The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) recently released its annual report on work-related ill health and workplace injuries for the year 2022/23. The statistics shed light on the state of employee well-being and safety in Great Britain, revealing concerning trends and areas of focus for employers and policymakers.

Work-Related Ill Health: A Growing Concern

One of the most striking revelations from the report is that nearly two million workers in Great Britain reported suffering from work-related ill health in the stated period. Alarmingly, approximately half of these cases were attributed to stress, depression, or anxiety.

In the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of self-reported work-related ill health remained relatively stable. However, the current statistics show a notable increase compared to 2018/19, with an estimated 875,000 cases linked specifically to stress, depression, or anxiety. This rise in mental health-related issues poses significant challenges for both employees and employers.

Impact on Workforce Productivity and Economic Costs

The impact of work-related ill health and injuries extends beyond individual well-being, significantly affecting Britain's economic performance. The report indicates that an estimated 35.2 million working days were lost due to self-reported work-related ill health or injury in 2022/23. Such absenteeism not only affects individual productivity but also impacts the overall performance of businesses and the economy at large.

HSE's chief executive, Sarah Albon, emphasized the importance of addressing work-related stress, stating that prevention and management efforts could yield substantial benefits for employees and employers alike. These efforts not only improve the work experience and health of employees but also contribute to increased productivity, reduced absenteeism, and lower staff turnover rates.

Safety Concerns and Economic Costs

The financial toll of workplace injuries and incidents is staggering, with the estimated annual costs reaching £20.7 billion in 2021/22. This represents a significant increase of £1.9 billion compared to 2019/20. Additionally, the report highlights that 135 workers lost their lives due to work-related accidents in 2022/23, while 561,000 workers sustained non-fatal injuries during the same period.

Moving Towards Safer Work Environments

Understanding the implications of these statistics is crucial for businesses and policymakers to prioritize employee well-being and safety. Creating a safer work environment involves proactive measures such as risk assessment, mental health support initiatives, and robust safety protocols.

In conclusion, the HSE's annual report underscores the urgent need for concerted efforts to address work-related ill health and injuries. By prioritizing employee well-being, organizations can foster a healthier, more productive workforce while contributing to the overall economic stability of the nation.

As the HSE continues its endeavours to promote workplace safety, it's imperative for businesses to actively engage in initiatives that prioritize the health and safety of their employees.

Health and safety with an ageing workforce

An older workforce is the future. With planned rises in State Pension age and ever-increasing life expectancy, people want or need to stay in work for longer. This is no minor matter for employers: in just two years time it is predicted that one third of the UK workforce will be aged over 50. 

Special treatment?

But despite this, many employers will be unsure of how to approach the health and safety of their older employees. Do they need special treatment to stay safe at work? Should they be covered by extra risk assessments once they reach a certain vintage? The answer is not to single out workers of more advanced years as problematic - these attitudes and stereotypes might be the biggest barrier to people continuing productive work into their sixties and beyond. When it comes to Health and Safety, it can be argued that having more mature workers is a thoroughly good thing. The Health and Safety Executive guidance suggests that the experience and attitude of older workers working alongside younger people can improve the overall safety level of the workplace. For any possible decline that might come with age, for example in reaction time or working memory, safety is unlikely to be affected because “older individuals can generally compensate for them with experience, better judgement and job knowledge”.

Challenges

Despite these positive assertions, there are growing challenges with having an ageing workforce. Of the 7.2 million people aged 50-64 who are employed, 42 per cent are living with a health condition or disability. Also, although there is little evidence to show that older workers are at greater risk of workplace accidents than younger workers, when accidents do occur they might result in more serious injury and those workers may take longer to recover.  

Long term plan

So the increased proportion of older workers cannot be ignored. Company leaders need to develop an approach that allows employees to work safely and adjust to changes that come with age. Health screenings and initiatives to boost personal health and wellbeing must play a part - if people are aware of their own conditions and difficulties, they can take them into account when approaching their work and inform employers when they face increased challenges. Technology can often be used to reduce the physical strain of many tasks. Safety training needs to be delivered in a way that can be fully absorbed by all employees: the HSE suggests more self-paced training. More flexible working opportunities could also help everyone work safely and productively.

If employers put good sense before stereotypes and make plans for an ageing workforce, there is everything to gain and nothing to lose.

McCormack Benson Health and Safety can help companies across a variety of sectors develop a thoughtful and practical approach to maintaining safety for an evolving workforce.

Keeping children safe is our highest priority as a society. But asbestos in school buildings is an invisible threat to thousands of children which is in danger of remaining hidden. 

Cause for concern

It is now over a year since a government survey revealed that nearly one in five schools were not following safety procedures to manage asbestos. The alarming results suggested that over a million school children could potentially be exposed to the dangerous fibres and dust. The 100 schools seen as a “significant cause for concern” were emailed by the Department for Education and replied with “assurances” that the asbestos was now safely managed.

Doubts about approach

But these survey results must cast some doubts about the current approach to asbestos. The Department for Education - and other government departments - maintains the best approach is safe management of existing asbestos in buildings. They publish guidelines that schools and public buildings must follow. But the Department for Education is not actually responsible for school buildings - they fund school places and provide funding to maintain existing buildings. Asbestos management is the thorny problem of whoever maintains the premises: either the local authority, school governors or academy trust. The government is currently collecting data on the condition of all schools, set to complete the process in Autumn 2019. Maybe this information will confirm the wisdom of the government’s approach or reveal that is not adequate to protect people from asbestos.

Split opinions

There are vastly different opinions about the approach to this lethal material, heavily used in buildings constructed between 1945 and 1975. In 2015 the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Occupational Safety and Health published a report, titled “The asbestos crisis: Why Britain needs an eradication law”. The message was clear: “the time has come to put in place regulations requiring the safe, phased and planned removal of all the asbestos that still remains in place across Britain.” Or: let’s get rid of it, entirely.   

Premature deaths

That report drew attention to the 5000 people likely to die prematurely from asbestos-related conditions that year, more than road accident deaths. Because the development of life-threatening conditions often takes place 30-40 years after the original inhalation of dust, it is hard to gain purchase on the extent of this threat. The Health and Safety Executive estimates that the number of deaths from mesothelioma (the cancer associated with asbestos exposure) will rise until 2020 and then begin to decline. However, the all-party group questioned this belief, because little is known about the extent of exposure to asbestos after 1980. The threat from this ticking time bomb does not seem pressing enough to warrant dramatic action.

Without any new legislation or funding to push forward the full removal of asbestos, the up to date guidelines are the best tool we have in combating asbestos. 

McCormack Benson Health and Safety offer specialist consultants to work with schools and public buildings, helping them adhere to guidelines and create the safest possible environment for students and teachers.

Calls for change have been deafening since a fire devastated Grenfell Tower last June, and in mid-December Dame Judith Hackitt published the much-anticipated interim report from her Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety. This dispatch from the ongoing review was never going to feel like enough for many, understandably impatient for the wrongs which led to the catastrophic blaze to be made right.  

Clear message

Hackitt communicated a clear, condemnatory message. She described the current system of regulation as “not fit for purpose” and in need of an overhaul. She detailed a range of major flaws in a system that is “gamed and worked around in many areas”.

Cost-cutting, complexity and conflicts of interest

Hackitt, a former chair of the Health and Safety Executive, described her shock at the practices that have become widespread under the current regulatory system. She noted that the current system facilitates cost-cutting, which can lead to the use of less safe building materials. Different players have been able to dodge their responsibilities for safety because the available guidance is so complex and open to misinterpretation, Hackett reported. (She noted a pile of all the guidance documents which accompany the regulations stood around 2 ft high).
She also criticised the privatisation of building inspection which has led to conflicts of interest, with private inspectors and developers becoming dangerously dependent on each other.

Residents’ voice

As well as highlighting the need for better defined responsibilities within the construction industry, Hackitt pointed out the lack of effective channels for residents to raise their concerns. Grenfell residents had expressed serious doubts about the safety of their building, but the management company did not take action.  

No specifics

Some industry bodies may have been disappointed by the lack of specifics as yet - there was no mention of a ban on the use of flammable materials, such as that used in the cladding on Grenfell Tower. However, many politicians, housing federations, health and safety and fire industry bodies have welcomed the content of the interim report. Hackitt has assured that the finished report, due in spring, would specifically address sprinklers, cladding, alarm systems and escape routes.

Industry summit

On 22nd January, Hackitt is inviting representatives of the building industry and government to a summit, to discuss the next steps needed to kickstart the “universal shift in culture”. She described her December report as a “call to action”, but what actions can building firms start taking now?

From the shocking practice she has uncovered so far, Hackitt must know that a new enforceable framework is needed urgently for change to come. 

Fire extinguishers put out more blazes than municipal fire services every year, according to industry surveys: these short stack fire fighters are truly the unsung heroes of fire safety. In the past few years, an new breed of hero has appeared, tougher, more independent - and more expensive. “Is it the James Bond of fire extinguishers?” asked one Health and Safety blogger of the P50 fire extinguisher. “It takes the fire safety industry to a new level,” claims one supplier. 

Revolutionary

To an untrained eye the P50 fire extinguisher may look much the same as any of the stumpy cylinders which lurk in every premises across the nation. But to those who know their foam from their dry powder, the P50 has started something of a revolution. It has also kicked off an intense debate among fire safety experts. 

Formula 1 technology

The traditional steel pressure cylinders have always had their problems - their lining can corrode or detach, they can be dented, the contents can freeze and burst the container. The P50’s inner 3-layer chamber does not react with the foam or powder inside; the pressurised container is wrapped in super-strong aramid fibre (a material also known by brand name Kevlar), rather than steel. One early use of aramid was by Formula 1 car manufacturers because of its impressive strength and modest weight. The whole unit is encased in UV protective high density polyethylene. The P50’s safety has been recognised with the Kitemark, fulfilling British Standard EN3. They can be filled with foam or powder, which between them can extinguish most types of fires (those classed A, B, C and E).

Service-free

For those marketing the P50, its major selling point is the much-reduced servicing schedule and associated cost saving - they are most often branded “Service-free”. All traditional steel fire extinguishers have to be serviced by a qualified professional at least annually to comply with  BS5306-3 and BS5306-8. It’s promised that the near-invincible P50 unit only needs a full service and refill after ten years and will last another decade. In the meantime regular visual checks by the user are considered sufficient maintenance.

“Fit and forget”

There has been wide-ranging reaction from the fire safety industry. While Essex County Fire Service and the Chief Fire Officer’s Association have gone as far as to endorse and market the P50 through their own trading arms, other professionals have strongly criticised the “service-free” model, voicing concerns that users will just “fit and forget” these new extinguishers. The Independent Fire Engineering and Distributors Association (IFEDA) made a statement expressing disbelief that the hard-won safety standard of annual servicing is being undermined by the arrival of the P50. One major insurer has also indicated it has reservations about the use of P50s, in part because of the many additional benefits of an annual visit from a fire safety specialist who often would check other aspects of fire safety as well as servicing the extinguishers. The same insurer also expressed concerns about installing P50s in “hostile environments” such as recycling centres or construction sites where damage to fire extinguishers is more likely and could go undetected.

Early days

While the new technology is impressive and has been embraced by a number of major companies such as Kier, other users continue to feel cautious about switching to P50s in these early days of the innovation. A regular servicing regime feels reassuring for good reason. 

McCormack Benson Health and Safety’s experts provide comprehensive and reliable fire safety services for single and multi-site organisations. 

There might be no heavy machinery, work at vertiginous heights nor toxic substances involved (unless you include the contents of the vending machine), but the health and safety issues presented by call centres are many and complex. And with around one million workers employed in this industry in the UK, they are issues which impact on a sizeable section of the population. 

Squeeze on toilet breaks

In the recent past call centres have hit the headlines for working practices which would make Mike Ashley blush: a 2012 survey by Unison publicised the shocking finding that one in four call centre employees had toilet breaks restricted. Unscrupulous call centre bosses should have been shamed by these headlines. The industry must now become a leader in developing staff wellbeing to stabilise a workforce with a famously high turnover rate costing the industry more than £1bn per year. Penny-pinching compromises to health and safety should be replaced by a long term view which invests in a young workforce who might then be tempted to hang around. 

Physical and Emotional Stress 

Working in a call centre presents a unique combination of demands on individuals. The simultaneous use of keyboard, desk, mouse, screen and headset places very particular physical stresses which can result in Musculoskeletal Disorders and eye strain. Talking throughout the working day, at times struggling to make yourself heard, can lead to voice damage - a quarter of workers in a survey by the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health reported voice problems, with new starters and female staff members at particular risk. These physical pressures are paired with the stress of dealing with members of the public who may be angry or aggressive.

New priorities

Health and Safety bodies and unions have both been working over recent years to make proposals for a healthier future for call centre workers. The Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends many changes from proper preparation to boost staff’s emotional resilience to problem calls to creating pleasant relaxation areas to encourage workers to take breaks away from their desks. The junk-food filled vending machine does indeed pose a threat to this very sedentary workforce, and employers need to take responsibility for giving access to healthier eating options. 

Empowerment

But it can be argued that a deeper change in the approach to the work itself is needed to improve the overall health of call centre employees - not just the environment, toilet breaks and the snacks. Research going back to 2003 demonstrates that the biggest negative for staff in this situation is the lack of control over their work - having to stick slavishly to a script whatever the circumstances, the inability to use their judgment or initiative without clearance from a supervisor.  One call centre employee explained in a blog how little regard the management had for their opinions about their work:  “As for team meetings, never had one in over a year, and opinions, well I’ve been asked how I felt about my job once and even then I wasn’t given a chance to respond. It all adds up to more stress… and so it seems worse health.”
There is much scope for improvement if bosses have the vision and courage to change the culture.

McCormack Benson Health and Safety offer expert consultants in this field who are able to support call centres to create healthier working environments and safer practices. 

Teachers could be forgiven for finding it hard to keep track of the shifting ideas about how to keep school children safe. Many were left shocked by the comments of Ofsted chief Amanda Spielman in August, who said that schools were wrapping their students “in cotton wool”. As a result, the nation’s children were not learning “resilience and grit” to deal with the real world.

“Over-cautious" 

Spielman, who took over as head of Ofsted at the start of the year, branded schools’ current approach as “over-cautious”. She lampooned the habit of dressing children in hi-vis jackets - it makes primary pupils look like “tiny construction workers”, she said. Inevitably, teachers have hit back, arguing that Ofsted’s standards have encouraged schools to be wary of any risk, and to cover their backs with detailed paperwork.

Nothing new

Spielman’s comments might seem bold, but are nothing new. In fact, her words of wisdom follow closely the Health and Safety Executive’s own advice to schools published in 2012. Key message: “Children won’t learn about risk if they’re wrapped in cotton wool.”

Paperwork used as “security blanket”

The HSE was seeking to dispel myths about the health and safety requirements of any school visit. It emphasised that pages-long risk assessments covering “trivial and fanciful” risks were of little value and just served as a “security blanket” for those planning the trip. A school’s paperwork should be easy to use and proportionate to the risk-level of the activity, it states. A caving expedition will clearly require a longer risk assessment than a trip to the local library. 

Any safety measures should be appropriate for the context. As some teachers observed, commenting online on Spielman’s remarks, hi-vis vests can be an effective tool, making it easy to spot students at a distance on a beach, for instance. But at busy museums, where there are often multiple school trips, the hi vis jackets are worse than useless.

Common sense

Really, all sides - from the Chief Inspector to the Health and Safety Executive to teachers - seem to be pleading for common sense. Teachers need time, support and experience to plan and run safe, successful visits. School leadership should prioritise creating a culture to make this possible.

When news broke of the devastating fire in West London’s Grenfell Tower on 14th June, dozens of questions swirled around. Not least: how could such a disaster happen in 2017?

That question still hangs in the air. 

Any answers

Bits and pieces of answers started to emerge in the hours and days afterwards. The fire was started by a faulty fridge-freezer in a flat on the fourth floor. Its rampaging spread seemed to have been advanced by the exterior cladding panels, fitted during the building’s 2016 refurbishment. The Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) panels were found in government tests to be highly flammable, and according to the manufacturer’s own guidelines should not have been used on buildings taller than 10m. The mounting death toll (estimated at 80) was so high because residents followed fire safety advice to “stay put” in their flats, a recommendation which assumed the building would compartmentalise the blaze. There was no sprinkler system fitted in the 24-storey tower. The fire service had been suffering funding cuts since 2010, and the London fire brigade did not have their own high aerial platform to fight this tall building fire. 
A more complete answer will hopefully be found by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry which opened on 5th September.

Health and Safety Response

Another question was instantly asked: how can we ensure this never happens again?
A week after the fire, leading Health and Safety organisations and professionals responded in an open letter to Theresa May calling on her to “scrap the Government’s approach to health and safety deregulation and think again.” The letter decried the pressure from ministers in recent years to axe regulations as “a matter of principle”. Regulations should not be characterised as “burdens on business”, it read: “We believe it is vital that this disaster marks a turning point for improved fire safety awareness and wider appreciation that good health and safety is an investment, not a cost.”

A new review

The wider community of Health and Safety professionals are set to play an vital role in the enormous task ahead. Many will be feeding knowledge and expertise into the government’s Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, announced in late July and being led by Dame Judith Hackitt. 

While the review scrutinises the regulations and the public inquiry examines the evidence, a more urgent Building Safety Programme is also underway, with the government aiming to check and test buildings with ACM cladding which might pose risks to the public, be they social housing, schools or hospitals.

Taking responsibility

We will only see whether enough is going to be done when the Building Regulations and Fire Safety report is published next spring. The long term solutions need to be wider and deeper than using the right cladding and installing it correctly. The responsibility for safe buildings must be clearly defined and enforced by accessible regulation. There should be nothing vague or open to interpretation; that is the space where another catastrophe could happen. 

On high-profile high-cost highly technical infrastructure projects, you always hope that standards of health and safety practice would reach the same heights.

Unfortunately, this has not been entirely true of the £14.8bn Crossrail project, the railway line being constructed between Reading and Shenfield, Essex, through central London.

“Consistent Failure”

The Health and Safety Executive recently investigated three incidents, one fatal, which took place between 2014 and 2015 in the tunnels beneath Holborn. 

They found that there had been a “consistent failure” by Bam Ferrovial Kier to protect its skilled workforce, by enforcing clear exclusion zones around dangerous areas. In late July at Southwark Crown Court, BFK, a joint venture of three construction giants, was fined over £1 million.

Unsafe zones

In March 2014 Rene Tkacik was working close to freshly sprayed concrete to clean reinforcement bars when a quantity of wet concrete fell from the tunnel roof, killing him. Ten months later, there were two more incidents within days of each other: Ian Hughes suffered severe leg injuries when he was struck by a reversing excavator; Alex Vizitiu was hit by pressurised water and concrete debris causing him head and hip injuries.

“Simple measures” to enforce and mark out exclusion zones around hazardous work could have prevented these accidents, said investigators. Prosecutors had noted that workers were confused about the location of the exclusion zone where Tkacik died; they relied on briefings at the start of each shift, and there had been no physical barrier to visibly mark the zone.

Following Tkacik’s shocking death and injuries to its workers - and the heavy fine for its failings - BFK should be aiming for the loftiest standards of safety for its multi-skilled technical workforce.

McCormack Benson Health and Safety provides specialist construction consultants who can assist contractors to maintain high standards of safety (and never overlook the “simple measures”) whatever the scale of their project. 

Watching someone more experienced doing a job can be very useful when you’re learning the ropes. However, it can never be a substitute for proper training. 

The supermarket giant Aldi have discovered this the hard way. The company has now been ordered to pay a £1million fine and £70,000 costs for their mistakes.

No formal training

In the past, the company’s new delivery drivers were expected to learn their job by simply shadowing other drivers, before starting to work independently. There were no checks in place to make sure these new drivers could operate equipment that they would be using regularly.

Life-changing injury

With such an informal system, it was only a matter of time before a new employee got hurt. In November 2013, a delivery driver in his second week of work at the Aldi store in Somercotes, Derbyshire, was injured while operating a powered pallet truck. All the toes on his left foot were fractured and two had to be amputated. The man continues to experience pain from these life-changing injuries. 

In-depth investigation

It was the local council Amber Valley’s Regulation Unit which pursued the long investigation into the practices at the store. The Council’s lead investigating officer, Julia Cope said: 

“This accident resulted in very nasty injuries to a driver who had been asked to carry out work using equipment for which his employer had failed to provide structured and necessary formal training.” 

Aldi admitted its failure to provide suitable training. The Judge pointed out that previous incidents in the company should have led Aldi to review its approach sooner.

Councillor David Taylor praised the high level of the fine as reflecting “the seriousness of the failings within the company. This investigation and outcome will hopefully result in a renewed focus by Aldi to ensure that standards are maintained to ensure employees receive adequate protection from the risk of injury.”

McCormack Benson Health and Safety’s specialist consultants are able to review training procedures for organisations across a variety of sectors. They can provide detailed advice on tailoring and improving training programmes to ensure employees are able to carry out their work safely.

Tougher punishments are in store for employers whose lax safety standards lead to loss of life. 

This week, prison terms of up to 18 years have been proposed by the Sentencing Council of England and Wales as a fitting penalty for gross negligence manslaughter. This crime happens when someone fails in their duty of care towards another individual, resulting in their death.

New Guidelines

Until now judges have worked without set guidelines, and, in practice, the longest sentences only stretched to six to eight years. Some of those convicted were given sentences of just nine months. 

The new guidelines, up for consultation this autumn, recommend considerably harsher sentences, particularly in cases where offenders knew that their unsafe practice was likely to cause harm,

Punishment for cost-cutters 

The Sentencing Council spelled out the cases that should receive tougher punishment: “Typically … where an employer has had a long standing, utter disregard for the safety of employees and is motivated by cost-cutting.”

Employers responsible for fatalities should be punished at least as severely as those who cause death by dangerous driving, the Council noted.

Devastating loss

Developing their recommendations, Mr Justice Holroyde, acknowledged: “Manslaughter always involves the loss of a human life and no sentence can make up for that loss.”

It is positive to see the justice system re-examining the penalty for this crime and designing sentences that reflect the devastation of a needless death. In times of austerity, with constant pressure to drive down costs, employers and contractors should see this shift as a reminder of the weight of their responsibilities.

McCormack Benson Health and Safety consultants include specialists in range of industry sectors who can assist employers meet their responsibilities to all those in their care. They can provide detailed advice on putting in place best practice and systems to minimise risks to safety.

Demolishing a building might look a lot easier than putting one up. But this dangerous assumption by one contractor put lives at risk and has now landed him with a suspended jail sentence.

Back in 2013, Panther AL, a company which owned an old print works on Ramsgate High Street, appointed builder Martin Elmes of Hemel Hempstead to demolish it. 

Chaotic and “primitive” process

Elmes was given the contract without Panther AL checking that he had any experience of knocking down three storey buildings. The demolition in November of that year revealed he was utterly unfit to carry out the job.

The process was chaotic and unplanned. Neither company nor contractor gained permission from Thanet District Council to bring down the building. There was no specialist demolition equipment on site: instead “a 'JCB-type' machine with a bucket attached to the front” was used to knock down the structure, according to the prosecutor. “It was the most primitive form of demolition.”

Road stayed open

Worst of all, the public were exposed to potentially fatal risks. The road was not closed to carry out the demolition; a low wooden hoarding was all that separated pedestrians from the building. The prosecution noted: “workmen on site used cones and red tape to put an exclusion zone around the property, which according to witnesses, happened as the demolition was taking place.” Reportedly, young people were running in and out of the zone. It was only by luck that no one was seriously harmed when the building collapsed uncontrollably into Ramsgate High Street.

Company punished

As well as Elmes’ failings, the Health and Safety Executive’s investigator highlighted Panther AL’s responsibility for making sure their contractor had the right expertise to complete such hazardous work. The company was fined £160,000 plus costs at Canterbury Crown Court last week.

McCormack Benson Health and Safety’s experienced consultants help companies become stringent in selecting sub-contractors who are competent and meet essential standards.

Protecting the public is as important as protecting your workforce. So fencing off a building site completely could be the most vital thing a site manager ever does. The public-at-large should never be able to stumble upon an in-progress construction project.

Tragic accident

One day in early January 2015, John Philbin, who was 83 and suffering symptoms of dementia, was able to do just that. He walked on to a deserted housing development in Kirkcaldy through one of several gaps in the boundary. After falling into a flooded trench, he tragically drowned.  

Easily prevented

Preventing this death would have been straightforward, the Health and Safety Executive Investigator Gillian Anderson pointed out, if “the company installed a continuous fence around the site.” Press reports noted that one hole in the hedgerow boundary was close to a children’s playground.

By cutting corners in this matter, Glasgow construction company Sandford Park Ltd put the public at risk. In this case, there have been the most dire consequences for Philbin and his family. 

The company was handed a fine of £110,000 at Kirkcaldy Sherriff Court on May 26th.

McCormack Benson Health and Safety have extensive experience working with construction companies to bring about improvements in on-site practice. With assistance from specialist consultants, staff can fully understand their health and safety responsibilities both to the workforce and the public.

A lengthy risk assessment may look reassuring. But miss out key details and the result can be devastating.

It was just this kind of failure that caused the death of a young father at a Wigan food manufacturing plant, says the Health and Safety Executive.

Unsafe storage

At Hitchen Foods, owned by food preparation giant Bakkavor, massive bales of waste plastic were stacked three-high, waiting to be collected. No one working in the storage area had any formal training. No one had planned how to store the bales safely. No one was monitoring the risks to workers.

On February 4th 2015, Jacek Adamowicz, 29, was sweeping the area when the stacked bales toppled. He was crushed by 703kg of waste plastic and died.

Health and Safety Executive Inspector Ian Betley pinpointed the failing: “The risk assessment finished at the point where the bale was on the fork of the forklift truck, just after it had been baled. Beyond that there was no risk assessment.”

£2 million fine

Bakkavor, which is a major supplier to Tesco, Asda and Waitrose, was fined £2 million plus £32,595 costs for this horrendous oversight.

Proper planning 

Accidents caused by poorly planned storage and warehousing are preventable. Specialist advice from McCormack Benson Health and Safety consultants can support businesses to minimise risks throughout their working processes.

Lisa Chappell, the HSE inspector who was involved in the case, commented:

As a specialist in building safety matters, advising firms on their obligations and helping them stay legal and safe, McCormack Benson Health & Safety endorses these comments and will strive to help eradicate dangerous practices like this one. Gas fitment and servicing must always be left in the hands of expert contractors.

This is a aspect of sites that has perhaps been neglected until recently, but it is clear that HSE is now targeting worker welfare with Improvement Notices being served on many sites, including this one.

Mr. Bell acknowledged his responsibility and culpability at Cheltenham Magistrates Court, where he received a fine of £9,000 and £3,502 in costs. The fines for his company K W Bell Group Ltd (based at Whimsey Industrial Estate, Steam Mills Road, Cinderford) totalled £4,000 plus costs of £765 after entering a plea of guilty to two breaches of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. The most serious of these came under Regulation 31(1) that says:

The HSE’s advice on how to handle this deadly material is worth reviewing if you are the owner or principal contractor involved with older buildings. And the construction safety specialist consultancy,McCormack Benson Health & Safety, can advise and train staff on everything to do with this topic, to avoid you having your own day in court.

*Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 states: “It shall be the duty of every self-employed person to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that he and other persons (not being his employees) who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.”

McCormack Benson Health & Safety is a specialist safety consultancy with industry-trained building sector field consultants who work with contractors to help them work smarter and avoid FFIs and court appearances. You can read a primer on working at height here: but for affordable, personal attention from experts who know your problems and can help solve them, get in touch with MBHS.

*Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005:

“Where work is carried out at height, every employer shall take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury.”

* Regulation 4(3) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998:

“Every employer shall ensure that work equipment is used only for operations for which, and under conditions for which, it is suitable.”