There is now agreement that the UK economy is firmly in recession and as a consequence businesses are paying particular attention to their costs. The search for savings which is taking place in the majority of board rooms up and down the country is now in sharp focus, and inevitably some decision makers may view it’s health and safety activities, for example, health and safety training or investment in new plant and equipment, as one of their cost cutting targets.

In response to this debate, numerous articles have been written in various publications aimed at small – medium enterprises, which argue that businesses must maintain investment levels and not to cut corners on health and safety during the economic downturn. Indeed, The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents is urging UK employers not to turn a blind eye on safety spending and to treat the investment as an essential economic ingredient.

Roger Bibbings, RoSPA Occupational Safety Adviser, said: “Given the current financial climate, there is a danger that occupational health and safety could be seen as a problem largely solved - a ‘nice-to-have’ rather than a really essential social and economic ingredient. There could be a temptation to cut corners, reduce standards or delay introducing essential protective measures.

But we must avoid seeing an increase in the number of health and safety casualties as part of the price to be paid by workers and members of the public for the recession.

In addition to the legal and moral reasons for preventing accidents and ill-health, employers also need to recognise the strong business case, which exists even when times are tough.

Risk assessments are a case in point. While ‘suitable and sufficient’ risk assessments are a legal requirement, they do not have to mean an overload of red tape and, properly undertaken, they should help businesses to direct scarce resources towards priority issues.”

Roger Bibbings continued: “But a more compelling argument for keeping faith with health and safety in a recession is that when there are no longer opportunities to improve the bottom line by increasing turnover, controlling loss becomes even more important. And recession is coming at a time when penalties for non-compliance are being increased substantially and third parties such as clients are continuing to demand higher standards. In an increasingly competitive environment, the ability to demonstrate effective health and safety management will be all the more important in winning future business.”

In addition to RoSPA’s view, the Government is certainly showing no sign of deferring the introduction of new regulations, which in times of recession, is often called for by some trade organisations, to ‘soften’ the impact of the downturn. The Health and Safety Offences Act 2008, a new piece of legislation that will give courts greater powers of sentencing and increase fines for those who breach health and safety legislation, came into force on 16th January 2009.

The Act amends Section 33 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, and raises the maximum penalties available to the courts in respect of certain health and safety offences.

The Act widens the range of offences for which an individual can be imprisoned and increases the maximum penalties that can be imposed for health and safety regulation breaches, from £5,000 to £20,000 in the lower courts. Sentences can now be more easily set at a level that will deter businesses that do not take their health and safety management responsibilities seriously and further encourage employers and others to comply with the law.

Furthermore, by extending the £20,000 maximum fine to the lower courts and making imprisonment an option, more cases will be resolved in the lower courts so that justice will be more expedient, less costly and more efficient. Whereas in the past there were more limited options, jail sentences for particularly blameworthy health and safety offences committed by individuals, can now be imposed reflecting the severity of such crimes.

There are no changes to the existing legal duties of businesses and the HSE have made it clear that their enforcement policy will target “those who cut corners, gain commercial advantage over competitors by failing to comply with health and safety law and who put workers and the public at risk.” Good employers and managers have nothing to fear. The full text of the Act can be found at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080020_en_1

So in conclusion, despite the recession, businesses are still operating and employees and others continue to encounter occupational hazards on a daily basis. Effective health and safety risk management therefore, remains as important as ever and with the recent addition to the UK’s occupational safety and health legal framework, robust health and safety controls remain just as important now as they are during times of economic growth.

Phil Jones (Director - Quantum Risk Management Ltd)

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health and safety news

HSE launches new website to prevent work-related stress

The HSE has unveiled a new stress website that will help businesses prevent work-related stress.

The website includes updated advice and guidance, tools to help prevent stress at work, a self-assessment questionnaire for line managers, case studies and good practical examples of things that have worked well for other organisations. The focus of the new website will be the Management Standards for work-related stress which have already been used successfully by many organisations.

Last year in Great Britain a total of 13.5 million days were lost to work-related stress. It is a major cause of occupational ill health. It is a major cause of occupational ill health resulting in sickness absence, high staff turnover and poor performance for organisations. HSE’s Management Standards can help to manage the issue sensibly and minimise the impact of work-related stress on businesses.

Launching the new stress website today at the health and wellbeing at work exhibition, Peter Brown, Head of the HSE Health and Work Division said: “Pressure is part and parcel of all work and helps to keep us motivated, but excessive pressure can lead to stress which undermines performance, is costly to employers and can make people ill.To find out how the management standards can work for you log onto www.hse.gov.uk/stress.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1500 Refurbishment sites targeted

Last year (2007/08) over half of the workers who died on construction sites worked in refurbishment, repair and maintenance, in line with a similar statistic the previous year (2006/07). The HSE has announced that throughout March it again aims to inspect 1500 refurbishment sites across Great Britain, to tackle poor health and safety standards.

In support of its Shattered Lives and Hidden Killer campaigns, HSE’s inspectors will be targeting principal contactors to see how they are managing:
- Working at height safely;
- Good order on site; and
- The risks associated with exposure to asbestos.

HSE has warned that contractors can once again expect strong enforcement action. Indeed, in just the last two years, during similar inspection initiatives, HSE’s Construction Inspectors carried out over 2,400 refurbishment site inspections nationally, resulting in enforcement action being taken on around 1 in 3 of the sites visited.

During the inspection initiative, HSE inspectors will be looking at whether:

Jobs that involve working at height have been identified and properly planned to ensure that appropriate precautions are in place
- Equipment is correctly installed / assembled, inspected and maintained and used properly
- Sites are well organised, to avoid trips and falls
- Walkways and stairs are free from obstructions
- Work areas are clear of unnecessary materials and waste
- The risks associated with exposure to asbestos are managed correctly and carried out in accordance with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 where applicable
- The work force is made aware of risk control measures.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Health and safety court round-up
 
Company directors warned of their duty to protect staff following death

The HSE has warned company directors of their personal duty to protect their employees following the death of a 17-year-old apprentice.

A company director from Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, was fined £7,500 and ordered to pay costs of £2,500 at Nottingham Crown Court after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 4 (1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

On 6 November 2006, the apprentice was working at Chris Pridmore Joinery Ltd's workshop on the Maun Valley Trading Estate in Sutton-in-Ashfield, when a stack of MDF boards fell on him. He later died in Kings Mill Hospital from serious head injuries. The boards were stored on top of a bench in the workshop and fell because a bracket that was intended to restrain them was not strong enough to support their weight. The bracket failed after only a week in use.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Company prosecuted after ignoring improvement notice
 
The HSE have warned companies that they face serious consequences if they do not carry out repairs or comply with Improvement Notices.

The warning follows the prosecution of DG Engineering Co. Ltd, St Helens, who failed to carry out repairs or comply with an Improvement Notice to repair the workshop roof, which placed the health and safety of employees at risk.

The company pleaded guilty to two charges under health and safety legislation and were fined a total of £5,000 and ordered to pay £1,628 costs. The company were also ordered to carry out the repairs within four months.

The site is an engineering workshop where racking for the glass industry is fabricated. The company were charged under Section 2(2)(d) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 that they failed to ensure that the roof of the engineering workshop was kept in a safe condition and failing to comply with an enforcement notice served under Section 21.

The court heard that on the 7 June 2007 the HSE received an anonymous complaint about the condition of the roof of the company. A hole in the roof caused by a missing roof panel meant that workers were affected in poor weather conditions as it rained in on them and was very cold.

The factory owners were asked to write to HSE with their proposed actions but failed to do so. A further complaint was made - the company were contacted and the owners again said they would set out their proposals.

No response was received by HSE and the premises were visited by an inspector who issued an Improvement Notice requiring repairs to be carried out by the 18 January. This notice was not complied with and the company were prosecuted.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Diner fell through hatch while entering restaurant
 
A diner received serious leg injuries after falling down an open hatch at a London restaurant.

Dr Mohan Gopal had decided to have breakfast with his family at Le Pain Quotidien restaurant, in West London, on 9 July 2007, ahead of a planned flight to India. The restaurant was receiving a goods delivery and had left open a floor hatch in order for the goods to be stored in the basement.

The hatch had been left unattended and when Dr Gopal entered the premises he through the opening and fell approximately five metres on to a partially raised scissor lift, before again falling a similar distance onto the storeroom floor. As a result of the accident he tore the ligaments in one of his knees and was rushed to hospital, which caused him to miss his flight.

The restaurant’s owner, Village du Pain Ltd, pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974 at Blackfriars Crown Court on 23 January 2009. The firm was fined £12,500 and ordered to pay £7500 compensation to Dr Gopal and costs of £7000.

In mitigation, the company accepted full responsibility for the accident and admitted that the hatch should not have been left unattended. It also stated that there was a suitable risk assessment in place but staff had failed to follow these requirements. As a result, it has now trained staff about how to use the hatch safely and has made improvements to the hatch, which allow the scissor lift to be flush with the floor when fully extended.

Go Back