January

BSC warns on safety spending

As the recession continues and businesses across the UK look at ways of reducing costs in order to stay afloat, the British Safety Council (BSC) and a personal injury lawyer have issued a stark warning to business leaders that reducing spend on controlling risks to workplace health and safety could endanger lives and cost companies an average of £30,000 per claim along with significant reputational damage.

Grahame Aldous QC says: “There is a danger with the credit crunch that firms will cut back on health and safety planning and implementation, leading to an increase in personal injuries at work.

“This may provide more work for lawyers, but the reputational and internal ethos damage to firms may be considerable if they let this area of their operations go. 

“Despite the myth of a compensation culture, personal injury claims have been reducing, but firms should not be surprised if that reverses if they let health and safety go to cut costs.”

Research conducted last year by the BSC revealed that despite long-established laws on health and safety, two out of three UK employees have had little or no safety training, while barely half of their bosses had arranged a safety audit or had a health and safety management system in place. 

According to HSE statistics the annual bill for employers in payouts and costs for accidents and injuries at work is £7.8bn which is the equivalent of £250 a second.

Brian Nimick, BSC Chief Executive, says: “Last year 229 people were killed at work. If businesses now choose to reduce their spending on health and safety training and management, there is a very real danger that employees are going to be at far greater risk of injury or ill health.

“Health and safety at work is about protecting people’s lives and wellbeing and helping to make sure that they go home to their loved ones and families at the end of the working day as fit and well as they were when they went to work that morning.  Businesses need to recognise the consequences of not investing in the resources necessary to prevent needless deaths and harm.”

BSC is urging all organisations to ensure that their staff have the right training and information to understand and appreciate the risks they face at work and are taught how to manage the risks effectively.

Dangers of forklifts highlighted

The HSE has warned of the dangers faced when using forklift trucks after a man died when a container of dye crushed him while he was assisting with an unloading operation.  The company, Townley Dyestuffs Ltd, pleaded guilty to a charge under section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, that they failed to ensure the safety at work of an employee. They were fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £6,963.25 costs.

 The court heard that the incident happened when a 1.1 ton container of dye slid off the front of the forks of a forklift truck, crushing employee, Mark Kiveal. The accident happened at the company's premises. Two containers had successfully been emptied before the third slipped causing the incident.

 Health and Safety Executive Inspector Richard Clarke said:  "This was a tragic accident that could have been prevented had a safe system of work been in place. The container had a specialist mechanism for emptying it, but an improvised method was used when the incident happened.

 "Two containers had successfully been opened and an attempt to unload the third was taking place when it slid off the front forks of the truck and tragically crushed Mr Kiveal.

 "Employers have a responsibility to ensure that the right equipment is used for the job and to ensure that loads are safely secured. That wasn't the case in this incident, which sadly led to the loss of a man's life."

New H&S Act comes into force

The Health and Safety Offences Act came into force on January 16th , bringing in a number of key changes to existing legislation.

Imprisonment will now be a possible penalty for most health and safety offences in both the Magistrates’ Court and the Crown Court and will also be a possible penalty for an offence committed by a body corporate.  The maximum fine available in the Magistrates’ Court for breaches of Regulations will be increased from £5,000 to £20,000.

Additionally, certain offences, which are currently triable only in the Magistrates’ Court will be triable in either the Magistrates’ Court or the Crown Court.

The British Safety Council has welcomed the legislation, praising it as a “deterrent” to businesses, especially those considering cutting back on training due to the current economic downturn.

Brian Nimick, CEO of the BSC said: “With the new risk of higher fines and possible imprisonment for health and safety offences, this law should act as a deterrent and increase awareness of the need to adequately train and protect workers. Risks including accidents, illness and even deaths among the workforce could cost far more in the long term than the short term savings gained from cutting back on training.”

Law firm issues imprisonment warning over H&S offences

A law firm has warned that careless workers and employees could be more likely to go to prison than muggers with the new Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008.

The Offences Act makes the following key changes to the existing legislation:

• Imprisonment will be a possible penalty for most health and safety offences in both the Magistrates’ Court and the Crown Court and will also be a possible penalty for an offence committed by a body corporate. 
• The maximum fine available in the Magistrates’ Court for breaches of Regulations will be increased from £5,000 to £20,000.
• Certain offences, which are currently triable only in the Magistrates’ Court, will be triable in either the Magistrates’ Court or the Crown Court.

Effectively, serious health and safety breaches, which would previously have meant a fine, could now be punishable with a custodial sentence of up to two years.  

David Young, a regulatory partner at law firm, Eversheds, said:  “Breaking even the most minor health and safety laws can lead to prosecution. It could be anything from failing to take responsible care for others’ lives, to supervisory roles such as carrying out risk assessments.

 “If a forklift truck driver is shifting things around a yard and he’s properly trained but larks around or drives carelessly he risks prosecution. Just the risk is enough, there doesn’t need to be an accident or an injured person.

 “We are putting workers on the same level as muggers and robbers. The new power means that a careless forklift truck driver is more likely to go to prison than a mugger with a troubled upbringing,” Mr Young said.

Bangkok club fire kills 61

A devastating fire at a New Year's event in a Bangkok nightclub has left at least 61 people dead with more than 212 injured in a stampede to escape from the blaze which broke out at the Santika Club just after midnight. A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokeswoman said four Britons were injured but could not confirm whether any were killed and the Australian Department of Foriegn Affairs and Trade has said that three Australians have been injured. Other injured foriegn nationls include Japanese, Dutch and Nepalese. 

Many of the injured have suffered burns and have breathing difficulties from smoke inhalation at Bangkok's private with some in intensive care. "It appears that the fire started from the area of the stage where a band was playing. There were some pyrotechnics and it appears that they started the blaze,"

Police Lieutenant Colonel Prawit Kantwol said. "Most of the victims died from suffocation, but some were also killed in a stampede when people were trying to get out," he added. The two-storey club, which is popular with Bangkok's elite, has a capacity of 1000 people although it was not clear at the tine of writing how many were present at the time of the blaze.

BSC warn over spending on H&S

As the recession continues and businesses across the UK look at ways of reducing costs in order to stay afloat, the British Safety Council (BSC) and a personal injury lawyer have issued a stark warning to business leaders that reducing spend on controlling risks to workplace health and safety could endanger lives and cost companies an average of £30,000 per claim along with significant reputational damage.

Grahame Aldous QC says: “There is a danger with the credit crunch that firms will cut back on health and safety planning and implementation, leading to an increase in personal injuries at work.

“This may provide more work for lawyers, but the reputational and internal ethos damage to firms may be considerable if they let this area of their operations go. 

“Despite the myth of a compensation culture, personal injury claims have been reducing, but firms should not be surprised if that reverses if they let health and safety go to cut costs.”

Research conducted last year by the BSC revealed that despite long-established laws on health and safety, two out of three UK employees have had little or no safety training, while barely half of their bosses had arranged a safety audit or had a health and safety management system in place.  According to HSE statistics the annual bill for employers in payouts and costs for accidents and injuries at work is £7.8bn which is the equivalent of £250 a second.

Brian Nimick, BSC Chief Executive, says: “Last year 229 people were killed at work. If businesses now choose to reduce their spending on health and safety training and management, there is a very real danger that employees are going to be at far greater risk of injury or ill health.

“Health and safety at work is about protecting people’s lives and wellbeing and helping to make sure that they go home to their loved ones and families at the end of the working day as fit and well as they were when they went to work that morning.  Businesses need to recognise the consequences of not investing in the resources necessary to prevent needless deaths and harm.”

BSC is urging all organisations to ensure that their staff have the right training and information to understand and appreciate the risks they face at work and are taught how to manage the risks effectively.

AIF tackles festival crime

The Association of Independent Festivals (AIF), the body launched this summer to represent independent music festivals, has announced the formation of a Security Task Force, a new initiative to address the issue of tent thefts and campsite crime at festivals. With just a small number of criminal gangs acknowledged as responsible for the majority of on-site theft, the new Task Force will allow festival organisers to better share intelligence and effectively target the gangs involved. 

The Task Force will maintain a constant presence at participating festivals, working with event security companies and police services throughout the UK to identify known thieves before they enter festival sites.  They will support and build on existing police initiatives, which have proven the benefit of intelligence-pooling in reducing tent theft. Extra teams will be on hand on busy weekends with multiple festivals.

Jim King, director of Loud Sound and AIF board member said: “Whilst still statistically low, thefts at UK festivals have to be addressed. Customer experience and safety is a most important part of the whole festival experience and we want to act to ensure that customers have a great time at our events without experiencing the upsetting scenario of being a victim of crime.” 

Although the security task force is an AIF initiative, the board recognises that this is a problem that affects all festivals and would welcome the involvement of non-members in the scheme, especially the larger festivals, which are often hit the hardest.  

Speaking at the launch of the scheme, Rob da Bank, Bestival promoter and AIF co-founder said: "Tent theft at our festivals has always been very low, but any theft at all is really upsetting for the promoter and the people involved. This was one of the main reasons I wanted to set up AIF and I really believe we can make a difference with this initiative."

A tender process with security firms is currently progressing and AIF anticipates the new team will be ready and in place by March next year. 

Security Task Force FAQ

Is Tent Theft A Big Problem?

While it only directly affects a tiny percentage of festival-goers, tent theft is extremely distressing for victims and worsens the atmosphere for all everyone, so needs to be addressed.

Who Is Responsible?

It’s common knowledge that the majority of tent thefts are from organised rather than opportunist thieves. These gangs follow the festival circuit around the country, normally targeting the campsites on the first night when people have all their weekend’s money.

So What Has Been In Place Until Now In Terms Of Security?

Each festival has their own guidelines, is governed by different authorities and may contract different security firms.  Police initiatives are already beginning to support existing event security companies. By pooling intelligence and having a dedicated team on the ground, the Security Task Force will build on their work, helping to stamp out tent theft and make festivals a safer place.

Who Was Invited To Tender And When Will The Team Be Announced?

An open invitation to tender was sent to all reputable security firms who are experienced in outdoor event security. AIF expects to have the team finalised and in place by March 2009.

Will The Security Task Force Have A Wider Remit?

No.  It this is a focused task force looking at known thieves who prey on the festival circuit.

Who Will Pay For The Task Force?

Each participating festival would pay their share of the total bill. Organised tent theft is a problem for any show that happens to be on the radar of thieves. Nobody unfortunately has the luxury of avoiding this.

Can Non-Members Participate?

AIF welcomes the involvement of all music festivals. Thefts take place at all shows and criminals move from show to show so it’s important that this service is available to everyone. AIF believes the larger festivals may welcome any move that helps them in their battle as they are generally affected the most.

Why AIF?

This is exactly the kind of initiative that AIF was created to deal with. Many of the issues that festival promoters face are much better combatted through collective action, and tent theft is just one of these.

This Is AIF’s First Initiative, What Can We Expect From The Body Next?

AIF is working on a number of initiatives including helping members with issues around securing UK visas for international artists and developing supplier, service and event databases. AIF networking and tutoring events will be launched in the New Year covering topics from licensing to booking artists for festivals.

What If People Have Lost Possessions?

If someone is a victim of crime they should always report it to the police. 

About AIF

The Association of Independent Festivals is a not for profit body set up in 2008 to represent independent music festivals in the UK and Ireland. Founded by Bestival promoter Rob da Bank and Graphite Media’s Ben Turner, the association’s members range from the 40,000 capacity Creamfields in Liverpool to the 6,000 capacity Summer Sundae Weekender in Leicester. 

AIF allows the promoters of some of the UK & Ireland’s most innovative and successful festivals to speak with one voice when addressing the wider music business and government. 

AIF aims to establish best practice for festivals in a variety of areas such as security, the environment and beyond, providing a knowledge base for festival promoters, as well as creating collective purchasing and marketing opportunities for its members.

Operating as an autonomous division of the Association of Independent Music, AIF is chaired by Alison Wenham (chairman of AIM), with the board comprised of representatives from Beautiful Days, Bestival, Big Chill, Bloom, Cornbury, Creamfields, Electric Picnic, Evolution, Field Day, Glade, Loud Sound, Secret Garden Party, Summer Sundae Weekender and Womad. 

IOSH calls on firms to take H&S seriously

Companies that “play” at health and safety will find it tough to survive the current economic climate, the president of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) has warned. Nattasha Freeman says that with the new Health and Safety (Offences) Act due to come into force on 16 January, it is imperative that firms take their health and safety responsibilities seriously.

She says: "Those firms with poor health and safety practices, or firms that fail to provide a safe environment for their employees, could face the prospect of incurring increased financial penalties at a time when they really cannot afford it. We’ve already seen many well-known high street firms collapse under the financial pressure of the economic climate. One needless accident during such challenging times could also spell the end for your company.

"The Health and Safety (Offences) Act is not coming into law to cripple businesses. It’s not been created to 'get at' business. It's there to provide a strong deterrent for those tempted to cut corners on health and safety, and to provide more appropriate punishments for those organisations that do put their workers lives at risks. This legislation also follows in the wake of the Corporate Manslaughter Act."

"Doing health and safety properly is not something that costs a fortune. There are many events that provide excellent opportunities for businesses to find out more about the latest products and services and to meet health and safety professionals who can advise them on cost-effective measures to help keep workers safe."

Freeman points out that whilst investing in health and safety might not be your top priority at the moment, it should be: “It’s vital in ensuring the well-being of your business and your staff and underlining the importance of worker involvement.”

Compensation for eye injury man

A man whose right eye was damaged after he was provided with unsuitable safety glasses at work has been awarded £5,000 in compensation. Paul Thomas, 34, sustained the injury whilst fitting sound-proof doors for Clark Door of Carlisle at the BBC buildings in Glasgow.

Mr Thomas, a GMB union member, was drilling into concrete above his head, when dust fell into his eyes through ventilation holes in the goggles, causing alkali burns. His eyes swelled and he had to take four months off work. Clark Door admitted liability, and settled out of court.

Speaking to The Press Association, GMB regional secretary Tom Brennan commented: "An alkali burn to the eyes is one of the most dangerous types of chemical burns, and can cause severe injury. However, it can easily be avoided by using the correct safety glasses in the workplace. Paul should never have been in a position where his eyesight was put at risk in this way."

Solicitor Fiona Belgian said: "It is the employer's responsibility to make sure the workforce is provided with the appropriate safety equipment to undertake a job. In this case, goggles had been provided, but they were not the right type to protect Mr Thomas adequately."

The key points employers must bear in mind when it comes to safety equipment are:

• Personal protective equipment (PPE) is worn or held by persons at work to protect them from risks to their health and safety.
• Waterproof and weatherproof clothing only falls within the Regulations if it is necessary to protect the wearer from health and safety risks due to adverse climatic conditions.
• The Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 apply in most instances; there are six other sets of Regulations which include their own particular PPE requirements.
• PPE is at the bottom of the hierarchy of risk control measures; PPE should therefore be used only as a last resort.

Employers must decide if PPE is necessary and, if so, must select suitable PPE, provide it free of charge, and maintain it and replace it as necessary. In addition, employers must provide accommodation for PPE; information, instruction and training about it and how to use it; and a system for employees to report defects and losses.

HSE calls for a safer 2009

A total of 137,000 people were killed or injured in work-related incidents in the UK last year according to the latest figures from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The toll, which includes 229 deaths, is a stark reminder to the county's employers and their staff that they should resolve to make their workplaces safer in 2009, says the HSE.

Speaking about HSE figures for the North-West, where 19,000 workplace incidents occurred in 2007/2008, including 28 deaths, David Sowerby, the HSE's North West Regional Operations Manager, says: "Behind these statistics are cases of real suffering and, for some, hardship through loss of income. We are asking that businesses take practical action to manage the risks people face in their day-to-day work."

David Sowerby continues: "Each year at this time the HSE reflects on the number of incidents in the preceding 12 months, and each year the same patterns are repeated. Again, our inspectors have found that falling from height and being struck by falling or moving objects were among the chief causes of death and injury. If workplaces could eliminate these factors, both of them avoidable, these startling figures would be hugely reduced. The HSE is here to address the very serious health and safety issues at the root of these statistics, not the banning of people playing conkers."

The HSE urges businesses to act by:

• Using safe platforms with guarded edges for working at height;
• Securing ladders properly where these have to be used;
• Securing loads before moving them; 
• Laying workplaces out to keep vehicles and pedestrians apart, where possible.

David Sowerby says: "Simple assessments of risk, ease of tasks, accessibility, exposure to harmful substances and training can prevent many incidents.”

Feeling better? Text your friends

Sending a text message to your friends after being hurt at a music festival can signify that you’re free to leave treatment, a new report states. Staff from the Festival Medical Services charity found that the majority of patients who had fainted or suffered a panic attack while at a festival were likely to text their friends as soon as they possibly could.

And following research into the matter, the charity has been able to greatly enhance its efficiency when dealing with patients taken ill during a festival. Sending a text message, whether it makes sense or not, requires full consciousness and a high degree of dexterity and coordination and can thus be used as an indication that patients have recovered and can return to the festival, the authors explained.

“It also shows a degree of common sense not always evident in teenagers,” added lead author Mike Sinclair, a retired consultant anaesthetist. “This year at the Reading festival we managed, with only one consultant anaesthetist, two accident and emergency nurses, one operating department practitioner, and two to four first aiders, to treat 142 patients in less than 60 minutes during the performance by Bloc Party and 130 patients over 90 minutes during the performance by Rage Against the Machine,” he commented.

The article, published in the Christmas issue of the BMJ Online journal, calls for further research into the ‘text messaging sign’ as a valid sign of recovery following fainting and panic attacks and its potential for use in overloaded A&E departments.

Paying attention to IR35

Nearly a decade after the freelancers' tax, IR35, was introduced by then Chancellor Gordon Brown as an anti-tax avoidance measure, the Professional Contractors’ Group has reaffirmed the need for contractors to be well-advised on tax matters, to avoid an unexpected tax bill totalling thousands of pounds.

As reported by Shout 99, earlier this year, IT Consultancy Dragonfly  lost its IR35 appeal in the High Court Court, leaving co-owner, Jon Bessell, with a combined tax and national insurance bill of £99,000.  Another potentially landmark case is in the offing as freelancers await the outcome of a High Court appeal involving Larkstar Data Ltd. In November, Larkstar’s owner won the case at the General Commissioners, but HMRC then appealed to the High Court. A judgment is expected in the New Year. 

The aim of IR35 was to prevent workers from setting up limited companies via which they would work effectively as employees, but saving on tax. This is also known as the “Friday to Monday” scenario, under which a worker leaves a job on Friday and returns on Monday doing the same work for the same company, but, as a contractor via their own limited company paying much less tax.  The measure, which came into force throughout the UK in April 2000, and has since been consolidated in the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, has received strong criticism since its introduction. Critics have complained about its complexity and its harmful impact on legitimate small companies which exist for reasons other than tax avoidance or evasion 

The PCG has published a new edition of its Guide to IR35, emphasising that the 'big three' status indicators remain the key issues, namely:

• indicators of personal service (or “substitution”),
• direction and control;
• mutuality of obligation

John Brazier, managing director of PCG says: “It’s still possible to work outside IR35, despite the Dragonfly case earlier this year. What that case showed is that the traditional advice remains sound, but must be followed carefully.”

The PCG also confirmed the importance of the 'upper' (agency-client) contract matching the 'lower' (limited company-agency) contract which the freelancer actually signs, and the need to be able to demonstrate through 'real arrangements' letters or other documentation that the reality of what happens tallies with what the contract says.

HSE warns on work at height

The HSE is reminding access platform operators of the need to take safety seriously when planning work at height, particularly on a public highway. The warning follows the prosecution of a York construction contractor and one of its employees after two men fell from a mobile elevated working platform (MEWP) - known as a 'cherry picker' - whilst they were working at the side of the A19 in Bootham, York.

Employee Karl Thackrah was fined £2,500 and costs of £3,500 at York Crown Court today after pleading guilty to breaching Section 7(a) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. At an earlier hearing on 4 September 2008 at York Magistrates Court, William Birch and Sons Ltd was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,500 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the same Act.

The prosecution follows an incident in which Karl Thackrah and Chris Cook, the platform's hirer, fell from the elevating work platform which they were using to access the first floor of Mr Cook's house in Bootham in order to touch up paintwork. After the hearing, HSE Inspector Paul Robinson said: "This incident caused serious injuries to two people and could have been much worse. Moreover, it need never have happened given more basic care and planning.

"Work at height must always be properly planned, appropriately supervised and carried out in a safe manner and this is particularly important in a roadside situation where other vehicles and members of the public are involved. The company, William Birch & Sons Ltd, had provided, training information and equipment for Mr Thackrah but it failed to ensure that the particular risks involved in the work at this location were adequately assessed and controlled. Their employee, Karl Thackrah, failed to take reasonable care while setting up and operating the platform.

"The consequences were life-threatening for the two men involved, with Mr Cook being in a coma for a month. Whilst both have partially recovered there remains considerable suffering. The HSE will not hesitate to prosecute in situations where people's lives are put at risk in this way."

When planning to undertake work at height, regard must be given to:

• the relevant risk assessments;
• how the work can be carried out safely;
• adverse weather conditions; and
• steps to be taken in the event of an emergency.

IOSH attacks H&S killjoys

The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) has attacked those people seeking to use health and safety as an excuse to ban fun Christmas activities. During the Christmas period, people have claimed health and safety is responsible for bans on tinsel from crossing patrol lollipops and for the removal of Christmas lights from some shopping centres. However, according to Nattasha Freeman, the president of IOSH, those enforcing such rules are missing the true point of health and safety.

Freeman says: "Health and safety is here to protect people from significant risks, it’s not about banishing all risks into oblivion. People have to learn to manage risk – we cannot protect people from everything. People have to take some responsibility for their own safety. 

"We want people to enjoy themselves at Christmas time. There’s no way health and safety should be being used as an excuse to ban Christmas lights or trees from being put up in town centres. But, it should be there to ensure these things are put up properly, not in a shoddy, slapdash way which might lead to them falling and hurting people."

Freeman points out health and safety has also been blamed for banning pantomime actors from throwing sweets into an audience, preventing lucky coins being sold with Christmas puddings and to prevent schools selling homemade mince pies. It had even been blamed for forcing a Rotary Club Santa to wear a full body harness on his 5 mph sledge.

"It's time for a major outbreak of common sense”, Freeman continues. “Health and safety people are not the Scrooges these stories are making us seem like. The risks to the audience from flying sweets are minimal, and the danger from homemade mince pies isn’t exactly at the top of the health and safety professionals ‘most dangerous’ list. Organisations are concerned they might be sued or simply can’t be bothered to find a sensible solution. They use health and safety as a believable excuse which no one will argue against."