance workers were unable to repair the
  fault and guards from the machine were removed so
  that it could continue to operate. The injured
  worker was using a spanner to try to stop the
  belt rubbing when he was pulled into the machine.
• The 43-year-old from Sale had to be cut free and
  suffered a broken arm. He needed seven weeks off
  work to recover.
• Polyflor Ltd, of Hollinhurst Road in Radcliffe,
  was today (28 February) found guilty of a breach
  of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment
  Regulations 1998 for failing to ensure routine
  maintenance work could be carried out safely on
  the machine.
• The company, which manufactures flooring for
  offices, sports centres and schools, was fined
  7,500 and ordered to pay 34,000 in prosecution
  costs.
• Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Emily
  Osborne said
• "The Polyflor employee was lucky to escape with a
  broken arm. His injuries could have been much
  worse.
• "The company should never have allowed workers to
  be put at risk by letting them carry out
  maintenance work to the machine while it was
  still operating.
• "It has since installed a new safety system on
  the conveyor belt which makes it impossible for
  it to be run when the guards have been removed.

28
Story courtesy of HSW

• Oldham BQ managers ignored head office warning
• DIY giant BQ has been fined 15,000 after a
  bathroom display unit fell on a four-year-old at
  one of its stores.
• The girl suffered cuts, bruises and a swollen
  face while she was visiting the retailers branch
  in Oldham, Greater Manchester, with her parents
  and younger sister.
• When officers from Oldham Council investigated,
  they found the child had pulled over a worktop
  and washbasin as her mother was talking with a
  shop assistant.
• BQ had installed the bathroom unit without using
  the correct fixings to secure the worktop to the
  base unit.  
• Though the firm has written policies and
  procedures for fitting displays, which included a
  system of regular checks by staff, no one had
  identified the defect.
• Oldham Council said the case highlighted a
  failure by BQ to ensure satisfactory
  implementation of its health and safety policies
  at a local level.
• The chains head office sent a warning memo to
  all its stores after the Oldham accident, yet
  when council environmental health officers
  visited the branch almost a year later, they
  still found unsecured heavy items on the shop
  floor.
• On Tuesday (19 February) at Oldham Magistrates
  Court, BQ admitted failing to ensure the safety
  of the public, contrary to Section 3(1) of the
  Health and Safety at Work Act.
• District Judge James Prowse said the company had
  not ensured that local managers were carrying out
  the necessary checks after display installation.
  As well as the fine, he ordered BQ to pay costs
  of 5496.
• In 2008, the DIY chain had to pay a fine of
  10,000 after a 260kg display unit fell on a
  12-year-old boy at its store in Eastwood,
  Nottingham.
• The sentencing magistrates in that case noted
  that the retailer had processes to check
  equipment, but these were of no use if they
  weren't implemented.
• In another case heard in 2004 and involving the
  death of an elderly customer run over by a
  forklift inside BQs Poole store the firm
  landed fines and costs of 800,000. Bournemouth
  Crown Court was told the control of forklift
  movements at the premises did not comply with the
  companys own guidelines.

29
Healthy workplaces the key to improving
productivity

• Employers who create healthy workplaces can
  reduce employee absence and boost productivity,
  according to a new TUC publication. The guide,
  Work and well-being, aims to promote healthier
  working and help union safety reps identify what
  within their workplaces is making staff
  ill.Every year around 170 million working days
  are lost because people are too sick to go into
  work 23 million of these can be attributed to
  work-related ill health and 4 million result from
  injuries suffered at work. The guide builds on
  the premise that the best way of tackling ill
  health is to stop workers from getting ill in the
  first place. It argues that the best method for
  improving the general well-being of a workforce
  is to change the way that work is organised and
  managed. For example, reducing workplace stress
  is far more useful than providing on-site massage
  for stressed workers.While suggesting that
  organising exercise classes during lunch hours
  may prove popular with some employees, the report
  cautions that employers need to ensure workers
  have a proper lunch break in order to benefit.
  Also, any lifestyle changes must be made
  available in a non-judgmental manner, so that no
  one feels these are being forced on them.Work
  and well-being suggests a number of ways that
  employers and unions might try to encourage a
  healthier attitude among employees, including
• Providing an on-site gym, or subsidised
  membership of a local fitness centre
• Encouraging employees to cycle to work by
  providing a secure storage place for bikes,
  introducing schemes where staff can get
  discounted bikes, and having workplace shower
  facilities
• Offering healthy options in the canteen,
  encouraging staff not to eat lunch at their
  desks, or providing a regular supply of free
  fruit and?
• Giving staff the chance to access employee
  assistance programmes, which can help them cope
  with personal problems that could have an impact
  on their performance at work, or offer advice
  with financial concerns.
• Commenting on the guide, TUC general secretary
  Frances OGrady said Healthier lifestyles are
  something we should all be aspiring to, and given
  the amount of time we spend at work, the
  workplace is a good place to start.Work can
  create a lot of health issues, such as back
  problems, and it can also be a cause of stress,
  which is linked to the increased use of tobacco
  and alcohol. Similarly, if employees are sitting
  down all day and only have access to junk food
  during their lunch break, then they have more
  chance of developing heart disease, or diabetes
  in later life.Work and well-being is available
  at www.tuc.org.uk/wellbeingguide

30
Story courtesy of HSM magazine

• Draft guidance unveiled on workplace first aid
  changes
• The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has
  published new draft guidance to help employers
  get to grips with proposed changes to workplace
  first aid.
• Two pieces of guidance have been published on the
  HSE website following a consultation on proposals
  to amend the First Aid Regulations (1981) and
  remove the requirement for HSE to approve first
  aid training providers.
• The guidance documents are available at
  www.hse.gov.uk/firstaid/proposed-changes-first-aid
  -regulations.htm
• The changes are expected to take effect on 1
  October 2013, subject to final approval by the
  HSE Board and Ministers.
• HSE policy advisor Peter Brown said "?Removing
  the HSE approval process will give businesses
  greater flexibility to choose their own training
  providers and first aid training that is right
  for their work place, based on their needs
  assessment and their individual business needs.
• ?The draft guidance documents aim to provide
  practical support to help businesses assess and
  understand their first aid needs and find a
  provider best suited to them.
• ?HSE has used the feedback from the recent
  consultation exercise to shape the guidance, but
  would welcome any further feedback on the
  guidance before the regulations come into place.?
  
• Until the regulations are changed businesses
  requiring first aid training will still have to
  use a HSE approved provider. Employers will still
  have to ensure that they have adequate first aid
  provision, based on an assessment of their
  individual business needs.
• HSE will retain a role in setting standards by
  controlling the syllabus content for the basic
  first aid at work qualifications.

31
Story courtesy of Safety Management UK

• Roofer Fined 21 Million
• A South Wales roofing firm is negotiating with
  claimants after being ordered to pay more than
  21 million in damages for its part in a fire
  that devastated a West Midlands factory.
• The High Court in London heard on 25 February
  that Bridgend roofer Central Roofing (South
  Wales) had been contracted to refurbish the roof
  of a factory near Wolverhampton operated by
  copper tube manufacturer Mueller Europe.
• The contractor had erected a suspended "birdcage"
  scaffold to work on the roof, which was boarded
  and sheeted with combustible materials and
  enclosed two suspended gas-powered radiant
  heaters, used to heat the factory.
• When the heaters were turned on in the early
  morning of 9 November 2008, they set the
  flammable scaffold alight, sparking a huge fire
  that caused part of the roof to collapse and
  triggered massive damage to the fabric and
  contents of the factory.
• BBC News reported that the judge, Mr Justice
  Stuart-Smith, said the heaters were an "obvious
  fire hazard" that should have been picked up.
• He said that although Mueller should have made
  sure the enclosed heaters were switched off,
  Central Roofing bore the primary responsibility
  to carry out the work safely and to point out the
  obvious hazard. He noted that there had been
  three previous incidents when heaters were
  switched on when they should not have been.
• The judge said "Central continued to take no
  steps to carry out the works safely when they
  knew that Mueller was not routinely isolating
  the heaters and the failure to isolate had
  already caused near misses". He ruled Central
  liable to pay Mueller a total of 21,357,889 in
  compensation for the damage to the factory, its
  contents, machinery, and equipment and for the
  interruption of its business.
• Source IFSEC