Business Insurance and Risk Assessment specialists Alan Boswell Group reports on the latest HSE figures.
The provisional figures for the year 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 show the number of people killed at work in Britain fell to a record low of 151 in 2009/2010. This was a reduction of 27 on the previous year’s figure of 178 – April 2008 to March 2009. More impressively it was 31 per cent lower than the average figure for the last five years.
The provisional figures reveal that agriculture was the most dangerous industry with 38 workers losing their lives on farms last year compared with 25 deaths in 2008/09, an increase of some 52 per cent.
The construction industry, traditionally the most dangerous sector, saw a significant fall in the number of deaths on sites last year. A total of 41 fatal injuries were recorded, down from 52 deaths the previous year which is way below the average for the last five years of 66.
Manufacturing improved also, with 24 fatalities in 2009/2010 compared with 33 the previous year. In the services sector, 42 workers died – 20 fewer than in 2008/09, and 30 fewer than the five-year average of 72.
While the HSE emphasised the contribution of “good practice, leadership and employee engagement” in the record low figures it was also pragmatic about the reasons for the improved performance, acknowledging that the recession has resulted in lower levels of activity in some sectors and a decrease in the number of new, inexperienced recruits.
The Executive added that now is not the time to ease off the throttle. A spokesperson said “Of course this is a welcome reduction in the number of work-related deaths but the evidence on economic cycles shows that while there are fewer fatalities during recessions, as we move into recovery the injury rate will rise. We cannot be complacent – we don’t want to be talking this time next year about an increase in fatalities, so we need to be extra vigilant, not less so, for when the recovery happens.”
So the message going forward is to give ourselves a pat on the back for these much improved figures but continue to look at ways to drive these numbers down further by good and practical risk management particularly as the recovery from recession gathers pace.
Additional information on the statistics can be found at www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm
For more information on risk management and business insurance, speak to Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers on 01603 218000 or visit our website – http://www.alanboswell.com/business-insurance/
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
Decrease in Work Related Deaths
This blog and its content are for informational purposes only. You alone will need to evaluate the merits and risks associated with the use of this blog. Decisions based on information obtained from the blog are your sole responsibility. Any views expressed on this blog by us were prepared based upon the information available to us at the time such views were written. Changed or additional information could cause such views to change. All information is subject to possible correction. Information may become unreliable for various reasons, such as changes in the law.
Friday, 11 June 2010
Working Long Hours Is Bad For The Heart
John Neil, Risk Manager at leading Business Insurance Brokers Alan Boswell Group reports on why working long hours is bad for your heart.
Findings from the Whitehall II study, a cohort study of members of the civil service, have shown that middle aged employees who routinely work overtime are at an increased risk of coronary heart disease.
The study that included researchers from University College, London followed participants for 11 years during which there were 369 cases of fatal coronary heart disease, non-fatal heart attacks and definite angina diagnosis.
The amount of overtime worked by participants was stated to be:
Researchers found that working 3 to 4 hours of overtime per day, when adjusted for social and demographic factors, raised the risk of heart disease by 60% compared to those who did no overtime. Working 1 or 2 hours extra seemed to have little or no effect.
Richard Jones, Policy and Technical Director of IOSH stated the study shows the need to monitor and make sure hours and workload are within reasonable limits.
Researchers feel more work is needed to determine the reasons for the link between overtime and heart disease and examine whether reduced overtime hours would alter the risk.
The British Heart Foundation agrees clarity is needed on reasoning for the increase in risk.
Overtime could cause hidden symptoms such as high blood pressure, stress, poor sleep patters and irregular diet which can affect the mechanics of the heart. Overtime could also simply mean we have less time to look after ourselves.
If you are working overtime, there are simple ways to look after yourself and your heart while at work like taking a brisk walk at lunchtime, use stairs instead of a lift and eat a piece of fruit instead of that sweet biscuit or a chocolate bar.
For more information on risk analysis and for expert business insurance advice, speak to Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers on 01603 218000, or visit our web site – http://www.alanboswell.com/business-insurance/risk-management-services.aspx
Findings from the Whitehall II study, a cohort study of members of the civil service, have shown that middle aged employees who routinely work overtime are at an increased risk of coronary heart disease.
The study that included researchers from University College, London followed participants for 11 years during which there were 369 cases of fatal coronary heart disease, non-fatal heart attacks and definite angina diagnosis.
The amount of overtime worked by participants was stated to be:
- x Up to 4 hours a day 10%
- x Up to 2 hours a day 36%
- x No significant overtime 54%
Researchers found that working 3 to 4 hours of overtime per day, when adjusted for social and demographic factors, raised the risk of heart disease by 60% compared to those who did no overtime. Working 1 or 2 hours extra seemed to have little or no effect.
Richard Jones, Policy and Technical Director of IOSH stated the study shows the need to monitor and make sure hours and workload are within reasonable limits.
Researchers feel more work is needed to determine the reasons for the link between overtime and heart disease and examine whether reduced overtime hours would alter the risk.
The British Heart Foundation agrees clarity is needed on reasoning for the increase in risk.
Overtime could cause hidden symptoms such as high blood pressure, stress, poor sleep patters and irregular diet which can affect the mechanics of the heart. Overtime could also simply mean we have less time to look after ourselves.
If you are working overtime, there are simple ways to look after yourself and your heart while at work like taking a brisk walk at lunchtime, use stairs instead of a lift and eat a piece of fruit instead of that sweet biscuit or a chocolate bar.
For more information on risk analysis and for expert business insurance advice, speak to Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers on 01603 218000, or visit our web site – http://www.alanboswell.com/business-insurance/risk-management-services.aspx
This blog and its content are for informational purposes only. You alone will need to evaluate the merits and risks associated with the use of this blog. Decisions based on information obtained from the blog are your sole responsibility. Any views expressed on this blog by us were prepared based upon the information available to us at the time such views were written. Changed or additional information could cause such views to change. All information is subject to possible correction. Information may become unreliable for various reasons, such as changes in the law.
Monday, 10 May 2010
Control of Artificial Optical Radiation at Work Regulations 2010
Risk Manager John Neil from business insurance brokers Alan Boswell Group looks at the new regulations for the Control of Artificial Optical Radiation.
The Control of Artificial Optical Radiation at Work regulations were introduced on 27th April 2010 and will bring into law in Great Britain the European Physical Agents (Artificial Optical Radiation) Directive. The Regulations will ensure that employers using hazardous sources of light review their approach to ensure proper control of the risks.
A small number of intense sources of light at work can damage your eyes and skin and need to be managed properly. These Regulations will complement the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to ensure that all workers at risk are protected.
So what if anything will businesses need to do differently because of these regulations?
Examples of hazardous sources of very intense light that pose a 'reasonably foreseeable' risk of harming the eyes and skin of workers and where control measures are needed include:
Possible solutions to any problem are:
As stated a majority of employers already manage these risks correctly and are not expected to undertake unnecessary additional risk assessments. The same applies if their business has only safe sources.
For more information on risk analysis and for expert business insurance advice, speak to Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers on 01603 218000, or visit our web site – http://www.alanboswell.com/business-insurance/risk-management-services.aspx
The Control of Artificial Optical Radiation at Work regulations were introduced on 27th April 2010 and will bring into law in Great Britain the European Physical Agents (Artificial Optical Radiation) Directive. The Regulations will ensure that employers using hazardous sources of light review their approach to ensure proper control of the risks.
A small number of intense sources of light at work can damage your eyes and skin and need to be managed properly. These Regulations will complement the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to ensure that all workers at risk are protected.
So what if anything will businesses need to do differently because of these regulations?
- The key requirement is to ensure that the eyes and skin of workers are properly protected.
- Businesses with only safe sources need do nothing different.
- Businesses with hazardous sources will need to assure themselves that workers are protected and risk assessments are suitable and sufficient.
Examples of hazardous sources of very intense light that pose a 'reasonably foreseeable' risk of harming the eyes and skin of workers and where control measures are needed include:
- Metal working – welding and plasma cutting – mainly eye damage
- Pharmaceutical and research - UV fluorescence and sterilisation systems – mainly skin burn
- Hot industries – furnaces – eye and skin damage
- Printing – UV curing of inks – mainly skin burn
- Motor vehicle repairs – UV curing of paints - mainly skin burn
- Medical and cosmetic treatments – laser surgery, blue light and UV therapies – eye and skin damage
- Research and education - all use of Class 3B and Class 4 lasers – potentially permanent eye and skin damage
- Less common hazardous sources can be associated with specialist activities such as companies manufacturing or repairing equipment containing lasers which would otherwise be hidden.
Possible solutions to any problem are:
- Use an alternative, safer light source which can achieve the same result
- Prevent access of the light source to the skin and eyes of workers by engineering controls
- Organise work to reduce exposure of workers and others
- Issue appropriate personal protective equipment
As stated a majority of employers already manage these risks correctly and are not expected to undertake unnecessary additional risk assessments. The same applies if their business has only safe sources.
For more information on risk analysis and for expert business insurance advice, speak to Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers on 01603 218000, or visit our web site – http://www.alanboswell.com/business-insurance/risk-management-services.aspx
This blog and its content are for informational purposes only. You alone will need to evaluate the merits and risks associated with the use of this blog. Decisions based on information obtained from the blog are your sole responsibility. Any views expressed on this blog by us were prepared based upon the information available to us at the time such views were written. Changed or additional information could cause such views to change. All information is subject to possible correction. Information may become unreliable for various reasons, such as changes in the law.
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Health and Safety - Guilty Until Proven Inocent?
Risk manager John Neil, from business insurance specialists Alan Boswell Group, takes a look at the 2010 IOSH (Institute of Occupational Safety and Health) conference and the debate to reverse the Burden of Proof principle.
At this year's IOSH conference a panel of high profile lawyers suggested that one of the next major developments in health and safety law could be further consideration of the ‘reverse burden of proof’ principle (i.e. guilty until proven innocent).
Delegates were told that the Health & Safety (Offences) Act has created a “criminal feel” by making imprisonment an option for a wider range of health and safety offences in the lower and higher courts. Under the Act, if an individual as an employer is convicted of breaching sections 2 or 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) for failing to ensure the health and safety of employees or non-employees, they could face a custodial sentence of up to two years.
In such cases, once proven that an exposure to risk existed, section 40 of the HSWA kicks in and the burden of proof falls on the defendant to prove that they acted in a reasonably-practicable manner to manage the risk.
It is a firm belief in some legal circles that the fact imprisonment is now possible for more offences means it is fairly certain that a future decision, in which an individual is found guilty, will be challenged on the grounds that the ‘reverse burden of proof’ principle is disproportionate.
In David Janway Davies v HSE, in 2003, the defence challenged the lawfulness of section 40 on human-rights grounds, arguing that it was not in line with the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument and upheld that section 40 was indeed proportionate, citing, as one of the main reasons for its decision, the fact that the offence did not carry a potential prison sentence
As prison is now a more likely scenario a new human rights dimension could be argued and the general feel was that this will again be referred to court and a new decision will need to be made.
Other speakers however were less hopeful stating that the ‘reverse burden of proof’ principle is also applied to other regulatory areas, such as proving to the Police that you hold a driving licence.
For more information on risk management and for expert business insurance advice, speak to Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers on 01603 218000, or visit our web site – http://www.alanboswell.com/business-insurance/risk-management-services.aspx
At this year's IOSH conference a panel of high profile lawyers suggested that one of the next major developments in health and safety law could be further consideration of the ‘reverse burden of proof’ principle (i.e. guilty until proven innocent).
Delegates were told that the Health & Safety (Offences) Act has created a “criminal feel” by making imprisonment an option for a wider range of health and safety offences in the lower and higher courts. Under the Act, if an individual as an employer is convicted of breaching sections 2 or 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) for failing to ensure the health and safety of employees or non-employees, they could face a custodial sentence of up to two years.
In such cases, once proven that an exposure to risk existed, section 40 of the HSWA kicks in and the burden of proof falls on the defendant to prove that they acted in a reasonably-practicable manner to manage the risk.
It is a firm belief in some legal circles that the fact imprisonment is now possible for more offences means it is fairly certain that a future decision, in which an individual is found guilty, will be challenged on the grounds that the ‘reverse burden of proof’ principle is disproportionate.
In David Janway Davies v HSE, in 2003, the defence challenged the lawfulness of section 40 on human-rights grounds, arguing that it was not in line with the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument and upheld that section 40 was indeed proportionate, citing, as one of the main reasons for its decision, the fact that the offence did not carry a potential prison sentence
As prison is now a more likely scenario a new human rights dimension could be argued and the general feel was that this will again be referred to court and a new decision will need to be made.
Other speakers however were less hopeful stating that the ‘reverse burden of proof’ principle is also applied to other regulatory areas, such as proving to the Police that you hold a driving licence.
For more information on risk management and for expert business insurance advice, speak to Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers on 01603 218000, or visit our web site – http://www.alanboswell.com/business-insurance/risk-management-services.aspx
This blog and its content are for informational purposes only. You alone will need to evaluate the merits and risks associated with the use of this blog. Decisions based on information obtained from the blog are your sole responsibility. Any views expressed on this blog by us were prepared based upon the information available to us at the time such views were written. Changed or additional information could cause such views to change. All information is subject to possible correction. Information may become unreliable for various reasons, such as changes in the law.
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
HSE relaunches its "Shattered Lives" campaign
Risk manager John Neil, from business insurance specialists Alan Boswell Group, reviews the relaunch of the HSE’s "Shattered Lives" campaign.
Despite the previous amount of time and space given to the subject of slips, trips and falls this area of workplace accidents and incidents still remain the most common cause of injuries at work in Britain today. In fact, according to official workplace health and safety figures, more workplace deaths are the result of falls from height than any other cause.
Other major campaigns have been seen to have a significant effect on the areas where they have targeted with a noticeable reduction in accidents and incidents but for some strange reason the slips, trips and falls figures remain stubbornly high; Because of this the HSE is launching a new phase of its Shattered Lives campaign, aimed at reducing slips, trips and falls in the workplace to improve work safety.
The new phase of the Shattered Lives campaign will target those sectors where a high number of slips, trips and falls occur each year and will specifically target areas such as education, construction, building and plant maintenance, food manufacturing, food retail and hospitality. The hard hitting campaign involves raising awareness of the impact of slips, trips and falls in the workplace and directs people to the new Shattered Lives website (www.hse.gov.uk/shatteredlives) for practical advice and guidance.
On the new campaign website, people will be able to find out information on how they can easily and cost effectively, reduce the risk of slips, trips and falls in the workplace. They will be able to see what other organisations, such as Sainsbury's and First Line Digital, have done. Also included on the site is an online tool (STEP – Slips and Trips Elearning Package) and a work at height access equipment toolkit (WAIT – Work at height Access equipment Information Toolkit). Advice ranges from how to deal with spills and other slip risks, to the importance of using ladders correctly to reduce the risk of falling from height.
The HSE stated, "making improvements doesn't need to cost the earth and we are encouraging people to visit the Shattered Lives site, where they will be able to get simple and cost effective solutions to help manage slips, trips and falls hazards in their workplace."
Fully supported by the TUC, General Secretary Brendan Barber said "Every one of the 40 deaths caused by slips, trips and falls were preventable...Unions will warmly welcome this practical hard-hitting campaign and will be raising the issue with employers wherever and whenever they can."
All slips trips and falls can be prevented by undertaking suitable and sufficient risk assessments and implementing cost effective risk management solutions but a fundamental part of success is engaging employees in the process so they take control of their own safety and understand what control measures they need to employ.
For more information on risk management and for expert business insurance advice, speak to Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers on 01603 218000, or visit our web site – http://www.alanboswell.com/business-insurance/risk-management-services.aspx
This blog and its content are for informational purposes only. You alone will need to evaluate the merits and risks associated with the use of this blog. Decisions based on information obtained from the blog are your sole responsibility. Any views expressed on this blog by us were prepared based upon the information available to us at the time such views were written. Changed or additional information could cause such views to change. All information is subject to possible correction. Information may become unreliable for various reasons, such as changes in the law.
Monday, 18 January 2010
Your New Year’s Health and Safety Resolution
No doubt many of you will have made your New Year resolutions by now and many of you may also have already broken them! But for all of you who are concerned with health and safety, if there is one resolution you should make and adhere to, that is to make 2010 your “safest” year yet.Despite the tough economic conditions, 2008/2009 saw improved health and safety statistics in the UK. But these statistics still featured 180 deaths, over 130,000 injuries and 1.2 million cases of work-related ill-health. So there is a long way to go as many families continue to be adversely affected by workplace accidents and incidents.
The Institute of Occupational safety and Health (IOSH) is calling on businesses to make a resolution this year to:
promote a healthy work-life balance by discouraging long working hours
promote a good safety culture
clamp down on work-place bullying
create opportunities to enjoy a healthy lifestyle
By following these steps we should be able to reduce the number of deaths in British work-places and have a significant impact on the number of serious injuries and cases of ill-health caused or made worse by work. Additionally, by employing a risk management specialist and having a business risk assessment improvements can be made to help further reduce these figures.
Fit and healthy members of staff are good for business as there is less absenteeism and thus more productivity. So even in tough economic times, investment in health and safety is the right thing to do to help maintain a profitable business.
In conclusion, if you only make and keep one resolution this year, pledge to make 2010 the safest year yet. And if you need advice and guidance, speak to a risk management consultant and your insurance broker.
This article has been provided by Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers Limited, the business insurance experts. For free advice and no-obligation commercial insurance quotations, contact us on 01603 218000 or visit our web site – http://www.alanboswell.com/
This blog and its content are for informational purposes only. You alone will need to evaluate the merits and risks associated with the use of this blog. Decisions based on information obtained from the blog are your sole responsibility. Any views expressed on this blog by us were prepared based upon the information available to us at the time such views were written. Changed or additional information could cause such views to change. All information is subject to possible correction. Information may become unreliable for various reasons, such as changes in the law.
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Health and safety again becomes a political football
In a major speech this month David Cameron pledged to crack down on Britain’s excessive health and safety rules and regulations which he described as “the great knot of rules, regulations, expectations, and fears that I would call the over-the-top health and safety culture”.
Cameron, in his quest for votes, surely had the wrong profession in his sights. The media which perpetuate the myth that somehow health and safety is to blame for much of society’s ills, should surely be his target for its part in falsely reporting on health and safety issues.
However, he actually highlighted an important cultural issue by announcing that something has gone seriously wrong with the spirit of health and safety in the past decade. He acknowledged that the biggest problem is the way health and safety rules are interpreted and applied, and attacked the commercialisation of lawyers’ incentives to generate litigation and the growth of ‘ambulance-chasing’. He said “Businesses, organisations and individuals operate under the shadow of the worst-case scenario. The more vulnerable they feel, the more cautiously they act – and the more stringent their health and safety processes become.”
Reaction to the speech has been varied. Brendan Barber, general secretary of the TUC said that employers were not over zealous in their application of health and safety regulation and the figure of over 246,000 people being injured at work last year indicates the opposite. He added that in the UK we had more health and safety regulation 35 years ago than we do today and regulation today is simpler and easier to understand
IOSH (Institute of Occupational Safety and Health) welcomed the opportunity to move away from a culture of blame to one that’s based on better risk intelligence and said it would welcome any serious debate about risk and responsibility.
St John Ambulance, also welcomed the debate Cameron has opened saying as it stands at the moment, there is a great deal of confusion about the regulations. All of us working in health and safety need to do more to make clear how they should be interpreted. Organisations want to do the right thing, but don’t always know how. Somehow common sense gets lost, and we end up with the stories we all see about ‘health and safety gone mad’.
For more information on risk management and for expert business insurance advice, speak to Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers on 01603 218000, or visit our web site – http://www.alanboswell.com/risk-management/
Cameron, in his quest for votes, surely had the wrong profession in his sights. The media which perpetuate the myth that somehow health and safety is to blame for much of society’s ills, should surely be his target for its part in falsely reporting on health and safety issues.
However, he actually highlighted an important cultural issue by announcing that something has gone seriously wrong with the spirit of health and safety in the past decade. He acknowledged that the biggest problem is the way health and safety rules are interpreted and applied, and attacked the commercialisation of lawyers’ incentives to generate litigation and the growth of ‘ambulance-chasing’. He said “Businesses, organisations and individuals operate under the shadow of the worst-case scenario. The more vulnerable they feel, the more cautiously they act – and the more stringent their health and safety processes become.”
Reaction to the speech has been varied. Brendan Barber, general secretary of the TUC said that employers were not over zealous in their application of health and safety regulation and the figure of over 246,000 people being injured at work last year indicates the opposite. He added that in the UK we had more health and safety regulation 35 years ago than we do today and regulation today is simpler and easier to understand
IOSH (Institute of Occupational Safety and Health) welcomed the opportunity to move away from a culture of blame to one that’s based on better risk intelligence and said it would welcome any serious debate about risk and responsibility.
St John Ambulance, also welcomed the debate Cameron has opened saying as it stands at the moment, there is a great deal of confusion about the regulations. All of us working in health and safety need to do more to make clear how they should be interpreted. Organisations want to do the right thing, but don’t always know how. Somehow common sense gets lost, and we end up with the stories we all see about ‘health and safety gone mad’.
For more information on risk management and for expert business insurance advice, speak to Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers on 01603 218000, or visit our web site – http://www.alanboswell.com/risk-management/
This blog and its content are for informational purposes only. You alone will need to evaluate the merits and risks associated with the use of this blog. Decisions based on information obtained from the blog are your sole responsibility. Any views expressed on this blog by us were prepared based upon the information available to us at the time such views were written. Changed or additional information could cause such views to change. All information is subject to possible correction. Information may become unreliable for various reasons, such as changes in the law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





