Comments sought on the developments on the HSE's Fees For Intervention scheme

The Fee for Intervention (FFI) scheme that the HSE are presently following has come in for a lot of criticism.
Latest news on this is:

• Income from FFI during the 2013/14 FY was £12.3M.  As their budget was £17M, this represents a shortfall of £5M.
• The budget for FY 2014/15 is £23M, so we can expect things to get worse.
• HMRC has just stated that as FFI is not a fine (though it smells like and fine and looks like a fine), fees for intervention are tax deductable.

So, if FFI is a non-starter, how are the HSE going to generate income?

In the next few months HSE will begin testing with possible customers the market demand for a fully-chargeable inspection service for organisations with mature health and safety management systems.  In other words, if you are confident enough that you are in control of health and safety, you can pay the HSE, ie the people who could charge you under FFI or prosecute you, to carry out an assessment of your safety measures.

I offer the following comments on this:

1. At an IAC meeting a few years ago, the HSE suggested offering free visits to companies to give advice. The concept of inviting the HSE into your company, no matter how confident you were was greeted with laughter.
2. You would need a lot of companies to make up £23M.
3. If you are confident enough to invite the HSE into your company, there will be probably be little benefit from improvement suggestions they make. So the only benefit would be if the HSE scheme had a "kite mark" type of output that companies could shout about.  My experience with the HSE is that they have been unwilling to endorse or certify organisations, so I can't see this happening.
4. Were the HSE to issue a "kite mark", how would this square with their role of being an inspectorate, ie being the policeman? Surely there would be a conflict.

I'd be interested in people's opinions on this.

Lack of isolation crushes young employee's arm. Company fined almost £25,000 and director fined £1,800.

Equestrobed, a Suffolk horse bedding manufacturer and its managing director were fined £24,969 (inc. costs) and £1,800 respectively after a young employee’s arm was crushed because a compactor was not isolated.

The circumstances were:

• The press plate on a compactor had been blocked with dust and wood shavings, preventing the machine from operating properly. 
• There was no system of work requiring isolation from the power source for unblocking this machine.
• Christopher Barker was removing this dust and wood shavings, and to do this he had removed the side guard. He had had to do this before.
• As he was removing the debris the machine was activated, crushing his arm between the plate and the hatch opening.
• He suffered damage to the muscle, tendons and nerves in his left arm which required two surgical procedures and a blood transfusion. 

The HSE Inspector said:

“Christopher Barker suffered a serious life changing injury and has been left with serious damage to his arm. He was just 17 at the time, when youth and lack of experience should have prompted extra vigilance by his employer. The incident could easily have been avoided had there been proper safeguards in place when clearing the blockages on the baler including ensuring that it was properly isolated before starting work. This case highlights what can go wrong if robust procedures are not in place to manage interventions on large items of plant and machinery.”

See more about health and safety support from Strategic Safety Systems.

HSE stats show 20% fall in fatality rates. UK almost the lowest.

Data from the HSE has shown that deaths due to work activities in 2013/14 was 133, which is equal to a rate of fatal injury of 0.44 deaths per 100 000 workers.  This represents a fall of about 20% over the average rate over the past 5 years of 0.56 deaths per 100 000 workers.

The UK rate of 0.44 is  low end when compared with other countries.  The EU rate is 1.39 and France is 2.74 deaths per 100 000 workers.

By industry, agriculture has the highest rate, but recycling comes next, ahead of construction.

See full report from HSE: http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/pdf/fatalinjuries.pdf

Poor non-standard work operation results in falls from 2 forklift truck cages

Eurokey Recycling Ltd., a Leicestershire recycling company, was fined nearly £11,000 (inc. costs) on 3 July 2014 after non-standard work resulted in falls from cages on forklift trucks.

The circumstances were:

• Richard Norton and Craig Dunn were contractors engaged to carry out work on a faulty roller shutter door on 21 February 2013.
• Eurokey had provided two forklift trucks, each with a caged container balanced on the prongs of the truck.
• The cages did not have fork ‘pockets’ to secure them to the trucks and were not strapped to the forklift. 
• Neither of the men realised the containers were not man-cages designed to lift people, but were for goods transport.
• They were raised 3m and removed the roller shutter which was then balanced between the two cages. 
• When the cages were lowered, the descent speeds were different, which caused the load to destabilise and the cages to fall to the floor. .
• Mr Norton broke his right wrist and was off work for five months. Mr Dunn suffered several torn muscles in his back and was unable to work for 12 weeks.

The HSE inspector said:

“The system of work employed for the work activity was totally inappropriate and posed an obvious risk to the safety of the people being lifted. People should never be lifted on a pallet or similar container, balanced on the forks of a lift truck because they can easily fall off. Non-integrated working platforms, such as man-cages, may only be used in exceptional circumstances for occasional unplanned use. Examples might be maintenance tasks where it would be impracticable to hire-in purpose-built access equipment. That was not the case here.”

Overridden interlocks causes loss of 2 fingers. Company did not report it under RIDDOR.

MTI Welding Technologies Ltd., a Dudley-based welding machine manufacturer was fined £56,100 (inc.costs) on 2 July 2014 after a worker lost 2 fingers in a machine. 

The circumstances were:

• MTI had acquired a high-friction welding machine from another firm that had modified it from a safe, robot-loaded one.
• The modifications had defeated safety interlocks on the enclosure so it was now possible to be within the danger area when the machine was running.
• They introduced manual controls so it could be loaded by an operator within the enclosure.
• These were located dangerously close to the fixture, allowing operators to initiate powered machine movements while still within the danger zone.
• No secondary guarding had been fitted to protect the operator during manual operations and no emergency stops were provided at the manual operating position.
• MTI continued to use it in its dangerous manual mode without assessing the risks.
• A self-employed electrical contractor, Ian Mowbray, was working on the machine on
  23 August 2013.
• He was trying to rectify a loading problem when he pressed an incorrect button, closing the powerful hydraulic holding fixture on to his left hand.
• His middle and ring fingers were so badly crushed they had to be amputated in hospital. He was off work for three weeks and has since returned to the company.
• MTI  failed to report the incident to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). 
• It came to light four weeks later when HSE received an anonymous complaint which led to an unannounced inspection.

During the HSE visit a radial arm drill was running without a suitably maintained safety switch, leaving operators inadequately protected. A Prohibition Notice was issued banning its use with immediate effect until the fault was repaired.

The HSE inspector said:

“The company builds and sells its welding machines to major manufacturing companies worldwide. As original manufacturers they are fully aware of the legal requirements to supply machines with all the required safety measures. They were therefore grossly negligent to allow the use of this machine within their own premises in its modified state. MTI Welding Technologies Ltd entirely failed to consider the risk to workers while engaged in manual operations. Had they done so a man would not have suffered a serious, painful injury.”

Failure of interlock checks causes crushed hand

RSM Industries Ltd.,  which makes metal components for the automotive industry was fined £19,300 (inc. costs) because of poor guard interlock checking after a worker's hand was crushed.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on a 160-tonne power press on 8 May 2013.
• The machine had had new guards fitted but the interlock, which prevented the press from operating if the guards were anything other than fully closed, had not been correctly adjusted and set.
• RSM's daily checks failed to pick up the fault with the guards on 12 separate occasions.
• An agency worker had his hand in the machine removing finished pieces of metal when he accidentally hit the foot pedal, causing the machine to start up.
• His right hand was crushed and he had to have three and a half fingers and half his palm amputated.

The HSE inspector said:

“The worker suffered life-changing injuries. He spent 35 hours in surgery undergoing seven different operations and is now severely disabled with the loss of his dominant hand. He has not been able to return to work and is still receiving treatment. Yet this incident was entirely preventable had the company thoroughly examined the machine before it was brought back into use and carried out adequate daily checks. The fact the fault was missed a dozen different times shows a complete lack of diligence.”

ROSPA-funded strategic review of the management of occupational road risk

A study into occupational road risk (ORR) by UCL and TRR has shown some alarming  conclusions:

• About 30% of fatalities and just over 22% of serious injuries were sustained when somebody was driving as part of their work.
• This is not changing (as is clear from the graph above).
• Deaths and serious injuries are around 5750 per year
• The information on crashes and casualties whilst driving for work is sparse and its accuracy is not known.
• With a few exceptions, work related road safety (WRRS) is not part of mainstream risk management within companies.
• There is no requirement for work-related road injuries to be recorded in RIDDOR, nor is there any way of separating such data so ORR can be analysed.

The report made recommendations on overcoming these shortfalls.

Note that, for several years, managing occupational road risk has been a key part of
OHSAS 18001 safety management systems provided by Strategic Safety Systems.

The full report is available from the link below:

http://www.rospa.com/drivertraining/morr/info/morr-strategic-review.pdf