Lord Youngs Legacy Lives On

Despite the fact Lord Young, the peer appointed by the present government to change the way safety is managed, resigned some weeks ago, it appears that the political will to follow guidance laid down in his report “Common Sense, Common Safety” shows no sign of abating.

Not only has the government announced that Business Minister Mark Prisk, is to see through reforms a back bench MP Christopher Chope – Conservative for Christchurch has sponsored six bills as a show of support for Youngs proposals. The appointment and timing of such measures demonstrates the wide spread support among the Government for a review of health and safety.

The six bills that received their first reading in October are:

The Health and Safety at Work (Amendment) Bill which wishes to separate play and leisure from work based activities.

The Compensation (Limitation) Bill which wants reform of civil litigation particularly the way in which legal costs are recovered.

The Health and Safety Consultants (Qualifications) Bill which wants to introduce minimum qualifications for those acting as health and safety consultants. This has already been adopted to some extent by significant health and safety bodies with a voluntary register being introduced from January 2011 which will be managed by the HSE.

The Low Hazard Workplace Risk Assessment Exemption Bill which wants to exempt employers producing risk assessments for low hazard workplaces.

The Reporting of Injuries Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulation Bill which wants to reduce current reporting requirements

The Self Employment (Risk Assessment Exemption) Bill to exempt the self employed in low hazard work from producing written risk assessments. (Although the self employed do not have to produce written risk assessments)

The bills will not be printed until nearer the second reading although the Reporting of Injuries etc. Bill is scheduled for debate before the end of 2011.
Private members bills very rarely become statute law, but as these have been presented health and safety reform is still very much in the Governments sights. However until any of them make the statute book the phrase “keep calm and carry on” springs to mind as of yet nothing has changed.

For more information on health and safety at work, risk management and business insurance, speak to Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers on 01603 218000 or visit our website – http://www.alanboswell.com/business-insurance/

Stress – A problem about to explode?

Stress as defined by The Health & Safety Executive is “The reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demands placed on them. It arises when they worry that they cannot cope.”


In other words, stress occurs when the pressures on a person exceed their ability to deal with them and the repercussions of work related stress have been highlighted in various recent research reports.


"Stress at work" commissioned by the British Academy to evaluate the current state of research on work related stress concluded that work related stress is getting worse against the background of the economic crisis, cost cutting and Lord Youngs, the government health and safety “Czar”, views on low risks. 


Professor Chandola the reports author stated work related stress is a common determinant of mental disorders, cardiovascular disease and heavily linked to sickness absence. The professor went on to explain that since 2009 there has been a sharp rise in job strain and job insecurity both determinants of work related stress. Poor support and bullying also appears to have increased.


This theory was echoed by Professor Sir Michael Marmot, lead author of the Whitehall II study of civil servants who said “fair employment” is key to tackling the stress problem.


The Trades Union Congress (TUC) biennial poll of safety reps showed nearly two thirds highlighting stress as a top five problem faced by the workforce. After stress bullying and harassment was the second most common. Overwork, listed separately for the first time, came in fifth.


Stress appears more prevalent in the public than private sector with 68% saying it was a problem as opposed to 54%. This is backed up by a survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development which found that stress is the most common cause of persistently high long term absence.


The TUC believe a reason why stress is not being prevented is because too many employees put it in the “too difficult” box. Brendan Barber, TUC General Secretary, said there is a clear solution, risk assess, identify the stressors and put controls in place. He also suggested that lack of enforcement is also a barrier to improving the situation with employers being well aware that the chances of a prosecution for not tackling stress are almost nil.


Barber believes we are facing a ticking time bomb that could have a devastating effect on us all, saying we need to reduce stress levels before it becomes a 21st century epidemic.



For more information on health and safety at work, risk management and business insurance, speak to Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers on 01603 218000 or visit our website –http://www.alanboswell.com/business-insurance/

HSE and TUC at odds over workplace inspections?

"Scandalous" was the cry of Brendan Barber, General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) after their biennial survey of safety reps revealed that almost half (49 per cent) of workplaces in the UK have never been visited by a health and safety inspector. This is despite evidence that inspection and enforcement activity, according to the TUC, is the most effective way to ensure that employers comply with health and safety laws.

The survey also revealed that:

• Nearly 1 in 10 of those questioned said the last health and safety workplace inspection was more than 3 years ago
• A further 15% indicated it was between 1 and 3 years ago
• 27% said their workplace was visited within the last 12 months

In small companies employing fewer than 50 people, only 16 per cent have had a workplace safety inspection in the last year. Even among large workplaces, with more than 1000 workers, only a third have been inspected within the last 12 months.

In 2009 on the launching of its strategy “Be part of the solution” the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) pledged that enforcement would remain at the heart of their approach, which the TUC see as not happening.

Statistics for 2009/10 just released by the HSE show 9,734 enforcement notices were served, an increase of 20% over the previous year but prosecutions dropped by 6% to 1,026.

Countering the TUC argument the HSE said it measures progress by the reduction in numbers of people killed or injured at work. It did not set targets for enforcement or the number of inspections.

While the HSE acknowledged that the possibility of inspection and the threat of legal action play an important part in improving safety in the workplace, it emphasized that “in the majority of workplaces, it is leadership and workforce involvement that create the right safety culture, not fear of the law, or the regulator.”

The spokesperson concluded: “The investment we make in advice, support and information for employers and workers about how to manage workplace risks in a pragmatic, common sense and proportionate way is valued by those in the workplace and it has played an important part in helping make Britain one of the safest places to work in the world.

Despite being one of the safest places in the world to work more than a million workers are currently suffering from an illness or injury caused by their work, and in 2009 over 30 million days were lost due to work-related sickness absence. This time off work cost employers an estimated £3.7 billion - yet much of this could have been prevented if they had ensured their workplaces were safe.

The TUC are worried that the recent cuts in government spending will result in less activity by the HSE, which in turn may lead to deterioration in the accident and illness statistics. The HSE seem to be putting emphasis on advice support and information, in addition to visits.

Denning QC once said “as people get wiser, standards go up” and perhaps the additional advice support and information given out by the HSE will make people wiser and thus more able to manage their risk better.  However together with the threat of enforcement, as people should be well aware of accident reporting by now, this joint approach may well work, unfortunately it’s a case of wait and see.

For more information on health and safety at work, risk management and business insurance, speak to Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers on 01603 218000 or visit our website – http://www.alanboswell.com/business-insurance/

Motorhome Self-drive Hire Insurance Options and Checklist

This week, we came across a lively discussion on the Pistonheads forum about the various options for motorhome self-drive hire insurance for a new venture.  You can see the discussion here:

• http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=92&t=918594&mid=0

As you will see, we get a mention!

Key points to check
Reading that thread made it clear to us that some people are unsure about what to consider when looking for this kind of insurance.  So, here are a few things we think should be checked:

1. Will the policy cover damage to the motorhome arising from cooking and heating?
2. Will the policy cover the risk of theft of a motorhome by the hirer?
3. Will the policy cover motorhomes both on hire and when parked at your premises or elsewhere (“off hire”).  Some insurances only cover the motorhomes when out on hire.  When you take out such a policy, you may need to arrange separate cover when the vehicles are “off hire” and parked at your premises.  Always check this aspect before accepting a quotation.
4. Will the policy also provide “social domestic and pleasure use” for named employees/family members – typically the proprietor(s) or directors.  Generally there should be no extra charge for this. 

My business is seasonal, why do I have to pay when my motorhomes aren’t on hire?
The premiums quoted on an annual policy reflect the underwriters’ assessment of the risk over the whole year (including when the motorhomes are parked at your premises).  This is not a “rip-off” – clearly most accidents will occur when a vehicle is on hire so any insurer that is being paid only to cover the “risky periods” would have to charge proportionately higher premiums.

Annual versus pay-as-you-go?
We much prefer annual policies because we want to build a long term relationship with our clients and - like our business insurance clients - we like to know that we have a consistent income stream.  Short term policies generally mean higher administration costs for everyone.

Our annual policy works best for businesses that have a sound business plan and intend to maximise their hiring activity.  The more you hire out your motorhomes, the better value the insurance will be.  A daily-rated or “pay as you go” policy will generally work out to be much more expensive if your business is successful.  Some “pay as you go” schemes also require that the operator uses their computer software systems, which puts off many people.

In order to help businesses smooth out the cost of their insurance, and budget properly, most brokers and insurers can offer financing arrangements to allow payment in monthly instalments.

Why are you buying insurance?
Increasingly, business insurance customers tend to focus on price.  This is perhaps understandable: economic times are tough and firms need to watch their expenditure.  The problem with always looking for the cheapest option can be that you simply ignore the question of value for money.  If you only want the cheapest possible insurance, why bother with comprehensive cover at all?

A prime consideration should be the claims service your insurer will be providing.  The success of your motorhome hire business will depend on your very expensive vehicles being available for hire.

You need to be sure that the insurer you choose understands the specialist nature of repairs on these motorhomes.  Will your insurer authorise claims quickly and make a fair offer in the event of a total loss?  The availability of a decent legal service to recover uninsured losses is also essential.

Ask for references
A badly handled claim or a gap in your cover could ruin your business.  Don’t entrust someone with your insurance business without first checking out their credentials.  Why not ask your peers for their advice or request references from similar firms?

Free advice on a range of business insurance needs
It’s useful if the insurance broker you choose can support your business in areas other than just your motor insurance.  You may need help and advice on other insurances and risk management services.  For example, you will probably need public liability insurance to cover your business premises if people come there to pick up or drop off motorhomes.

For more information
You can get more information about motorhome self-drive hire insurance facility on our website:

• http://www.alanboswell.com/business-insurance/commercial-motor-insurance/self-drive-hire-insurance/self-drive-motorhomes.aspx

The “frequently asked questions” section can be found here:

• http://www.alanboswell.com/business-insurance/commercial-motor-insurance/self-drive-hire-insurance/self-drive-hire-faq-motorhome.aspx

Striving for safer construction sites

On September 17th an agreement was signed between The HSE and the Building Control Alliance (BCA) to help it spread the message about health and safety in the construction industry, especially to hard-to-reach small sites. The agreement commits both parties to work more closely together particularly in providing advice to the construction industry.

The BCA is an umbrella group set up to represent building control professionals with responsibility for inspecting building works to ensure duty-holders are compliant with Building Regulations and the professional bodies that accredit them. They work in the local-authority and private sectors as Approved Inspectors. The HSE therefore believes these professionals are in an ideal position to promote the message "health and safety at work" on site.

The roles of each group are clearly set out in the agreement and it is clear that building control professionals will not be used as a replacement for HSE inspectors visiting sites. The HSE stated that “The aim …..is to improve the number of construction sites who receive life-saving advice on health and safety. We want to increase the standards of health and safety across the industry, especially with the smaller temporary sites, which can be hard to reach. This move is absolutely not about reducing the number of inspections that HSE carries out.”

Any matter creating a risk of serious personal injury, or ill health to workers or the public, which comes to the attention of building control professionals, is defined as a matter of evident concern (MoEC). Where such matters come to their attention on sites they are visiting they should bring them to the attention of the person in control of the site where they are able to do so. If they cannot do so or consider this is inappropriate or where the response to such an approach is not satisfactory they should report the MoEC to HSE, providing HSE is the relevant enforcing authority.”

Building control commenting on the HSE agreement described it as a “safety net”, stating the facility for their members to give feedback on issues relating to health and safety if they come across them is a “logical step”. The HSE see it as a “further example of how everyone involved in the construction industry can spread the health and safety message”.

Hopefully the closer working relationship between the HSE and The Building Control Alliance will over time help make building operations safer by reinforcing the health and safety message to a broader spectrum of people engaged in construction and thus leading to a reduction in the number of fatalities and accidents.

For more information on health and safety at work, risk management and business insurance, speak to Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers on 01603 218000 or visit our website – http://www.alanboswell.com/business-insurance/

Arson – A Perennial Problem

Fire, whether malicious or otherwise, is one of the most serious risks to the health and safety of individuals and the question of its alleviation should be foremost in the mind of any health and safety professionals.

The Fire Protection Association (FPA) says that arson has become the single most frequent cause of fire in buildings of all kinds. According to the FPA one of the biggest problems is the public perception of arson as they see it as a crime against property and not so much a problem as after all the insurer will pay. In other words they fail to link arson with the misery and suffering it can cause.

Each week in the UK, on average:

• there are over 2,000 arson attacks 
• two people die in arson fires 
• arson causes over 50 injuries 
• twenty schools and colleges are damaged or destroyed by arson  
• three hundred and sixty businesses and public buildings are damaged or destroyed.

Arson fires tend to be more costly than accidental fires because they are set with the aim of causing the maximum amount of damage. Arson costs insurers more than £1 million a day, and uninsured losses increase this cost considerably.

Your fire risk assessment should always include a section on the threat of a deliberate fire and include measures on how this threat is combated. The significance of the threat may depend on the business you work for, the people you employ and the area where the building is situate. Poor employee relations can also be problematic.

Protecting against arson is not just about installing expensive and elaborate security; it is also about organisational management of the site. Arson is primarily an opportunistic crime and we should endeavour to take that opportunity away from the would be arsonist. A correctly formulated risk assessment should achieve this.

It is a known fact that in economically trying times the risk of arson increases so no matter how remote you may think your own risk of suffering an arson attack is, it may be advisable to re-visit your fire risk assessment and re-evaluate the risk.

Arson poses a threat to people, property and the environment so try to ensure that you do not become just another statistic.

For more information on fire risk assessment, risk management and business insurance, speak to Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers on 01603 218000 or visit our website – http://www.alanboswell.com/business-insurance/

To Grit or Not to Grit? That is the Question.

Although we are all enjoying a long warm summer, with little thought at present being paid to the forthcoming cold dark days of winter, just to cheer us all up The Daily Telegraph has resurrected the old chestnut about legal liability from gritting beyond your properties boundaries. On Monday 26th July the newspaper reported that “The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) gave a warning that clearing and gritting the pavement could lead to legal action if somebody was injured.”

The original misrepresentative article appeared in The Sunday Telegraph and The Mail on Sunday in January earlier this year, quickly followed by articles in The Sun and The Daily Express. When the true facts materialised the latter two newspapers published retractions.

The true fact is that this was not the position adopted by IOSH then and is not the position adopted by IOSH now. IOSH urges businesses and communities to be good neighbours and do the right thing by clearing snow and ice from beyond their own boundaries and make sure that the task is carried out thoroughly. It is the object of health and safety to protect life and limb, not endanger it, so there is next to no risk of a public liability claim against your business insurance for clearing an icy path.

IOSH who have published the original story and rebuttal on their website have again expressed frustration at the new article which again misrepresents their comments.

IOSH is at present working closely with Lord Young as he undertakes his review into the growing risk aversion and fear of being sued in this country. It is to the benefit of everyone that sensible health and safety decisions are correctly made to the benefit of all.

Everyone agrees that excessive fear of litigation is contributing to bad health and safety decisions and such reporting does little to remove this fear. Still have the press have ever let the truth get in the way of what they think is a good story?

For more information on risk management, public liability insurance and business insurance, speak to Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers on 01603 218000 or visit our website – http://www.alanboswell.com/business-insurance/

Decrease in Work Related Deaths

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/

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:

• 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

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?

• 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

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

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

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/

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/

HSE Asbestos Campaign Re-Launched

Working with asbestos? Know the risks; check you are up to date with your risk management and business insurance.

Asbestos was used in hundreds of different products and buildings from the 1950’s to the mid 1980’s. Asbestos cement was used up until 1999 in a variety of different premises and materials. Any building that was constructed or had major refurbishment between the 1950’s and mid 80’s is likely to contain some type of asbestos containing material. Use of asbestos peaked in the 60’s and early 70’s – premises built or refurbished during this time are the most likely to contain some form of asbestos.

When asbestos fibres are inhaled they can cause serious diseases which are responsible for around 4000 deaths a year, the single greatest cause of work related deaths in the UK. There are four main diseases caused by asbestos:

• mesothelioma (which is always fatal) 
• lung cancer (almost always fatal) 
• asbestosis (not always fatal, but it can be very debilitating) and  
• diffuse pleural thickening (not fatal).

On 2 November 2009 the HSE re-launch their campaign “Asbestos – The Hidden Killer” and its message is very clear – take asbestos very seriously.

The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 came into force on 13 November 2006 and affected owners, occupiers, and managers of and those responsible for non-domestic premises. These people are referred to as “the dutyholders”. The regulations require the dutyholders to:

• Manage the risk from asbestos or place a duty on them to co-operate with whoever manages the risk.
• The dutyholder must identify if there is asbestos in the premises, the amount and its condition. (It is to be presumed that materials contain asbestos unless there is strong evidence to the contrary).
• The asbestos risk must be suitably and sufficiently assessed and a management plan prepared detailing how the risk is to be managed.
• All steps needed to put the plan into action must be taken by the dutyholder and the plan and arrangements must be reviewed and monitored.
• Anyone who is liable to work on the asbestos or disturb it must be provided with information on its location, condition and where work with asbestos is being undertaken, the enforcing authority must be notified
• The dutyholder must ensure adequate information, instruction and training is given to employees
• Every dutyholder must prevent exposure to asbestos or reduce it to as low as reasonably practicable and provide adequate personal protective equipment.

In most cases, if you are working with asbestos you will need a licence to do so.

Summing up, any work that may involve exposure to asbestos needs to be very carefully planned and carried out. Penalties for failure can be business threatening with very large fines being imposed by courts.

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/

Taking the Strain

The recent “Fit for Work Europe” report by The Work Foundation, a London based think tank, has found that muscle and joint pain accounts for almost half of all sick leave, both in the UK and across Europe. It concluded 49 per cent of all sick leave is caused by musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs).
The report says an estimated one million people in the UK alone suffer from MSDs that cause them to take time off work, with 9.5 million working days lost each year. It estimates that this costs the UK economy £7bn each year.

Additionally the report found over 40 million workers throughout Europe suffer from chronic musculoskeletal pain costing the European Union economy as much as £219 billion per year.

Stephen Bevan, Managing Director of the Work Foundation, states: "MSDs clearly have a serious, negative impact on the EU workforce, as they were responsible for millions of lost working days”.

Tatiana Quadrello, senior researcher at The Work Foundation, said: 'The Fit for Work study clearly suggests that early intervention is a key factor in allowing people with MSDs to remain in work.”

The Work Foundation's strain injuries report seems to highlight the need for better occupational health and rehabilitation services.

Only two per cent of UK workers have access to comprehensive occupational health services through their employer. A GP referral to a specialist, could take months, by which time the condition could be chronic and could cost a worker their job.

The Work Foundation has now launched a Fit for Work Europe campaign calling for governments and healthcare professionals across Europe to do more to tackle musculoskeletal disorders.

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/

Managing Risk for Work Experience Placements

John Neil, Risk Management Consultant at business insurance specialists Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers, looks at the things businesses need to think about when they take on young people as part of a work experience programme.
It's back to school time and for many year 10 and 11 students this means getting ready for work experience. These workplace visits can be a bit of a health and safety minefield for businesses...
There's a lot to think about when a child arrives at your business premises from a local school for a short period of work experience. All too often young people are involved in accidents and experience shows that they must be carefully managed and supervised whilst on a work experience placement.

One thing you may not realise is there are a few extra health and safety regulations when employing people under the age of 18 and far as health and safety law goes, students on work experience placements are employees.

The main thing to note is you must assess the risks to anyone under 18 years old before they start work experience. You must also tell the young person what these risks are.

There's no need for a new risk assessment every time someone arrives for work experience. A generic assessment covering young workers is fine, so long as it's relevant however the assessments needs to take into account the young people's "psychological or physical immaturity, inexperience, and lack of awareness of existing or potential risks."

Of course, as with all risk assessments, employers have to follow up with some control measures.

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations include an additional requirement which prohibits the employment of young people where the risk assessment identifies harmful exposure to toxic substances, radiation, extreme cold or heat, vibration, noise, work which is considered beyond their physical or physiological capacity, or work where the risk of accidents will not be recognised by young people, because of their carelessness, lack of experience, training or awareness. There are also some specific prohibitions on the employment of young persons in certain trades or the use of particular plant and machinery.

There is one other regulation worth noting. This applies to children below the minimum school leaving age. Here, parents or carers must be told about the findings of the risk assessment and the control measures being put in place before the child starts work experience.

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/

Driver CPC - What is it all about?

You may have already heard murmurings about The Driver Certificate of Professional Competence (Driver CPC) which is a hot topic at present within the haulage industry. But what does it mean for fleet insurance clients?

Developed as a requirement of the EU Directive 2003/59, the Driver CPC is designed to improve the knowledge and skills of professional LGV and PCV drivers throughout their working life. This in turn should lead to safer driving, subsequently safer roads and, in theory at least, reduced fleet insurance premiums.

The Driver CPC for PCV drivers was implemented on 10th September 2008, and for LGV drivers it will be implemented on 10th September 2009.

• From 10th of September 2009, any newly licenced LGV driver must have a Driver CPC. They get this by passing the Driver CPC theory and practical tests. These are in addition to the tests they must sit to get their LGV driving licence.
  
• Anyone already licenced to drive a goods vehicle over 3.5 tonnes before 10th September 2009 does not have to sit the initial Driver CPC tests However, all LGV drivers will have to complete 35 hours of Driver CPC training every five years, or they will no longer be allowed to drive professionally.

So what should hauliers do? It would be advisable to get their drivers trained sooner rather than later because if they leave it too late, they could find there aren't enough approved Driver CPC training centres to cope with demand. As we know haulage companies can't operate without drivers.

Secondly hauliers who begin training immediately will automatically stand out: showing their customers and their fleet insurance provider that they care about the safety of their drivers and other road users.

There is a number of Driver CPC exemptions associated with the Directive. These are listed below:

• Vehicles with a maximum speed not exceeding 45 Kph
• Vehicles used by the armed forces, civil defence, and emergency services
• Vehicles undergoing road tests for technical development, repair or maintenance
• Vehicles used in states of emergency
• Vehicles used in the course of driving lessons or examinations
• Vehicles used for non-commercial carriage of passenger or goods – for personal use
• Vehicles used for carrying material of equipment to be used by the driver in the course of his or her work, providing that driving the vehicles is not the drivers’ principle activity

Ultimately, it is up the driver and their employer to decide if they are covered by these exemptions, and if necessary, justify it to the competent authority.

For more information on fleet insurance and fleet risk management, please visit http://www.alanboswell.com/.

Risk Assessments – Not interesting but very necessary

Revisiting your risk assessments could reduce accidents in the workplace by up to 75% and lead to lower business insurance premiums.

I have always stated that the most important part of any health and safety regime is the correct identification of risk and highlighting methods of control, then documenting this in the form of an easily understood risk assessment that is properly communicated to staff.

When you then pass this message on enthusiasm seems to wane, eyes roll and people seem to lose the will to live. I could talk about how risk assessments lie at the heart of all health and safety legislation and practice or about how they are a legal requirement, but instead to highlight their importance I will share with you some details of research from a major UK insurer.

Aviva took a detailed look at around 7,500 employers' liability insurance claims - incidents where someone was killed or injured at work.

In particular they wanted to know what was behind most of these cases. The thing most employers hadn't done to stop these incidents happening was “failure to carry out a proper risk assessment." This finding was attributed to 38% of all business insurance liability claims.

The next two most common failings after risk assessments were "lack of training" - found in 27% of cases - and "poor housekeeping" – found in 11% of cases.

So as you can see, despite the apparent lack of interest the words risk assessment conjure up, they are very important.

When next asked what's really important when it comes to health and safety, I'm going to say "risk assessment, training and housekeeping".

Because by Aviva’s reckoning that should cover just over three-quarters of all incidents where someone ends up losing their life or suffering an injury at work.

So probably the best piece of health and safety advice anyone can give is make sure you do your risk assessments.

For more information and advice on business insurance and risk management, please visit: http://www.alanboswell.com/business_insurance/

U K Fire Losses hit 1.3 billion

The cost of fire damage in the UK was a record £1.3bn, according to new figures from the Association of British Insurers (ABI). Commercial business insurance fire damage cost £865m, up 15% on the previous year and fire damage to homes cost £408m, up 17% on the previous year.

School fires alone cost £33m with there being at least 1 serious school fire per month.

There has been a particular increase in what are termed large loss fires (those over £500,000) and the ABI says it is researching the causes of this increase. While it says that both fraudulent arson and arson generally are factors it is not ruling out other factors such as modern materials used in construction.

The ABI have expressed serious concern over the figures stating they highlight the importance of risk management, fire insurance, and reducing and managing the fire risk.

Meanwhile the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order has just received its first official review from the Communities and Local Government department.

The general picture from this early snapshot from both enforcers and responsible persons is that the Order is bedding in well and there are many positives to take from this. The report states that all parties tend to think that the risk assessment approach is the correct one and are embracing it to a greater or lesser degree.

But the report concedes there are some areas which could benefit from further action. These include:

• raising awareness of the requirements of the Order
• consideration of more tailored advice to ‘responsible persons’
• clarification of who a ‘responsible person’ is
• clarification of who may have an appropriate level of fire safety expertise to assist with delivering compliance with the order
• ensuring fire and rescue authorities continue to take a supportive and educational approach to compliance

For more information on risk management and fire regulations, please visit http://www.alanboswell.com/