News for 2008
April
Defining ‘reasonable practicability’
The phrase ‘reasonable practicability’, used in the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to describe the extent of the general duties, is unclear and leads to employers over-burdening themselves with health and safety concerns, says a Work and Pensions Committee report. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 states that: “It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.”
’Reasonably practicable’ requires employers to balance the degree of risk to employees against the cost and inconvenience of overcoming it, but the boundaries of what is reasonable can be unclear.
Partner at Burges Salmon and Solicitor-Advocate, Chris Jackson, was called as a witness to the Work and Pension’s Committee inquiry and supports a review of the test of reasonable practicability: "The idea of disproportion having to be gross is well known and is used as the foundation of most regulatory guidance. However ultimately it is based on one sentence in one case in a different context dating from 1949. It does not sit easily with later cases or with the proportionality concepts that are key to the UK Better Regulation agenda in the 21st century. Reasonable practicability is the most important concept in the Act, but it is not defined. That key fact underpins the Committee's recommendation for a Law Commission review."
Frank Wright, Professor of Law at Warwick University disagrees, citing the Government’s support of the current terms before the European Court of Justice recently as an indicator of their position on the matter. In this case the European Commission had argued the inclusion of the phrase meant UK health and safety legislation did not fully implement the European Framework Directive, but the UK was successful in its defence.
The report concluded that there was a lack of clarity surrounding the language used, and that this was increasing the obstacles faced by employers when trying to meet their Health and Safety obligations. It recommended a review by the Law Commission, to study the test of 'reasonable practicability' and its impact on Health and Safety legislation.
Call for better skills training in the music industry
No Glastonbury festival, no Radiohead tours and no Brit Awards - that could be the future of the live music business, according to research for the National Skills Academy for the creative and cultural industries, last year, which revealed the state of the overstretched live music industry in the UK. This has brought major opportunities both for the education sector and the live music industry.
However, one leading concert promoter warns there is potential for conflict in bringing together the heavily regulated education sector and a notoriously maverick industry. "A lot of live music companies are very small, with few staff but lots of passion," says Geoff Ellis, director of DF Concerts, the company behind T in the Park festival and the Glasgow venue King Tut's Wah Wah Hut. "What you don't want is someone breezing in waving a degree and telling everyone how to do their job."
It was frustration at the bureaucracy in education that led Chris Hill, director of Wigwam Acoustics, to launch the company's Charlie Jones sponsorship programme at the School of Sound Recording in Manchester, despite a lack of official accreditation. "All the CVs we receive from kids on music courses go straight in the bin," says Hill. "Our programme at least allows students to be taken seriously by prospective employers."
At Buckinghamshire New University, balancing the ambitions of students with the demands of the live music industry is in the hands of Frazer Mackenzie and Andy Reynolds, who both have years of experience in the business.
Live music management degrees
The university started offering degrees in music management and production in 1995, and was the first higher education provider in Europe to do so. "If the industry feels graduates leave university without the necessary skills, it should contribute more actively to the education process," says Mackenzie. "For us, the key is to produce graduates who can hit the ground running." Reynolds, who splits his time between university and life on the road as a tour manager, says the live event production industry is very sceptical of graduates. He adds: "Graduates are often not prepared for the reality of what they will be doing, which is cleaning mud off speaker boxes that have been at Glastonbury for a week."
The government's response to the problem has been to speed up the opening of the National Skills Academy (NSA) for live entertainment, and the announcement on February 22 by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport that it is to launch a new creative apprenticeship scheme. This aims to provide up to 5,000 formal apprenticeships a year by 2013 through partners such as Universal Music Group. The NSA is due to be rolled out nationally this year, and will concentrate on providing courses in lighting, audio and backstage skills.
Supervised by Creative and Cultural Skills, the sector skills council for the creative and cultural sectors, the scheme's cost is now estimated to be £12m with industry expected to contribute £4m. Qualifications offered will include the new creative apprenticeship being developed by Creative and Cultural Skills with specialist "pathways", including technical theatre, live events, and promotion and music business skills.
The academy should open nationally in September 2008 with about 125 employers who are supporting the NSA bid, working with FE colleges and schools to develop industry-led careers advice and guidance. The main academy building in Thurrock is due to open in autumn 2009. It's hoped the NSA will be training up to 2,000 people annually from 2009.
Tom Bewick, chief executive of Creative and Cultural Skills, welcomes the latest strategy. "The government is pledging to create 5,000 creative apprenticeships per year by 2013. This is going to be a very challenging ambition to meet. It will require a huge employer-led campaign across the creative industry, backed by government resources, to change the pattern and culture of recruitment into industry, which is predominantly at the graduate level. However, these apprenticeships will be crucial for meeting skills needs, unleashing real talent and, crucially, diversifying our workforce."
As education liaison manager for Yamaha Music UK, Bill Martin believes the National Skills Academy has a role to play in furthering live music through education. "While many teenagers aim to be professional musicians, few set out to be professional stage managers or lighting engineers," says Martin, who launched the website yamahaeducation.co.uk this year for those working in music education.
Geoff Ellis also supports the NSA: "Some people may think education will sanitise rock'n'roll, but in important areas such as health and safety there is room to learn in a classroom environment."
Skills partnerships
While the NSA has its supporters, it also has critics: "There are plans for the National Skills Academy to engage in partnerships with regional education providers, but the details of these arrangements remain to be seen," says Mackenzie. "One of the big benefits higher education establishments can bring is a track record in designing, delivering and validating education and training for many years."
This is a view backed up by Reynolds: "The NSA is a waste of money. How are you going to attract a potential technician from Belfast or Aberdeen to Thurrock? The various higher education, further education and private courses around the country need pulling together to create regional centres of excellence."
Harmony? There's more chance of a mud-free three days at Glastonbury.
Call for greater attention on workplace safety for youngsters
In the UK, of the 500,000 pupils aged 14-15, 350,000 could be going out on work experience. That figure, combined with young people starting their first jobs, amounts to many hundreds of thousands of people entering the workplace for the first time of whom, the BSC reports, three in five have “no idea” about workplace safety. The BSC survey found that half of the UK’s employers had not offered safety training, leading the BSC to conclude the situation is putting many lives at risk.
Brian Nimick, CEO of the BSC said: “We need to address this now. We are calling on the Government to make workplace hazard awareness part of the national curriculum. Our survey revealed that there is a clear demand for children to be educated at school about the dangers of the workplace.”
Almost two thirds of employers and three quarters of workers said they thought there was a real benefit to children being taught about workplace safety while at school. Welcoming this initiative, the parents of 18-year-old Steven Parsons, who lost his life in a workplace accident, said: “Employers must ensure the safety of their workers at all times…but young people must also be safety aware and not be afraid to refuse to do a job if they think their safety is at risk". Nimick added: “We have a duty of care to our children. We cannot be complacent with health and safety as new generations of business leaders and employees come through the workforce.”
The health and safety of young persons at work is legislated by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, which impose a number of duties on employers. Before a young person starts work, the employer must carry out a risk assessment taking into account various issues such as the inexperience and immaturity of the young person, the nature of the workstation, the risks in the workplace including the equipment which the young person will use, and the extent of health and safety training provided.
Young persons cannot be employed to carry out any work:
- beyond their physical or psychological capacity (such as heavy manual labour);
- involving harmful exposure to toxic or carcinogenic agents or radiation;
- involving the risk of an accident which a young person is more likely to suffer owing to his insufficient attention to safety or lack of experience; or
- in which there is a risk to health from extreme cold, heat, noise or vibration.
Report claims HSE is underfunded
A report published by the Work and Pensions committee on the role of the HSE in regulating workplace safety raises concerns over a lack of funding for a body, which is said to be “spreading itself too thinly”. “There is widespread concern that [the] HSE is inadequately funded and that this undermines its ability to regulate effectively within its core remit,” the Work and Pensions Committee says in their report: “Furthermore, we are concerned at evidence that [the] HSE is currently spreading itself too thinly. We call on [the Department of Work and Pensions] to evaluate whether [the] HSE has the capacity to take on the additional responsibilities that it is being given.”
Calculations by the Hazards Campaign, based on 2006/7 statistics, estimate that every workplace regulated by the HSE is inspected, on average, once every 14.5 years. This is compared to an equivalent average of every seven years in 2001/02. In the report, the Hazards Campaign criticised the involvement of the HSE in the foot and mouth outbreak as it had no relevance to worker health and safety: “As the HSE struggled this year to cope with a crippling funding crisis it was pushed into areas of work with no relevance to workers’ health – including taking the lead on and footing the £100,000 bill for the investigation into this summer’s foot and mouth outbreak linked to the Pirbright laboratory near Guildford.”
However, in addition to criticising the overreaching of the HSE, the report called for an increase in the deployment of inspectors and resources: “We received a significant amount of evidence from individuals and organisations which suggested that the HSE is not deploying sufficient front-line resources to meet its targets and operate effectively as the health and safety regulator.”
The report also highlights that, as well as ensuring compliance with health an safety laws, inspections by the HSE often serve as preventative measures, as companies work harder to improve safety in anticipation of an inspection: “Academic research has suggested a correlation between inspections carried out and employers’ compliance with their health and safety duties. Furthermore, the results of the recent HSE 'blitz', which led to 30% of sites inspected receiving an enforcement notice, highlighted the importance of inspections in ensuring health and safety laws are adhered to.”
Commenting on the report, TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: ”The HSE is being asked to do too much with too little. The Government needs to address the very serious resource issues that this report raises.” Workplace hazard awareness needs to form part of the national curriculum, the British Safety Council (BSC) has said, following research that revealed thousands for young workers lack the training to keep them safe.
Unlicensed security staff targeted
The need for employers to make sure their security staff are SIA licensed has been highlighted after a series of arrests were made by police in Stockport. Operation Safe, launched by the Greater Manchester Police earlier this month, is a joint operation between the Security Industry Authority (SIA) and the police to target unlicensed security staff working in the pubs and clubs of Stockport and Reddich.
Chief Inspector Stuart Barton of the Stockport division of Greater Manchester Police says: “Operation Safe was launched to ensure that all pubs and clubs in Stockport operate within national guidelines by having door supervisors who are trained to keep their customers and staff safe.”
The Licensing Act 2003, which came into force on 14 November 2004, requires that all door supervisors complete SIA approved training and exams before applying for a licence. According to the Workplace Law Handbook, “the licensing requirements carry the force of law and help prevent unsuitable or poorly trained people from working within the private security industry.”
In the police operation, three unlicensed door staff were arrested and 13 door staff were warned for not displaying their licenses. It is a requirement that licenses are worn on duty. Lucia Howland, the SIA Head of Investigation, says: “Working without a SIA license and deploying unlicensed operatives, is an offence under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 and licensees risk having their premises closed.”
REACHing out
Almost every business in the UK will have new responsibilities under REACH, the HSE is warning, with just six weeks to go until the 1st June deadline for registration of new chemicals under the regulations. “REACH is not just about the chemical industry”, says Richard Bishop, Inspector HSE North East. “The regulations apply to a host of familiar things that we all have contact with – metals, glues, paints, solvents, detergents, plastics, polishes, pens, computers to name but some; aspects of REACH touch on them all.”
REACH stands for the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals and is being implemented by the EU to regulate the manufacture, supply and use of chemicals. From this June, when REACH comes into full force, all chemicals produced or imported into the EU in quantities above one tonne per year will be registered in a central database.
But it’s not just manufacturers that have duties under the regulations, which were implemented in June 2007; as the HSE explains, there are three main types of REACH dutyholder:
Manufacturers/importers
Businesses that manufacture or import (from outside the EU) 1 tonne or more of any given substance each year are responsible for registering a dossier of information about that substance with the European Chemicals Agency.
Downstream users
Downstream users include any business using chemicals, which probably includes most businesses in some way. Companies that use chemicals have a duty to use them in a safe way, and according to the information on risk management measures that should be passed down the supply chain.
Other actors in the supply chain
Businesses that sell chemicals have specific duties to pass information down to their customers, and also to pass information back to their own suppliers when customers ask them to do so.
When and how you have to comply with REACH depends on your status within the supply chain and also if you can, and have, pre-registered your substance. In some instances the impact for an organisation is clear: “For example, a company who produces metals may have to register the substances that make up the alloys under REACH”, says Bishop. But he goes on to say that there could be far less obvious effects: “a company may provide a substance that may not in itself be an obvious chemical, but in some or all of the starting ingredients of the product may be covered under REACH”.
Generally, REACH applies to all individual chemical substances on their own, in preparations or in articles [an article is defined as an object which during production is given a special shape, surface or design, which determines its function to a greater degree that does its chemical composition. Examples of articles are a car, a battery and a telephone].
Organisations can determine their role in REACH and when it applies, and find out registration deadlines by visiting the HSE’s REACH homepage or the European Chemicals Agency.
Noise at Work Regulations now affect the entertainment industry
This month the previous regulations protecting workers in the music and entertainment sectors from exposure to excessive noise were replaced by the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 (Noise Regulations). For other industry sectors these Regulations have been in force since April 2006. The European Directive (2003/10/EC) on which the Regulations are based allowed the music and entertainment sectors a two-year transitional period. According to the HSE, this recognised that music is unusual as it is noise deliberately created for enjoyment and therefore practical guidelines are necessary to help workers, employers and freelancers in the music and entertainment sectors protect their hearing and safeguard their careers.
HSE focus on noise at work
Hearing loss caused by exposure to noise at work continues to be a significant occupational health issue, the HSE has said today (16 April) on the 13th annual International Noise Awareness day. "Approximately 170,000 people suffer damage to their hearing due to excessive noise at work,” a spokesperson for the HSE told Workplace Law today. “Hearing loss from noise at work is preventable and we [need to] highlight the effects that excessive noise levels can have."
HSE inspectors will be addressing noise during 2008 in three priority industry sectors – plastic products, woodworking, and concrete and cement products. They will expect to see evidence of reduction of noise risks to the lowest level that is reasonably practicable. Where noise risks remain, inspectors will be looking for evidence that the risks are being managed adequately and that suitable hearing protection and health surveillance is in place.
There is a lot of advice available for reducing noise and noise exposure, but the first strategy should always be to try to find a way to remove the loud noise altogether. If that is not possible, some of the following could help:
- Use a different, quieter process or quieter equipment.
- Introduce engineering controls that avoid impacts, vibrating panels and also fit silencers to exhausts and nozzles.
- Use screens and enclosures to block the path of sound.
- Design and lay out the workplace to position sources of noise away from workers.
- Limit the time employees spend in noisy areas.
- Proper and regular maintenance of machinery and equipment is essential as they deteriorate with age and can become noisier.
Where required, ensure that:
- hearing protection is provided and used;
- any other controls are properly used; and
- information, training and health surveillance is provided.
Expert warns on climate change
Climate change could have a significant economic impact and cause the breakdown of society as we know it, warns a sustainable business expert. “We’re already seeing some of the effects of climate change, most notably in loss of biodiversity, losing an unquantifiable amount of as yet undiscovered potential,” says Simon Drury, business partnership manager with Envirowise: “Catastrophic species loss, drought, famine and war over the remaining natural resources, migration, the list of we might expect to see in the future seems endless. Ultimately, we’re looking at significant economic impacts and the breakdown of society as we know it.”
Speaking to Workplace Law Network, Drury warned that the dangers of unabated climate change would be equivalent to between 5% and 20% of global GDP each year: “In stark contrast, the costs of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year. The sums are simple – it would cost much less to prevent runaway climate change than to live with it.
“For every pound we invest now, we can save £5 or possibly more, but we have to act immediately. As Sir Nicholas Stern commented [when he published his review], Governments, businesses and individuals all need to work together to respond to the challenge.” However, Drury says that it isn’t as simple for businesses as simply turning off computers over lunchtime: “We all know we should switch electronic equipment off, and walk as much as we can, but do many people truly consider the impacts we can have just by using less?
“So look around you. What resources are you and the people around you using? Once you’ve identified this, ask yourself these simple questions:
- Do I really need to use that or can I eliminate the need for it?
- Can I reduce the size or amount of it I use?
- Can I get one made of recycled materials?
- When I have finished with it can it be used again in some way?
- Can I recycle it once I have finished with it?
“By asking these questions in this order you and your organisation can integrate the utilisation of the waste hierarchy – eliminate, reduce, reuse, recycle - into you day to day work practices. This will save you and your business money and time, and will actively reducing your carbon footprint.”
Carbon footprint initiatives gaining ground at work
Employees want to reduce their carbon emissions at work but need more guidance on how to do it, new research has found. According to the findings of a Carbon Trust report into employees’ attitudes to carbon reduction, only 21% of respondents said they thought their organisation was doing enough to cut its emissions and 66% said their employer had made no attempt to encourage them to consider ways of reducing their emissions by taking alternative transport to work.
The report also revealed that 80% of employers had no training in place to teach employees how to reduce a company’s carbon footprint, and yet almost half of employees had already taken personal steps to reduce their emissions at work in the last twelve months.
Whilst reducing workplace emissions may seem like a lot of work to some managers, Hugh Jones, Solutions Director at the Carbon Trust, believes simple initiatives like staff training and appointing a ‘Carbon Champion’ can really help to trigger action: “Our research shows that those in workplaces where a ‘Carbon Champion’ has been appointed say it encouraged more action to reduce emissions. You can put in a new energy-efficient boiler, or install low-energy light bulbs, and those will make a difference, but many of the measures that will have the biggest impact and achieve the greatest savings require buy-in across your workforce.
“In the current economic climate it’s never been more important for all businesses, of all sizes, to act on climate change. With savings of up to 20% to be made on energy bills through no cost or cost effective measures it makes perfect business sense to empower employees to do their bit both at work and at home.
“You need your teams to think twice before printing documents, to turn off their PCs and lights at the end of the day, to participate enthusiastically in recycling schemes and to consider the carbon footprints of the method of travel they use and the products they source.”
"A new dawn for corporate accountability"
The president of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) has called the long-awaited Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act "a new dawn for corporate accountability in the UK". Ray Hurst welcomed the new Act, saying it should serve as a deterrent to the minority of organisations that would otherwise disregard health and safety: "We hope the new law will prompt organisations to ensure they have strong health and safety leadership, effective systems and positive cultures. Large organisations, keen to ensure that they are not exposed to risk via their supply chains, may also seek further assurance about the adequacy of the management systems and cultures of their suppliers, thus helping to drive up standards more widely."
IOSH has previously recommended that such remedial orders be as wide-ranging as necessary, possibly including:
- compulsory training or retraining of directors and senior managers in the management of occupational safety and health; access to competent health and safety assistance;
- introduction of behavioural safety programmes; the use of third-party audit;
- and rarely, for extreme cases of collective failure: possible suspension of all or part of the board.
At IOSH’s recent conference in Telford, a panel of the country's health and safety legal experts warned organisations investigated for offences under the new corporate manslaughter law they may face major upheaval before the case even gets to court. Ron Reid, from Shoosmiths Solicitors, said: "The new manslaughter legislation is going to change this type of prosecution beyond all recognition. It will be at least a couple of years before we see prosecutions, but we will see investigations between now and then. The investigations will not be as we’ve seen before."
Looking at the new Corporate Manslaughter Act
After many years, much wrangling and many debates in Parliament, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 is now set to come into force on 6 April. More than ten years ago, the Law Commission published its final report into involuntary manslaughter, which recommended a new offence of corporate killing. In 2000, the Government published a consultation document proposing the new offence. A draft bill was published in 2005, introduced to parliament in 2006 and the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act received Royal Assent in July 2007.
There has been lots of time to prepare for the implementation of this law. However, just in case it has slipped under the radar, what should employers and managers consider in the few days before the Act comes in?
Insurance
Insurers will only provide cover for the costs and expenses associated with defending action, and managers shouldn’t assume that any health and safety cover the company currently has will extend to corporate manslaughter. Any existing policies should be checked, just in case the worst happens.
Health and safety
The Act shouldn’t impose any additional requirements on an organisation that has already fully integrated health and safety. Because management failure is a focus of the Act, it follows that the actions of management will suddenly be placed in the spotlight; therefore, managers should check that staff have been made aware of the company’s health and safety policies, and that these policies have been implemented in the workplace.
Driving at work
There are around 1,000 work-related road deaths each year; therefore, work-related road safety should be incorporated into existing health and safety procedures. Formal company risk assessments, audits or health checks should be carried out on both the fleet and individual employees, to identify potential risks and hazards within the organisation. This must include all company car drivers, cash takers, employees driving on company business, contractors and associated agencies. These risks need to be evaluated, and written policies and controls implemented to cover or eliminate them. All employees must be made to understand the health and safety policies, and be updated when changes are made.
Awareness
As mentioned before, companies that have health and safety policies (which are adhered to) in place shouldn’t have anything to worry about under the new Act. However, just to check all staff are aware of their responsibilities, the implementation of the new Act could be used to remind staff of health and safety policies, and the possible outcomes if these aren’t adhered to.
"Rome 1" to clarify contract disputes across Europe
Proposals designed to protect the interests of UK businesses operating in Europe have been announced by the Government. The Rome I proposal will provide clarity over which law applies if a dispute arises over a contract made between people or businesses from different countries, allowing cross border trade to continue with confidence.
When the European Commission first announced the proposals in 2005, the UK Government opted out of the proposals, claiming they would not have been in the interests of UK businesses. However, following intense negotiations, a substantially revised and hugely improved version has now been agreed.
Announcing the publication of the 'Rome I- Should the UK Opt in?' consultation today, Bridget Prentice, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State says: "The Government has always said that we will not opt into EU measures which are not in our national interest. The original proposal was clearly not right for Britain, but the new and much improved regulation will help to ensure that the rules in this very technical area are applied uniformly. This will ensure a level playing-field for British business in Europe."
Companies fined over lost fingertips
Two companies have been fined more than £30,000, after a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 led to a worker losing two finger tips in a paper recycling plant in Greenwich. In July 2004, James Adams and another engineer from RCP Macpress (UK) Ltd were repairing a large paper recycling machine, known as a shredder, at SCA Recycling UK Ltd’s Greenwich premises. The fork of a forklift truck had been loaded into the machine unintentionally and damaged the machine.
When the engineers had trouble opening a damaged panel weighing approximately 100kg, they attempted to push it open with a hydraulic jack capable of lifting 25 tonnes. The panel opened suddenly and immediately shut, resulting in the loss of the tips of Mr Adam’s right ring and little fingers.
“Risk assessments and permit-to-work systems are worthless unless companies make sure that employees are aware of what the hazards actually are and, therefore, carry out their work accordingly.” said Loraine Charles, the HSE Inspector for this case. Although the engineers filled out the risk assessment forms, their training only covered how to fill out the form, not how to assess the risk.
Charles says: “A properly implemented permit-to-work system would have ensured that there was a detailed methodology for the work to be undertaken. As soon as the access panel failed to open as expected, the engineers would have been compelled to return to the permit issuer, and both companies would have had the opportunity to evaluate what steps were needed to be taken to ensure that the work could be done safely.”
The HSE investigation revealed that the SCA employees who issued the permit-to-work documents had no clear understanding of how the system should work. RCP Macpress (UK) Ltd and SCA Ltd were fined £15,000 each plus costs for breaching section 2(1) and section 3(1) the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 respectively.
New regulations simplify environmental issues
New Environmental Permitting Regulations come into force on April 6th in England and Wales, which aim to reduce bureaucracy and protect the environment and human health. Environmental permits are required for industrial and waste activities which could harm human health or the environment unless they are controlled. The new system means businesses should find it simpler and less costly to be environmentally responsible.
The Regulations streamline and integrate Waste Management Licensing (WML) and Pollution Prevention Control (PPC) into one single regulatory system, replacing more than 40 separate sets of regulations. Joan Ruddock, Minister for Climate Change, Biodiversity and Waste, says: "This is an important initiative that cuts down red tape and provides an easier and more flexible permit. The changes will have benefits for a wide range of low-risk businesses, but particularly for smaller enterprises, which often have limited time and resources to spend on form filling.
"In line with the government's Better Regulation agenda these clearer and simpler regulations will reduce the administrative burden for industry and regulators, saving around £76m over 10 years."
The Environment Agency's Chief Executive Baroness Barbara Young says: "The new Environmental Permitting Regulations are in keeping with our role as a modern, risk based regulator. Not only will many operators have quicker, easier and more cost-effective regulation, but the Environment Agency will be able to concentrate more of its resources on the riskiest and worst performing operators, leading to a better protected environment."
Firms encouraged to develop disaster strategy
Small companies are seriously underestimating how much it would cost their business if it was disrupted by a major incident like a flood or a fire, according to new research from BT Business. Last summer’s floods and big fires like Camden Town and Buncefield hit the headlines and affected many small businesses, but failed to make an impact on the business continuity plans of their peers, with only 4% saying that the flooding last year made them think about it more seriously.
One in three of the businesses surveyed think that there will be no cost to their business if they are put out of action because of a disaster, and one in ten think it might cost them up to £5,000. According to Government figures, however, a disaster is likely to cost a business between £8,000 and £17,000.
Bill Murphy, managing director of BT Business, says: “It’s an issue that many small companies just don’t address until disaster strikes, but by then it’s too late and they are picking up the pieces. It’s clear that they also seriously misjudge the potential financial impact on their business of a major incident. While they recognise the importance of planning to combat operational downtime, when their business and communications might be out of action, they need to make it a much higher priority. If they don’t, then quite simply they are putting their business at risk.”
Nick Starling, director of General Insurance and Health at the Association of British Insurers, says: “Last summer's devastating floods highlighted the importance of contingency planning. Insurers handled more than 25,000 claims from firms who livelihoods were put at risk by the floods. It is essential for all businesses to have adequate insurance cover, and a thorough business contingency plan in place, so that if the worst happens they can get back on their feet as quickly as possible.”
A business continuity plan should be based on systematic identification and assessment of the significant risks of an emergency occurring in an organisation’s area. Identifying the risks threatening the performance of critical functions in the event of an emergency will enable organisations to focus resources in the right areas, and develop appropriate plans.
6 April 2008: what are the changes to workplace legislation?
On 6 April and 1 October each year – the Common Commencement Dates - legislation affecting the workplace is implemented. So, what changes are being made this April?
Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2007
These Regulations will increase protection for those seeking work and reduce certain regulatory burdens on businesses in the employment sector.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
This legislation should make it easier to prosecute organisations when their gross negligence causes a death. Under the current proposals, organisations convicted of corporate manslaughter are likely to be fined between 2.5% and 10% of their annual turnover and subjected to a publicity and/or remedial order.
Disability Discrimination (Public Authorities) (Statutory Duties) (Amendment) Regulations 2008
Those Regulations impose duties on additional public authorities to prepare and publish a Disability Equality Scheme, to revise it at intervals, to implement certain components of the Scheme, and publish an annual report of progress. The main purpose of the present Regulations is to extend the list of public authorities to which the duties imposed by the 2005 Regulations apply. The additional public authorities named in new Part VI of Schedule 1 to the 2005 Regulations are required to publish a Disability Equality Scheme on or before 1 December 2008.
Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (Amendment) Regulations 2008
These Regulations make minor amendments to the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006. Regulation 3 takes account of statutory transfer schemes in relation to the exception for provision of certain benefits based on length of service. Regulations 4 and 5 respectively amend the provision that an employee may serve a questionnaire on his employer, and the provision which stipulates the period in which proceedings are to be brought, to take account of the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004.
Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004
The Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 are going to be extended to cover undertakings with 50 or more employees from 6 April. Currently the legislation – which gives employees the right to be informed and consulted about the business they work for – only applies to businesses with more than 100 employees, so this extension will bring a large number of additional organisations under the remit of the Regulations.
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Amendment) Regulations 2008
There are four main amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act coming in this weekend:
The definition of sex harassment has been expanded, meaning the person who feels their dignity has been violated or that some unwanted conduct creates an offensive and degrading environment need not be the primary recipient of that conduct.
There is increased liability for employers for third party harassment. This means that employers must be increasingly aware of their employees’ treatment by third parties and take action to prevent harassment.
The requirement for a comparator who is not pregnant nor on maternity leave is eliminated in claims for discrimination on grounds of pregnancy or maternity leave.
Women whose expected week of childbirth begins on or after 5 October 2008 will have greater rights; for example, the distinction between Ordinary Maternity Leave and Additional Maternity Leave will be eliminated, in relation to terms and conditions.
Sex Discrimination (Amendment of Legislation) Regulations 2008
The Sex Discrimination (Amendment of Legislation) Regulations 2008 will be implemented on 6 April or thereabouts, which: extend the prohibition of sex harassment to the field of goods, facilities, services and premises for the first time; create a narrow extension, which would (for example) allow a ‘Men Only’ gym to continue to be men only; confirm that sexual harassment, sexual orientation harassment and gender reassignment harassment in access to the provision of goods and services is unlawful; and reverse the burden of proof, meaning that if there is a case organisations will have to prove that it did not act in a discriminatory manner.
Waste Management Plans Regulations 2008
These Regulations require any person intending to carry out a construction project with an estimated cost greater than £300,000 to prepare a site waste management plan. This plan should state how building materials and other waste products will be removed from the site. The intention of the Regulations is to ensure that waste is disposed of legally and to encourage recycling wherever possible. The plan must be updated in accordance with the Regulations, with different requirements depending on whether the cost of the project is greater than £500,000.
Energy Performance of Buildings and (Certificate and Inspections) England and Wales Regulations 2007
For premises managers, the requirement for an Energy Performance Certificate on the construction of new dwellings and the construction, sale or rent of buildings other than dwellings, which comes into force in April, will introduce new duties. The Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has published guidance on the responsibilities of property owners and others arising from the implementation.
Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005
The Regulations will come into effect for employers in the sector involved in live or recorded music in restaurants, bars, nightclubs, etc. Other sectors have had to comply with the regulations for the last two years, but due to the nature of their work this sector were given a two year transitional period.
Companies Act 2006
The measures coming in on 6 April are particularly relevant to solicitors and accountants, and include the following:
The accounting and reporting requirements for small companies are being brought together into a single set of regulations, making things simpler for small companies and their advisors.
Private companies will no longer be required to have a company secretary.
The time in which private companies can file their accounts with the Registrar of Companies has been reduced from ten to nine months.
The Act is the longest piece of legislation in British history, so its implementation has been staggered.
Noise At Work regulations now in force in the entertainment industry
From 6 April 2008 the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 will come into effect for employers in the sector involved in live or recorded music in restaurants, bars, nightclubs, etc. Other sectors have had to comply with the regulations for the last two years, but due to the nature of their work this sector were given a two year transitional period.
Employers will have a new responsibility to protect their employees hearing. Employers should consider conducting a noise risk assessment, taking steps to reduce noise where necessary and ensure the legal limits on noise exposure are not exceeded.
You need to inform your employees of the changes and provide hearing protection and checks where necessary. You may want to ensure they sign a form to confirm they understand their responsibilities and they have been provided with hearing protection if necessary.
For further information please contact STAGESAFE or go to the HE Sound Advice web site.
Parade cancelled over H&S fears
Police were yesterday accused of sabotaging a great English tradition after a St George’s Day parade was cancelled – on health and safety grounds. For more than 60 years Guides, Scouts, Cubs and Brownies have marched through a town’s streets to honour England’s patron saint. But police involved in a long-running dispute have refused to put extra officers on duty.
Organisers have decided they have no option but to abandon the event because they cannot afford the £1,300 it would cost for marshals to meet safety concerns.
More than 700 youngsters were expected to take part in the parade in Wigan on April 23. But they have been told to stay at home because police said they would only supervise the event if the council made a risk assessment and told them their presence was necessary. Resources would be better spent fighting crime, they said.
District Scout commissioner Allan Foster said he felt it would be too dangerous to have so many children marching through the town without police supervision. “We are saddened that for the first time in more than 60 years there will not be a parade but we had to think of the safety of the children,” he said. “After a risk assessment we just could not go ahead. If we don’t have the police there we would have to hire people independently to marshal the occasion and we cannot afford the cost.”
Other walks and parades in the Greater Manchester Police area are also set to fall victim to the rules. The Rev Stephen Mather, of St Peter’s Church, Hindley, Wigan, believes it is another sign of Britain losing its cultural roots. "This is yet another example of a British tradition being kicked into touch by bureaucracy,” he said. “In the past churches have adapted and shown flexibility by cutting down on the length of parades to accommodate the system but it appears that still isn’t enough. It’s a joke.”
Tory MP Philip Davies said: “This is ridiculous. I think the police are trying it on and they should hang their heads in shame. “Being on duty for occasions like this should be part of the service. It is what local residents contribute towards through their council tax.”
The MP for Shipley, West Yorkshire, added: “If this force believes in community policing they should be encouraging traditional events, especially those which show a pride in our country like St George’s Day.
“I feel they are overstepping the mark by taking this sort of action and they should think again. Then they should get out on the streets – which is what we pay them for – and allow these youngsters to enjoy their day.”
Local Tory leader Mike Winstanley said: “The situation is disgraceful. The police are distancing themselves from the events and putting the onus on the local authority. They should realise that they are funded by the public to do the job the public want and until they start to do it they’ll lose respect.”
Labour councillor Chris Ready described the position as “absurd” and a “PR disaster”. He added: “Community policing is more than just reacting to criminal acts.” Independent councillor Gary Wilkes said: “It’s a sad reflection of today’s society. The police aren’t doing what they are paid for – to serve the needs of the community.”
But Divisional Police Commander Chief Superintendent Lee Bruckshaw said: “Organisers of events should contact the local authority, who will conduct a risk assessment. If they believe a police presence is required, they will contact us and we will reach an agreement to ensure the event runs smoothly.”
Research on at-work drivers reveals bad habits
At-work drivers are more likely to tailgate and speed on motorways and in towns than other drivers, research published by national road safety charity Brake and Green Flag reveal. The research indicates that the majority of at-work drivers are feeling pressurised to get somewhere fast, risking lives, with:
- six in ten at-work drivers admitting to leaving less than a two-second gap between their vehicle and the vehicle in front, compared to four in ten other drivers;
- three-quarters of at-work drivers admitting to speeding at 80mph or more on motorways, compared to half of other drivers; and
- more than three-quarters of at-work drivers admitting to driving at 35mph in a 30mph limit, compared to six in ten other drivers.
To combat this culture, the charity Brake is calling for companies to plan all journeys carefully to ensure that at-work drivers do not come under pressure to tailgate or speed.
It is also calling for tough penalties to be brought against employers putting drivers under pressure to break the law and drive dangerously, including penalties for breaches of an employer's 'duty of care' under health and safety legislation and, where relevant, penalties for organisations under the new corporate manslaughter law (due to commence on 6 April 2008) and penalties for individual managers and directors under existing 'gross negligence manslaughter' legislation.
Fleet operators are advised to take these steps, which are regarded as best practice:
- Identify who the senior managers are, ensuring they accurately reflect the seniority of the role. All senior managers should fully understand their obligations.
- Formal company risk assessments, audits or health checks should be carried out on both the fleet and individual employees, to identify potential risks and hazards within the organisation. This must include all company car drivers, cash takers, employees driving on company business, contractors and associated agencies. These risks need to be evaluated, and written policies and controls implemented to cover or eliminate them. All employees must be made to understand the health and safety policies, and be updated when changes are made.
- Maintain appropriate records to demonstrate that vehicles used or provided by the business are legal, fit for purpose, regularly serviced and maintained.
- Ensure that the driving licences and insurance arrangements of all employees who drive on business are checked at least annually to assess their eligibility to drive, and identify any potential risk areas.
- Put in place accident management procedures to assess all collisions / incidents (business and private) and appropriate corrective action to reduce future risks.
- Ensure systems are in place for continual reporting, monitoring, measurement, evaluation and improvement.
Blackpool a hotbed for fire safety breaches
Hundreds of premises in Blackpool have been accused of breaking fire safety rules with breaches in 32 cases being so serious that fire chiefs have ordered places to close. New figures have revealed that Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service is leading the way in saving lives by shutting down properties which flout the laws.
A total of 32 closure notices have been issued by the fire service in Blackpool out of 52 in the county as a whole, many to hotels, guesthouses and houses in multiple occupation (HMO), since 1 October 2006 when new legislation came into force.
A total of 765 enforcement notices, which highlight faults which must be rectified, have been sent out in Lancashire including 379 in Blackpool alone.
Last week there were two prosecutions at Blackpool Magistrates Court involving premises which were closed down because of fire safety fears.
