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