Stagesafe

News for 2007

April

Radio mic future uncertain

The future of radio microphones - used at concerts, sporting events, festivals and theatre shows - is under threat from proposals by Ofcom. The media regulator is considering auctioning off the spectrum they operate on to the highest bidder, as part of the digital switchover.

Ofcom argues that putting spectrum on the open market is the only way to make sure it is used to its full potential. Critics say that the spectrum crucial to radio mics needs to be ring-fenced. The future of the frequencies that radio mics operate on is part of a wider discussion about the allocation of spectrum after the switch from analogue to digital TV. Many in the entertainment industry are concerned that Ofcom has given no indication of who will control the spectrum after 2012.

Spare channels

Plans to auction the spectrum could see theatres, festival organisers and broadcasters that rely on radio mics squeezed out by those with deeper pockets, such as companies offering mobile services. Even if radio mics can still operate, sharing the spectrum with others could lead to major interference problems experts say.

"Ofcom needs to have a serious discussion with parties involved in using radio mics and find a way of achieving a sensible outcome," said Brian Copsey, secretary of the Association of Service Providers, a body which obtains spectrum for the entertainment industry. We need a way forward to ring-fence this spectrum on a geographical basis. It is important to the whole UK economy. West End theatre sees 12.5m visitors each year and not one of those shows work without radio mics," he added.

Radio mics operate on the so-called interleaved spectrum - spare channels used by broadcasters - which is being reviewed in the lead up to the switch-over from analogue to digital.

Serious problem

Ofcom proposes that the spectrum be put up for auction, which experts worry will see it bought up by mobile phone companies or digital broadcasters. "Once the auctioning process is started there will be a range of organisations that are very interested. It is prime spectrum but there are no provisions in Ofcom's proposals to put in place any system for radio mics," said Mr Copsey.

If users of radio mics are forced on to different frequencies, it would mean thousands of pounds of upgrades which theatres and other organisations could ill-afford, he said. The other alternative - digital mics - is not a magic bullet, despite it being pushed as the way forward by regulators, said Mr Copsey. As well as the expense of buying the new mics there have been other issues in their development, not least the fact that they are less spectrum-efficient, he points out.

Increasingly organisations that rely on radio mics, such as the BBC, are realising that there is a serious problem. "Ofcom doesn't appear to realise the importance of radio mics in modern production setups," Jules Silvester, resource manager in BBC studios, told the BBC's in-house magazine Ariel. "We should raise this issue now before it's too late. We need to retain the digital interleaved spectrum for programme makers and special events," he said.

Ofcom maintains that its plans for spectrum are essential if it is to be used to its full potential "In future there won't be guaranteed access to radio spectrum, which will inevitably create a certain degree of uncertainty," said an Ofcom spokesperson. Bringing spectrum to the market is not simply about making money though, he said. "Ofcom's objective is not to raise revenue for the Treasury but to make sure it is used to the full. Spectrum is an extremely valuable resource - like land or water," he added.

Petition against UHF spectrum sell-off

Ofcom proposes to auction large parts of the UHF broadcasting spectrum currently used by analogue television. This spectrum includes radio frequencies used by the PMSE (Programme Making and Special Events) sector for radio microphones, talkback systems and in-ear monitoring devices which are widely used in broadcasting, film making, theatres and sporting events such as motor racing, rugby, horse racing etc.

Our members are seriously concerned that Ofcom will take no account of the unique requirements of the PMSE sector in its drive to obey the Government’s directive to maximise revenue by auctioning spectrum, and we urge them to sign the petition on the Digital Dividend on the 10 Downing Street website created by Jamie Robinson, which reads:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to halt the selling off of radio spectrum used for PMSE until a suitable alternative is found at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/PMSEspectrum/

The financial modelling used by Ofcom to estimate potential revenues is based on very large numbers of paying users, as in the mobile telephone industry where companies pay millions of pounds for licences. A single radio microphone on Palace Green may be providing millions of television viewers with the sound of a politician’s voice, but the revenue involved is only the few pounds paid by the sound engineer for the licence. It is patently absurd to expect the sound engineer to pay at mobile telephone company rates, but we fear that this is where Ofcom’s consultations are leading.

Unless enough pressure is brought to bear, the use of radio microphones in broadcasting and related events will become financially unviable. Unfortunately there appears to be a complete lack of understanding in many sectors of Ofcom, one member of whose staff stated publicly at an open meeting that if users couldn’t afford the rates for using the spectrum they would have to use wires. If this view prevails, broadcasting will change dramatically for the worse, the televising of the Olympic Games in 2012 will be seriously jeopardised, and the ability of many of our members to earn a living will be severely curtailed.

BRITISH ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY RADIO GROUP

Failure to comply with Improvement Notices highlighted

The seriousness of failing to comply with Improvement Notices from the HSE has been underlined by a recent case in which a building company was fined £44,000. Dunelm Property Services Ltd (DPSL) was prosecuted by the HSE for failure to comply with the requirements of Improvement Notices relating to conditions on a housing construction site where the company were acting as principal contractor, in February and March 2006.

An Improvement Notice may be served by an inspector when they are of the opinion that there is a breach of a relevant statutory provision. The Notice requires the recipient to remedy the breach within a specified period of time. On 27 February 2006 two HSE inspectors visited the site and, as a result of the conditions they found, issued two Improvement Notices. These related to the company's failure to both organise the site in such a way that pedestrians and vehicles could move safely and to ensure that every part of the site was kept in good order. When the inspectors returned on 27 March 2006 to check that the Improvement Notices had been complied with, no changes had been made.

DPSL was fined £14,000 for each of three offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA), and £2,000 for two offences under the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations) 1996.

In total the company breached:

It was also ordered to pay £1,784 costs.

HSE Inspector Jonathan Wills says: "Construction is Britain's biggest industry with approximately 2.2 million people working in it. It is traditionally seen as one of the most dangerous. In the last 25 years over 2,800 people have died from injuries received as a result of construction work, including 572 construction workers killed at work in the past ten years.

"Traffic management on construction sites is one of our priorities. Being hit by a moving vehicle accounted for eight deaths – 14% of a total of 59 – in the year 2005/06. Principal contractors should have a traffic management plan in place, keep vehicles and pedestrians apart, ensure vehicles are properly maintained, use competent drivers and select the most appropriate vehicle for the task."

SMEs at risk from software piracy

Many small businesses are unaware of the risks software piracy poses to their organisations, or unaware of employees downloading such illegal software. Nearly half of SMEs believe there is no risk from using unlicensed software, according to a survey from the Business Software Alliance (BSA). Eighty-five per cent don't know that illegal software could make their networks and systems vulnerable to viruses.

While 97% of those questioned were confident all the software on their company systems is legal, around 27% of UK businesses are thought to be using pirated software, suggesting, says the BSA, a "severe lack of awareness regarding the level of illegal software in the workplace.” The anti-piracy organisation warns that businesses using unlicensed software can suffer financially, legally and operationally. Last year European SMEs faced average fines of more than £10,000 in 2006 when caught using pirated software – and left themselves open to suits over copyright violation, the group said. In addition, because illegal software does not get the same support and patch updates as legal versions, businesses could put their data at risk of harm by using it.

To address these risks, the BSA advises SMEs to implement proper software management – such as regular audits and employee usage policies. The Treasury-commissioned Gowers Review, which was published last year, made a number of suggestions to improve the UK’s IP framework – including stiff financial penalties for businesses caught using unlicensed software.

Measures such as creating tougher penalties for online copyright, and giving new powers to enable Trading Standards to raid and audit firms suspected of using unlicensed software, were recommended in the report. The review has alarmed some groups who see the proposed involvement of Trading Standards as a step too far. "I think this is going to turn software licences on their head. Businesses will be forced to take a different view of the acres of small print in licences," said David Roberts, Chief Executive of the Corporate IT Forum.

It is argued that many businesses are unaware that they may be breaking the law when, for instance, they allow a software package to be freely used by all members of staff when the licensing rights only permit the use of the product by one person.

Using a PC can cause back problems

The fact that poor posture and sitting too long at your computer can cause serious back problems probably does not come as a surprise to most of us. However research by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) which found that sedentary PC posture causes more back problems than excessive lifting and carrying might come as more of a surprise.

According to the HSE around five million working days are lost each year as a result of back problems, at an estimated cost to employers of £5bn per year.

In response to the problem the BCA has launched a simple three-minute exercise programme, which it claims could help prevent people from developing back problems. According to BCA research a third of office workers make no adjustments to either seating or computer equipment when switching desks; the same percentage of office workers say they currently suffer back pain.

The HSE recently highlighted the issue through its Better Backs campaign, which aimed to offer concise, practical tips to both businesses and employees on how to avoid back-related injuries in the workplace. The HSE campaign emphasised the importance of good posture and that it is important to remember that maintaining a good posture does not always mean, “maintain a correct posture sitting at your desk for eight hours a day”.

“Yes, correct posture is important. We all know that, but can anyone honestly claim to maintain his or hers throughout the entire day? (Especially those workers that eat their lunch at their desks whilst checking emails then squish themselves into a train seat for the journey home.) No, because we aren’t designed to sit still all day, whether behind a desk, dashboard or drum kit.

“The variation of tasks and working positions is easy to incorporate into a typical working day. As simple as it sounds, getting up and delivering a message to a colleague in another part of the building rather than emailing them can stimulate circulation and promote oxygen flow to your extremities.”

Under the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 employers are required undertake a risk assessment for all workstation users, and to act to reduce any risks identified.  This may involved providing adjustable desks or chairs, and ensuring users are trained in how to use their equipment appropriately. While poor PC posture might be a more common cause of back injuries than more physical work the importance of good manual handling training for employees cannot be ignored, as was highlighted by a recent case.

Social worker Debbie Carter was awarded £90,000 in damages after she was left unable to work because of injuries caused when a client fell on her. Carter was working for Worcestershire County Council as a social worker at a residential home at the time of the accident. She was working alone, helping one of the clients to get into bed – a client who was known to have mobility problems – when the woman fell on to her. As a result of the accident, Carter injured her lower back and is now unable to work. Both employers and employees have duties under the key legislation, the Manual Handling Operations Regulations (1992) and Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

Employers must look at their manual handling activities and try to ensure that employees are not put at unreasonable risk. This should include manual handling training that is appropriate to the type of work being undertaken, and it is especially important to record the training and to provide refresher training at appropriate intervals.  And employees have to take reasonable care of his own health and safety and those affected by their activities; co-operate with his employer in the health and safety issues; make use of appropriate equipment in accordance with the training provided; and follow appropriate systems of work laid down by his employer with regard to manual handling.

Major changes to driving rules come into force

From April 2007, there are major changes to the rules governing the work and rest patterns for truck and coach drivers operating tours and hires throughout Europe. The changes will have a significant impact on the planning of tours in particular.

Why are the rules changing?

The law affecting coach drivers’ work is set by the European Union. The old rules had stood the test of time over 20 years but are not compatible with the new digital tachographs now being introduced, and the European Parliament wants to improve drivers’ working conditions. Whether the new rules will actually achieve that objective is a moot point! But the rules ARE changing and we must all work within them.

When are they changing?

The new rules came into effect on April 11, 2007.

Driving hours

There are no changes to the basic rule - drivers must take a break of 45 minutes after 4½ hours continuous driving. However, that break can be split into two - the first of 15 minutes and the second of 30 minutes. The old provision for 3 separate breaks of 15 minutes is abolished. Maximum driving remains 9 hours per day but this can be extended to 10 hours twice a week. Total weekly driving is limited to 56 hours per week and 90 hours per fortnight.

Daily rest

Normally this must be at least 11 hours, giving a maximum working day of 13 hours, but can be reduced to 9 hours not more than 3 times per week, to give a 15 hour day. Drivers of double manned trucks/coaches can be on duty for up to 21 hours.

Weekly rest

Here's where the big problem comes. In future, drivers will be required to take a weekly rest period after no more than 6 days’ work. The existing so-called "12-day" rule is abolished. This means that one driver can no longer drive a truck/bus for more than 6 days without taking a full weekly rest period (normally 45 hours, but this can be reduced to 24 hours once a fortnight provided the time is made up soon afterwards).

The special derogation for drivers working away from their home base is also being withdrawn. During the rest period, the driver cannot undertake any work at all, so cannot act as a crew member or perform any other duties for the tour. They cannot even travel home, as this counts as "other work"!

Working with the new rules

Some ways to manage the changes include:

Either way, the cost of operating tours will increase — through no fault of the truck or coach operator!

Obligations of Tour Managers

The new rules make Tour Managers or those responsible for scheduling a tour (i.e. Agents, Managers or Promoters) jointly liable with the trucking or bus operators for planning schedules that meet the law.

So far there has been at least one tour bus driver stopped and his vehicle impounded, he managed to persuade the French/Spanish authorities to let him proceed to the next service area so his passengers could also take a break – he in fact did a runner to Amsterdam!

The PSA has already held meeting with several of the major industry trucking and bussing companies and discussions with the Freight Transport Association in an attempt to resolve the situation and produce clear guidelines.

Further details can be found in the Resource Centre.

Prosecution highlights H&S risks

The duty of contractors to protect persons not in their employment from risks to their health and safety has been highlighted once more by a prosecution brought by the HSE against two firms and a company director. The case surrounds work carried out at Southfield School, Kettering, during which asbestos ceiling tiles were removed as part of work to upgrade the school’s electrical system. During the works, asbestos was released into the air posing a danger to workers and cleaners at the school. Pupils were not at risk as the work was undertaken during the summer holidays, but they were unable to return to school until the following Easter.

Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 states: “It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such as way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.”

Briggs and Forrester (Electrical) Ltd were fined £60,000 and ordered to pay costs of £30,000 after pleading guilty to two charges at Northampton Crown Court.

B & W Asbestos Removal Specialists Ltd was also fined £30,000 and ordered to pay costs of £10,000 after pleading guilty to three charges:

Marcus Buckle, Managing Director of B & W Asbestos Removal Specialists Ltd, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,000 after pleading guilty to the following charges:

Where contractors are employed to carry out certain tasks within the workplace, there is frequently confusion over health and safety responsibilities – both those of the contractor and the client. In the leading case of R v. Associated Octel (1996), an employee of a specialist cleaning contractor was badly burned while working at Octel’s plant. Like all other contractors on the site, the contractor worked subject to the defendant’s ‘permit to work system’.

Octel was prosecuted for a breach of section 3(1). It claimed there was no case as the employee was from an independent contractor and not part of its undertaking. The case went to the House of Lords, which held that the key issue of the extent to which an independent contractor can be left to its own devices will depend on whether the work forms part of the employer’s undertaking. If it does form part of the undertaking, then the employer’s duty under section 3 extends to ensuring that, so far as is reasonably practicable, the contractor’s work is undertaken without risk.

To sum up, you are responsible for the contractors you appoint.

HSE updates RIDDOR

The HSE has recently updated the section of its site dealing with The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR), in order to make sure that everyone is complying with the Regulations as they should. RIDDOR places a legal duty on employers; the self-employed; and people in control of premises that requires them to report and record some work-related accidents by the quickest means possible. The aim of this information is to enable the HSE and local authorities, to identify where and how risks arise, and to investigate serious accidents.

Under RIDDOR you must report:

RIDDOR applies to all work activities but not all incidents are reportable. If someone has had an accident in a work situation where you are in charge, and you are unsure whether to report it just call the Incident Contact Centre (ICC) on 0845 300 9923. RIDDOR reports can be submitted by telephone, online, by email, or by post. Once a report has been made a copy of the information recorded will be sent to whomever has made the report, so they can correct any errors or omissions.

A record of any reportable injury, disease or dangerous occurrence must be kept. This must include the date and method of reporting; the date, time and place of the event; personal details of those involved; and a brief description of the nature of the event or disease. Records may be kept in any form, i.e. paper or electronically. Further information can be found at http://www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/guidance.htm.

Earlier in the year a study by the University of Liverpool suggested that only 30% of reportable workplace accidents are actually being reported. The report, funded by the HSE, matched patients attending the Royal Liverpool University Hospital with cases reported to the HSE. Patients were followed up to establish which accidents should be reported, but only 30% of those were actually reported to the HSE.

The report found that the main reason accidents were reported was time lost from work. Other reasons, such as major injuries and four or more days on reduced duties were "largely ignored". Self-employed workers proved the poorest at reporting accidents, with a reporting rate of 12% compared with 32% for employed workers.

Director fined for breach of Enforcement Notice

A company director has been fined after he failed to comply with Enforcement Notices issued to him by the HSE. William Beach, a director of Techlink Enterprises Ltd, an office furniture manufacturer, was charged with offences related to failing to comply with two Improvement Notices. Ormskirk Magistrates' Court fined him £2,000 and ordered him to pay £1,000 costs.

Following a visit on 29 March 2006 to Techlink’s premises, the HSE issued the two Notices, which required a thorough examination of the ventilation system provided for the control of wood dust and the provision of a handrail to prevent anyone falling from the open edge of a higher floor level. A second visit by a HSE inspector on 26 June 2006 found that the Enforcement Notices had not been complied with.

HSE inspectors have a range of enforcement tools. Sometimes it is necessary to formally require compliance with the law by issuing a notice requiring specified improvements. An Improvement Notice will allow time for the recipient to comply in remedying breaches in health and safety law.

William Beach pleaded guilty of two charges under section 37(1)(1) Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA), of allowing offences to be committed by the company and failing to comply with the requirements of Improvement Notices.

Section 37(1) HSWA states, "Where an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly".

HSE Inspector Lisa Bailey comments: "The Improvement Notices offered the opportunity to carry out the work that needed to be done to ensure that employees didn't suffer ill health because of the wood dust in the air and that a hand rail was fitted to the mezzanine level. When the HSE returned the work had not been carried out and this prosecution has resulted. Improvement Notices are only issued where action needs to be taken for the safety and protection of employees. In this case a company director did not ensure the work was carried out when the Improvement Notices were issued, leaving the health and safety of staff at risk."

Notices served by the HSE are recorded on the public register of enforcement notices which can be found at http://www.hse.gov.uk/notices.

The seriousness of failing to comply with Improvement Notices from the HSE has been underlined by a recent case in which a building company was fined £44,000. Dunelm Property Services Ltd (DPSL) was prosecuted by the HSE for failure to comply with the requirements of Improvement Notices relating to conditions on a housing construction site where the company were acting as principal contractor, in February and March 2006.

An Improvement Notice may be served by an inspector when they are of the opinion that there is a breach of a relevant statutory provision. The Notice requires the recipient to remedy the breach within a specified period of time. On 27 February 2006 two HSE inspectors visited the site and, as a result of the conditions they found, issued two Improvement Notices. These related to the company's failure to both organise the site in such a way that pedestrians and vehicles could move safely and to ensure that every part of the site was kept in good order.

When the inspectors returned on 27 March 2006 to check that the Improvement Notices had been complied with, no changes had been made. DPSL was fined £14,000 for each of three offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA), and £2,000 for two offences under the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations) 1996.

In total the company breached:

It was also ordered to pay £1,784 costs.

HSE Inspector Jonathan Wills says: "Construction is Britain's biggest industry with approximately 2.2 million people working in it. It is traditionally seen as one of the most dangerous. In the last 25 years over 2,800 people have died from injuries received as a result of construction work, including 572 construction workers killed at work in the past ten years. Traffic management on construction sites is one of our priorities. Being hit by a moving vehicle accounted for eight deaths – 14% of a total of 59 - in the year 2005/06.

"Principal contractors should have a traffic management plan in place, keep vehicles and pedestrians apart, ensure vehicles are properly maintained, use competent drivers and select the most appropriate vehicle for the task."

HSE focus on working at height

The HSE is reminding companies of the dangers posed by working at height, following an incident in which an employee suffered serious head injuries after a fall. Employee Gary Gray was working on the Sun Gardens development in Thornaby, on 29 September 2005, when he fell approximately five metres down an open stairwell while ascending an unsecured ladder. He suffered injuries consisting of a fractured frontal bone, a broken nose and multiple fractures to his left wrist.

HSE Inspector Victoria Wise says: "Work at height is still the single biggest killer in the construction industry. In 2005/06 there were 24 deaths due to falls from height and many more workers were seriously injured. This incident demonstrates the importance of employers ensuring that work at height is properly planned and that there are safe systems of work in place that can be implemented. Systems for safe work at height should not be left to the employees on site to devise."

Robertson Homes Ltd was prosecuted by the HSE and pleaded guilty to three offences under health and safety legislation. It was charged with contravening:

It was fined a total of £2,500 and ordered to pay £2,889 costs.

Firms warned over training issues

A recent prosecution highlights how important it is for businesses to ensure that they have adequate training and supervision in place for staff involved in unfamiliar tasks. On 10 February 2006 Christopher Bird, an employee of Tex Industrial Plastics Ltd, suffered substantial injuries including fractures to both legs, pelvis, collar bone and jaw, after a printer, which was being moved on the forks of a lift truck, fell on him when the driver reversed up a slope.

HSE Inspector Melvin Sandell comments: "This injury could have been easily avoided if proper planning and supervision had been in place. The forklift truck driver had not previously moved loads with offset centres of gravity and the company had not told him that this was the case with this printer. Whilst this was an unusual lift, the mistakes made were simple and could have been avoided if the employer had planned the job properly and then supervised it.

"Companies need to be aware that they have responsibilities to ensure that work is carried out by a sufficiently competent member of staff, that it has been properly planned and that work by inexperienced staff is properly supervised. Every year a significant number of people are killed, and even more injured, by accidents involving vehicles in the workplace. Better planning, training and awareness can avoid most of these accidents."

Tex Industrial Plastics Ltd pleaded guilty to contravening Regulation 8 of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (as amended), in that whilst conducting a lifting operation it failed to ensure the lift was properly planned by a competent person, appropriately supervised and carried out in a safe manner. It was fined £3,235 with costs of £1,158.

Every employer should provide its employees and others working on its premises with comprehensible information on the risks to their health and safety (identified by risk assessments) together with details of the relevant preventive or protective measures. Employees should be trained upon their induction and whenever working arrangements or conditions change (e.g. following the introduction of new machinery or a revised risk assessment). In some instances there should also be regular refresher training. 

Nicola Cardenas Blanco of Martineau Johnson also warns that it is important to note that in dealing with work equipment safety, it is no longer sufficient to select preventative measures which rely solely upon the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision. Instead employers must use (in this order of priority): (a) the provision of fixed guards; (b) the provision of other guards or protection devices; (c) the provision of jigs, holders, push-sticks or similar protection appliances.

Refuse collector gets it in the foot

A refuse collector has been awarded £3,000 in compensation after being provided with a pair of ill-fitting protective boots by his employers, which caused a foot complaint, Thompsons Solicitors reports. David Evans brought the case against Sandwell Metropolitan District Council after the Council ignored his request for proper fitting boots in order to do his job.

For health and safety reasons, refuse collectors are required to wear boots which help them to protect their feet. When Evans was provided with a new pair of boots, he realised that they did not fit him properly and after two days and around 30 miles of walking he returned the boots and requested replacements. None were available and for the next four months Evans worked in a pair of training shoes until a new pair of boots were provided. Evans eventually developed Planatar Fasciitis, a painful inflammatory condition of the heel of the foot.

Commenting on the case, Marc Ruff of Thompsons Solicitors, says: "This case highlights the need for employers to take the protective clothing of their employees seriously. Mr Evans should not have been forced to wear ill-fitted boots, which resulted in injury, nor should he have expected to wait four months before a replacement pair was made available." Andrew Richardson of Scott Wilson explains that personal protective equipment (PPE) is worn or held by persons at work to protect them from risks to their health and safety.

The Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 apply in most instances; there are six other sets of Regulations which include their own particular PPE requirements.
The Regulations define PPE as 'all equipment (including clothing affording protection against the weather) which is intended to be worn or held by a person at work which protects him against one or more risks to his health and safety'.

Protective clothing includes aprons, clothing for adverse weather conditions, gloves, safety footwear, safety helmets, high-visibility waistcoats, etc. Protective equipment includes eye protectors, life jackets, respirators, underwater breathing apparatus and safety harnesses. The main requirement of the PPE at Work Regulations is that personal protective equipment is to be supplied and used at work wherever there are risks to health and safety that cannot be adequately controlled in other ways.

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment to enable the most appropriate means of reducing the risks to acceptable levels. When determining the most suitable risk-control measures, there is a risk-control hierarchy. PPE is the final category, and, in effect, PPE should not be used unless the risks to health and safety cannot be adequately controlled in any other way.

Businesses still failing to observe work at height regulations

Falls from height continue to be the biggest workplace killer, with 46 fatalities last year and over 3,000 serious injuries. Despite this, the number of work at height incidents and prosecutions suggest that businesses are still failing to comply with the law in this area. In a recent case, GDM Partnership Building Services Consultants Ltd was found guilty of breaching Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and was fined £15,000, after a surveyor fell from the roof of a building.

The prosecution followed an investigation by the HSE into the incident in June 2005 at an unoccupied commercial building. The surveyor was taking measurements of the flat roof when he fell from the edge — a height of approximately 6m — suffering multiple fractures.

Apart from warning all staff to be careful, the court heard GDM had taken no measures to prevent their employees from falling from the roof. Work at height can be extremely dangerous unless proper control measures are in place. The Work at Height Regulations 2005 require duty holders to ensure that all work at height is properly planned and organised and that those involved in work at height are competent. The risks from work at height must be assessed and appropriate work equipment selected and used. In addition the risks from fragile surfaces must be properly controlled and all equipment used for working at height must be properly inspected and maintained.

The HSE is reminding companies of the guidelines they should follow in relation to working at height: follow the risk assessments carried out for work at height activities and make sure all work at height is planned, organised and carried out by competent persons;

Company prosecuted for work at height incident

A container manufacturer has been fined £5,000 after one of its welders was seriously injured after a work at height incident. Bradgate Containers Ltd has been fined £5,000, ordered to pay £5,000 compensation and £1,587 costs after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1)(a) and Regulation 4(1)(c) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

Welder Richard Brooks sustained severe head injuries when he landed on a concrete yard surface on 18 September 2006. His fall involved an unsecured aluminium ladder, which was being used as a working place for welding during the building of large shipping containers for housing generators and other equipment packages. Bradgate Containers Ltd pleaded guilty to failing to take suitable measures to ensure the work was properly planned, and failing to ensure the work was carried out safely.

Roger Amery, the HSE Inspector who prosecuted, says: "These injuries could so easily have been avoided. Health and safety law is not about doing unnecessary stuff; it is about being wise before the event and prioritising risk control effort on the issues that really matter. Falls from height are one of the most common causes of injury and are easily preventable. This is a good firm and an important local manufacturer, but they just didn't have their eye on the ball. The sad consequence was damage to Mr Brooks' brain, a period of great distress for his family and an upsetting time for his workmates at Bradgates; along with harm to this company's reputation.

"The accident was typical of the type of preventable falls which remain all too common. Had there been a proper plan for this manufacturing work and had good access equipment been in place then this accident would not have happened. An untied aluminium ladder resting on a metal edge is a recipe for disaster. Employers and employees must work together in order to stamp out this sort of thing”.

Falls from height are the most common cause of fatal injury and the second most common cause of major injury to employees, accounting for around 15% of injuries at work. In 2005/06, 46 people died and over 3,500 suffered a serious injury as a result of a fall from height in workplaces.

Firms should remember that work at height can be extremely dangerous unless proper control measures are in place. Compliance with the Work at Height Regulations 2005 is essential. Companies should remember to:

Firm fined for fork lift accident

A recent prosecution highlights how important it is for businesses to ensure that they have adequate training and supervision in place for staff involved in unfamiliar tasks. On 10 February 2006 Christopher Bird, an employee of Tex Industrial Plastics Ltd, suffered substantial injuries including fractures to both legs, pelvis, collar bone and jaw, after a printer, which was being moved on the forks of a lift truck, fell on him when the driver reversed up a slope.

HSE Inspector Melvin Sandell comments: "This injury could have been easily avoided if proper planning and supervision had been in place. The forklift truck driver had not previously moved loads with offset centres of gravity and the company had not told him that this was the case with this printer. Whilst this was an unusual lift, the mistakes made were simple and could have been avoided if the employer had planned the job properly and then supervised it.

"Companies need to be aware that they have responsibilities to ensure that work is carried out by a sufficiently competent member of staff, that it has been properly planned and that work by inexperienced staff is properly supervised. "Every year a significant number of people are killed, and even more injured, by accidents involving vehicles in the workplace. Better planning, training and awareness can avoid most of these accidents."

Tex Industrial Plastics Ltd pleaded guilty to contravening Regulation 8 of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (as amended), in that whilst conducting a lifting operation it failed to ensure the lift was properly planned by a competent person, appropriately supervised and carried out in a safe manner. It was fined £3,235 with costs of £1,158.

Every employer should provide its employees and others working on its premises with comprehensible information on the risks to their health and safety (identified by risk assessments) together with details of the relevant preventive or protective measures.

Employees should be trained upon their induction and whenever working arrangements or conditions change (e.g. following the introduction of new machinery or a revised risk assessment). In some instances there should also be regular refresher training. 

Nicola Cardenas Blanco of Martineau Johnson also warns that it is important to note that in dealing with work equipment safety, it is no longer sufficient to select preventative measures which rely solely upon the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision. Instead employers must use (in this order of priority): (a) the provision of fixed guards; (b) the provision of other guards or protection devices; (c) the provision of jigs, holders, push-sticks or similar protection appliances.

Band advocate road safety

Rock and roll stars are not usually typical advocates of sensible behaviour. But a horrific car crash that killed three fans of the Dirty Pretty Things has led to the indie band becoming ardent campaigners for road safety issues. The group, led by former Libertines member Carl Barat, has lent its support to the international Make Roads Safe campaign, highlighting the cause with a number of high profile gigs.

The project, also backed by the RAC, is pushing for solutions to rising global traffic through discussion on the G8 and UN sustainability agendas. Adding his support to the campaign, lead singer Carl said: "We need to do more to highlight the fact 1.2 million people are needlessly killed on the roads around the world each year. Almost nothing is being done to prevent this."

The catalyst for the band's campaigning was the deaths of fans Claire Stoddart, 18, her sister Jennifer Stoddart, 15, and their friend, Carla Took, 18. The trio had left a Dirty Pretty Things performance at a Red Hot Chili Peppers concert in Ipswich and were travelling home on July 1 when their car was involved in a collision with a Renault Laguna.

Two occupants of the second car also died in the accident. Suffolk police described the crash scene on the brow of a hill in Blythburgh as "carnage" with debris strewn across the road. A 22-year-old man is set to appear in court in June charged with five counts of death by dangerous driving, to which he has entered a not guilty plea. All three girls went to the Benjamin Britten School in Lowestoft, and the two older girls were preparing themselves for A-levels and life at university. The band were moved by the tragic deaths and vowed to do what they could to help make roads safer for young drivers.

Carl was joined by band members Anthony Rossomando, Didz Hammond and Gary Powell, and music legend Paul Weller, on stage at special gig in London in September to promote the Make Roads Safer campaign. They also took their message on tour with them and are now set to perform another special gig at the Shepherds Bush Empire in London on April 22.

Carl said: "The deaths in Suffolk of Claire, Jennifer and Carla were so sad, such a waste of young lives, and this is happening to families every day. This is why Dirty Pretty Things are supporting the Wasted Lives campaign." The band also have first-hand experience of the consequences of a road accident. Their US tour was put in jeopardy last year when Carl broke his collarbone in a motorbike accident in a car park in Taiwan.

Speaking after the accident, Carl said he had been drinking and asked locals if he could have a go on one of their Triumph motorbikes. He added: "I revved it up, and flew off the handle bars, only in a car-park, I didn't endanger anyone but myself."

More drivers fined for using mobiles

Since tough new penalties were introduced on 27 February, nearly 7,000 drivers in England and Scotland have been fined £60, and had three penalty points added to their licence, for using a mobile phone. It became a specific offence to use a mobile while driving in December 2003 with drivers receiving a £30 fine, but the Government indicated that tougher penalties were necessary to deter drivers.

The new Road Safety Act 2006 established these tougher penalties by introducing a fixed penalty of three points as well as a £60 fine for anyone driving while using a phone.

Under the new Act, if the police or the driver chooses to take a case to court rather than use a fixed penalty notice, the maximum fine is £1,000. The amount has also increased for drivers of vans, lorries, buses and coaches to £2,500, while employers that require employees to make or receive calls when driving can be prosecuted.

Drivers who are not in proper control of their vehicle while talking on a hands-free mobile can be prosecuted, and it is now illegal to use a hand-held phone while stopped at traffic lights or in a queue of traffic. Driving carelessly and dangerously when using any phone can lead to disqualification, a large fine and up to two years' imprisonment.

Among those who have been fined since the 2006 Act came into force are at least six driving instructors who were using phones while directing a learner driver, and 17 drivers who were fined for not being in proper control of vehicle when using a hands-free kit.

Meanwhile, research from Direct Line has found that more than a million motorists are one speeding conviction away from losing their licences. The number has risen by more than 215,000 in the last 12 months alone. 5.4m have been penalised for at least one offence. Of these, one in five — 21% — are a conviction away from disqualification – up from 17% last year. It means that a total of 1,135,998 could be banned if they receive a single conviction.

These type of figures will be of concern for fleet managers, who, because of the duty of safety they owe to their workers, must take all steps they can to ensure that employees who drive for work do not use their mobile when driving. There is also the obvious impact on businesses and fleet managers if workers lose their licence because of repeated offences.

Employers can also be held vicariously liable for the action of their employees. For example, if an employee drives negligently in the course of his / her duties and causes an accident, his / her employer could be held liable for any resulting damage or injury to third parties. Charlie Pring, an Associate at Taylor Wessing, comments that employers should not rely on their employees to be law abiding. He adds: “They [employers] should take positive action to protect themselves from liability by implementing a policy prohibiting the use of hand-held phones whilst driving, and perhaps extending it to cover the use of hands-free phones. Many employers have already done this because of the potential liabilities highlighted above, and also because of increasing concerns about corporate manslaughter and the possibility of investigation by the HSE”.

news and more

Training Courses

We are now running Fire Safety Awareness Training courses.

Now Available

"Health & Safety Management In The Live Music And Events Industry"

The Latest Book From Chris Hannam of STAGESAFE

For full details and to order your copy, click here now!

STAGESAFE is accredited by the

Production Services Association

Production Services Association