iosh safety for executives and directors · representatives. assessment is via an online exam and...
TRANSCRIPT
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2018)
March 2018
HSQE Ltd have added IOSH Safety for
executives and directors to our portfolio of
IOSH approved online courses.
The course is for senior staff with strategic
responsibility for health and safety within
organisations. It is relevant across a broad
range of organisations and sectors. It gives
an understanding of the case for good health
and safety performance, along with how
health and safety can be managed along side
other organisational priorities.
The course is structured around five modules
that follow the Plan-Do-Check-Act format:
• The moral, legal and financial case for
health and safety
• Planning for health and safety
• Implementing for health and safety
• Monitoring health and safety
performance
• Improving health and safety performance
Some quick Q&As about the course:
• Study time? Approximately 8 hours
• Available 24/7? Yes
• Mode of study? Online using any internet-
enabled device, such as a PC, Mac, tablet,
ipad or smart phone
• Tutor support provided? Yes
• Assessment included in the price? Yes
• IOSH certificate included in the price? Yes
• Do you need to attend a training centre?
No.
• Do as well as, or instead of, Managing
safely? It’s up to you. There is some
overlap between this course and IOSH
Managing safely. This course is targeted
more towards Board members. Managing
safely is targeted more towards managers
and supervisors.
You can find out more about this course at:
https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/iosh-safety-
executives-directors/
IOSH Safety for Executives and Directors
can now be studied online with HSQE Ltd
1 to 49 users
£135.00 +vat per user
50+ users
£125.00 +vat per user
What we need
We need you to email us at
[email protected] and ask to remain on
the distribution list for the HSQE newsletter.
Why we need it
The General Data Protect Regulation (GDPR)
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-
the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/
comes into force in May. From that date, we
will need evidence that that anyone on our
distribution list has opted-in to receive our
newsletter. As many of our subscribers have
been with us since 2002, we simply do not
have records that date that far back and will
therefore struggle to meet the consent
requirements in GDPR. So, to ensure we are
100% compliant with GDPR we will be starting
afresh and will destroy our current
distribution list.
Sorry, but we need you to take action to continue receiving
this newsletter from May 2018
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2018)
March 2018
IOSH approved online courses available at www.hsqe.co.uk/courses
IOSH Safety for Executives
and Directors is for senior
staff with strategic
responsibility for health and
safety. It is suited to
executives, directors and
board members. It explains
the case for good health
and safety performance,
along with how health and
safety can be managed
along side other
organisational priorities.
Assessment is via a tutor-
marked personal statement.
IOSH Managing Safely is
relevant to all industries and
organisations. It provides
information about key
health and safety risks
encountered in the
workplace and how those
risks can be managed in a
pragmatic way. It is suited
to managers, supervisors
and employee
representatives. Assessment
is via an online exam and
tutor-marked risk
assessment project.
IOSH Managing Safely in
Construction provides
information about the
construction industry, the
risks that it presents and
how those risks can be
managed in a pragmatic
way. It also covers key
legislation and roles and
responsibilities. It is suited
to managers, supervisors
and employee
representatives. Assessment
is via an online exam and
tutor-marked project.
IOSH Working Safely is
relevant to people in all
industries and
organisations. It provides
information about how
everyone can enhance their
safety, health and
wellbeing through everyday
behaviours.
Rated
“EXCELLENT”
During the 2018 quality assurance
review conducted by IOSH
Rated
“OUTSTANDING”
We are committed to
providing approved
training in vital skills at
an affordable price.
Find out more about us
at www.hsqe.co.uk
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2018)
March 2018
The international standard for
occupational health and safety
management , ‘ISO 45001:
Occupational health and safety
management systems –
Requirements with Guidance for
Use’ was published on 12th
March.
The standard is based on the common elements found in ISOs
management systems standards and so uses the Plan-Do-
Check-Act (PDCA) model. It is designed to integrate with other
ISO management systems standards, such as ISO 9001 (quality
management) and ISO 14001 (environmental management).
ISO 45001 will replace OHSAS 18001. Organisations already
certified to OHSAS 18001 will have three years to comply with
the new ISO 45001 standard, although certification of
conformity to ISO 45001 is not a requirement of the standard.
Copies of the new standard are available from the BSI store at:
https://shop.bsigroup.com/SearchResults/?q=iso%2045001
The Kerslake Report: An independent review
into the preparedness for, and emergency
response to, the Manchester Arena attack on
22nd May 2017 has been published and is
available to view at:
https://www.kerslakearenareview.co.uk/
media/1022/
kerslake_arena_review_printed_final.pdf
Lord Kerslake said there was "a lot to be proud
of in the response to the attack”. "But it's also
vital to learn the lessons around things that did
not go so well," he added.
The panel, chaired by former head of the civil
service Lord Kerslake, found:
• Many key emergency personnel "exercised
sound judgement"
• The force duty officer from GMP is praised
for "dynamic decision making" in allowing
responders to remain in the foyer to carry
out first aid
• Four British Transport Police officers who had been on duty
at Victoria station - which is connected to the arena -
arrived at the scene within 30 seconds of the blast
• However, agencies failed to share information effectively
following the declaration of the incident as a terror attack
• Communication with the families of the dead and injured
was affected by the "complete failure" of a telephone
system supplied by Vodafone, leaving many frantically
searching hospitals for their relatives
• Some bereaved families felt it took too long for them to be
told of their loved ones' deaths
• Families felt "hounded" by the media, with reports of a
"scrum" of journalists outside hospitals
• Children from two families were offered condolences by
reporters at their homes before the deaths had been
officially confirmed
• Hospital staff were offered £2,000 to speak to the press by
way of a note hidden in a tin of biscuits
ISO 45001 published Report into the Manchester bombing published and identifies lessons to learn
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2018)
March 2018
Approved online safeguarding courses available at www.hsqe.co.uk/courses
Musician wins landmark ruling for hearing loss
A viola player who suffered a life-changing
hearing injury during a rehearsal in 2012 has
won a landmark High Court judgment against
the Royal Opera House (ROH). The case has
significant implications for the music industry
and the health and safety of musicians.
It is the first time a judge has scrutinised the
music industry's legal obligations towards
musicians' hearing. The ROH said it was
"surprised and disappointed" by the
judgment.
It is also the first time 'acoustic shock' has
been recognised as a condition which can be
compensated by a court.
At the time of the incident, Mr Goldscheider
was seated directly in front of the brass
section of the orchestra. The noise levels
exceeded 130 decibels during the rehearsal.
His hearing was irreversibly damaged as a
result. Mr Goldscheider claimed damages for
acoustic shock, a condition with symptoms
including tinnitus, hyperacusis and dizziness.
The ROH argued that Mr Goldscheider had
developed a natural hearing condition, known
as Meniere's disease, at exactly the same time
as the super-loud, high intensity noise burst
behind his right ear. But Mrs Justice Nicola
Davies disagreed stating: "I regard the
defendant's contention that Meniere's
disease developed at the rehearsal as
stretching the concept of coincidence too far."
The ROH also argued a balance had to be
struck between preserving the artistic
integrity of the music while doing everything
possible to reduce the risk of damage to
musicians' hearing, that was an inevitable
feature of playing long-term in an orchestra.
The judge again disagreed, ruling that "the
reliance upon artistic value implies that
statutory health and safety requirements
must cede to the needs and wishes of the
artistic output of the Opera company, its
managers and conductors… Such a stance is
unacceptable. Musicians are entitled to the
protection of the law, as is any other worker."
We have added Safeguarding
Vulnerable Adults and
Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults
(Advanced) to our suite of
safeguarding courses.
You can find out more about them
on our website at
https://www.hsqe.co.uk/
safeguarding-courses/
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2018)
March 2018
A manufacturer of agricultural equipment has been fined after
a worker suffered two broken legs when a stack of metal
sheets fell onto his ankles.
High Wycombe Magistrates’ Court heard how an employee of
K Two Sales Ltd accessed the rear of a guillotine to measure
some off-cuts. There were around 20 sheets of 4mm thickness
stacked on top of each other. He tried to remove one of them
causing the whole stack to fall on him. An investigation by the
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident, which
occurred on 10 January 2017, found the steel sheets were
being stored without adequate means to prevent them from
falling.
K Two Sales Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the
Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £22,000
and ordered to pay full costs of £1,647.20.
Speaking after the case, HSE inspector Stephen Faulkner said:
“This injury could have easily been prevented had the risk
been identified.
A solar panel installation company and its sole director have
been fined for failing to manage and control fall from height
risks.
Reading Crown Court heard how, after a concern was raised by
a member of public, a Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
inspector made a visit to the site where Sasie Limited was
installing solar panels on the roof of a commercial building.
The inspector identified workers on the roof without any form
of fall protection and a prohibition notice was served. When
the HSE inspector returned to the site three days later there
was further unsafe work being carried out on the roof.
Sasie Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) and
Sections 33(1)(g) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act
1974 and also Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height
Regulations 2005. The company was fined £10,000 and
ordered to pay costs of £6,300.
The director pleaded guilty to breaching two counts of Section
37(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was
fined £500.
Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Dominic Goacher said
“Falls from heights are one of the biggest causes of workplace
fatalities and major injuries.
“All work at height must be properly planned irrespective of
the task being undertaken and those in control must ensure
suitable control measures to prevent falls are in place
throughout the duration of the project”.
A farming company has been fined after a worker fell from a
ladder sustaining significant injuries.
Greater Manchester Magistrates’ Court heard how, on 28
January 2016, an employee of Edge Farming Company was
cleaning the gutters on a farm building when the ladder he was
working on slipped down the face of the building. The
employee suffered a broken arm, shoulder and fractured
elbow as a result.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE),
found there was inadequate control measures in place with
regards to working at height. There was no specific risk
assessment for the cleaning of gutters even though it was a
regular occurrence on the farm and the company failed to
ensure that there was appropriate information, instruction,
training and supervision. The defendant had also failed to
report the accident within the required timeframe.
Edge Farming Company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2
(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and
Regulation 4 of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and
Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) and has been
fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,826.74 .
Speaking after the case HSE inspector Rose Leese-Weller said:
“This incident could have been fatal. Those in control of work
have a responsibility to devise safe methods of work and to
provide the necessary information, instruction and training to
their workers. For example, the work in this case could easily
have been carried out using a mobile elevated work platform
or a properly designed and erected mobile scaffold tower.”
Manufacturer fined Company and director fined Fine following fall from ladder
To receive the HSQE newsletter
each month, just send an email to:
Past copies of the HSQE
newsletter are available from:
www.hsqe.co.uk/downloads
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2018)
March 2018
Approved online courses available at www.hsqe.co.uk/courses
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2018)
March 2018
An unregistered gas fitter was handed a 26-month suspended
sentence for carrying out gas work after his Gas Safe
Registration had been removed and he had been prohibited
from carrying out further work on gas appliances and fittings.
Coventry Magistrates’ Court heard that 71-year-old Harcharan
Singh Sembi continued to carry out unsafe work on gas
appliances despite having been removed from the Gas Safe
Register and prohibited from doing further gas work by the
Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
An investigation by the HSE found that Mr Sembi was removed
from the Gas Safe Register for failing to meet competency
standards.
Mr Harcharan Singh Sembi pleaded guilty to breaching
Regulation 3(3) of the Gas Safety (Installation & Use) 1998
Regulations and was sentenced to 12 months in custody,
suspended for two years. Mr Sembi also pleaded guilty to
breaching Section 33 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act
1974 and was sentenced to 14 months in custody, suspended
for two years. He was also ordered to undertake 40 hours of
unpaid work.
In his sentencing remarks, HHJ Potter commented that Mr
Sembi’s offences were so serious that he would have imposed
an immediate custodial sentence if his personal circumstances
had been different. The defendant’s age and the
circumstances around the support available to his elderly wife
were factors taken into consideration by the Judge in
concluding that a suspended sentence was proportionate.
An agricultural engineering company was fined for serious
safety failings after a worker was injured at its premises near
Blackburn, Lancashire.
Preston Magistrates Court heard how, on 25 November 2016,
a 17-year-old trainee was working for Malcolm E Taylor Ltd at
the company’s site in Langho when he was pulled into
machinery used to make cladding for agricultural buildings.
The employee’s left arm became trapped between the metal
sheeting he was holding and rollers as it was fed into the
machine. The young worker suffered extensive damage to his
left forearm, leaving him in chronic pain and with significant
impairment to the use of his arm.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that
it was possible for employees to reach dangerous parts of the
roll-forming machine when it was in operation as Malcolm E
Taylor Ltd had failed to suitably guard the machine.
Malcolm E Taylor Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11
(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations
1998. The company was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay
costs of £2,967.82.
Following the case, HSE inspector Anthony Banks said:
“The dangers of unguarded machinery are well-known. If
Malcolm E Taylor Ltd had ensured that suitable guarding was
in place, then this incident would have been avoided.
Companies should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take
enforcement action when the required standards are not
met”.
A construction firm has been fined after failing to safeguard
the public and workers from an unsafe excavation and lifting
operation, and not providing adequate welfare facilities for
workers on site.
Greater Manchester Magistrates’ Court heard how, on 23 June
2016, Toft Construction Limited were undertaking the
refurbishment of a domestic property in Salford. A Health and
Safety Executive (HSE) inspector issued two prohibition notices
(PNs) to the company when he found an unsupported, deep
excavation in the front garden with insufficient controls to
prevent members of the public accessing the hazard. The
inspector also found a steel beam being lifted unsafely. There
were no toilet and washing facilities for workers on the site.
The company also failed to comply with an improvement
notice that was issued after the inspector’s visit, for failing to
provide suitable and sufficient welfare facilities.
The HSE investigation found that Toft Construction Ltd did not
properly plan the lifting operations or carry it out safely. The
company failed to take suitable and sufficient measures to
prevent falls into the excavation and to fence it off to prevent
risks to the public.
Toft Construction Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Sections
2(1), 3(1) and Section 33(1) (g) of the Health and Safety at
Work etc. Act 1974. The company also pleaded guilty to
breaching Regulations 15(11) and Regulation 2 of the
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015.
The company was fined £20,000 with £5,176.90 costs.
Unregistered gas fitter fined Engineering company fined Unsafe practices led to fine
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2018)
March 2018
A scaffolding company and its managing director have been
sentenced after one of its scaffolders suffered a serious injury
whilst taking down a scaffold.
The Court heard LS Scaffolding was contracted to erect a
scaffold and temporary roof over a pair of houses. A worker
fell and broke his femur while dismantling the structure.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into
the incident, that occurred on 28 July 2016, found that LS
Scaffolding Ltd regularly used untrained workers and failed to
ensure scaffold structures were designed by competent
persons. The investigation also found that the company and its
director failed to ensure the work on a complex scaffold was
properly planned, supervised or carried out.
LS Scaffolding Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 4 (1)
and 8(b) (ii) of The Work at Height Regulations 2005. The
company was fined £47,000 and ordered to pay costs of
£7,371 with a £170 surcharge. Lakhbir Khakh, director of LS
Scaffolding Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching two counts of
Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and
was sentenced to 18 weeks custodial sentence suspended for
12 months and was fined £1,700 with a £115 surcharge.
After the hearing, HSE inspector Dominic Goacher
commented: “It is essential that scaffolding companies ensure
that non-standard scaffolds are safely erected to a design
produced by a competent scaffold engineer and that safe
systems of work are planned and used by competent
workers.”
Airport baggage and cargo handler Swissport GB Limited has
been fined following two accidents at Luton Airport in 2015.
On the 23 June 2015, a ramp agent and team leader was
working at Luton Airport. Using a flatbed lorry and a belt
loader the team leader and his team unloaded the bags from
an aircraft onto a flatbed lorry. Whilst standing on the back of
the flatbed, the worker directed a colleague to take the bags
to the airport inbound terminal. The colleague climbed into
the cab of the flatbed, checked his mirrors and drove away not
realising the team leader was still on the vehicle when it drove
away. The worker fell off the moving vehicle onto the ground
sustaining bruising and damage to his spine. He was off work
for eight weeks.
On 9 September 2015 a second team leader employed by
Swissport was working at Luton Airport on a night shift loading
cargo onto an aircraft using a high-loader. A high-loader has a
platform that raises cargo from the ground up to the aircraft
hold and extends to approximately 9 metres. The high-loader
had been partially raised when the team leader began climbing
the access ladder. As he was climbing the ladder, one of his
feet slipped and he fell backwards to the ground suffering an
impact injury to his right foot.
Luton Crown Court heard that Swissport GB Limited had not
adequately assessed the risk or implemented a safe system of
work to address the risk of employees falling from the rear of
flatbed vehicles being driven away with workers still on the
flatbed. The court heard that Swissport had failed to ensure
that work at height on high-loaders was properly planned,
appropriately supervised and carried out in a safe manner.
Swissport GB Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2 (1) and
3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work1974 and Regulation 4
(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and has been fined
£502,000 and ordered to pay costs of £44,444.
Scaffolding company fined Swissport GB fined for safety failings at Luton airport
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2018)
March 2018
Rated
“EXCELLENT”
Approved online courses available at www.hsqe.co.uk/courses
You can see what other customers
think about us at
https://www.reviews.co.uk/
company-reviews/store/hsqe-ltd
The feedback we get is collected
from genuine customers via an
independent review service. We do
not believe in publishing just
glowing testimonials from
unverified sources. Ours are warts
and all!
Please get in contact with us at
[email protected] if you do not
see what you are after or if you’d
just like to ask us a question.
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2018)
March 2018
Network Rail Infrastructure Limited has been fined £733,000
for a freight train derailment that occurred in 2013.
The train partially
derailed four miles
south-west of
Gloucester station. It
continued to travel
until it reached
Gloucester West
Junction, where a
collision with the facing points caused an empty 5.9 tonne
container to dislodge and fall down an embankment. The
result was extensive damage and debris fell on to the road
below.
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) found that while staff based
at Network Rail’s Gloucester maintenance depot had identified
an ongoing track defect, heightened by inadequate drainage at
the site of the derailment, its short and medium term repairs
were ineffective and the planned long term solution had not
been implemented.
The ORR prosecuted Network Rail for breaching section 3(1) of
the Health and Safety at Work Act at Bristol Crown Court.
Network Rail was also ordered to pay £70,000 costs.
The Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) report can be
accessed at: https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/freight-train-
derailment-near-gloucester
The BBC have run a story about two maintenance workers who
were sacked for raising health and safety concerns about
working in Liverpool Prison.
According to the report, Amey hold the contract for prison
repairs. Amey had sacked the two workers for bringing the
company into disrepute by discussing new working practices
with the prison governor. But an Industrial tribunal disagreed
and ruled that the men were unfairly dismissed.
The men had raised concern that under new changes, staff
were required to carry out most jobs alone, rather than in
pairs. (which had been the practice for many years.) The men
were concerned that their tools and other work equipment
could be snatched by prisoners and used as weapons.
The article can be accessed at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
uk-england-merseyside-43350287
A Birmingham based motor vehicle company has been fined
after an apprentice suffered head injuries whilst undertaking
maintenance work on a commercial vehicle.
Birmingham Magistrates’ Court heard how the Central England
Municipals Limited (CEML) apprentice employee was working
alongside an experienced mechanic replacing air suspension
bags beneath a 39,000kg trailer. The air suspension bag was
still under pressure and ejected sideways striking the injured
person.
The employee suffered a fractured skull and was placed in an
induced coma as a result of this incident.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into
the incident, which occurred on 5 June 2017, found there was
a failure to assess risk, a failure to implement a safe system of
work and a failure to ensure that employees were
appropriately trained and monitored to ensure the task could
be carried out safely.
Central England Municipals Limited (trading as M6
Commercials) pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and has been fined
£20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £921.40.
Speaking after the case HSE inspector Christopher Maher said:
“If a suitable safe system of work has been in place prior to the
incident, the life changing injuries sustained by the employee
could have been prevented.”
Network rail fined for a derailment Unfair dismissal Apprentice fractures skull
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2018)
March 2018
A construction company has been fined after it carried out
unsafe and unlicensed asbestos removal during the
refurbishment works in a junior school in Dursley.
Cheltenham Magistrates Court heard how, in October 2016, R
F Gardiner Limited removed asbestos in an unsafe manner and
did not have the appropriate licence to carry out the work.
Operatives working for the company were exposed to high
levels of airborne asbestos fibres during the removal work as
no water suppression was used and they had not been face-fit
tested for the face mask they were wearing.
An enclosure under negative pressure was not set up to
contain the asbestos fibres released during the removal and as
such asbestos fibres were spread to the surrounding area.
Workers also had no way of decontaminating onsite on
completion of the work.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
found that poor planning of the work meant that unsafe and
unlicensed asbestos removal work was undertaken.
R F Gardiner Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 8(1),
11(1) and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and
was fined £28,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,141.80.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector James Lucas said
“The company in this case should have ensured appropriate
measures were identified during the planning process to
include the engagement of a licensed asbestos contractor to
carry out correct control measures and safe working practices
for the removal of the asbestos.
A plastic product manufacturer has been fined £1million after
a delivery driver was fatally injured.
Cambridge Crown Court heard how Gareth Wilson, a delivery
driver for Mark Doel Transport Ltd, was fatally injured when he
was struck by a fork lift truck which had large coils suspended
from the forks.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
found Glynwed Pipe Systems Ltd failed to properly manage
workplace transport in the yard area where employees and
members of the public were exposed to the risk of being
hit. The investigation also found that the systems of work in
place were not, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe.
Glynwed Pipe Systems Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching
Regulation 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc.
Act 1974 and have been fined £1million and ordered to pay
costs of £27,942.57
Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Roxanne Barker
said: “There are more than 5,000 accidents involving transport
in the workplace every year, and, like in this case, sadly some
of which are fatal.
“The HSE investigation found the yard was not organised to
allow safe circulation of people and traffic as appropriate
routes were not identified and therefore insufficient in
number. A properly implemented Traffic Management Plan
should have identified sufficient measures for the separation
of vehicles and people including protected walkways, clear
signage and barriers.”
Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust has been fined £2m
after a series of management failings led to the deaths of two
vulnerable patients at different facilities owned by the Trust.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecution follows the
deaths of 45-year-old Teresa Colvin at a Southampton Mental
Health Hospital and the death of 18-year-old Connor
Sparrowhawk at a specialist unit in Oxford. Both centres were
under the management of Southern Health NHS Foundation
Trust.
Oxford Crown Court heard both HSE investigations found a
series of management failings leading up to both deaths
including a failure to control risks, and failures in planning.
Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, pleaded guilty to two
breaches of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc.
Act 1974. For the breach relating to Teresa Colvin, the
sentence was a £950,000 fine. For the breach relating to
Connor Sparrowhawk’s death, the sentence was a fine of
£1,050,000.
HSE’s deputy director of field operations Tim Galloway said:
“These tragic incidents could have wholly been avoided with
better supervision and planning. Instead two families are left
utterly devastated and let down by those who had a duty of
care for their loved ones.
“The Trust was responsible for caring for those suffering with
mental health issues and caring for those with learning
difficulties. On these two occasions it failed these two patients
and their families.”
Unsafe work with asbestos leads to fine £1m fine following fatal injury NHS trust fined
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2018)
March 2018
Anglian Water has agreed to pay £50,000 to an environmental
charity after a manhole overflowed with black sludge and grey
liquid into a watercourse in Bedfordshire due to a blocked
sewer.
An enforcement undertaking (EU) has been agreed with the
water company, which has donated £50,000 to the Wildlife
Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and
Northamptonshire. The Environment Agency accepted the
offer by the water company to put right any damage caused by
the pollution and to donate to an environmental charity.
The money is to benefit the local environment of Nene Valley
and Ouse Valley Living Landscape areas. Anglian Water also
paid back the Environment Agency’s costs of £3,451.
Chris Tate, Environment Agency Team
Leader, said:
“Enforcement undertakings allow those
who commit offences to restore the
environment and to take steps to prevent
a recurrence.
“When appropriate, they allow a quicker
resolution than a prosecution and help
offenders who are prepared to take
responsibility for their actions to put things
right voluntarily working with their local
communities.”
Due to the pollution, which raised
ammonia levels in the watercourse at
Highfield Farm near Ravensden, the
incident was classified as a category 2 by
the Environment Agency.
The blockage in the sewer was in the
branch from Yarlswood Immigration
Centre and included single-use shampoo sachets which the
immigration centre provided for its residents. There had been
six blockages on the same stretch of sewer since 2011 when
the sewer was transferred to AWS. It was not mapped onto
the company’s mapping system until after this incident in June
2015.
A Lincolnshire holiday park company has been ordered to pay
over £8,500 after illegally burning waste on one of their sites.
Seaside Leisure Parks Ltd was convicted for burning a waste
pile consisting of mattresses, sofas, and plastic chairs among
other things on 4 July 2017. The Environment Agency (EA),
which brought the case also found evidence of previous waste
fires on site.
The Fire and Rescue Service had to attend to put out the fire.
Following this incident, the company did not take the
appropriate action to remove the waste for another month,
instead leaving the waste and fire residues on site. By not
paying for legal disposure of the waste, Seaside Leisure Parks
Ltd avoided costs of approximately £2,000. The company had
previously been warned for the same type of offending in two
letters from the EA in 2010. At interview, the company
admitted that the waste costs formed a considerable part of
their running costs.
Seaside Leisure Parks Ltd was convicted ordered to pay a
£5,000 fine as well as £3,496.50 in costs and a victim surcharge
of £170.
Anglian Water pays £50,000 after water pollution incident Unsafe practices led to fine
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2018)
March 2018
The government has announced that people in England will
soon have to pay a deposit when they buy drinks bottles and
cans in a bid to boost recycling and cut waste.
The deposit will increase prices, but consumers will get the
money back if they return the container.
The scheme is expected to cover single-use glass and plastic
bottles, and steel and aluminium cans.
Full details are subject to consultation and yet to be decided,
including how big the deposit will be. But similar schemes
elsewhere range from 22p in Germany and 8p in Sweden.
Environment Secretary Michael Gove said there was no doubt
that plastic was "wreaking havoc" on the marine environment
and discarded plastic bottles and cans "end up dumped on
pavements and lobbed into rivers, lakes and the sea".
He continued:
"We have already banned harmful microbeads and cut plastic
bag use, and now we want to take action on plastic bottles to
help clean up our oceans.
"We need to see a change in attitudes and behaviour. And the
evidence shows that reward and return schemes are a
powerful agent of change.”
Scotland has already announced plans for a deposit return
scheme. Wales is looking to help implement a UK-wide system.
Northern Ireland will consider the approach as part of a
review .
Similar schemes around the world have led to significant
increases in the amount of plastic recycled.
Tests on major brands of bottled water have found that nearly
all of them contained tiny particles of plastic.
In the largest investigation of its kind, 250 bottles bought in
nine different countries were examined.
Research led by journalism organisation Orb Media discovered
an average of 10 plastic particles per litre, each larger than the
width of a human hair.
The tests were conducted at the State University of New York
in Fredonia.
Currently, there is no evidence that ingesting very small pieces
of plastic (microplastics) can cause harm, but understanding
the potential implications is an active area of science.
The report can be accessed at:
https://orbmedia.org/sites/default/files/
FinalBottledWaterReport.pdf
Deposit scheme for drinks containers announced Plastic particles found in bottled water
To receive the HSQE newsletter
each month, just send an email to:
Past copies of the HSQE
newsletter are available from:
www.hsqe.co.uk/downloads
UK consumers use around 13 billion plastic
drinks bottles a year. Of those, about 3 billion
are not recycled.