Mesothelioma is a long-latency disease, taking anywhere from 15-60 years to develop after exposure to asbestos. Occupational exposure today could have consequences far into the future, the results of which will not be seen for many years. Therefore, we must protect workers now.

According to the HSE, there were 2,218 mesothelioma deaths due to past asbestos exposures in 2023. The majority of current fatalities related to asbestos exposure are generally associated with very high exposures from pre-2000 industrial processes (such as the installation of asbestos-containing products). Whilst annual mesothelioma deaths are expected to reduce as time passes, this will only be true if efforts to control asbestos exposure continue.

Whilst buildings constructed after 2000 are unlikely to contain asbestos, much of the material is still in place in older buildings and people can still be exposed to asbestos fibres if asbestos containing materials are damaged, disturbed, or are not managed properly.

What can we do?

People who might be more likely to be exposed to asbestos include, but are not limited to, those involved in demolition works, drilling, maintenance, and refurbishment. There are also associated risks to the public, and others working close to high-risk areas.

It is important that suitable control measures are in place to avoid exposure to asbestos.

If you are in control of a building (e.g. landlord, occupier, employer), measures to avoid exposing yourself and others may include:

• Understanding where asbestos may be in your property e.g. through undertaking an Asbestos Survey
• Assessing the risk of asbestos exposure
• Informing all relevant parties of the presence of asbestos. This could include employees, contractors, maintenance staff.
• Adhering to Asbestos Management Plans e.g. labelling, encapsulating, removing, and monitoring identified ACMs
• Ensuring those undertaking works are competent and informed (e.g. that they have been provided with a copy of the Asbestos Management Survey, that they have suitable training and understanding, that their RAMS are suitable)

If your work may expose you or others to asbestos, control measures may be to:

• Undertake Asbestos Awareness training
• Undertake and adhering to method statements and risk assessments, including considering if the works can be completed without disturbing asbestos
• Communicate with building occupiers / controllers e.g. obtaining a copy of the Asbestos Survey, verifying construction dates
• Raise concerns where necessary e.g., with the client, supervisors, building controller, a Principal Contractor etc.
• Understand when a licensed contractor must be appointed to undertake asbestos-related works
• Consider and understand who else might be present, and restrict access to the work area
• Use appropriate PPE or RPE

Why mesothelioma awareness matters

Deaths from mesothelioma are preventable. Mesothelioma is often diagnosed late due to its long latency period. Raising awareness helps to promote safer working practices, support affected individuals, and stop more people becoming statistics.

If you need any support with Asbestos Awareness training, development of asbestos policies or understanding the risk, reach out to LRB Consulting Ltd.

The post Asbestos: Raising mesothelioma awareness appeared first on LRB.

While evacuation chairs are not legally mandated, they are often identified as necessary during fire risk assessments, especially in multi-story buildings. The Equality Act 2010 reinforces this duty by prohibiting discrimination against disabled individuals, including in emergency planning.

Types of Emergency Evacuation Plans

Fire risk assessments may recommend evacuation chairs based on the following emergency evacuation plans:

• Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP): Tailored to the needs of a specific individual.
• Standard Emergency Evacuation Plan (SEEP): Designed for visitors or casual users of the building who may be present infrequently or on only one occasion.
• General Emergency Evacuation Plans (GEEP): Used in public spaces and workplaces to ensure the safe evacuation of visitors with disabilities.

Training

When installing evacuation chairs, it is also important to identify and train competent users. Regular practice and refresher training ensure that everyone involved is familiar with the chair’s operation and understands their role in a real emergency. Trained users should be identified in evacuation procedures and communicated with the wider team.

Maintenance

The type and number of chairs required depend on the building layout and occupancy. Once in place, it is essential to establish routine monthly checks and arrange service and inspection by approved contractors*. These records should also be accurately maintained, with dates for renewal also documented appropriately.

Need support?

If you need help developing a PEEP, SEEP, or GEEP, or require support with manual handling or evacuation chair training, reach out to LRB Consulting Ltd. Our experts are here to assist you in ensuring that your emergency plans are comprehensive and inclusive.

*All maintenance should be carried out in line with the Regulatory Reform, BS9999 and the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) Regulation 6.

The post Evacuation chairs: Fire safety planning appeared first on LRB.

We are now several years on from the introduction of the introduction into UK law of the Work at Heights Regulations 2005. Despite that, not all organisations have come to terms with the implications of this law on their work activities.  Many organisations still view the Work at Heights Regulations 2005 as construction-related legislation. The truth is that the regulations apply to all working at height activities in all workplaces. This may include:

• manufacturing areas
• storage areas
• fabrication areas
• mixing areas
• silos
• walkways
• gantries; etc.

In common with nearly all recent health and safety legislation, risk assessment lies at the heart of the Work at Heights Regulations 2005

The risk assessment process aims to avoid the need for working at height where this is reasonably practicable, but where this is not reasonably practicable, to introduce measures to prevent falls and to mitigate the effects of such falls.

Falls remain the biggest cause of Britain’s workplace deaths accounting for about 27% of workplace fatalities. Causes of typical accidents involving working at height include using ladders and stepladders incorrectly, overstretching from ladders and standing on benches or chairs to reach high surfaces. Accidents can also involve access equipment, such as mobile elevated work platforms (MEWP) and suspended access equipment (SAE); window cleaning cradles for example. The big question is how can a business keep its workers safe, and stay compliant with its legal and regulatory obligations?

What is work at height?

1. work in any place, including a place at or below ground level
2. obtaining access to or egress from such place while at work, except by a staircase in a permanent workplace, where, if measures required by these Regulations were not taken, a person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury. There is no minimum height requirement before these regulations apply (such as the two-metre rule) This means that not only must the employer consider elevated workplaces, but any workplace where there is a risk of injury from falling further. This includes areas around ground level openings into vehicle inspection pits and sumps, etc., it also includes areas below ground level where there is a risk of injury from falling.

Employers’ Duties

The duties imposed on an employer by the Work at Heights Regulations 2005 with respect to the employer’s employees will also apply to any other person under their control. Under the new Regulations, every employer must ensure that all work at height is:

• planned properly
• supervised appropriately; and
• carried out in a manner which is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe
• selection of suitable work equipment
• provisions for dealing with emergencies and rescue; and
• regard for weather conditions (where appropriate)

The employer shall ensure that no person engages in any activity (including organisation, planning and supervision) in relation to work at height or work equipment for use in such work unless they are competent to do so or, if being trained, is being supervised by a competent person.

Risk Assessment

As is common in modern health and safety, risk assessment is a key element of the regulations. Regulation 6(1) requires the employer to carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks arising from any work at heights. There will be no need for a specific risk assessment dealing with working at height if this subject has been dealt with fully and satisfactorily in the risk assessments already completed for compliance with Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. For many employers, it will be necessary to revisit these assessments or to complete new “working at height” risk assessments to ensure compliance with the new regulations.

Avoidance of risks from work at height

The employer is under a duty to avoid the need for working at a height where it is reasonably practicable to do so (Regulation 6(2)):

“Every employer shall ensure that work is not carried out at height where it is reasonably practicable to carry out the work safely otherwise than at height.”

Work must be carried out in a manner such employees are not placed at risks of injury from falling from a height if this is reasonably practicable. Where reasonably practicable, work should be carried out at ground level (such as by the use of long-handled tools) rather than at height. This applies to maintenance activities as well as to assembly and production activities.

Prevention of falls

The requirement for prevention of employees working at a height from falling is introduced in Regulation 6(3):

“Where work is carried out at height, every employer shall take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury.”

Where work involves access to areas from where a person may fall, access to that area must be prevented in some way. This may involve several solutions, such as:

• the use of suitable scaffolding systems,
• the use of mobile elevated work platforms and similar equipment,
• the construction of suitable walls or guard-rails (including intermediary guard-rails and toe-boards),
• the use of a harness and anchored lanyard that stops the person reaching the point from which they may fall (such as a 2m lanyard anchored 2.5 m from a fall, i.e. it is too short all allow the person wearing it to reach the edge over which they may fall).

Planning

The law on working at height requires employers to take into account the risk assessment when organising and planning work. That’s how the precautions (or control measures) required can be identified and work carried out with optimum safety. HSE’s clear advice is to avoid working at height whenever it is reasonably practicable to do so. That can mean using alternative methods such as telescopic water fed poles or, most simply of all, cleaning the windows from the inside. The next option should be using an existing place of work that is already safe: a balcony for example.

There are times when working at height is unavoidable. That’s when employers must make sure that the people doing the work are trained and competent, and that the equipment provided is suitable, properly maintained and will be correctly used.

Where use of the access equipment involves a risk of falling, additional measures to minimise the distance and consequences of any fall must be put in place. Prevent any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury (such as by the use of a scaffold platform, erected by a competent person, with double guard-rail and toeboards).

Equally importantly, arrest a fall with equipment to minimise the distance and consequences of a fall. Options include safety nets, where work at height cannot be avoided or the risk of falling prevented.

Many HSE investigations of work at height accidents have been investigated and employers have been prosecuted. Perhaps unsurprisingly, one of the most common findings is that the work was not properly planned and supervised. Follow links to some HSE Prosecutions for Work at Height: Warburtons Case – Tesco Case

Mitigation of the effects of falls 

The employer is under a duty (Regulation 6(5)) to mitigate the effects of falling from a height where it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate the risks of the employee falling.

“Where the measures taken under paragraph (4) do not eliminate the risk of a fall occurring, every employer shall take:

1. suitable and sufficient measures, including the provision of work equipment, to minimise—
   1. the distance and consequences; or
   2. where it is not reasonably practicable to minimise the distance, the consequences, of a fall; and
2. without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (3), such additional training and instruction or other additional suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury

There are several ways of mitigating the effects of a fall from a height, these include:

• the use of a suitable fall arrest system,
• the use of suitably positioned and secured safety nets,
• the use of rail lock systems on vertical ladders,
• the use of suitably sited, specially designed airbags (note, there are, currently, no British or European Standards for such equipment),
• etc.

The specific requirements relating to suitable fall arrest systems are outlined in Schedule 5 to the Working at Height Regulations. Where a risk on a person being injured by a fall exists, the regulations require the use of suitable falls prevention measures and fall mitigation measures. This is a case of both, not either/or.

Falling Objects

Regulation 10 establishes a statutory duty on the employer to take suitable and sufficient steps to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, injury to any person arising from falling objects.

In the case of elevated work and storage areas (such as mezzanine floors), this may mean the provision of: suitable, secure storage facilities; suitable toe boards; suitable fencing or netting; solid walls in place of guard railings; etc.

Danger areas

The Regulations place a duty of the employer to ensure that an area where there remains a residual risk of any person being injured as a result of either a fall or as a result of being struck by a falling object is indicated clearly. As a minimum standard, suitable warning signs (complying with the provisions of the Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996) must be displayed.

Ladders

There has been a great deal of discussion on how the Work at Heights Regulations 2005 affects the use of ladders. The use of ladders is permissible only if the risk assessment has demonstrated that the use of more suitable work equipment is not justified because of the low risk and there is a short duration of use or the existence on site of features which the employer cannot alter.

The above will have the effect of making it difficult to justify the use of ladders for many tasks. Employers will need to consider suitable alternatives, which could include the appropriate use of tower scaffolding and the use of podium steps. Where ladders are used to gain access to elevated work levels, consideration should be given to the provision of a suitable stairway as the primary means of access and egress.

Inspection and records

The employer must make suitable arrangements for all places of work at height, and all equipment used for working at heights, to be checked/inspected by a competent person, with suitable records being kept.

Selection of contractors for working at height

Even when the work at height is contracted out, the employer still has responsibilities. When selecting contractors to work at height, an employer must ensure that the contractor is competent to do such work. In brief, the employer should: Determine the experience and competence of the contractor by addressing the types of questions below:

• Do they have experience in the type of work?
• Is this supported by references?
• Do their workers have any appropriate qualifications, training and experience? (such as in the use of tower scaffolds, cherry pickers, etc.)
• Are the contractors members of a trade or professional body?
• What is their safety performance like (accident, incident and prosecution history)?
• Can the contractor provide examples of methods of work, risk assessments, etc.
• Do contractors have suitable procedures for managing health and safety?
• Will the contractor be using subcontractors (and how will this be managed)
• How will the contractor supervise and manage their site work?
• How will the contractor monitor and check their safety standards?
• How will the contractor inspect and check their equipment (both owned or hired)?
• Do they have adequate insurance?

Summary

Work at height is still the major cause of death within the workplace. All work at height activities need to be risk assessed, with a view to avoiding the need to work at height. Where this is not reasonably practicable, the work at height needs to be carried out in such a way as to ensure the safety of all those involved.

The post Work at Height appeared first on LRB.

Effective Premises Compliance Audits – Maintain Higher Standards of Health and Safety

The public sector is responsible for a large and varied property portfolio, therefore having robust procedures in place to comply with statutory building compliance responsibilities is crucial to avoiding disasters.

Effective Premises Compliance Audits is a practical and informative course giving you the opportunity to carry out a mock premises compliance audit, which will help you identify risks and demonstrate compliance with the statutory regulations.

Attend to gain the necessary skills to avoid fines, legal and regulatory action. Leave the day confident that you and your organisation is compliant.

Want to know more?

The post Effective Premises Compliance Audits – 03 July, London appeared first on LRB.

If you wish to respond, note that this consultation closes at 11:45 pm on 31 July 2019.

Consultation description
The government is seeking feedback on the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (often referred to as the RRO or the Fire Safety Order) which regulates fire safety in non-domestic premises. This call for evidence is the first step to update the evidence base to ensure that the Fire Safety Order is fit for purpose for all regulated premises. They would like to hear from enforcing authorities, fire safety professionals, those who are regulated by the order and those whose safety must be considered under the order. For workplaces, this includes employers and employees; for the parts used in common in residential buildings, this includes landlords, managing agents and residents.

This call for evidence complements the government’s consultation, Building a Safer Future: Proposals for reform in the building safety regulatory system. Both the consultation and call for evidence are important steps in the government’s programme of work to reform the building regulations and fire safety system, making sure that people are safe, and feel safe, now and in the future.

Do you want to be involved, or just to know more?

If you want to know more, or if you want to offer consultation, then follow this link

The post Fire Safety – The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005: call for evidence appeared first on LRB.

• Who needs to be involved with the risk assessment?
• Should parents see the risk assessment?

It’s important where possible to bring classroom subjects alive. This may involve trips. To do this the school needs to consider what they need to carry out when risk assessing trips. It must be understood that trips which are routine carry no more than an everyday level of risk than a normal school day, such as slips and trips which will be covered by a school’s current policies and procedures. They only need a little extra planning beyond the educational aspect of the trip. They can be considered as lessons in a different classroom.
However, there are a few trips that need an extra bit of planning these types of trips you may find not covered by current policies you have in place. This could be due to:

• The location and distance from the school will students walk to the venue or will a bus be supplied
• Type of activity taking place
• Skilled staff required e.g. first aiders
• Duration and out of normal school hours return

So some trips and visits may need risk assessments, detailed planning and informed approval of headteachers or ( SMT). The person, with the task of preparing the risk assessment, should:

• Be a competent person with the right skills to carry out the risk assessment
• Understand what risks are involved
• Understand the type of activity and know who to contact at the venue to obtain their risk assessment

Most of all, plans should be sensible, focusing on how to manage genuine risks.

Parents may want to have a copy of the risk assessment you have carried out. This may be because their child has a medical issue that needs to be managed and they may want to see if you have considered these risks. So you may need to do a risk assessment for an individual as well as the main assessment. So its sometimes useful to get input from parents but always keep them informed.
When preparing for a trip the school must always obtain written consent for nursery age students. For students over this age, written consent is not needed for most trips as they are classed as part of the curriculum. But its good practice to tell parents about them. The school should also make parents aware about trips so it gives them the opportunity to withdraw the student from that trip.
Written consent is usually only needed for trips that:

• Need a higher level of risk assessment
• Are outside normal school hours

So with that in mind what is a higher level of risk? and could the trip go over normal school time? To avoid this issue it’s better to ask a parent to sign a consent form when the student enrols as this will cover them for their whole time at school.

At LRB consulting we have consultants that can help and guide you with your trips and visits risk assessments

The post Advice and tips to avoid risky school trips! appeared first on LRB.

Reliance on the use of contractors has increased dramatically over recent years in most employment sectors.

Organisations are increasingly concentrating on core activities and operations and are taking on contract staff for chore activities as well as for specific (construction) projects. Many organisations, for example, make use of contract cleaning staff in place of their own cleaning operatives.  Many organisations also take advantage of the increased flexibility with respect to labour that comes from the appropriate use of contract staff.  Many seasonal activities, such as fruit picking have always relied on temporary labour.  In recent years this trend has increased, with more and more organisations taking advantage of the increased flexibility from the use of contract or agency workers.  This increased use of contract staff may present the organisation’s management with various challenges, but in most situations, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.  It is essential, however, that the health and safety implications of this increased use of contract staff are considered and appropriate controls implemented.

Although there are many reasons for using contractors, there are also some disadvantages, including unfamiliarity of the contractor with the employer’s: business, Health and Safety management systems, procedures, work processes, premises, and plant and equipment.

The principles of effective management of contract staff are effectively the same whether the organisation (referred to as the client) uses one individual or a variety of different contract organisations.  It should be remembered, however, that self-employed contractors and contractors working for small organisations may be less aware of health and safety.

A common misconception about responsibility

There is a common, but flawed, belief that appointing a contractor absolves the client from liability for the health and safety aspects of that contracted work. Managers and Directors within organisations can be heard to voice the opinion: “they are the experts in what they do; surely all of the health and safety is down to them to sort out”.

The House of Lords addressed this issue in R v Associated Octel Ltd, 1996. In this appeal case, Octel Ltd argued that section 3 did not involve liability for the actions of independent contractors. The appeal failed, and the court ruled that Octel Ltd was liable under section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act, 1974.  This case clarified that work carried out for a company, such as the work of a contractor, was still regarded as a part of their undertaking and so they retain a duty of care even when the work has been contracted out.

A better understanding of the position

Work undertaken for a client by a contractor is covered by a civil contract. It is good practice for health and safety requirements to be written into such a contract. Health and safety responsibilities, however, are defined by the criminal law and they cannot be passed on from one party to another by a contract. In a client/contractor relationship, both parties will have duties under health and safety law. Similarly, if the contractor employs sub-contractors to carry out some or all of the work, all parties will have some health and safety responsibilities. The extent of the responsibilities of each party will depend on the circumstances.

Controlling Contractors

Setting up to control the work of contractors can be broken down into five steps:

• Identification and the work to be done
• Selection of the Contractor
• Site work by the contractor
• Monitoring the activities of the contractor
• Reviewing the process

Identification of the work to be done

The client should identify all aspects of the work that they want the contractor to do. This should also include work falling within the preparation and completion phases of the project. This information should then be used to identify the hazards associated with the work, allowing the risks arising from that work to be assessed and then avoided, eliminated and reduced. If a contractor has been selected, this is a good time to start discussions with them. The client must provide the contractor with relevant information about site hazards, such as: a copy of the asbestos register, copies of site plans, location of underground services, etc.

Selection of the Contractor

The client must select a contractor who can carry out the work successfully, not only in terms of delivery but also from the point of view of health and safety. The client needs to be satisfied that the contractors are competent to do the work. This means that they have sufficient skills and knowledge to do the job safely and without risks to health. The degree of competence required will depend on the work to be done.  Typically, the client should ascertain and/or obtain:

• the contractor’s experience in the type of work to be done,
• what their health and safety policies, arrangements and practices are,
• their recent health and safety performance (e.g. number of accidents, recent and pending prosecutions or enforcement notices, etc.),
• what qualifications and skills they have
• the level and type of health and safety training and supervision they provide,
• if the contractor will use sub-contractors and, if so, what selection procedures will be used,
• a copy of the contractors(proposed) safety method statement,
• their arrangements for consulting their workforce;
• if they have any independent assessments of their competence,
• if they are members of a relevant trade or professional body,

Some client organisations routinely operate an “approved contractor” list where the answers to these questions have already been established. Some clients will accept new contractors onto this list if they have registered with a third party accreditation scheme (such as: CHAS, Safecontractor, Contractor Plus, Constructionline, Exor, etc.).

The client must ensure that the contractors know and understand what performance is expected and should explain their health and safety arrangements to the contractors. The client should familiarise the contractor with any relevant procedures and permit systems, as well as with the health and safety policy statement and should establish that the contractors understand these and will act in accordance with them.

Site work by the contractor

The client should agree with the contractor, before work starts, how site access is to be obtained and what rules are to be in place, etc.  In most cases, contractors will be required to sign in and also to sign out from the site. It is important for the contractor to have a named site contact and also for the client to have the name and contact details for the contractor’s representative (such as foreman, leading hand, etc.). The contractors should undergo some form of site induction process, to ensure that they are aware of the site rules, fire alarm and evacuation points, etc. It is also in the client’s interests for the contractor to have their own site safety rules relating to the project work being undertaken.

If a formal Permit to Work (see later) system is in operation, these should be addressed and completed before the work is started.

Monitoring the activities of the contractor

Different projects will require different levels of monitoring activities, as will different contractors (established as the relationship develops). The client should monitor the activities of the contractor to ensure that the work is proceeding safely and as planned. This can take many forms, but it should always be recorded as this forms part of the client’s due diligence defence if things do go wrong. Part of the process may involve a formal inspection of the work activity to ensure that safety standards are being maintained and that the contractors’ risk assessments and method statements are being adhered to. The client should, where appropriate, ask to see supporting documentation (such as scaffolding inspection sheets, induction training registers). The client should also establish that other control measures are in place, such as: physical barriers, appropriate use of PPE (hard hats, high vis clothing), etc. The client and contractor should investigate any accidents, incidents or concerns that arise and formulate a suitable corrective action.

The use of a Permit to Work system should also be monitored/audited. This is discussed in a separate article.

Control of Contractors: How much can failure cost?

In a UK court case from a few years ago, a major high street retailer and three of its contractors have been fined for putting people (including members of the public, staff and construction workers) at risk of exposure from asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) during the refurbishment of stores in Reading and Bournemouth. The client was fined £1 million (with costs of £600,000), while the contractors were fined £200,000, £100,000 and £50,000 and were also ordered to pay costs.

During the three month trial, the Crown Court heard that construction workers at the two stores removed ACMs that were present in the ceiling tiles and elsewhere. The court heard that the client did not allocate sufficient time and space for the removal of ACMs at the Reading store. The contractors had to work overnight in enclosures on the shop floor, with the aim of completing small areas of asbestos removal before the shop opened to the public each day. The HSE also alleged that the client failed to ensure that work at the Reading store complied with the appropriate minimum standards set out in legislation and approved codes of practice. The company had produced its own guidance on how asbestos should be removed inside its stores. The court heard, however, that this guidance was followed by contractors inappropriately during the major refurbishment. One contractor failed to minimise the spread of asbestos to the Reading shop floor. Witnesses said that areas cleaned by the company were re-contaminated by air moving through the void between the ceiling tiles and the floor above, and by poor standards of work.

The principal contractor at the Reading store admitted that it should not have permitted a method of asbestos removal which did not allow for adequate sealing of the ceiling void, which resulted in risks to contractors on site. The principal contractor at the Bournemouth store failed to plan, manage and monitor the removal of asbestos-containing materials. It did not prevent the possibility of asbestos being disturbed by its workers in areas that had not been surveyed extensively.

The fines, in this case, were large, but so also was the time investment from the various parties, including the client, to prepare for and attend the trial. Control of contractors is an important area that clients need to address. This situation may be exacerbated by the HSE Fee for Intervention scheme.

Control of Contractors: How much can failure cost (2)?

A global drinks (AD) firm has been ordered to over £277,000 in fines and costs after a contractor was killed as a result of falling six metres through a fragile skylight on a warehouse roof.

Further to this, the worker’s employer (P) must pay just over £30,000 for his failure to protect his staff.

Mr Rogers was working for P in November 2010 on a contract from AD to fix a leak in the warehouse roof and to clean gutters. The judge said the eight-metre high roof was made of corrugated asbestos panels which were fragile along with skylights. The Judge commented: “Yet neither of the brothers (who had to travel a significant distance) was given the proper crawling boards despite the dangers “being blindingly obvious as a matter of common sense”.

Mr Rogers suffered fatal injuries when he fell through one of the 80 skylights on the roof and hit the warehouse’s concrete floor. His brother Trevor, who was also employed by P, had been working alongside him on the roof.

Canterbury Crown Court heard that even though P’s employees went up on the roof as often as every month, there were no crawling boards or scaffolding, harnesses or nets.

As the warehouse owner, AD was responsible for the site and should have ensured its contractors planned and executed work safely.

P was fined £26,667 with £4000 costs after he admitted breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act. AD pleaded guilty to a charge under Section 3(1) of the same Act, was fined £266,677 plus costs of £10,752. AD had responsibility for the site and should have ensured contractors planned their work to ensure it was done safely.

HSE inspector Guy Widdowson said:

P should have provided his workers with suitable equipment” and added “AD could not contract out its health and safety responsibilities just by contracting out a particular job. This is a tragic case in which a devoted husband and father and grandfather lost his life at work … It is sickening that such incidents happen despite the widespread industry knowledge of the risks of working at height and on fragile roofs with equally fragile skylights. His death was entirely preventable.

Need help? Contact us and discuss your problems – 01509 550023

The post Selection and Control of Contractors appeared first on LRB.

At the heart of our company’s ethos is the desire to provide helpful, practical advice. Part of that comes from speaking in plain English and avoiding unnecessary jargon. However, at one of our recent training courses, we were struck by the fact that there are some words and phrases we all use without necessarily thinking about what they really mean.

Two questions we often ask on our training courses are:

–          What is the definition of the word ‘hazard’?

–          What is the definition of the word ‘risk’?

And they’re two questions that people often struggle to answer. We all know what the words mean – but it can be difficult to try and explain their meaning. On one of our recent courses, after asking these questions, we were asked a question back:

–          “If I can’t define a risk, how am I supposed to do a risk assessment?”

And what a valid question that is!

The term ‘risk assessment’ is bandied around all the time, but people don’t always stop to think about what it means. There’s often a lot that we can take away from taking the time to stop and think about these seemingly obvious definitions.

So let’s start with ‘hazard’ and ‘risk’.

–          A hazard is anything that could cause harm to people or property.

–          A risk is the chance or likelihood that a hazard will cause harm.

Now I suppose it’s only fair we answer the question we were asked too. Quite simply, you can do a risk assessment very easily! Often, you do them intuitively.  Think about all the risk assessments you do subconsciously every day: crossing the road, turning the hob on, driving to work, walking in a carpark… you’re doing risk assessments all the time. We just don’t always call them that.

A ‘risk assessment’ shouldn’t be thought of as something that creates lots of unnecessary paperwork, full of health and safety jargon. Instead, put simply, it’s the process of thinking about what could go wrong and taking appropriate action to try and stop this. There may well be a need to write the assessment down – but the first process should always be thinking.

By thinking of a risk assessment as a method to prevent accidents and ill health, rather than as ‘just another bit of paperwork’, we can make some real progress in improving our attitude towards health and safety, and create a safer workplace culture for everyone.

Get in touch on twitter: @safety_matters

The post Simply Put – Risk Assessments appeared first on LRB.

In this short piece, Peter Phillips (a Senior Health and Safety Consultant with LRB Consulting Limited and an ex-EHO (Environmental Health Officer) gives you some sage advice on what to do if you are invited to a Cautioned Interview by an Enforcement Officer. Peter has helped many people to prepare for this and has assisted some of them at the interview.

Try to avoid the Cautioned Interview in the first place

A cautioned interview may arise where an enforcement authority believes a breach of the law has taken place and the person being interviewed may be guilty singly or in part for the offence, or they are deemed to speak for a Company that might be held in breach.

Obviously, the best way to deal with a cautioned interview with the Health and Safety Executive or the Environmental Health services is to avoid being invited to one.  In general, even where there is deemed to be a breach of legal requirement, enforcement authorities usually do not go beyond the letter or notice stage as long as we take them seriously and make a genuine attempt to put things right.

Think carefully about appointing a solicitor

It is often a good idea to consult a solicitor when there is the possibility of legal action, but the traditional stance of the legal profession, to say nothing, is not always the best way forward and does little to repair the relationship with the enforcement officers.  It is, however, very important to give careful consideration to what is said and who says it.

Think about what you say, and don’t say too much

Sometimes, but rarely, you may be cautioned on site during the enforcement visit.  This is a time to limit what you say.  By all means, give your name and position.  If you are then asked anything that you feel uncomfortable about answering, simply state ‘I will answer your question, but in writing after due consideration and advice’.  This cannot then be quoted in Court as you refusing to answer.  You then have time to take advice and consider your answers carefully.

Understand why they are inviting you for Cautioned Interview

If you are invited to a cautioned interview, normally at the enforcement agency’s office, be sure of the capacity in which you are attending.  If the invitation is to you personally, the evidence may be used in a prosecution against you as an individual, and you should act accordingly.  If the invitation is addressed to the Company and asks for attendance by a representative of the Company, it is essential that the person attending can speak for the Company as a whole.  This would normally be a director a chief executive with appropriate delegated powers.  The attendance of a manager without such authority would not satisfy the enforcement agency.

Think carefully before declining to attend a Cautioned Interview

There is no obligation to accept the invitation to cautioned interview, but non-attendance will result in the authority making their decision about further action purely on evidence they have already gathered.  Attendance at the interview is an opportunity to present the business in a positive light and convince the authority that it is not in the public interest to prosecute.  To this end, it is often a good idea to attend such an interview with a pre-prepared statement, which can be sent beforehand.  This statement is a useful guide in answering questions at the interview.

Choose your words carefully, and give positive messages where possible

It is important to choose your words carefully at the interview, remembering it is being recorded.  At no time should you admit guilt to any accusation of an offence but steer your answers towards demonstrating what good practices the Company has in that particular area.  Where a question has a direct accusation in it you might answer something like ‘I respect what you are telling me, but I have no evidence myself of this event happening’. Then go on to emphasise the controls you do have that are applicable to the matter in question.  For every negative accusation be ready to respond with a positive demonstration of the Company’s good practice.

If you are confident enough, you can steer the conversation to what good practices your organisation does have, rather than simply give short answers to the authority’s prepared questions.  It is unlikely that you will distract an experienced officer from the questions they have planned but you can change the mood of the conversation to the positive.

Always be polite and calm and sound like you are being helpful even if you are doing everything possible to avoid an admission.

The post Cautioned Interview Guidelines appeared first on LRB.

Construction Cancer Risk – Respirable Crystalline Silica

The post RCS and Construction Cancer Risk appeared first on LRB.