26 February 2006 - HSfB Site News

Site News

• The Legislation News pages have been updated where you can read more on:
  • Consultation Paper on the Review of Pollution Prevention and Control Part B Activities
  • The Driving Standards Agency is consulting on a new Highway Code
  • The Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations 2006
  • The Community Drivers' Hours and Working Time (Road Tankers) (Temporary Exception) Regulations 2006
• A new page has been created where you can view the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. There is also a printable version available. You can view the page here: Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
• New downloads have been added to the downloads page:
  • Stress by Chris Phillips
  • Risk Register 2006 by Mark Sutton (.xls) 25KB

22 February 2006 - HSE Information Sheet for Electroplating Industry

22 February 2006 - HSE Information Sheet for Electroplating Industry

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have produced a very informative information sheet containing the hazards, causes and remedies of accidents within the electroplating industry.

HSE Inspectors have identified the often poor conditions within the electroplating industry and by viewing this information sheet perhaps some of the more common incidents can be avoided.

The information sheet is a short one and is very easy to read. To access the leaflet, in pdf format, simply click the following:

Workplace Welfare in the Electroplating Industry

The HSE Webpage containing information for the electroplating industry can be accessed by clicking the following:

HSE - Publications - Workplace welfare in the electroplating industry

Article by Alexandra Johnston

22 February 2006 - Building Regulations Transitional Period Shortened

22 February 2006 - Building Regulations Transitional Period Shortened

It has bee announced today, that the new Buildings Regulations transitional period maximum of 3 years has now been shortened to 12 months, in order to comply and maximise new climate change regulations.

This means that the revised Part L 2006 Regulations come into effect from 6 April 2006 in order to comply with Regulations, unless any of the following are applicable:

• Work has started before 6 April 2006 in accordance with a building notice, full plans, initial notice or amendment notice.

• Where full plans are not required to be deposited, a contract is entered into before 6 April 2006, provided that the work is started before 1 October 2006.

• Full plans have been deposited and approved before 6 April 2006, provided that work is started before 1 April 2007.

• A plans certificate or plans certificate combined with an initial notice has been given to a local authority before 6 April 2006, provided that the work is started before 1 April 2007.

Yvette Cooper Housing and Planning Minister said:

"Tackling climate change is one of the biggest long-term challenges we face. That is why on this occasion we need the building industry to comply with the new regulations much more rapidly than normal.

"These new regulations, combined with those in 2002, deliver a 40 per cent increase in energy efficiency standards in just four years, and cut householders' fuel bills too."

The Building Regulations can be accessed from the Office of the Deputy Prime Ministers' Website by clicking the following:

Building Regulations - Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM)

Article by Alexandra Johnston

22 February 2006 - Company Fined After Toxic Radiation Leak

22 February 2006 - Company Fined After Toxic Radiation Leak

A nuclear waste company, AEA Technology (AEAT), formerly part of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, has been ordered to pay £400,000 in costs and fines following a lethal beam of toxic radiation trail during transportation by road over a 130 mile distance.

The Crown court at Leeds was told of a series of mistakes caused by a carelessness culture and arrogance within the company and that there had been criminal breaches of Health and Safety Legislation and Regulations.

Some of the many mistakes were as follows:

• There were flawed management practices and a cavalier indifference to safety shown by two employees.

• The wrong packaging equipment was used, failing to prevent lateral movement by the cobalt-60, which was inside a tubular flask.

• A protective shield plug was missing, which would normally have been under the tubular flask.

• Essential safety checks were not carried out prior to the radioactive cobalt-60 being taken on a 3½-hour lorry journey from West Yorkshire to Cumbria.

• Had the thin beam of escaping gamma rays not been directed in a downward position, anyone within 300 yards of the low-level trailer would have been at risk of contamination.

• Radiation experts from the Health and Safety Executive said that anyone exposed to the beam could have exceeded the legal dose within seconds and suffered burns within minutes.

• An estimation from a scientist pointed out that someone standing a yard from the source and in the direct path of the rays would have been dead in two hours.

• Mark Ord, the manager responsible for the day-to-day running of Safeguard, and Paul Gilbert, an employee who was in charge of the March 2002 operation, had each signed documents which wrongly stated that adequate safety checks had been carried out.

James Taylor, a Principal Specialist Radiation Inspector with HSE, said:

"This case should serve as a reminder that radiation protection should never be taken for granted and that management must understand the principles, not least of which is the need to supervise their staff properly.

"I am pleased that the court clearly saw this as a serious matter. While there is no evidence that anyone received a significant exposure during the preparation and transport of this material, there was clearly the potential for an extremely serious incident. Anyone exposed to the beam coming from the container could have exceeded the legal dose limit within seconds and suffered radiation burns within minutes.

"The case also highlights the need for proper preparation and monitoring of transport packages. Adherance to approved operating procedures would have detected the omission of the shield plug before the radioactive material was loaded to the package.

"HSE is always willing to work with companies handling radioactive materials to ensure that workers and the public are not exposed to excessive and therefore unacceptable levels of radiation.

"In HSE's judgement, however, the management failures and the level of risk in this case merited prosecution, in line with our published enforcement policy."

The criminal breaches were as follows:

• Under Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, AEA failed to ensure, "so far as reasonably practicable", the health safety and welfare at work of employees.
• Under Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, AEA failed to conduct its undertaking, namely the transport and management of radioactive materials, in such a way as to ensure, "so far as was reasonably practicable", that persons not in its employment who may be affected thereby were not exposed to risks to their health or safety.
• Under Regulation 8(1) of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999, AEA failed to take all necessary steps to restrict, "so far as reasonably practicable", the extent to which employees and others were exposed to ionising radiation.
• Under the Regulation 19(1) of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999, AEA failed to ensure that ionising radiation levels were adequately monitored.
• Under Regulation 14(1) of the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) (Great Britain) Regulations 1996, AEA caused a package containing a radioactive source to be transported without determining the Transport Index of that package.
• Under Regulation 31(2) of the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) (Great Britain) Regulation 1996, AEA failed to ensure that requirements for package inspection were satisfied before shipment.

It was accepted by the judge that AEAT had, with the exception of the 2002 incident, an excellent safety record.

A plea of guilty to six criminal breaches of Health and Safety Regulations and Legislations, with regards to the transportation of radioactive materials, was made by AEAT.

Further information on Radiation can be accessed from the HSE Webpage by clicking the following:

HSE Radiation homepage

Article by Alexandra Johnston

22 February 2006 - TUC Work Your Proper Hours Day

22 February 2006 - TUC Work Your Proper Hours Day

Once again, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) are campaigning against working unpaid overtime, by organising a Work Your Proper Hours Day, which this year falls on Friday, 24 February 2006.

Employees who regularly work unpaid hours, are asked to take tea-breaks away from their workstations, lunch breaks and to finish work on time on Friday.

There are over 5million UK workers who regularly work unpaid overtime, which could lead to ill-health, stress and lower productivity.

The Work Your Proper Hours Day is intended to let workers reflect upon the stresses and strains unpaid overtime can create for themselves, their families and friends and their work output.

TUC official figures show the following:

• Employers are starting to tackle the UK's long hours culture.

• The percentage of people working at least an extra hour a week unpaid has fallen slightly, and is now at its lowest level since 1992 (19.4 per cent).

• There are still 600,000 more people working unpaid overtime than in 1992 this is a half million fall from the first 'Work Your Proper Hours Day' in 2003, when 5,217,000 worked extra hours for free.

• The official figures also show that employees in small workplaces were the least likely to work unpaid overtime.

• Londoners put in the longest hours.

• Those doing unpaid overtime put in an extra 8 hours 12 minutes in a week.

• Second longest hours were in Wales, where workers put in 7 hours 48 minutes.

• Northern Ireland were just behind at 7 hours 36 minutes.

Brendan Barber, TUC General Secretary said:

"Millions are still putting in up to an extra day a week for free, but there are now some welcome signs that some employers are beginning to realise that endless hours of unpaid overtime are often a sign of an inefficient workplace and not something to celebrate.

"We don't want to turn into a nation of clock watchers. Most people enjoy their jobs, and don't mind putting in extra effort when there's a rush or an emergency, but that easily turns into the long hours culture of extra hours every week.

"But in smart workplaces, people work fewer hours. The run up to "Work Your Proper Hours Day" is a great opportunity for bosses to show staff that they want to start tackling their long hours culture. And on the day itself managers can say thanks for their staff's hard work by taking them out for a coffee or a cocktail."

The TUC have provided a fun on-line quiz which will allow employees to find out whether they be "desk junkies", "stay late sheep", or any of the other five types of "over-worker". Once the long hour problem is diagnosed, the employee will be provided with tailored advice.

The quiz and other information on the Work Your Proper Hours Day can be accessed by clicking the following:

workSMART - What's your problem quiz

Article by Alexandra Johnston

21 February 2006 - EC To Take Legal Action Over HSWA

21 February 2006 - EC To Take Legal Action Over HSWA

The European Commission (EC) is to take legal action over Britain's Health and Safety at Work Act etc 1974 (HSWA), describing it as not being strict enough.

The EC concern is over HSWA legislation which states that employers who are responsible for the welfare of their staff whilst in the workplace should provide health and safety "so far as is reasonably practicable."

It is argued, that If the "reasonably practicable" phrase were removed from HSWA, small businesses and other public sector industries such as the police force, would be adversely affected by such changes.

The Federation of Small Businesses' (FSB) concerns were, that thousands of businesses would be at risk if employers were expected to provide blanket protection no matter the cost or risk.

Public sector industries, such as the police force and others who cannot guarantee the health and safety of their employees, could if the legislation was altered, be forced into preventing such employees from doing anything which was deemed potentially dangerous.

Mary Broughton FSB Health and Safety spokeswoman said:

"The central phrase in the 1974 Act 'so far as is reasonably practicable' is important to small businesses. It gives flexibility to small firms to allow them to take proportionate steps to protect their workforce and, by extension, their business.

"Good employers know that their workforce is their most vital resource and take all appropriate steps to safeguard their staff.

"The current situation must be maintained to prevent potentially devastating costs being placed on businesses to take precautions that common sense would suggest are unnecessary.

"Any change would spell closure for some firms meaning that instead of protecting people's jobs it would put them at great risk."

Jan Berry, Police Federation Chairman said:

"The current balance worked well for both employer and officers and did not need changing.

"Different circumstances require different levels of protection and it is important that the safety of all officers and members of the public is taken into consideration. But there is no evidence that the current wording of the Health and Safety Act under debate has an adverse effect on the safety of officers."

Commenting on the issue, The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), was content with the British test and said:

"The fact is that our system has served us very well and as a result we've got one of the best health and safety records in Europe.

"We're taking a very strong stance on this and are fighting hard."

EU expert, Lee Rotherham, added:

"What this adds up to is managers having to keep their employees wrapped in cotton wool.

"Anything which could hamper the ability of frontline emergency services doing their job must be a concern to everybody."

However, Government Ministers and business leaders intend to fight the legal action, insisting that HSWA is the cornerstone of how the British workplace operates and stress that Britain has the best health and safety records within Europe.

Article by Alexandra Johnston

21 February 2006 - HSE's Managing Long Term Sickness and Absence

21 February 2006 - HSE's Managing Long Term Sickness and Absence

Manage long-term sickness and absence positively and reap the benefits for both the organisation and the worker is the message given by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to employers.

Long-term sickness absence costs UK businesses over 3.8 billion pounds each year, accounting for 33% lost working days.

Helping employees return to work not only improves their well-being, but can increase productivity dramatically, thus greater profits.

It is an age old story, but one in which the HSE is committed to improving. A webpage has been created by the HSE which is full of information and guidance to assist employers in reaping the benefits of good practice management of long-term sickness and absence and can be accessed by clicking the following:

HSE - Managing sickness absence & return to work

Article by Alexandra Johnston

21 February 2006 - Buncefield Investigation Prompts HSE Safety Alert to Industry

21 February 2006 - Buncefield Investigation Prompts HSE Safety Alert to Industry

Following the Buncefield incident investigation progress report, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and Environment Agency (EA) have issued a safety alert to operators of oil/fuel storage organisations subject to the Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) Regulations 1999.

The HSE are requesting that COMAH operators review their operations and report the outcome to the HSE by Easter 2006.

Inspections will be carried out by HSE over the next 3 month period within these types of industries.

Head of HSE's Chemical Industries Division Mr. Kevin Allars, said:

"HSE has formed an inspection team charged with developing a targeted and nationally consistent action plan, based on operators revisiting the safety reviews at their sites, ensuring that relevant good practice precautions are in place and fully operational and that appropriate measures are implemented for responding to, and dealing with, emergencies involving loss of containment.

"HSE will be meeting with key industry trade associations over the next few days to ensure that the programme gains maximum gearing from the industry, and to continue to encourage them to work with their members to review and to promote the sharing of information from dangerous occurrences.

"HSE's advice to industry therefore centres on containment integrity issues, such as tanks, pipework and bunds. It will also look at the management arrangements for dealing with normal and abnormal operating conditions.

"When visiting the sites HSE Inspectors will discuss any reasonably practicable improvements that should be made, and will, if necessary, use their enforcement powers to ensure that timely improvements are made."

Further information and advice will be issued by the HSE when more precise information is available, together with any further inspections which may take place.

Further information on the Safety Alert can be accessed from the HSE Webpage by clicking the following:

SAFETY ALERT to operators of “COMAH” oil/fuel storage sites

Details of the Buncefield investigation can be accessed from the Government Webpage specific to Buncefield and can be accessed by clicking the following:

Buncefield investigation

Article by Alexandra Johnston

21 February 2006 - HSE Bring Prosecution Against Corus UK

21 February 2006 - HSE Bring Prosecution Against Corus UK

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have announced they will be bringing a prosecution against Corus UK Ltd, following HSE investigations into the explosion of a blast furnace at the Corus Port Talbot plant in November 2001.

The explosion, in the Welsh plant, took three lives, namely, Len Radford, Stephen Galsworthy and Andrew Hutin.

The first hearing is due to take place on 12 April, 2006, at Neath Magistrates Court.

The criminal charges being brought by the HSE are as follows:

• Under Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, alleging that Corus UK Ltd did not ensure, "so far as was reasonably practicable", the safety of its employees, including Mr Galsworthy, Mr Hutin and Mr Radford, in connection with the operation of Blast Furnace Number 5.

• Under Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, alleging that Corus UK Ltd did not conduct its undertaking, namely the operation of Blast Furnace Number 5, in such a way as to ensure, "so far as was reasonably practicable", that persons not in its employment, namely contractors, were not exposed to risks to their safety.

The Corus-owned company has had a less than satisfactory safety track record, which we at HSfB reported in April 2005. This news report can be accessed by clicking the following:

18 April 2005 - Corus-Owned Company Under Investigation by Police and HSE

A statement was issued by the HSE in 2005 following the Coroners' inquest and can be accessed from the HSE Webpage by clicking the following:

Corus Inquest: HSE statement following verdict

Article by Alexandra Johnston

17 February 2006 - Prosecution Imminent for ICL Plastics and ICL Tech

17 February 2006 - Prosecution Imminent for ICL Plastics and ICL Tech:

Scotland's Crown Court Office have today confirmed that ICL Plastics and ICL Tech will face prosecution under the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA), following an explosion with subsequent deaths of 9 workers plus 40 injuries at their Glasgow plastics factory in May 2004.

The decision to prosecute follows a joint report from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Strathclyde Police and The Procurator Fiscal of Glasgow.

ICL Plastics and ICL Tech are to face allegations such as the following:

• Failing to maintain pipes carrying hazardous gas or gases.

• Failing to ensure the safety of staff.

• Failing to carry out "suitable and sufficient" risk assessment.

A spokesman, commenting on the submission of the investigation report, said:

"A detailed initial report of the investigation was submitted to Crown Counsel in May 2005.

"Crown Counsel subsequently instructed a number of further, specific investigations before reaching the decision to prosecute.

"Survivors, next of kin, and others directly affected by the explosion have been informed of this decision, and will continue to be kept informed by the procurator fiscal."

Spokesman for the Crown Office said:

"It is a matter of public record that the lord advocate has made it clear that there will be an inquiry, in public, into the circumstances and causes of this explosion.

"In order to avoid any possible prejudice to criminal proceedings, an inquiry can only happen once these proceedings are concluded."

Lorna Downie, wife of ICL Plastics Chairman, Campbell Downie, said:

"I just can't believe it. I'm just too upset to comment."

Article by Alexandra Johnston

16 February 2006 - Latest HSE Guidance and Research Reports

16 February 2006 - Latest HSE Guidance and Research Reports:

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have provided a new Guidance and Research Report, in pdf format, within their Webpages as follows:

• Paper Mills Guidance on Fire Risk

• HSL/2006/09 - Review of unidentified ignition sources of unplanned flammable releases - Comparison of offshore and onshore data

• Guidance on Risk Assessment for Offshore Installations

• Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 2005 Regulation 12 Demonstrating conpliance with the relevant statutory provisions

A Phase 1 short Newsletter containing some of the results of the Phase 1 Watch Your Step Campaign is also available in pdf format and can be accessed by clicking the following:

Watch Your Step Campaign - Phase 1

Article by Alexandra Johnston

15 February 2006 - Memorial Directive Causing Added Grief

15 February 2006 - Memorial Directive Causing Added Grief:

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Directive calling for councils to inspect memorials at least once every five years, has caused many councils throughout the UK to come under fire from relatives who tend memorials as to the methods of inspection used during the assessments.

The method used to determine whether gravestones, more than 30 months old, are safe or not is one of shaking the stone to test stability prior to using the "topple tester" device and laying down of the headstone.

The "topple tester" tool measures the amount of pressure applied at a given point, up to 35kg. If the memorial moves prior to reaching the 35Kg point, the memorial has failed the assessment. The reading on the "topple tester" is recorded. However, if the memorial withstands the 35kg of pressure, the memorial is classified as secure and no Improvement Notice is issued.

St. Edmundsbury Council is just one of the councils who have come under fire from angry relatives following inspections of gravestones having been badly damaged by the use of the "topple tester" tool by Council Safety Officers.

Improvement Notices were issued at Haverhill, causing families who tend the gravestones to face a bill of £200 in order to make memorials safe.

West Suffolk MP Richard Spring, who met with families in Haverhill said:

“This is sickening bureaucratic madness. I've been left speechless with disgust and I've been deeply moved by what I have seen.

“The idea that small modern headstones, which mostly come up to knee height, are going to be a source of danger is ridiculous. If no relatives can be found and a stone has been pushed over it is simply left which is totally disrespectful.”

A spokesman for the borough council defending the St Edmundsbury policy said:

"The council had no choice but to carry out the Health and Safety directive.

“This is something which is happening across the country. We have identified only those stones deemed dangerous and it is the responsibility of the owners to have them repaired.”

Keith Rackham, President of National Association of Memorial Masons said:

"I have never heard of an injury caused by a modern headstone in my 36-year career.

"However, St Edmundsbury had done everything correctly and had only been following procedure."

The Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management (ICCM) have produced a summary guidance as to the correct assessment methods which should be used when testing for stability of headstones, some of which are as follows:

• The "topple tester" be used by trained person at force of 35Kg.

• The "topple tester" must not be used on Historic value or listed memorials.

• Risk assessments initially to be one of visual assessment.

• Memorials up to height of 2.5m are to be done by hand shaking only.

• Memorials up to height of 1.5m assessed by hand and "topple tester".

• Memorials below 500mm assessed by hand only.

The ICCM summary guidance can be accessed by clicking the following:

Installation, Inspection, Management and Maintenance of Memorials Summary

Further information can also be accessed from the ICCM website, by clicking the following:

Institute of Cemetery & Crematorium Management

Wyre Forest District Council have a very informative webpage on Memorial Safety Checks which can be accessed by clicking the following:

Memorial Safety Checks

Article by Alexandra Johnston

14 February 2006 - Heritage Railways Steamed up Over New Safety Requirements

14 February 2006 - Heritage Railways Steamed up Over New Safety Requirements:

Heritage Railway enthusiasts are feeling the heat over Health and Safety Regulations, which leaves enthusiasts having to pay thousands of pounds in order to keep the railway heritage alive.

Up until recently, the Railway Inspectorate provided the necessary safety checks required by Legislation for the Heritage Railway. However, EU Directive requirement means that Heritage Railway Societies throughout the U.K. will now have to take on the cost of providing such inspections.

The recently discarded rolling stock trains will soon be taken over by the Heritage Railways, which will also mean added costly inspections for railway enthusiasts.

The intention of the EU Directive is to free the inspectorate, thus effectively providing more time and advice to the industry.

David Morgan, Chairman of the Heritage Railway Association said:

"Many of us feel that nothing would make safety authorities happier than to see us all closed down.

"The safest railway must be one on which a train never moves.

"The executive had tried introducing new arrangements requiring the heritage societies to employ an inspector themselves.

"This work was done free by the inspectorate and now you are looking at £200 an hour for something that can take several days.

"All this has to be underwritten and we have yet to find an insurer who is willing to do so.

"Today's junk is tomorrow's antiques. Railway heritage societies preserve our industrial archaeology."

Paul Lewin, Ffestiniog Railway Manager said:

"We could face real problems. With the railway inspectorate stopping doing the work, there is a danger that the number of people with the relevant experience will dry up.

"We are lucky in the respect that we are one of the big heritage railways. We are a £3m railway but there are others which are much smaller who will suffer."

Ian Crowder, for the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway commented:

"Heritage railways are run by volunteers and any money we make is ploughed back. It would be difficult to have extra costs imposed on us."

A Health and Safety Executive spokesman said there were no plans to exempt Heritage Railways and said:

"This will allow more effective advice, support and assistance, focusing on greatest risk to passengers and workers."

Further information on the Railway Safety Directive can be accessed from the HSE Webpage by clicking the following:

HSE rail sector pages - Europe

A response letter from Geoffrey Podger, HSE's Chief Executive, on a published letter by David Morgan can be accessed from the HSE Webpage by clicking the following:

HSE Putting the Record Straight Webpage

Article by Alexandra Johnston

14 February 2006 - Launch of New Pesticide Code of Practice

14 February 2006 - Launch of New Pesticide Code of Practice:

A new Statutory Code of Practice for users of pesticides has been introduced in England and Wales, replacing the three earlier codes as follows:

• Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Pesticides on Farms and Small Holdings ("the Green Code").
• Code of Practice for the use of Approved pesticides in Amenity Areas and Industrial Areas ("the Orange Code") a voluntary code produced by the National Association of Agricultural Contractors and the British Agrochemical Association.
• Those parts of the Code of Practice for the safe use of Pesticides for Non-Agricultural Purposes - The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1999 ("the Blue Code") which deal with forestry.

The new Code of Practice includes the pesticide code for amenity areas, which up until now has been a voluntary one.

England and Wales are the first to receive the new code. The Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department will issue it's own code. The Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland have their own code at present, which they are considering updating.

Some features of the new Code of Practice are as follows:

• The Code of Practice is for people who work in the horticulture, agriculture, forestry or the amenity sector, to help them have a better understanding of pesticide use within Legislation.
• The statutory basis of the new code means that it can be used in evidence if people are taken to court for offences involving pesticides.
• An important feature in the code is the reference to the need, by law, to keep records of pesticide treatments as a result of the two new EC regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2006.
• The Code of Practice sets out both what is required by law and the best practice for the use of pesticides which are controlled under this legislation.
• The Code of Practice covers protection of wildlife and the environment as well as human health.

Lord Bach, Sustainable Farming and Food Minister commented:

"I am delighted to launch this new and up to date code. It is an important development as it will help all professional users of pesticides, whether they work in agriculture, horticulture, forestry or the amenity sector, to better understand and operate within the legislation.

"The latest code provides information on the new legal requirement to keep spray records and advises on the new laws regarding protection of ground water and waste management. We are delighted that our close working with the Plain English Campaign has resulted in a code which is clearer, more focused and easier to read and understand."

Further information for the Code of Practice use of plant protection products can be obtained from the Pesticides Safety Directorate Website by clicking the following:

Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) Webpages

The National Assembly for Wales Website will make available a Welsh language version of this code, which can be accessed by clicking the following:

National Assembly for Wales

Further information on pesticides can also be accessed from the HSE Webpages by clicking the following:

HSE Industry sector - Pesticides

Article by Alexandra Johnston

8 February 2006 - BBC Documentary to Highlight Violence at Work

8 February 2006 - BBC Documentary to Highlight Violence at Work:

A BBC One Frontline Scotland documentary, due to be screened tonight, Wednesday 8 February 2006, at 7.00pm, will highlight the Violence at Work research conducted for the Scottish Executive.

The programme will outline such results from the research as follows:

• 399 incidents of assault have been reported in Perth and Kinross areas.

• One out of every 10 people working with the public has been attacked while on duty over the last year.

• Over one third claim to have been the victims of verbal abuse.

The Scottish Executive research questioned public sector workers and employees working in the private sector such as, public transport firms and retailers.

Adding to the Scottish Executive's research, Frontline Scotland Reporters conducted their own research in the Scottish Education sector, in order to find out the extent of attacks on Scottish teachers with the following results:

• Glasgow staff suffered the highest number of incidents over the last year with 1,073.

• In Aberdeenshire there were a reported 670 assaults.

• In Perth and Kinross the total was 399.

• Across the country there were 5,371 reported attacks on teachers.

Interviews from a teacher, fireman and a doctor will take place in tonight's documentary, all of whom have been subjected to violence in the course of their work duties.

The HSE provide a guidance for Violence at Work and although aimed at employers, is also of benefit to employees and safety representatives. The guidance, in pdf format, can be accessed by clicking the following:

HSE Violence at Work Guidance

HSfB news reported on a recent NASUWT survey, which can be accessed by clicking the following:

NASUWT Survey Reveals Abuse of Teachers on Daily Basis

HSfB also have an article on bullying in the workplace, in pdf format, which can be accessed by clicking the following:

Those who can, do - Those who can't, bully

Article by Alexandra Johnston

8 February 2006 - HSE Research Reports Guidances and Information

8 February 2006 - HSE Research Reports Guidances and Information:

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have produced further research reports, guidances and information within their webpages as follows:

• RR414 - Health and safety responsibilities of company directors and management board members: 2001, 2003 and 2005 surveys

• RR424 - Performance of diving equipment

• HSE - Stress Management Standards

• How to identify genuine HSE telephone surveys

• HSC - About the Health and Safety Commission - Open Meetings

• Statement of forthcoming regulations in 2006

Each of the above can be accessed by clicking the relevant link.

Article by Alexandra Johnston

7 February 2006 - Unions Fear Safety Implications of EU Draft Directive

7 February 2006 - Unions Fear Safety Implications of EU Draft Directive:

UK Unions are concerned over the draft EC Services Directive, which proposes that providers be subject to the laws and conditions within their own country, rather than the country where they are based, thus giving rise to safety issues and employment rights of workers.

Amicus and other Unions have voiced their concerns over such as the following:

• The controversial Services Directive could allow workers from other European countries to work in the UK with the wages and safety standards of their home country.

• Service providers would only be subject to the laws and conditions applying in the country where they are based, rather than those of the country where they provide the service, under the "country of origin principle."

• European companies working in Britain would only be expected to abide by safety standards in place in their own country, enforced in the UK by their own safety enforcement agency.

As a result of the above safety fears and employment rights concerns, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) is calling for a major demonstration to take place in Strasbourg, on 14 February 2006.

Some of the crucial issues the ETUC will be making and voting on in Strasbourg are as follows:

• Excluding the labour law, together with all collective arrangements from the draft Directive.

• Excluding services of general interest.

• Attacking the "country of origin" principle in the draft Directive.

It is agreed by many EU countries, that there is a need for a services directive, however, it is accepted that amendments to the draft Bolkenstein Directive are necessary, in order to avoid potential safety situations arising to the detriment of workers.

Chairing the EC Summit of 2005, Luxembourg Prime Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker was in agreement of amendments to current proposals within the draft Directive and said:

"Nobody can sensibly dispute the fact that we need to open up the services sector in Europe. but it must be done with respect for certain sensitivities and convictions.

"Changes will be made to take the social model into account."

The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) have a webpage, albeit from 2004, which provides further details regarding the proposed Directive and can be accessed by clicking the following:

HSC responds to DTI consultation on draft EC Services Directive

Article by Alexandra Johnston

6 February 2006 - Latest HSE Research Reports

6 February 2006 - Latest HSE Research Reports:

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have provided new research reports within their webpages as follows, the first being in pdf format:

• HSL/2006/08 - Containers for Supply of Animal Licks and Feed Blocks in Agriculture

• RR423 - Exploring the influences of farming women and families on worker health and safety

• RR427 - Moisture levels in compressed breathing air

• RR428 - Aircraft turnround: the impact of HSG209 and emerging good practice

All of the above can be accessed by clicking the relevant link.

A Guidance to assist in the prevention of back pain and other aches and pains within the catering industry is also available from the HSE and can be accessed, in pdf format, by clicking the following:

• Preventing back pain and other aches and pains to kitchen and food service staff

The HSE have also produced a hazard assessment document on Portland cement dust, which although aimed at a technical audience, is worthwhile reading if you are in the type of industry where you may have cement dust (or similar) exposure.

The document, in pdf format, can be accessed by clicking the following:

• Portland Cement Dust - Hazard assessment document EH75/7

Article by Alexandra Johnston

6 February 2006 - HSfB Site News

Site News:

A new download has been added to the downloads page:

• Health and Safety Policy by HSfB (PowerPoint) 127KB

4 February 2006 - HSfB Site News

Site News:

The Legislation News pages have been updated where you can read more on:

* Consultation on Water Resources Management Regulations
* The Noise Emission in the Environment by Equipment for Use Outdoors (Amendment) Regulations 2005

1 February 2006 - SPADs Report for Fourth Quarter 2005

1 February 2006 - SPADs Report for Fourth Quarter 2005

HM Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) Report of Signals Passed at Danger for the 4th quarter of 2005 has been published, summary of which is as follows:

• 97 signals were passed at danger, 13 more than Q4 2004, 12 fewer than the average for Q4 since 2001.

• 7 were serious SPAD (risk ranking score 20+), compared with 9 in Q4 2004.

• 46 SPAD's were at signals with previous SPAD history, 1 of which had been passed at danger 8 times or more since 1985.

• 17 trains ran past the signal by 200 yards or more.

• 20 instances showed it was not the first time the driver had passed a signal at danger.

• 56 cases showed where the Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS) operated successfully.

This first quarterly report on SPAD's by HMRI is also the last HMRI quarterly report before merging with the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR).

The above figures are interim and may change when investigations are completed.

All monthly reports can be viewed from the HSE webpage by clicking the following:

Railway Signals Passed at Danger - SPADS

HMRI's Quarterly report, in pdf format, can be accessed by clicking the following:

SPAD's: HM Railway Inspectorate Report Q4 2005

Article by Alexandra Johnston

1 February 2006 - Police Chiefs and HSE Meeting to Beat Police Stress

1 February 2006 - Police Chiefs and HSE Meeting to Beat Police Stress

Following the Freedom of Information (FOI) figures released on 17 January 2006, Police Chiefs are calling for a meeting with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), in a bid to cut the large number of stress-related sick days taken by UK police officers.

The figures released show the following:

• 250,000 days were lost in 2004/05 from stress-related illness.

• The cost is put at between £20 million and £60 million a year.

• Out of a total of 160,000 police officers, and average day stress-related illness was estimated at 1,086 officers. This would account for the size of police forces in Wiltshire or Warwickshire.

• An average of two days off a year were due to stress. However, a psychologist said that this was likely to be higher, as illness could be linked to stress.

• Worst affected police forces were Leicestershire, Northern Ireland, Dorset, North Yorkshire and Greater Manchester.

• The cost was around £40 million a year.

Allyn Thomas, Assistant Chief Constable (personnel and training) of Kent Police and Health and Safety Co-ordinator at the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), said:

"Stress is a much misunderstood issue. While people may report that they are ill with stress, stress is not in itself an illness, but rather something that can make other illnesses worse.

He also said the meeting with ACPO and the HSE would be to discuss how to:

"promote a better understanding of stress, better collection of data about it and to improve the way that the service deals with it".

According to Andrew Marston, Force Personnel Director at the Greater Manchester Police Service, the rise in stress within the force could be attributed to changing attitudes and said:

"There used to be a stigma attached to stress, but now it's almost a badge of honour."

"Doctors are more willing to diagnose people with stress and people are also self-diagnosing."

Stress-related illness in any workplace is a major cause of concern to peoples health and lost working days. Some figures from an HSE commissioned research show the following:

• About half a million people in the UK experience work-related stress at a level they believe is making them ill.

• Up to 5 million people in the UK feel "very" or "extremely" stressed by their work.

• A total of 12.8 million working days were lost to stress, depression and anxiety in 2004/5.

Further information can be accessed from ACPO's Website by clicking the following:

Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland

Pure Adventure is a website set up by police officers for police officers and contains ideas to conquer stress in the police force. It can be accessed by clicking the following:

Pure Adventure: Ideas to conquer stress in the police force

The HSE Webpage on stress in the workplace can be accessed by clicking the following:

HSE - Stress in the Workplace

Further information for police staff can be accessed from the UNISON Website by clicking the following:

UNISON the public service union - At work: Police staff

Article by Alexandra Johnston

1 February 2006 - House of Lords Decision on UK Overseas Worker

1 February 2006 - House of Lords Decision on UK Overseas Worker:

The House of Lords have made a groundbreaking decision following an unfair dismissal case of a UK overseas worker.

Former security officer, Mr. Stephen Lawson, claimed his 64 hour weekly work load meant "his health and safety was put in peril" whilst employed by a support services company, Serco, in Ascension Island in the South Atlantic. This resulted in him being forced to resign, claiming constructive dismissal.

The earlier decision by the court of appeal concluded, that due to all Mr Lawsons' duties being overseas, he had no legal protection.

However, the House of Lords has now decided that due to all services being carried out overseas and both Mr. Lawson and his employers had close connections with the UK, Mr. Lawson was still entitled to all UK employment rights.

Lord Hoffman, sitting in judgement of Mr. Lawsons' case said:

"When considering each individual case, employees working abroad could be covered by UK law if they were posted abroad for the purposes of the UK business or if they worked in a UK political or social enclave abroad."

Law firm Solicitor, Juliet Carp, said:

"The decision could have a huge impact on employers.

"This is the biggest decision we have had for a long time - the risks for employers sending staff overseas are greater than ever before."

Graham Cappa, Head of Media Relations at Serco, said:

"The company was happy with the judgment.

"It benefits our employees as well as us as an employer. We were startled by the Court of Appeal's judgment as it could have led to employees refusing to take overseas postings."

Cappa, however, has confirmed the company will still fight the actual unfair dismissal allegation in the case.

Article by Alexandra Johnston

30 January 2006 - Research Shows Direct Link Between Work Stress and Ill-Health

30 January 2006 - Research Shows Direct Link Between Work Stress and Ill-Health:

Researchers from University College London, conducted a 14 year long study into the effects of work-related stress and the “metabolic syndrome“ and have found evidence of a direct link between stress in the workplace and ill-health.

The "metabolic syndrome" includes such factors as the following:

• Obesity.

• Hypertension.

• High cholesterol.

The research, allowing for other risk factors, showed that the more stress experienced, the higher the chances were of suffering "metabolic syndrome" symptoms, leading to type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

More than 10,000 civil servants, aged at the beginning of the research between 35 and 55 were studied and showed that men who had experienced lots of stress at work were twice as likely to suffer syndrome ill-health than those who were not exposed to stress.

Interestingly, in a smaller study of women who had experienced lots of stress at work, the research found that they held 5 times greater risk of syndrome illness.

Results of both men and women at the lower end of the workplace were more likely to have the syndrome.

The authors of the study (Whitehall study), led by Tarani Chandola, of UCL's Department of Epidemiology and Public Health said:

“A dose-response association exists between exposure to work stress and the metabolic syndrome.

“Employees with chronic work stress have more than double the odds of the syndrome than those without work stress, after other risk factors are taken into account.

“The study provides evidence for the biological plausibility of psychosocial stress mechanisms linking stressors from everyday life with heart disease.

"One possible explanation is that prolonged exposure to work stress may affect the nervous system.

"Alternatively, chronic stress may reduce biological resilience and thus disturb the body’s physiological balance."

Further information on the Whitehall II Study can be accessed from the UCL Department of Epidemiology and Public Health Website by clicking the following:

UCL, Dept of Epidemiology & Public Health, Whitehall II Study

Further information on help and advice for stress in the workplace can be accessed from the HSE Webpage by clicking the following:

HSE Work-Related Stress

You can also find a helpful "stress in the workplace" article, by Frank Cooper MIOSH RSP, within our own HSfB website, by clicking the following:

Stress in the Workplace

Article by Alexandra Johnston

30 January 2006 - Top Directors' Scare Tactics on Scottish Homicide Bill

30 January 2006 - Top Directors' Scare Tactics on Scottish Homicide Bill:

David Watt, a top Director and Head of the Institute of Directors (IoD), has claimed in a statement, that a Corporate Homicide Bill in Scotland would deter business enterprises from setting up businesses in Scotland, or indeed would drive successful businesses to move to other countries.

He further claimed that deaths anyway in workplaces were more likely to occur due to carelessness or workers being under the influence, than by bosses who were negligent in their Health and Safety management.

Mr. Watt also said the majority of accidents in the workplace were caused by "human error at a lower level" and were "more likely to be attributable to alcohol than by individuals acting in a corrupt and homicidal manner."

Mr. Watt said:

“Nobody wants irresponsible corporate behaviour, but I do worry about the view that if something goes wrong it is the fault of the person at the top of the tree. We don’t need to witch-hunt individuals to actually get a reduction in that behaviour.

“We constantly seem to have a desire in this country to make doing business harder and to blame successful people for things.”

Mr. Watts' comments have outraged unions and campaigners who would welcome a Corporate Homicide Bill in Scotland.

Campaigner Spokesperson, Kathy Jenkins said:

"Is the IOD seriously suggesting that any decent society would allow directors and companies to get away with killing their workers as an incentive to encourage them to relocate or stay in Scotland?

"The IoD's fear mongering was wholly irresponsible, particularly in light of the large increase in workplace deaths in Scotland."

Dr David Whyte, a member of the Scottish Executive's Expert Group on Corporate Homicide, commented:

"In 10 years of studying corporate crime and regulation, I have never come across a shred of evidence that supports the argument that corporate killing laws in developed economies encourage companies to leave or directors to go and find another job.

"In Canada and in Australia, where recent laws have been introduced to deter corporate killers, there has been no capital flight.

"The Institute of Directors have spun a tale which is completely indefensible and is aimed at scaring the Scottish Executive into dropping the issue."

Mr. Ian Tasker, STUC Safety Officer said:

"There was no basis in fact for any of the IoD claims.

"These comments will be extremely distressing to the families of the thousands of workers who have lost their lives through workplace accidents or ill health and we would ask the Institute to support these views with strong statistical evidence."

Dr Dave Whyte, a Stirling University Lecture who sat in the Scottish Executives' expert group said:

“At the moment, directors can continue to commit serious offences and hide behind the company.”

Mr. Patrick McGuire, a partner in Thompsons law firm also a member of the expert group said:

“All decent companies who care for the safety of their employees will have nothing to fear from the legislation.”

It is surely very necessary for a Corporate Killing Bill to be introduced in Scotland as quickly as possible due to the massive increase in deaths within Scotland, making Scotland the most dangerous place in Britain to work.

The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) latest figures show fatal accidents at work have risen by 140% from the previous year.

Article by Alexandra Johnston