Health & Safety gone mad
There is a much welcome trend towards a common sense approach by the Government towards simplifying health and safety law but it may take some time for big organizations to start adapting to this and relaxing what has become an overly cautious, knee jerk and bureaucratic approach.
It should never be forgotten that tragic situations arise from failure to deal appropriately with health and safety but such tragedies can also occur, it seems, from an approach based on rules and bureaucracy. This tends to happen when staff in the NHS are unable to assist patients in dire need of urgent help due to health and safety reasons. This is highlighted by the following case.
In January 2011, 14-year-old Shannon Powell collapsed on a cross country race course. She had suffered a violent fit. Due to health and safety reasons, including that one paramedic was concerned she might put her back out lifting the patient it took paramedics an hour to reach the young girl because conditions were muddy and tragically, Shannon died. The coroner found that the death may well have been averted if the paramedics had got to the girl earlier and that the reason why they hadn’t was health and safety related.
In a recent survey of 1,000 members of the College of Paramedics over 70% said that they had experienced situations where they could not operate as they otherwise would due to health-and-safety regulations imposed by managers.
We realise this is a difficult balancing act, particularly in big business where the obligations will be more strictly applied, with the possibility of personal injury or other claims by staff, but the above story highlights that in some sectors and jobs, there are instances where the risk of inaction is as bad if not worse than the risk of action.
A catastrophic accident caused by a toppling crane not only resulted in the tragic and avoidable death of a worker but also criminal liability and a fine of £80,000.00 for a Director of the employer (now in liquidation), evidencing that, when it comes to major breaches of Health and Safety, it’s not possible to hide behind the “corporate veil”.
The accident in 2007 happened when the deceased, Richard Thornton was crushed under a 50-tonne crane because the crane was too far away from the steal column it was lifting. the preosecution of the company and director was on the grounds that :-
- the work had not been planned and carried out safely
- the crane had not been properly maintained – it’s alarm was not fit for purpose and, crucially, override switches were also faulty. Had such switch been working it would have prevented the lift in the first place due to the overload.
This is another tragic case and it clearly evidences that if not on conscience grounds, directors should be very aware that they can be hit very hard financially if they do not take health and safety seriously.
Good blogging in our view is all about sharing. sometimes we come across excellent resources, even if they are competing for readers or on any other level, it’s important to share that resource to give readers the benefit.
So, here goes. This link is to an excellent basic questionnaire about your business’ compliance or otherwise with health and safety. As so many small businesses find it so difficult to get a quick understanding of the basics, we think this questionnaire is really useful. Hope you do also.
Reform of Health and Safety Law
The Government has accepted the recommendations made in the recent review, which means the following changes and simplifications are coming, which will be welcomed by most businesses :
- Most businesses will no longer need to deal with health and safety inspections. The emphasis will be on high-risk businesses, both due to risk levels and past conduct
- Business which do not take health & safety seriously will end up being liable for the costs of the investigation into their activities
- A voluntary Occupational Safety and Health Consultants Register (OSHCR) will be set up as a way of making it easier for a business seeking some health & safety guidance to find an accredited expert
- A review will be completed in the autumn to simplify health & safety regulations
- New sources of online guidance are available by the HSE.
Posted in Reform
|
Tagged Reform
|
Falling from heights
Serious injuries and death are still, tragically, far from uncommon caused by working at height. Many of these serious injuries and deaths result from falls from 20-30 feet or less.
In a recent health & safety prosecution case relating to a Barnet wholesaler, an employee died due to a fall from a stepladder. It is all too easy to consider that such regular activities as work on ladders should not require consideration of safe systems of work, but as falls can have such devastating consequences, use of ladders and working at height are some of the most important things to be aware of.
In this case, the deceased was working as a handyman and was instructed to build some shelving in the storeroom by the site manager. He fell and upon inspection of the stepladder it was found to be in poor and inadequate condition. The wholesaler has been fined and the HSE state that this type of risk is clearly foreseeable, and a full site-specific risk assessment and plan should have been undertaken.
In addition to working on ladders, other types of tragic accidents at height commonly involve working on roofs, which can contain loose tiles and skylights which may not be immediately visible.
Beware Health & Safety Executive costs orders
Breaching health & safety laws not only can result in horrific injuries to staff, significant fines which can run into the tens of thousands but potentially also now paying expensive costs of investigation.
There will be a 3 month consultation period on the possibility of charging time costs estimated at more than £130.00 per hour, together with the expense of any specialised investigation services. Under the proposals, invoices raised for these cost will need to be paid within 30 days and the HSE will be tasked with vigorously pursuing payment recovery.
Posted in Uncategorized
|
Tagged costs, hse
|
Health & Safety gone mad ?!
A primary school has confiscated a tub of vaseline from a young girl, which she was using for dry lips, on the basis it created a health and safety issue since at the time she brought it into school, it had not been prescribed as medicine but instead had simply been bought by her mother at the chemist.
The school and local authority took the line that it had clear rules on bringing non-prescribed substances into the school, and were not prepared to make any exception. We can understand this policy line to a extent but it isn’t really use of common sense.
The mother of the child in question was offered the choices of :-
- Coming into school herself with the Vaseline every day at certain times to apply it to her child
- Getting it prescribed by the GP
Not surprisingly, the mother opted for the second choice.
Lack of balance in Health & safety
As with many areas of law, it can be difficult to find the right balance between risk, legal liability, practicality and common sense .
Health & Safety law is a particularly difficult area, since getting it wrong can lead to catastrophic results and yet, overdoing it can also have unwanted effects.
In an unusual development, the Health & Safety Executive said this week that some schools are possibly using the health and safety laws to save money by cancelling trips due to health and safety issues.
The chairperson of the Executive, Ms Hackitt apparently advised the Daily Telegraph that health and safety had become “shorthand for someone, somewhere, stopping someone from doing something they want to”.
This is a highly unusual statement and signals an intent from the Government and the Executive are taking this issue seriously, as also indicated by new guidance from the Department for Education which has issued much simpler guidelines for school trips, with common sense to the fore.
The new guide :-
- Provides a summary of legal duties of schools, including head teachers, governors and the Local Authority;
- Provides that formal risk assessments are not always required for each trip;
- Advises that consent from parents is not required for most activities for children even where off-site
In another somewhat unusual development, leading school insurers welcomed the loosening of controls and stated that personal injury claims involving children represent only 3% of local authority insurance claims. But try telling that to the parents of a child injured at school or on a trip ….
What do you think ?
New stress guide for business
In the modern working world, stress is becoming a major health & safety and legal risk for employers. As the world just gets faster and faster, it is likely the position will only get worse, so a new guide for employers to help them assess and manage stress at work risks can only be welcomed. This guide has been published by the well respected British Standards Institution.
The guide, known as PAS 1010 ‘Guidance on the management of psychosocial risks in the workplace’ is now also being looked at, in terms of ongoing development, by such esteemed organisations as the World Health Organisation & Health and Safety Executive so compliance with the standards is also likely to constitute “good practice” in legal terms.
The BSI advises that stress at work issues are believed to significantly impact, in terms of adverse mental and physical health conditions, up to 40 million employees in the European Union and that the estimated cost to the European Union economic zone is prohibitive. Coming back to the guidance, it is primarily based on psychosocial risk management techniques, which look at risks associated with the social context of work and the way the workplace is organised.
Tesco – not perfect ?!
Whilst Tesco is not perfect (who or what organisation is) it has rightly gained a reputation as a very efficiently run company, but it is not immune from making the odd legal mistake. Due to a Health & Safety breach, the company has been fined £48,000 on admitting health and safety breaches.
Tesco was prosecuted in relation to practices surrounding loading and unloading of vehicles at its store in Warfield together with failure to report 3 staff incidents in the area.
