Tuesday, 13 September 2011

RIDDOR phone reporting changes 12th Sept. 2011

From 12th September, you will only be able to use the phone to report fatal and major injuries and incidents to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). You will have to report all other work-related injuries and incidents via one of a suite of seven online forms available on HSE’s website.

Also, later in September, HSE’s Infoline telephone service which currently provides a basic information service to callers will end.
Instead, from 30 September, those seeking information and official guidance will be directed to HSE's website which the HSE state as being a huge knowledge bank where you can access and download resources and use interactive web tools free of charge.

Saturday, 3 September 2011

What are the benefits of OHSAS certification?

Many organisations might have a health and safety policy and manual but, often, they simply pay lip service to health and safety. Increasingly, prospective clients are demanding proof that health and safety controls are also effective.

OHSAS 18001 provides an approved 'best-practice' framework for delivering a practical workable solution to reduce risk across an organisation.

Those organisations that create, implement and comply with a health and safety management system compliant to OHSAS 18001 will have a structure in place that provides reassurance that all necessary policies, procedures and controls are in place to continuously , improve health and safety. Businesses that decide to achieve certification benefit from both an operational and commercial perspective. Operationally, a culture of health and safety will create a greater awareness of risks to the business, employees and stakeholders. As a result, a proactive approach to preventing incidents and reducing risk is embedded into day-to-day working life.

Commercially, organisations benefit not only by demonstrating a commitment to health and safety internally, therefore resulting in cost savings through less absenteeism and claims, but also by showing a commitment to other stakeholders, particularly clients and prospective customers. In many sectors, certification to OHSAS 18001 is so well regarded it has now become a pre-requisite to trade; Indeed, those companies not certified to OHSAS 18001 may, in certain sectors, struggle to even get on the first rung of the ladder in the tender process.

Some organisations choose OHSAS 18001 simply to get the 'badge; so it can be displayed an their company marketing literature and website. However, do not get caught out by buying a cheap certificate on the Internet, as it will be practically worthless. Certification should always be sought through a certification body approved by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS).

Certification by such a body can also provide other financial benefits, such as helping to reduce insurance costs. However, one of the biggest benefits from a commercial perspective is that OHSAS 18001 certification will demonstrate credibility and confidence to support the retention of existing clients and help win new business.

Source: SHP September 2011

Thursday, 18 August 2011

RIDDOR reporting period to be changed to 7 days

The reporting period for injuries sustained at work is to be extended from three to seven days, following analysis of responses to the consultation on RIDDOR carried out earlier this year.

At a meeting of the HSE Board today (17 August), it was decided to recommend to the Work and Pensions Secretary that the proposed change to reg.3(2) of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 be carried into effect. The decision was based on 776 finalised responses to the consultation – held between February and May this year – among which there was a two-to-one majority in favour of the change.

According to the HSE, a majority of respondents felt the change would not have an adverse consequence on national statistics. Other positive key themes identified from the consultation were that admin burdens will be reduced; aligning the reporting period with that required under the new fit-note system will make sickness absence easier to manage; and the extended period will allow more time for employers to investigate the incident internally.

Concerns highlighted by those against the change included the likelihood of a negative impact on the health and safety culture of organisations, leading to a lowering of standards; less opportunity for duty-holders and regulators to spot trends and incidents that could have resulted in more serious injuries; and overall less compliance with RIDDOR – under which around half of all non-fatal workplace injuries currently go unreported.

Around 8 per cent of respondents felt the change would have no advantage for either their organisation, or the national health and safety system. A number of others, including IOSH, the CBI and trades unions, while supporting the change, called for a fuller review of the Regulations. Head of policy and public affairs at IOSH, Richard Jones, said: "In our own survey on RIDDOR, members were two-to-one in favour of the change, but a significant number had concerns that this would lead to ‘over three-day’ accidents being trivialised. We also believe a wider review of RIDDOR is needed.”

To this end, the HSE has signalled its intention to look at wider issues surrounding RIDDOR 12 months after the current amendment comes into effect, which is likely to be from 6 April next year.

Jason Cropper, a regulatory lawyer and director at DWF, said the move could mean that health and safety will no longer be at the forefront of duty-holders’ minds. Echoing his colleague Steffan Groch, who spoke on the proposed changes to RIDDOR at the SHP Legal Arena at the NEC in May, Mr Cropper said: “I think this change will diminish what health and safety is about, and affect how seriously it is taken in organisations.

“The quality of data collection, too, will be poorer, which will cause the HSE all sorts of problems. It will be less able to understand trends in injuries and occurrences and therefore affect how it strategically targets resources over the medium to long term.”

Given that under-reporting of injuries and incidents is already a huge problem, Mr Cropper said the change to the over-seven-day period is likely to make things “significantly worse”.

The HSE’s chief statistician, however, assured the board that the regulator would still be able to spot trends “for the whole of the workforce and each sector, and feed these into the HSE’s planning process”.

Source: SHP 18 Aug. 11

Saturday, 13 August 2011

Groundwater Daughter Directive

We reviewed the consultation document on the Proposed Methodology for Determination of Substances for the Purposes of the Groundwater Daughter Directive (2006/118/EC). This does not seem to pose any problems for the industries with with Strategic Safety Systems are involved.

Saturday, 6 August 2011

Road deaths fall despite fewer speed cameras

The number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads continued to fall despite speed cameras being stripped out throughout the country, according to the latest government figures.
The Department for Transport latest statistics show that deaths dropped by 10% to 1,870 for the 12 months ending in March 2011.
Over the same period, the number of people killed and seriously injured fell to 24,770, a decline of 5%.
There was a 35% reduction in people killed in drink-drive accidents, with 250 deaths compared with 380 in 2009.

The apparent improvement in road safety will hearten ministers, who had been attacked for withdrawing funds for speed cameras and safety campaigns.
Source: Daily Telegraph 5 August 2011

Tuesday, 12 July 2011

Fire risk assessor and hotel manager jailed for fire safety offences

An external fire risk assessor and a hotel manager have both been jailed for eight months for fire safety offences.

David Liu, who runs The Dial Hotel and Market Inn, both in Mansfield, had previously pleaded guilty at Nottingham Crown Court to 15 offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, while John O’Rourke of Mansfield Fire Protection Services pleaded guilty to two offences under the legislation.

The Judge said that the time had come to send out a message to those who conduct fire risk assessments, and to hoteliers who are prepared to put profit before safety.

Officers from Nottingham Fire and Rescue Service visited both hotels as part of a routine inspection. They found that both premises were being used to provide sleeping accommodation on the upper floors and that fire precautions, which should have been provided to safeguard the occupants in the event of a fire, were inadequate.

Due to the serious risk to life, they issued prohibition notices preventing any further use of both premises for sleeping accommodation until suitable improvements had been made.

Mr O’Rourke was prosecuted because he had prepared fire risk assessments for both premises. However the fire risk assessments failed to identify a number of significant deficiencies, said the prosecution, which would have placed the occupants at serious risk in the event of a fire.

The offences common to both hotels to which Mr Liu, as the responsible person, pleaded guilty were:

  • A lack of a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment
  • A failure to ensure effective means of escape with doors leading onto corridors not being fire resisting or having self-closers fitted
  • A failure to ensure that emergency routes and exits were provided with emergency lighting
  • A failure to ensure the premises were equipped with appropriate firefighting equipment, detectors and alarms in that there was no fire detection within the bedrooms
  • A failure to ensure that equipment and devices provided were subject to a suitable system of maintenance in that the fire alarm system, emergency lighting system and firefighting equipment were not tested.

In addition at the Dial Hotel, officers found both staircases from upper levels terminating in the same ground floor area with no alternative escape routes or separation, a locked fire exit door, and exit routes obstructed by combustible materials.

The other offence at the Market Inn related to a missing fire door and a window not being fire resisting.

Mr Liu was also ordered to pay costs of £15,000.

John O’Rourke, as a person other than the responsible person who had some control of the premises, pleaded guilty to two counts (one for each hotel) of failing to provide a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment. He was ordered to pay costs of £5,860.

Source: Info4Fire