News for 2008
May
HSE to amend posters
The HSE is taking action to reduce an administrative burden that is costing UK employers £7.4m a year. The Health and Safety Information for Employees Regulations 1989 require an employer to display certain HSE approved posters or provide employees with HSE approved leaflets.
On the posters and with the leaflets, the employer is required to write or provide the name of the enforcing authority, their address and also the address of the local office of the Employment Medical Advisory Service. This information then has to be constantly updated to remain accurate.
The HSE’s Administrative Burden Measurement Exercise estimated the cost of the time spent dealing with administration required by health and safety legislation at £2.03bn. Based on that total, the HSE estimates the small amount of time that employers must take to repeatedly update the information ends up costing UK business £7.4m per year.
Anecdotal evidence from the HSE suggests that many of the posters and leaflets either do not provide an employee with the information or that information they provide is out of date. Proposed amendments to the regulations would allow the HSE to publish posters and leaflets which do not require the addition or updating of this information. In a consultation for these amendments the HSE claims this will reduce “an unproductive burden, whilst maintaining or improving employees’ access to useful information”.
It will also focus on the: “...need for the documents to be understood by employees who have visual and/or learning difficulties, poor English reading skills, and work in an environment where the risk of being denied employment rights is high. This will help all employees to understand their right to a safe and healthy workplace and to play their part in ensuring good standards of health and safety.”
HSE gets new inspectors
The HSE has recruited 40 new inspectors a month after a Work and Pensions select committee chastised it for “spreading itself too thinly”. The move has been welcomed by most, but some bodies say it does not go far enough.
The Work and Pensions select committee report on the role of the HSE in regulating workplace health and safety was published at the end of April and said that the HSE was underfunded and that that: “…undermines its ability to regulate effectively within its core remit. We received a significant amount of evidence from individuals and organisations which suggested that the HSE is not deploying sufficient frontline resources to meet its targets and operate effectively as the health and safety regulator.”
The report called on the Department of Work and Pensions to evaluate whether the HSE was capable of taking on the level of responsibility that it was being given. Since then the bodies have agreed a rise in the HSE’s budget to allow for 40 additional inspectors. The addition of 40 inspectors brings the HSE’s overall total to 720 and of the 40 added, 10 are construction specialists, bringing the total of construction inspectors dedicated to the industry to 134.
Speaking about the changes, Bob Blackman, Unite National Officer, said: “This is a positive step to protect workers' health and safety but the HSE [still] needs more inspectors.” Despite this shortcoming, the move was praised for its focus on construction: “Construction is one of the most dangerous working environments in the land, so it is right that the HSE is placing great emphasis on increased inspection resources.”
Unite gave evidence to the Select Committee and as well as recommending more resources for the HSE, the union also called for heavier penalties for breaches of the law, safety duties on directors and support for trade union appointed safety representatives.
Warnings given over work vehicle maintenance
Employers are almost entirely responsible for the maintenance of vehicles used for work purposes, an expert has warned.
David Faithful, Consultant Solicitor with law firm Lyons Davidson and fleet risk management experts Essential Risk Consultancy, says that although reasonable practicability varies depending on the type of vehicle, if an individual is using a vehicle as a piece of work equipment under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, then basically the employer is absolutely liable:
“From the commercial vehicle point of view because there are often obligations laid down by Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) in terms of operators’ licences, etc., then there is a very strictly defined obligation with regard to maintenance because VOSA will carry out inspections.
“As far as company cars are concerned, if they are used for work purposes but also used for social purposes then the employer will have to give guidelines to the employees as to what the employer is doing in terms of health and safety in relation to maintenance.”
Faithful’s warning comes in response to a recent case where a company director accepted responsibility for the death of a worker, who died in a car crash. Warnings about the bald tyres on the work pool car were ignored, and the car eventually burst into flames after hitting a tree, killing both the employee and another person.
Faithful says pool cars can be a grey area for employers, in terms of liability: “Often the employees have no obligation to maintain the vehicle; in such a situation the employer has an absolute obligation to maintain it."
As of 6 April this year, a company can be charged with corporate manslaughter if a worker dies as a result of failings on the part of the employer. Because of this, Faithful believes it is not enough for employers to just check that their drivers have a driving licence and MOT: “Not having the right driving licence is a technical offence, but in itself, will not stop incidents occurring from some technical fault in the vehicle.”
He recommends that employers make sure the safety critical systems are up to speed (things like brakes, steering and tyres) as these are the systems that will come back to bite an employer if they are not maintained correctly.
New directive on battery disposal to come into force
A new directive coming into force on 26 September will require businesses dispose of batteries separately from their general waste. Directive 2006/66/EC recognises that batteries contain hazardous metals and need to be disposed of accordingly, meaning that disposing of batteries in normal landfill sites will be prohibited.
The directive applies to all kinds of batteries including mobile phone batteries. Businesses will be asked to put them in a battery box and that box will be collected by a waste contractor or a waste management company and disposed of through an appropriate approved organisation.
Businesses need to start adopting this procedure as of September this year and then be seen to be actively promoting it during its first 12 months. After that the directive requires the UK and every other EU member state to be recycling a minimum of 25% of their batteries by 2012 and a minimum of 45% by 2016. This also applies domestically, which could have a knock-on effect on businesses.
Speaking to Workplace Law Network, Lynda Simmons, Head of Commercial Development at facilities services provider MITIE explains: “Local authorities in the most part have decided that it is too expensive to provide each domestic household with a curbside collection, so they are suggesting people take them to work and get them disposed of there. On the one hand it helps businesses get sufficient volumes to send for collection and recycling, and goes towards their recycling targets.
But on the other hand, businesses are asking why they should be paying for domestic recycling. In that case those businesses could … send one person down from the business to the local tip and therefore they would not be paying for the recycling.
Batteries have always been treated as a hazardous waste item, but the now measures are being tightened up as Governments realise they simply cannot be allowed go to landfill.”
Pie fight cancelled
The world's largest ever pie fight has been cancelled following concerns over health and safety. Pie Fight Brighton - promoted through the Facebook social networking site - was to have taken place on Saturday (May 24). But promoters say Sussex Police have pulled the plug on the record-breaking event after more than 1,000 people signed up to take part.
The event was to have been a spontaneous 10-minute "splatterthon" but officers have asked for a postponement so it can be properly organised with the backing of local agencies. A spokesman for Sussex Police said the force had no objections when they were told in April of the plans to stage the event.
A pie fight spokesman sent out a message to members last week saying: "At the time there were less than 100 people signed up. Now there's more than 1,000 and, unsurprisingly, the police aren't too happy about it.
"The police have a good sense of humour and think it's a fun idea and have suggested we organise the event for real. Okay, it's not as spontaneous as it was but we could easily turn this into a world record attempt."
The current British record for pie fight participants stands at 70 people, so the group is optimistic they can set a new record. The new date and location for the postponed pie fight have not been confirmed. The initial plan was to meet either at the Palace Pier, Preston Park or at the Old Steine at 3pm. Members were also invited to dress up and make their custard pies using shaving foam.
In an email sent to participants, organisers wrote: "This is just a bit of fun and we don't want to get in anyone's bad books. That way we'll be able to do it again." Participants were urged to help clean up the mess after the fight. Pie Fight Brighton is the latest in a number of underground stunt arranged anonymously through Facebook.
This year about 200 Facebook member applauded baffled commuters when they arrived at Brighton station. On a given signal, they began clapping and cheering commuters leaving the 5.32pm train from London Victoria. Last year commuters were met by zombies one day and a mass silent disco where people listening to headphones danced among them.
Sussex Police declined to comment.
Bats limit fireworks display
Concerts at Kenwood House are back this year - although the traditional firework show has been limited to just one night due to a neighbouring colony of bats. Last year the Kenwood concerts on Hampstead Heath were cancelled after 55 years following complaints about noise.
At a Camden Council meeting last Thursday, members of the public cheered as councillors voted for the concerts to return to Kenwood House for eight weeks this summer, with a new location for the stage. The events are being run by concert promoters IMG on behalf of English Heritage, which manages Kenwood House.
Usually each concert ends with fireworks but a 2007 Bat Survey Report recorded the existence of nine species of bat, including rare species. All bats are protected by law and Hampstead Heath is designated as a site of maximum priority for wildlife protection.
The report concluded that if firework were restricted to one event at the end of the season the impact would not be harmful. Planning officers wanted to stop any use of fireworks at the event.
At the meeting, John Stephen, of Jones Lang LaSalle corporate facility management services, said: "My clients would like to have that last firework show, which would be 10 minutes at the end of the bat fledgling season. In previous concerts there have been up to nine displays and the bats have survived that."
Councillor Mike Greene (Conservative), Camden Council's executive member for environment, argued in favour of the fireworks being let off after each concert.
He said: "Having attended the Kenwood concerts for the past 25 years, I know the joy felt by people witnessing the display. It is an important part of the concert."
The committee voted to allow the concerts to go ahead in the new northwest location in front of the Wood Pond, with just one firework show on the final night.
Rebecca Kane, English Heritage's visitor operations director for London, said: "We are thrilled that the concerts will return. Not only are they a highlight in the London calendar but they also provide crucial income towards the running costs of Kenwood House."
New Bill to increase fines over health & safety breaches
In a little over a month, a report will be delivered to Parliament on the Health and Safety (Offences) Bill 2007-2008. This Bill proposes large increases in the potential fines for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, makes more cases triable in the high courts and gives courts the option of prison sentences more often for serious offences. All of this is to crack down on health and safety offenders and provide a more powerful deterrent. The Bill seeks to increase the maximum fine in magistrates’ courts from £5,000 to £20,000 for most health and safety offences.
“It is important to recognise that the new higher levels of fine proposed under the Bill represent far more than a simple uprating in line with inflation. The purpose of the higher fines is more effective deterrence”, says Keith Hill MP, who introduced the Bill. “They represent a statement by Parliament that we are now ready to see … tougher enforcement in health and safety offences, [increasing] in line with inflation would put the maximum fine imposable by the lower court at £6,500. The Bill will increase it to £20,000, which is a qualitative as well as a quantitative change. It is in line with the strong consensus in favour of tougher sanctions”, Hill says.
Philip Hampton, leader of the Hampton review into regulatory inspection and enforcement commissioned by HM Treasury, recognised the need for higher penalties to deter irresponsible behaviour: “In 2003-04, the HSE prosecuted 1,756 cases, with an average fine on conviction of £4,036 in magistrates’ courts … The deterrent effect of such fines is likely to be low. For any company other than the smallest, a £5,000 fine is likely to be an insignificant sum.”
Ray Hurst, president of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH), welcomes the proposals: “For too long, rogue employers have been able to get away with paltry fines for some dreadful health and safety offences. If the bill makes it into law, it will send a strong message to employers that health and safety offences are treated just as seriously as other breaches [like environmental and food safety offences] where people can be killed or seriously injured.”
When the report is delivered, members of the House of Commons will be given a chance to make further adjustments to the Bill. The report will be followed, usually directly, by the Bill’s third reading which is its final step in the House of Commons. If it successfully passes through these stages it goes on to the House of Lords. If the Bill is successful it will become the Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008 and the Act will come into force three months after it is passed.
Safety course for school children gains support
The British Safety Council’s (BSC) plans to make a qualification in Workplace Hazard Awareness compulsory in secondary schools has won support in Westminster, after the BSC’s Chief Executive Brian Nimick and Director of Qualifications Adam Skeens visited the All-Party Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety and Health.
The Entry Level Award in Workplace Hazard Awareness has been offered by the BSC since September 2007 and has been available to all 5,000 secondary schools in the country with a quarter of them taking it up so far. But fresh interest in the award was stirred up last month when the BSC report ‘Get Skilled for Work’, found that three in five young workers are unclear on matters of workplace safety and that half of employers did not offer them safety training.
To ensure that new workers start with the training to keep themselves safe, the BSC is campaigning for the qualification to be made compulsory. Talking about presenting it in Westminster, Nimick said: “There was a lot of interest in the success of the Entry Level Award and the Committee will be overt in promoting it within the House.”
Now that the subject has received the full support of the Committee, the Chair, Michael Clapham MP, will be raising the matter with the Secretary of State.
Company fined for transporting fireworks without paperwork
A fireworks company has been fined £10,500 for failing to supply documents related to the movement of dangerous goods, which were requested by the HSE. Echo 2 Limited imports and trade fireworks wholesale from premises in Cheshire and Merseyside. The fireworks are brought into the country by ship from China before being transported by road to their facilities.
The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations 2004 requires that the company keeps records tracking the movement of its fireworks. This is to minimise the risk of incidents and guarantee an effective response from the emergency services when needed.
After visits to the sites and meetings with the company the HSE asked for the required transport documents to be provided as well as documents to identify people who are responsible for carrying the fireworks. Echo 2 failed to produce them.
Echo 2 was fined a total of £10,500 and ordered to pay costs of £16,549 by magistrates in Bootle after being convicted of three breaches of Section 20 (2) (k) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Section 20 (2) (k) gives the HSE power to require the production of relevant documents for inspection.
HSE Inspector Martyn Sime says: "Fireworks are explosives and as such are dangerous goods. It is important that all the enforcing authorities are able to identify who are transporting fireworks on the road so risks from such activities are safely managed and agencies know where such goods may be or have been at any time. Paperwork must be available for examination so that compliance with the law can be checked.
“The law makes it clear that inspectors are entitled to require documents such as those requested in this case to be produced to them and we will continue to treat any failure to produce documents as a serious matter."
Appeal upheld in hearing loss case
In Furniss v Firth Brown Tools Ltd (2008) the issue of limitation was considered by the Court of Appeal. The claimant, Mr Furniss, brought a claim for noise induced deafness arising out of his employment with the defendant. His claim was dismissed by the court following a preliminary issue hearing on the grounds that he had issued his claim outside the limitation period and his claim was statute barred by sections 11 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 (the Act). The claimant appealed.
Section 11 of the Act states that a claim must be brought within three years of the date on which the claimant’s cause of action accrued, or the claimant’s “date of knowledge” if later. “Date of knowledge” (defined in Section 14 of the Act) refers to the date on which the claimant knew that his “injury in question was significant”. The limitation period can be disapplied altogether if the court chooses to apply its discretion under section 33 of the Act.
The claimant had worked for the defendant from 1976 to 1982, and had never been provided with hearing protection during the course of his employment. He attended his GP in 2003 about a deterioration in his hearing and was advised that he had a build up of wax, which was removed. In 2004, following a further deterioration in his hearing, he was diagnosed with tinnitus, which according to a consultant was a result of noise exposure.
He issued a claim for damages on 3 June 2006. The defendant argued that for the claim to proceed the claimant must establish that his date of knowledge was on or after 3 June 2003. The court held that the claimant knew about his injury around 1998 and dismissed the claim, refusing to exercise its discretion under section 33.
The claimant appealed, arguing that there was no evidence to substantiate the judge’s conclusions that he ought to have known about his hearing loss in 1998. He was not asked about when he first thought he had lost his hearing and the only period about which he was asked was in 2004. Furthermore, the judge’s reasons for statute barring his claim were unsupported by expert evidence.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had not properly dealt with the issue as to when the claimant knew about the significance of his injury. Had this question been dealt with, the judge would have seen that there was little evidence to support the finding that the claimant was aware of the significance of his hearing problems by 1998. No conclusion was reached as to when the claimant had knowledge that his injury was significant. The defendant’s burden of proof under sections 11 and 14 of the Act had not been discharged and the claimant was allowed to proceed.
Survey reveals alcohol concerns
Seventy-seven per cent of employers believe alcohol is the number one threat to employee wellbeing and a big source of employee absence, according to a survey conducted by Norwich Union Healthcare. This concern is not shared by the employees though, as only 9% agree with it. Employers concerns are not unfounded as a third of employees said they have arrived at work with a hangover and of those, 85% confirmed it affects their performance and mood.
Many of the workers surveyed agreed that in some cases lack of concentration caused by hangovers posed potentially life threatening health and safety risks to themselves and those around them, and many admitted that alcohol use had resulted in mistakes that had to be rectified the next day. Research carried out last year by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and reported by Workplace Law Network found that about 60% of organisations had a policy in place to help them manage alcohol.
This was only a small increase on results reported five years ago, when around half of employers had, or were developing, an alcohol policy. CIPD concluded that alcohol related problems were costing British industry £2bn a year through lost working days. “It is essential that companies have a robust drug and alcohol policy and procedure to tackle and, where possible, prevent any problems developing. This should include provision for support and, potentially, referral to appropriate facilities,” Dr Douglas Wright, Norwich Union Healthcare, says.
According to advice from the HSE, employers should develop an alcohol policy in consultation with their staff and should include issues like:
- how the organisation expects employees to limit their drinking;
- how problem drinking will be recognised and help offered; and
- at what point and in what circumstances you will treat an employee's drinking as a matter for discipline rather than as a health problem.
Government to reduce regulatory red tape
The Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservatives have both outlined what they want to do to reduce regulatory burden on businesses. Speaking at the Institute of Directors (IoD) Annual Convention 2008, Prime Minister Gordon Brown explained why a move to risk-based regulation was necessary: “In the 19th century, the basic idea about regulation was that companies would do the wrong things, unless they were prevented by Governments from doing so.
“In the 21st century, however, companies will be under all these set pressures from the consumers and from their employees, to do the right things. The whole attitude to regulation therefore has to change. It is not a matter of trying to prevent people from doing the wrong things, but it is trying to help you to do the right things.
“That is where we have to change, and risk-based regulation – which means that you only need to inspect or demand information or get form-filling from a very small percentage of companies - is the way of the future.”
At the same convention, leader of the opposition David Cameron told delegates that he wants to give businesses lower taxes and less regulation but he would need something in return: “What I need from you is your help in cutting the demand for tax and regulation, and the demand for tax and regulation comes directly from social breakdown. By that I mean the crime, the drugs, the alcohol abuse, the debt, the dysfunctionality that follows from so much family breakdown.
“So we need businesses as well as politicians to think: what can we do to make our country more family-friendly? How can we together fight obesity and drug abuse? What role do we in business have in tackling the antisocial behaviour that blights our communities?
"That, for me, is what corporate social responsibility is all about. It is not some box-ticking exercise to satisfy a bunch of bureaucrats, but a real exercise in making our country a better place in which to live.”
A bill designed to follow Brown’s approach, the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill, was introduced in the Queen’s Speech last November.
It has now passed through the House of Lords and is currently at its second reading in the House of Commons, which is the stage where debates on the principles of the bill take place. If it becomes law, the bill will:
- establish the Local Better Regulation Office to improve local authority enforcement of environmental health, trading standards and licensing, to reduce burdens on businesses that comply with the law while targeting those who flout it; and
- ensure unnecessary burdens are not imposed on business by regulators.
As the bill is currently making its way through parliament and there is no need for a general election until 2010, it seems that, for now at least, businesses will see Brown’s risk-based regulation on the agenda, rather than Cameron’s regulatory cuts in return for corporate social responsibility policies.
Computer keyboards dirtier than toilet seats
Keyboards crawling with more harmful bacteria than the average toilet seat were discovered by Which? Computing in a microscopic study of an average London office. Workers in contact with animals, sick people or waste material take precautions to avoid contamination, but these industries are not wholely responsible for the 1,500 reported cases of work related infection every year.
According to the research, people eating at their desks drop crumbs onto their keyboards encouraging bacteria, and dust also settles between the keys, trapping moisture. Poor personal hygiene, like people not washing their hands, spreads bacteria around and all these conditions are responsible for encouraging the growth of potentially harmful bacteria.
Twelve per cent of the keyboards checked were found to be potential health hazards, harbouring bugs like E coli and S aureus, and one had five times the levels of bacteria found on the toilet seat swabbed for the study, 150 times the acceptable limit. Microbiologist James Francis of Kingmoor Technical Services who conducted the study says, “these results are generally typical of offices up and down the country.”
A survey of more than 4,000 Which? readers found almost half cleaned their keyboards less than once a month and one in ten never did it. Sarah Kidner, the Editor of Which? Computing says: “Most people don’t give much thought to the grime that builds up on their PC, but ... why not give your PC a spring clean? It’s quite simple to do and could prevent your computer from becoming a health hazard.”
There are a number of practices that a company can impliment to keep its computers clean:
- Gently wipe surfaces with a soft, lint-free cloth. Lightly dampen (not wet) the cloth with a small amount of water or an approved computer cleaning fluid.
- Unplug your keyboard, turn it upside down and shake out any loose dust and food crumbs inside. Disinfect the surface with alcohol wipes.
- Use compressed air in short bursts to blow dust and debris off computer components. Don’t use a cloth to wipe down internal computer components.
- Headphones can be used by multiple people and can spread germs or even head lice. Wipe them with a damp cloth.
Prosecutions increase for drivers using mobiles
Almost 500 drivers a day are being caught using a handheld mobile phone whilst driving, new Ministry of Justice figures reveal. In 2005, 129,700 motorists were issued with a penalty for using a hand-held mobile phone; in 2006 more than 168,000 fines were issued, a rise of 30%.
While this may be a sign that the police are cracking down on careless driving, the findings also act as a warning for employers to make sure they’re doing enough to stop employees who drive for work purposes from using handheld phones. Not least because the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 2003 created an offence of "causing or permitting" another person to drive while using a hand-held phone or other similar device. Employers may, therefore, be prosecuted if they require their employees to use their phones when driving.
“Employers are strongly advised against purely paying ‘lip service’ to a mobile phone policy given that employers will be liable if they encourage, pressure or require staff to use a handheld phone whilst driving,” writes John Turnbull of BPE Solicitors in a dedicated chapter on mobile phones in the Workplace Law Handbook 2008.
He goes on to explain, however, that there has been some debate over what exactly is meant by ‘handheld’. The Regulations define a mobile telephone or other device as being handheld if it “is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function.”
Given this ambiguity and health and safety responsibilities held by employers, Turnbull advises that it is made clear to employees that they are forbidden to use their handheld mobile phones while driving and that, even if they have a hands-free kit, they are not required to make or receive calls when driving. A study found that companies with driving at work policies were split almost in half between those who provide their employees with hands-free kits and those who implement total bans on using phones in cars.
Hands-free kits are still permitted within the law, but the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) strongly advises employers against their use: "Research shows that drivers using mobile phones or hands-free kits are four times more likely to have an accident”, says Roger Vincent, a RoSPA spokesperson.
“We have seen prosecutions of drivers for not being in control of their vehicle when they have been using hands-free kits. Health and safety policies should state that employees cannot make or receive calls while in their cars. Phones need to be turned off. “The numbers of reported deaths involving phones on Britain roads is really only the tip of the iceberg; hands-free kits aggravate circumstances and have a hidden effect.”
Workers unaware of right to eye tests
More than a third of UK workers aren’t aware that they can ask their employer to pay for a sight test if they use a computer screen or electronic till at work, a new study has revealed. The study, conducted by the College of Optometrists, also found that the employees who are aware of their rights are reluctant to assert them to their employers, with 15% of those surveyed stating it would make them feel “greedy” or “inappropriate”.
The research was conducted after optometrists realised that although people use VDU screens more than ever, they were seeing fewer and fewer people, suggesting that employee and employer awareness of the Display Screen Equipment (DSE) Regulations is at a low.
So what requirements do employers have when it comes to their employees’ eye care? Workplace Law Network spoke to Dr Rob Hogan, president of the College of Optometrists, who said: “Under the DSE Regulations, which came out in January 1993, employers are obliged to provide for an eye examination for their employees if they are judged to be VDU users (as the term was 15 years ago; in today’s terms, PC screen users).
“That is interpreted these days as anyone who uses a screen for more than one hour a day, which brings into account people that were never considered 15 years ago; from people at the checkouts at supermarkets, as they now use screens, to someone on reception logging people in.
“The other obligation is that if following that eye examination the optometrist identifies that they need glasses specifically for use on the PC screen – i.e. glasses that they don’t need to use any other time and can put in the drawer in the desk at the end of the day, and [the worker can] go home for the weekend and not need those glasses – then the employer is obliged to provide them.
“This doesn’t mean that the employee can get Christian Dior diamante-encrusted frames and expect the employer to pay for that; generally it is taken that the employer will pay for the lenses and the employee, if they can’t get a basic frame they like, can put something towards a more expensive frame.”
Dr Hogan also says that whilst some employees may claim that PC use makes their eyesight worse, there is no evidence to suggest that is actually the case: “When people become short-sighted, for instance, it starts at about 12-14 years old. It is a physiological change in the eye that happens. That change happened before they even needed glasses, and their eyes will continue to change until they are 24-25.”
Hogan says the computer may seem to make eyesight worse because an employee might have a slight, underlying condition that is made worse by the distance the computer screen is from their eyes, and these are the people that would need glasses for VDU use: “We found from experience that about 8% of the people examined for a VDU purpose end up needing glasses of that nature, so from an employer’s perspective it is not everybody and it is not a scam.”
The reason Hogan believes employers may be unaware of their requirements is that the legislation is old: “The legislation came in 15 years ago, and there was a lot of hype 15 years ago; at the time I was working at another company and we were inundated with employers wanting to know what they could do. But now we are 15 years on and there has been no change [in the legislation]; a lot of the workers in the workplace now were probably at school then, and are completely unaware of it.”
Hogan says that employers are probably not wilfully doing something wrong by not being aware of their obligations under DSE regulations, and called on HR departments to “have a quiet word” with employers to remind them of their requirements.
Biker festival gets the green light
A major bikers festival will go ahead in Warwickshire despite police warning that they cannot guarantee public safety.
A committee in Stratford-upon-Avon granted a licence to hold the Bulldog Bash 2008, although police had submitted a formal objection to the organisers’ application.
On August 12 last year, Hells Angel member Gerry Tobin was shot dead on the M40 after leaving the long-running motorcycling event.
Organisers were granted an annual licence for the event, held in Long Marston, Warwickshire, to cover this year’s planned August festival and last until 2018. Members of the public applauded as the decision was announced. Councillor Gillian Roache, chair of the licensing committee, told the hearing: "We are of the view that we are dealing with licensed premises and licensable activities and their immediate vicinity." She said the tragic death of Mr Tobin did not occur in the immediate vicinity of licensed premises.
The Bulldog Bash licence was granted subject to conditions including random searches on the site, the use of metal detectors, and set numbers of accredited security staff at entrances on the site.
John "Bilbo" Britt, licensee for the event, said he was "relieved and pleased" by the decision.
He said: "I thought the police evidence against us was hysterical but we are very willing to work with police in the future. "I can understand their problems and we will work very hard with them to make this event as safe as we possibly can." He said the conditions attached to the licence will cost organisers "extra money" but were "common sense".
Explaining the committee’s decision afterwards, Coun Roache said: "What goes on miles away from the premises is not the responsibility of people running operations on the site. The licensee is not responsible for activities beyond the perimeter of the premises - that’s a police responsibility."
Several men are due to stand trial in October for the murder of Mr Tobin, the panel heard during the two-day hearing. In a statement, Warwickshire Police’s Assistant Chief Constable, Bill Holland, said: "Warwickshire Police lodged an objection to a licence being granted for Bulldog Bash because we firmly believe that public safety could be compromised by this event. Warwickshire Police has a duty of care to the public and the force will give the council’s decision careful consideration before commenting further."
Earlier Inspector David Patterson, of the operations planning unit, said: "The view of the police is that the only safe way to ensure public safety is that the event shouldn’t go ahead at all." He said that to police this year’s Bulldog Bash – the 22nd – in an appropriate way would cost £1,940,000.
The festival, which the committee heard is associated with the Hells Angels motorcycling group, boasts on its website of drag racing, wrestling, live bands and a "topless bike wash". In 2001 a Canadian man survived after being shot three times in the leg after leaving the Bulldog Bash, while in 1998 the festival faced a bomb threat.
The committee also heard that organisers of another motorcycling event, the Rock and Blues Custom Show in Derbyshire, cancelled this year’s festival after police voiced concerns. And on Wednesday it was announced the Welsh National Motorcycle Show, due to take place later this month, has also been cancelled amid police fears of a "significant risk of violence".
The dangers of the mosh pit
Taking in a live concert may be more dangerous than one might expect - especially when you consider the risk of getting kicked in the face by a flaying crowd surfer or stage diver.
Several concert goers suffered injuries after a mosh pit got out of control at a New Jersey music festival recently, according to local reports.
As many as 50 concertgoers at New Jersey's Bamboozle Festival reportedly sought medical attention after a mosh pit got out of hand. Witnesses reported seeing several of the 70,000 attendants treating bloody noses and worse, getting carried out on stretchers.
"There is no way to crowd surf or stage dive safely consistently," said Paul Wertheimer, president of Crowd Management Strategies Inc., the only U.S. organization that tracks concert crowd safety incidents. "People go up [surfing] and stay up but more often than not they fall on people. They can die."
The dangers of mosh pits are alarming, according to concert safety experts and emergency medical professionals, who told ABCNEWS.com that the most injuries incurred from mosh pits aren't actually by the moshers but by innocent bystanders. There have been nine mosh-related deaths recorded between 1994 and 2006, according to Wertheimer, who added that there very well may be more that have gone unreported.
At a 2007 Smashing Pumpkins concert in Vancouver, a 20-year-old concertgoer collapsed in a mosh pit and later died, according to Wertheimer's records. The number of injuries is far greater: Crowd Management Strategies estimates that 10,000 people have been injured in and around mosh pits in the last decade.
At a University of Central Florida concert in April, four concertgoers were rushed to the hospital with broken bones after being crushed in what Wertheimer calls "mosh pit chaos" and at the 1999 Woodstock festival first aid casualties were in the tens of thousands. "A festival where moshing is prevalent, like Bamboozle, is likely to generate 100 to 200 mosh-related injuries requiring first aid or hospital care," said Wertheimer, who makes estimates based on the approximate number of mosh concerts and the general number of people injured at the events. "Smaller concerts, from 500 to 5,000 [attendees] will generate six to 40 first aid casualties or injuries."
STAGESAFE introduces new Fire Safety training courses
STAGESAFE have announced the availability of a new Fire Safety training courses. The basic Fire Safety Awareness course is suitable for all, while the Fire Safety for Stewards, Security and Fire Wardens/Marshals module covers the additional responsibilities of these staff. Further detail can be found here.
Company director charged with manslaughter after fall death
The owner and director of IC Roofing has been charged with the manslaughter of a worker, who died after falling through a skylight. Darren Hoofe was carrying out roofing repairs at the Bellbrook Industrial Estate in Uckfield, Sussex, when he fell through a skylight 6 metres onto the factory floor below. He later died in hospital from head injuries he sustained in the fall.
"Sussex Police have worked closely with the HSE to bring this matter before the courts," said DI Colin Dowle, as the investigation cumulated this week. The company was charged breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act Section 2(1) by failing to ensure the safety of its employee and the owner and director of IC Roofing was charged with manslaughter under Section 37 (1) of the Act, where he is seen as consenting to, or attributable for the neglect that led to, the offence.
HSE principal inspector Dave Rothery says: “This is a significant case for the HSE. It brings to the attention of individuals that they may be charged with serious criminal offences if they fail to take adequate precautions under the Health and Safety at Work Act.”
RNID warns on MP3 players
Love them or hate them, there's no escaping the MP3 player. Everywhere you go people are plugged into earphones. But there's a message millions of music fans can't ignore - played too loud for too long, MP3s can cause premature deafness. The RNID, charity for the deaf and hard-of-hearing, says two thirds of youngsters who regularly use MP3s have the volume too high and are at risk. And with eight million MP3 players sold each year in the UK, that's a lot of hearing damage.
The charity's latest research in Brighton, Manchester and Birmingham found 72 out of 110 MP3 users pushed the volume level above 85 decibels. The World Health Organisation says listening at this volume with earphones for more than hour can damage hearing. Listening at 105 decibels will cause harm in just over 15 minutes. To put this in context, normal conversation is around 60 decibels and a rock concert around 120.
Warnings needed
Nearly six out of 10 people surveyed didn't realise the risk of high-volume listening. If a player can be heard a metre away, the listener is at risk. Clear warnings are needed because chronic loud noise pumped into the ears stiffens the ear drum so it can't vibrate and transmit sound efficiently. Sound sent across the middle ear also gets less sharp because arthritis develops between the tiny bones that carry sound waves to the inner ear.
And here, the fine nerve endings of the hearing organ become numbed from being battered by levels of noise. Sadly, there's no cure so the best way of keeping your hearing sharp is to protect it. For more information, call the RNID on 0808 808 0123 or visit www.RNID.org.uk
Five smart ways to save your ears
- Never stand near speakers at concerts and, better still, wear special earplugs designed for music venues. They can reduce sound by between 15 and 35 decibels and, by blocking out excess noise, will help you hear music and conversation more clearly.
- Check how your MP3 player sounds in quiet surroundings. If it's uncomfortably noisy (or if you can't hear someone next to you talking loudly), turn it down. Better still, set a volume limit on it.
- Don't turn up your MP3 player to cover loud noise.
- Wear earplugs when doing noisy jobs like using a power drill or mowing the lawn.
- Always protect your ears if you're in a noisy job. Call the Health and Safety Executive on 0845 345 0055 or visit www.hse.gov.uk/noise for more info.
I didn't realise my iPod was so noisy
Writer Monica Cafferky, 38, from Huddersfield, West Yorks, spent a day using a sound-level meter to test the amount of noise in her everyday life. She was shocked by the results…
- 7am: Any reading above 85 decibels - dB (A) - is considered dangerous after an hour. I test my hairdryer after a quick shower and can't believe it's 83 dB (A). Luckily my hair dries quickly.
- 7.30am: My partner, Chris, and I chat as we get ready for the day. Our conversation measures 60 dB (A). No doubt it's higher when we're arguing.
- 8am: I take my dog Tilly for a walk. As usual, my iPod is on full blast. I'm shocked it's 84 dB (A) but, thankfully, there's a volume-limit setting on it.
- 8.30am: The builder arrives to convert the loft, turns on his radio and starts sawing. I pop up to have a chat and the level reaches 96 dB (A).
- 9am: I listen to the radio while having breakfast and turn it up when a good track comes on. The meter reads 100 dB (A).
- 9.30am: I start work in my home office. The phone rings, it reaches 88 dB (A).
- 12.30pm: I head off to an interview in Leeds via the motorway, turn up the radio so I can hear it, glance at the meter and it hits 93 dB (A).
- 3pm: Back home, Tilly barks when she sees me. She manages 78 dB (A) and peaks at 103 dB (A). What a noisy pooch!
- 5.30pm: At the gym, the only free treadmill is below the speakers. I hop on and see the meter hit 97 dB (A). I thought working out was supposed to be healthy.
- 7pm: After dinner, I do some housework. The vacuum reads 79 d B (A). Then I head to town for a quick drink with friends.
- 10.30pm: Now I have to shout to be heard. At 90 dB (A), it's too loud. I head home to a nice quiet house. I don't want to be deaf before bedtime.
Early signs of hearing damage
It's not as obvious as it sounds. Among people who didn't believe they had a hearing problem, 10 per cent scored below average in tests, according to a survey by Siemens. Look out for:
- Ringing in the ears. It'll start off as temporary but eventually can become permanent and is known as tinnitus. But don't panic - it can also be caused by a middle-ear infection, so see your GP.
- Sounds seem as loud but people seem to mumble. That's because high-frequency sounds are the first to go, distorting noise rather than making it quieter.
- You ask people to repeat things a lot.
- You have trouble following conversations in noisy places.
- You find it easier to hear if you're looking at the person who's talking.
- You have difficulty hearing the doorbell or telephone.
- Following group conversations becomes harder than it used to be.
Note: All iPods running software version 1.1.1 and above incorporate a personal volume limit adjustment which prevents the player from reaching maximum volume. For further information, read Apple's article on sound and hearing and their FAQ.
HSE calls for better risk management by company leaders
The important role that directors play in a company’s health and safety performance has been highlighted this week. Speaking at a health and safety briefing in London the Chair of the HSE, Judith Hackitt spoke to board members and senior business directors of the need to demonstrate leadership in managing risks. But more may need to be done, as earlier in the week the Work and Pensions Committee said it was “not convinced” current guidance ensures directors fulfill their responsibilities.
"No matter how good the health and safety system, nor how competent those who manage it, without effective board-level leadership and oversight, the competing demands of running a business can push health and safety into a back seat," said Hackitt. Guidance from last October produced by the HSC with the Institute of Directors was designed to assist in prioritising health and safety, suggesting ways for directors to "own and understand health and safety by leading from the top."
However, a conclusion of the Work and Pensions report was that, “given that the UK has operated a voluntary approach since the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Act in 1974; we are not convinced that the introduction of new guidance for directors on health and safety is sufficient to ensure board-level prioritisation of health and safety issues.” Workplace Law Network asked the HSE to comment on the criticism raised in by the report, but it said that it would not comment until the report was complete.
The Work and Pensions Committee was told by union organisations and other groups that the infrequent prosecution of directors under the Health and Safety at Work Act, together with an even less frequent use of disqualification powers made it impossible to conclude whether this was having any “discernable influence upon director behaviour.”
The recent introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act may have focused the attention of directors on their responsibilities for health and safety and Hackitt is hopeful of its positive effect on directors; “Organisations should be re-examining their health and safety performance - and asking ‘Are our board and board members playing an appropriate and effective role?’”
But the Committee wants action to ensure impact at board level. It recommends that the HSE measures the success of current arrangements, and should they prove inadequate the committee says it is “convinced by evidence that the introduction of statutory duties … would have a significant impact on board-level prioritisation of health and safety.”
Survey focuses on driving at work policies
A major survey of occupational road risk management has been launched at this week’s Fleet Business Show, to find the strengths and weaknesses of UK companies’ driving at work policies. Conducted by Kwik-Fit Fleet and Roadsafe, which is a partnership of Government, industry and road safety professionals, the survey will look at the actions that fleet managers have taken to reduce their organisation’s risk exposure in light of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act.
According to figures; driving on business is the most dangerous task employees undertake in their working life. Department for Transport figures show that in 2006 a total of 3,172 people were killed on Britain’s roads and 255,232 people were injured. It is estimated that between a third and a quarter of all road traffic crashes involve someone who was at work at the time. Based on 2006 statistics that means around 800-1,060 deaths a year on the road, compared to 241 fatal injuries to workers in the “traditional workplace”.
John Maslen, highlights how important risk assessments are to fleet managers: “A risk assessment isn’t a difficult task. It is just a list, from which you can create a ‘to do’ list to make the fleet safer. It helps a company to weigh up whether it has done enough to ensure safe working practices or should do more to prevent harm. For most small businesses, and the self-employed, the hazards will be easy to identify. The aim is to make the risk of someone being injured or killed, as low as possible.”
Yet Adrian Walsh, Director of RoadSafe, says that the majority of companies in the UK, particularly SMEs, are continuing to turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities to effectively manage their drivers under health and safety legislation: “By finding out from as many companies as possible exactly what at-work driving safety measures they have implemented and where weaknesses may lie, we can help them further improve their legal compliance."
With the introduction of legislation like the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act in recent years, Mike Wise, head of Kwik-Fit Fleet, has become aware of the increasing need for companies to be taking steps to manage the occupational road risks of their fleets and at-work drivers: “As a business we undertake hundreds of thousands of safety checks on vehicles and often find that cars and vans are not in tip-top condition. A failure by companies and their employees to ensure a vehicle’s safety-related equipment is in a first-class condition could be the difference between life and death.”
Most employees think that their bosses put other business concerns like time and money ahead of health and safety, according to research commissioned by IOSH. Staff were asked to rank their employers business priorities, only 7% of them said making sure employees are not hurt or made ill by work was the main priority. Priorities which ranked higher were keeping customers and clients happy, making money and getting work done on time.
Lord McKenzie, Minister responsible for Health and Safety, says that health and safety is something all employers needed to take seriously: “There is a strong business case for responsible health and safety at work and some employers clearly fail to take seriously the risks that many of their employees face each day.” When asked if health and safety was important to them, 67% of employees said that it was, and only 8% said that it was not. But when asked if health and safety was important to their boss, 56% felt that it was, while 14% said it was not – almost double the number of employees who do not care.
Ray Hurst, the president of IOSH, says: “These workers views suggest that there’s still a minority of employers out there who simply don’t give a damn about their staff. There are some who still think it is okay to cut corners and put their staff at risk, and that’s not acceptable. While the vast majority of bosses do take health and safety seriously, workers feel some do not.” Because management failure is a focus of the new Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, 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.
