An Environment Agency report highlights an urgent need to work with nature and lays bare the scale of change needed to halt England’s biodiversity and climate crisis.
Published in July, the report sets out how significant changes will be needed to how land is used in England, with the need for significant landscape scale interventions and the use of nature-based solutions to help wildlife recover, and for humans to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change.
The ‘Working with Nature’ report compiled by Environment Agency scientists sets out the global challenges facing the basics for life on Earth – clean water, climate regulation and food. It describes the potential loss of complex natural ecosystems that provide such essentials as an existential risk to human survival.
Referencing Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring, considered by many to be the most important piece of environmental writing of the 20th century, Environment Agency chief executive, Sir James Bevan, spoke about the ‘silent spring’ that awaits humanity unless action is taken by businesses, government and individuals to prevent further damage and rebuild the natural environment. The report was unveiled at an event hosted by the Green Alliance, ahead of the COP15 Biodiversity Conference taking place later this year. Internationally, the G7 leaders have committed to the global mission to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. The COP 15 meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2022 will review the progress towards previously agreed Biodiversity targets.
“The biodiversity crisis joins the climate crisis as an existential risk to our survival, but as this report sets out the solution is not to retreat but to work together to build a nature-positive response.
Nature provides the basics for life – clean water, clean air and food. With major pressures on land use across England, nature-based solutions must be a major part in our response to protect these essentials whilst rebuilding our natural world.”
Sir James Bevan, Environment Agency Chief Executive
England is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world due to its long history of industrialisation and land use changes over millennia. There is an urgent need to work with nature as large areas of habitats have been lost with 99.7% of fens, 97% of species-rich grasslands, 80% of lowland heathlands, up to 70% of ancient woodlands and up to 85% of saltmarshes destroyed or degraded.
The impacts on species have also been severe, with a quarter of mammals in England and almost a fifth of UK plants threatened with extinction.
Nature in England has also been impacted by pressures on land use. The report sets out the impact of the last 50 years of agricultural production and points to the likelihood of a need of further intensification and increased yields from agricultural land. It also charts the impacts of urbanisation, forestry and the need for large areas of land for climate change mitigation.
To address the major declines in biodiversity that will only be accelerated by a changing climate, the report sets out a need for more land to be dedicated to nature conservation to act as refuges for nature and to mitigate against climate change – such as coastal wetlands to combat flood risks. However, with such demand on land, it will need to provide multiple benefits to people and nature.
The Environment Agency has a leading role to play in restoring or recreating new wildlife-rich habitat in England. Recent projects include peat restoration at Great Fen, Cambridgeshire, which will save 325,000 tonnes of CO2 from being released each year while restoring habitats for threatened fenland species and protecting surrounding towns, villages and farmland from the risk of flooding after heavy rainfall.
The report identifies such nature-based solutions as a crucial tool in restoring nature and achieving multiple other benefits. By working with nature, including tree planting, peat restoration, species reintroductions and natural flood management, it suggests there are opportunities to restore biodiversity, whilst providing other benefits such as carbon sequestration, flood protection and clean and plentiful water.
The report also says action will also be required to address the levels of consumption in wealthy countries, which contribute to the loss of biodiversity, and that sustained effort will be required from many people and organisations at forums like the COP 15 meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to tackle the effects of global consumption, production and supply chains. If you require advice on environmental issues, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.
A fatal incident investigation has been launched by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the death of a 27-year-old worker at a steelworks in Scunthorpe. The incident happened on Saturday 16 July at a business premises on Brigg Road, Scunthorpe.
Emergency services responded to reports of a fall from height and the worker was pronounced dead at the scene.
After initial enquiries were made by the HSE and Humberside Police, it was established that the HSE will lead the investigation into the circumstances of the incident.
Fatal incident
“Our thoughts are with the family of the person who died. We are determined to understand the full facts of what happened on Saturday. Doing so may take time, but we will remain in close contact with the family.”
Jane Fox, HSE principal inspector
The HSE has a protocol in place with police regarding the investigation of workplace fatalities such as this fatal incident – Work-related Deaths: A Protocol for Liaison. The document sets out how workplace related deaths are investigated and importantly by which organisation.
The Protocol is a high-level document which is supported by, and should be read in conjunction with, the Work-related Deaths Protocol Practical Guide which sets out a straightforward step-by-step approach to the joint investigation of work-related deaths. The purpose of the protocol and supporting guide is to ensure effective joint investigation of work-related deaths in England and Wales. Since its introduction in 1998, the protocol has become a tried and tested approach to effective liaison between the signatory organisations when investigating a work-related death. By
signing the protocol, signatories confirm their commitment to the joint investigation approach, appreciating that the public want to be confident that those investigating work-related deaths are doing all that they can to co-ordinate activities, and to cooperate with each other in the best interests of public safety and of those affected by work-related deaths. If you require advice on health and safety in your workplace, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.
A warehouse explosion leads to prosecutions of a retail company and an electrical contracting company after an electrician suffered serious burns to 15 per cent of his body.
On 22 September 2018, an electrician was using a metal spanner to repair an electrical fault at B&M Retail Ltd warehouse, in Speke. The spanner he was using came into contact with a live busbar (metallic strip) linked to the power distribution causing an electrical explosion.
Explosion
The 35-year-old electrician sustained serious injuries which included burns to his arms, hands, thighs, legs, and face in the explosion. He was placed in an induced coma for two weeks and had to undergo several skin grafts. As a result of the incident the electrician was unable to work for five months.
“I am very conscious of the scars and always think people are staring at me or talking about me behind my back. To me, my arms look like Freddy Kruger’s from Nightmare on Elm Street. I now can’t play with my little boys as much as I used to and I’m worried about hurting myself, and they are worried about hurting me. I have paranoia of being touched. I do worry about the future as I know the pain will never go away and might get worse, leaving me unable to work and support my family.”
Work projects must be adequately planned in advance (stock image)
HSE investigation into the explosion
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the victim, who was employed by Daker Ltd, had been attempting to connect a generator to B&M’s Low Voltage supply in order to allow B&M to operate some of its core site functions whilst high voltage maintenance was being undertaken. This work was complex involving several contractors and required co-ordination of different working parties with specific time limited requirements. There was insufficient planning between parties beforehand including who was in charge of each site, coordination of work and exchange of relevant documentation prior to the explosion which could have been avoided.
B&M failed to appoint a suitably competent person to plan and carry out the work to connect temporary generators to their distribution board at the premises
Electrical contractors Daker Ltd.’s work methods fell well below the required standards. Electrical work commenced without proper planning. The power supply to the circuit was not stopped prior to the incident and live working was allowed to take place, this meant that the power supply could be switched on or off at any point, putting workers at risk of electric shock.
Following the explosion, B&M Retail Ltd of Speke, Liverpool pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) and Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. At Liverpool Crown Court, the company was fined £1,000,000 and ordered to pay costs of ££4,978.
Daker Ltd of Bolton pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined £100.
“This incident has had life-changing consequences on the victim and his family. It could have been avoided if the companies involved had taken the time to appropriately plan and coordinate tasks to ensure the circuit was dead, eliminating the risk of electrocution to workers. Working with electricity is a high-risk activity and safety must be a priority.”
Roger Clarke, HSE Inspector
Use of contractors
The explosion in this case was the result of poor planning and coordination between the various parties involved in the project. Anyone engaging contractors has health and safety responsibilities, both for the contractors and anyone else that could be affected by their activities. Contractors themselves also have legal health and safety responsibilities. When contractors are appointed, it is important to ensure that everyone understands the part they need to play in ensuring health and safety (client, principal contractor, sub-contractors, etc).
Use of contractors in itself does not result in poor health and safety standards, but poor management can lead to injuries, ill health, additional costs and delays. Working closely with the contractor will reduce the risks to your own employees and the contractors themselves.
Remember that contractors may be at particular risk – they may be strangers to your workplace and therefore unfamiliar with your organisation’s procedures, rules, hazards and risks. Even regular contractors may need reminding. The level of control needed will, of course, be proportionate to the complexity of the task. Where a task is complex then more control will be required, and planning plays a key role in this. On sites with major accident hazards, consider turnarounds and span of control – given the potentially very high numbers of contractors on-site (compared with the numbers in routine operations).
A northeast steel company has been fined for safety breaches after inspectors visited a site in Bishop Auckland, County Durham.
Acting on concerns raised, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) visited the steel supplies site in 2019, finding wholly inadequate management of health and safety. It also came to light that; two workers had been injured on separate occasions whilst operating machinery at the premises. In June 2019, an employee was struck and injured by a work piece and suffered an injury to his right hand. In July 2019, an agency worker suffered a finger amputation whilst manually removing a piece of metal near the unguarded blade of another machine.
An investigation by HSE found the company had failed to prevent access to the dangerous moving parts on both machines. These machines were metal rebar forming machines and had been used at the site for a number of years. In addition to the guarding faults, the HSE also found the emergency stop and safety devices wired out on one of the machines.
Furthermore, the machinery risk assessments were substandard, and staff were trained to operate the machines in an unsafe manner. The company also had a forklift truck in daily use, despite it having defective brakes.
“Companies have a duty of care to those they employee and HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action.”
HSE inspector Clare Maltby
Work equipment must be suitable for the task and maintained (stock image)
Work Equipment
The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, often abbreviated to PUWER, place duties on people and companies who own, operate or have control over work equipment. PUWER also places responsibilities on businesses and organisations whose employees use work equipment, whether owned by them or not. PUWER requires that equipment provided for use at work is:
suitable for the intended use
safe for use, maintained in a safe condition and inspected to ensure it is correctly installed and does not subsequently deteriorate
used only by people who have received adequate information, instruction and training
accompanied by suitable health and safety measures, such as protective devices and controls. These will normally include guarding, emergency stop devices, adequate means of isolation from sources of energy, clearly visible markings and warning devices
used in accordance with specific requirements, for mobile work equipment and power presses
Some work equipment is subject to other health and safety legislation in addition to PUWER. For example, lifting equipment must also meet the requirements of LOLER, pressure equipment must meet the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations and personal protective equipment must meet the PPE Regulations.
If your business or organisation uses work equipment or is involved in providing work equipment for others to use (e.g. for hire), you must manage the risks from that equipment. This means you must:
ensure the equipment is constructed or adapted to be suitable for the purpose it is used or provided for
take account of the working conditions and health and safety risks in the workplace when selecting work equipment
ensure work equipment is only used for suitable purposes
ensure work equipment is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair
where a machine has a maintenance log, keep this up to date
where the safety of work equipment depends on the manner of installation, it must be inspected after installation and before being put into use
where work equipment is exposed to deteriorating conditions liable to result in dangerous situations, it must be inspected to ensure faults are detected in good time so the risk to health and safety is managed
ensure that all people using, supervising or managing the use of work equipment are provided with adequate, clear health and safety information. This will include, where necessary, written instructions on its use and suitable equipment markings and warnings
ensure that all people who use, supervise or manage the use of work equipment have received adequate training, which should include the correct use of the equipment, the risks that may arise from its use and the precautions to take
where the use of work equipment is likely to involve a specific risk to health and safety (eg woodworking machinery), ensure that the use of the equipment is restricted to those people trained and appointed to use it
take effective measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. This will normally be by fixed guarding but where routine access is needed, interlocked guards (sometimes with guard locking) may be needed to stop the movement of dangerous parts before a person can reach the danger zone. Where this is not possible, such as with the blade of a circular saw, it must be protected as far as possible and a safe system of work used. These protective measures should follow the hierarchy laid down in PUWER regulation 11(2) and the PUWER Approved Code of Practice and guidance or, for woodworking machinery, the Safe use of woodworking machinery: Approved Code of Practice and guidance
take measures to prevent or control the risks to people from parts and substances falling or being ejected from work equipment, or the rupture or disintegration of work equipment
ensure that the risks from very hot or cold temperatures from the work equipment or the material being processed or used are managed to prevent injury
ensure that work equipment is provided with appropriately identified controls for starting, stopping and controlling it, and that these control systems are safe
where appropriate, provide suitable means of isolating work equipment from all power sources (including electric, hydraulic, pneumatic and gravitational energy)
ensure work equipment is stabilised by clamping or otherwise to avoid injury
take appropriate measures to ensure maintenance operations on work equipment can be carried out safely while the equipment is shut down, without exposing people undertaking maintenance operations to risks to their health and safety
When providing new work equipment for use at work, you must ensure it conforms with the essential requirements of any relevant product supply law (for new machinery this means the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations). You must check it:
has appropriate conformity marking and is labelled with the manufacturer’s details
comes with a Declaration of Conformity
is provided with instructions in English
is free from obvious defects – and that it remains so during its working life
Risk Assessments
Employers are required by law to protect your employees, and others, from harm. Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the minimum an employer must do is:
identify what could cause injury or illness in your business (hazards)
decide how likely it is that someone could be harmed and how seriously (the risk)
take action to eliminate the hazard, or if this isn’t possible, control the risk
Assessing risk is just one part of the overall process used to control risks in the workplace. For most small, low-risk businesses the steps that employers need to take are straightforward. Risk management is a step-by-step process for controlling health and safety risks caused by hazards in the workplace. An employer can undertake the risk assessment themselves or appoint a competent person to help. The five steps of a risk assessment are:
Identify hazards
Assess the risks
Control the risks
Record your findings
Review the controls
Identify Hazards
Look around your workplace and think about what may cause harm (these are called hazards). Think about:
how people work and how plant and equipment are used
what chemicals and substances are used
what safe or unsafe work practices exist
the general state of your premises
Look back at previous accident and ill health records as these can help you identify less obvious hazards. Take account of non-routine operations, such as maintenance, cleaning or changes in production cycles. Think about hazards to health, such as manual handling, use of chemicals and causes of work-related stress. For each hazard, think about how employees, contractors, visitors or members of the public might be harmed.
Some workers have particular requirements, for example young workers, migrant workers, new or expectant mothers and people with disabilities. Ensure that you involve your employees as they will usually have good ideas.
Assess the risks
Once you have identified the hazards, decide how likely it is that someone could be harmed and how serious it could be – this is assessing the level of risk. In assessing the level of risk, decide:
Who might be harmed and how
What you’re already doing to control the risks
What further action you need to take to control the risks
Who needs to carry out the action
When the action is needed by
Control the risks
Look at what you are already doing, and the controls you already have in place to ensure the safety of workers and others. Consider:
Can I get rid of the hazard altogether?
If not, how can I control the risks so that harm is unlikely?
If you need further controls, consider:
redesigning the job
replacing the materials, machinery or process
organising your work to reduce exposure to the materials, machinery or process
identifying and implementing practical measures needed to work safely
providing personal protective equipment and making sure workers wear it
Put the controls you have identified in place. It is important to remember that you are not expected to eliminate all risks but you need to do everything ‘reasonably practicable’ to protect people from harm. This means balancing the level of risk against the measures needed to control the real risk in terms of money, time or trouble.
Record your findings
If you employ 5 or more people, you must record your significant findings, including:
the hazards (things that may cause harm)
who might be harmed and how
what you are doing to control the risks
The HSE has a number of example risk assessments on its website as a guide for employers. Employers should not rely purely on paperwork, as the main priority should be to control the risks in practice.
Review the controls
You must review the controls you have put in place to make sure they are working. You should also review them if:
they may no longer be effective
there are changes in the workplace that could lead to new risks such as changes to:
staff
a process
the substances or equipment used
Also consider a review if your workers have spotted any problems or there have been any accidents or near misses. You should then update your risk assessment record with any changes you make.
The Environment Agency has re-released its river habitat survey manual originally published in2003 and made it available on their website as a free download.
River Habitat Survey (RHS) is a method designed to characterise and assess, in broad terms, the physical structure of freshwater streams and rivers. The field survey element does not require specialist geomorphological or botanical expertise, but recognition of vegetation types and an understanding of basic geomorphological principles and processes are needed.
RHS is carried out along a standard 500m length of river channel. Observations are made at ten equally spaced spot-checks along the channel, whilst information on valley form and land-use in the river corridor provides additional context.
The underlying need for any observational method such as RHS is confidence in the survey data. This means consistent recording of features by competent, well-trained, and accredited surveyors as well as checks on subsequent data-entry onto the computer database.
River habitat survey
The field survey has been designed, tested and improved as a result of extensive use on rivers in the UK since 1994. The 2003 version represents the first major overhaul of the form design, revision of some component elements, and updating of the guidance manual, since 1997. The major differences between the 1997 and 2003 versions are summarised in Appendix 7 of the guidance.
Surveyor accreditation is needed for data to be entered onto the RHS database. This means surveyors attending a training course using the 2003 version, and passing an accreditation test.
RHS has also been tested in other European countries such as Finland, France, Austria, Portugal (Madeira), Italy and Slovenia with a view to adapting the survey for local conditions. Cross-comparison between RHS and other methods for surveying river hydromorphology in Europe has also been carried out,4 with a view to producing standard guidance on techniques for assessing the physical characteristics of watercourses.
RHS also helps to provide information on river structure, vegetation character and land use required for SERCON (System for Evaluating Rivers for Conservation), an assessment system that has scoring systems for several attributes in relation to determining the nature conservation value of rivers.
Guidance is provided on the fieldwork survey element of the core RHS method only. It does not cover map-based information gathering or additional modules such as the one being developed for gathering specialist geomorphological information.
It is imperative that all surveys are conducted in conditions which are safe for surveyors. A health and safety assessment is an integral part of the survey and the form must be completed before embarking on the survey, and attached with the completed survey forms.
Two engineering companies and their director have been sentenced for failing to manage asbestos risk to employees within the workplace.
A large quantity of asbestos containing materials, including asbestos insulating board, were identified during a HSE inspection at factory premises in Kidderminster owned by Kespar Engineering Limited in February 2019. The premises were occupied by SDF Automotive Limited (who went into administration in November 2019). Employees of both companies worked in the premises and the sole director for both companies was Peter Gerard Parkes.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) identified the failure of all defendants to manage the risks from asbestos within the premises. This included the failure to ensure the suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health of employees working there was carried out. The defendants were aware that asbestos was present within the premises and had previously prepared asbestos management plans however these were not reviewed or updated. The location and condition of the asbestos on site was not actively monitored and the risk of any exposure to asbestos containing materials was not adequately considered or controlled by the defendants.
Kespar Engineering Ltd of Kidderminster, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 4 (10), 6 (1) and 11 (1) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. The company was fined £51,000 and ordered to pay costs of £30,000.
SDF Automotive Limited (in administration) formerly of Kidderminster, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 4 (10), 6 (1) and 11 (1) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. The company was conditionally discharged for two years.
Peter Gerard Parkes of Bridgnorth, pleaded guilty to several counts under Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. These related to his individual failing as a Director of Kespar Engineering Ltd, SDF Automotive Ltd, and Smethwick Drop Forge Ltd in respect of the offences committed by the Companies under his control. Mr Parkes was given a 12-month suspended prison sentence, fined £9,000 and ordered to pay costs of £14,000. The case was heard at Kidderminster Magistrates’ Court.
Asbestos risks must be managed and controlled (stock image)
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Sarah Reilly, said:
“It is important that all dutyholders including company directors recognise the importance of actively managing asbestos containing materials in non-domestic premises and ensure that the potential risk to health posed by the materials is controlled. Health and safety law places duties on organisations and employers – directors can be personally liable and held to account when these duties are breached.”
Asbestos still kills around 5,000 workers each year, this is more than the number of people killed on the road – around 20 trades people die each week as a result of past exposure. However, asbestos is not just a problem of the past. It can be present today in any building built or refurbished before the year 2000.
When materials that contain asbestos are disturbed or damaged, fibres are released into the air. When these fibres are inhaled, they can cause serious diseases. These diseases will not affect people immediately; they often take a long time to develop, but once diagnosed, it is often too late to do anything. This is why it is important that employers and anyone in control of a building have duties to protect employees and others from asbestos risks.
Before undertaking any work in a building that may contain asbestos (e.g. built or refurbished before the year 2000), you need to do the following:
Identify whether asbestos is present and determine its type and condition
People responsible for maintenance of non-domestic premises, have a ‘duty to manage’ the asbestos in them, and should provide contractors and others with information on where any asbestos is in the building and what condition it is in.
If no information is available or it is limited and its is suspect asbestos may be present then you should have the area surveyed and representative samples of the material you are going to work on analysed.
Alternatively, you can assume that any material you need to disturb does contain asbestos and take the appropriate precautions for the highest risk situation.
Carry out an asbestos risk assessment
Decide if it is possible to carry out the building or maintenance work avoiding the risk of asbestos exposure all together.
If that’s not possible, identify who might be at risk and the level of possible asbestos exposure from any work.
On this basis, decide what work methods are necessary to provide effective control of the risks.
Decide if the work needs to be carried out by a licensed contractor
Most asbestos removal work will require a contractor holding a licence from HSE.
All work with sprayed asbestos coatings and asbestos lagging and most work with asbestos insulation and asbestos insulating board (AIB) requires a licence.
Identify if your work needs a licensed contractor.
Find a licensed contractor or find out how to apply for a licence.
If the work is not licensable, decide if the work needs to be notified
If it does not need a licence, you can do maintenance work on or around ACMs with the appropriate controls in place.
Some non-licensed work also has additional requirements, i.e. notification of work, medical surveillance and record keeping – this work is known as notifiable non-licensed work (NNLW).
Ensure those carrying out the work are suitably trained.
Any worker who is liable to disturb asbestos during their day-to-day work needs to receive appropriate training to enable them to protect themselves and others.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has undertaken a prosecution after a worker loses part of hand. Laxtons Limited, a West Yorkshire manufacturing company, has been fined for safety breaches after a worker lost part of their hand in a textile machine.
On 24 March 2021, an employee of Laxtons was running a number of textile machines. When he opened a guard to check on a build-up of fibres, he reached in to remove material, losing part of his hand.
HSE investigation
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that one of the machines had a defective interlock device. This allowed the machine to continue running when the guard, which was located over a pair of in-running rollers and gears, was opened.
Laxtons Ltd of Shipley, West Yorkshire pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11 (1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company was fined £15,750 and ordered to pay £759 in costs at Leeds Magistrates’ Court.
Work equipment must be safe to use (stock image)
HSE inspector Julian Franklin said:
“Machine guarding should be in line with the appropriate standard, and regularly checked. This incident could so easily have been avoided by simply training staff in the safe and correct way of operating machinery, and regularly checking that safety devices are functioning.”
Work equipment
The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, often abbreviated to PUWER, place duties on people and companies who own, operate or have control over work equipment. PUWER also places responsibilities on businesses and organisations whose employees use work equipment, whether owned by them or not. PUWER requires that equipment provided for use at work is:
suitable for the intended use
safe for use, maintained in a safe condition and inspected to ensure it is correctly installed and does not subsequently deteriorate
used only by people who have received adequate information, instruction and training
accompanied by suitable health and safety measures, such as protective devices and controls. These will normally include guarding, emergency stop devices, adequate means of isolation from sources of energy, clearly visible markings and warning devices
used in accordance with specific requirements, for mobile work equipment and power presses
If your business or organisation uses work equipment or is involved in providing work equipment for others to use (e.g. for hire), you must manage the risks from that equipment. This means you must:
ensure the equipment is constructed or adapted to be suitable for the purpose it is used or provided for
take account of the working conditions and health and safety risks in the workplace when selecting work equipment
ensure work equipment is only used for suitable purposes
ensure work equipment is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair
where a machine has a maintenance log, keep this up to date
where the safety of work equipment depends on the manner of installation, it must be inspected after installation and before being put into use
where work equipment is exposed to deteriorating conditions liable to result in dangerous situations, it must be inspected to ensure faults are detected in good time so the risk to health and safety is managed
ensure that all people using, supervising or managing the use of work equipment are provided with adequate, clear health and safety information. This will include, where necessary, written instructions on its use and suitable equipment markings and warnings
ensure that all people who use, supervise or manage the use of work equipment have received adequate training, which should include the correct use of the equipment, the risks that may arise from its use and the precautions to take
where the use of work equipment is likely to involve a specific risk to health and safety (eg woodworking machinery), ensure that the use of the equipment is restricted to those people trained and appointed to use it
take effective measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. This will normally be by fixed guarding but where routine access is needed, interlocked guards (sometimes with guard locking) may be needed to stop the movement of dangerous parts before a person can reach the danger zone. Where this is not possible, such as with the blade of a circular saw, it must be protected as far as possible and a safe system of work used. These protective measures should follow the hierarchy laid down in PUWER regulation 11(2) and the PUWER Approved Code of Practice and guidance or, for woodworking machinery, the Safe use of woodworking machinery: Approved Code of Practice and guidance
take measures to prevent or control the risks to people from parts and substances falling or being ejected from work equipment, or the rupture or disintegration of work equipment
ensure that the risks from very hot or cold temperatures from the work equipment or the material being processed or used are managed to prevent injury
ensure that work equipment is provided with appropriately identified controls for starting, stopping and controlling it, and that these control systems are safe
where appropriate, provide suitable means of isolating work equipment from all power sources (including electric, hydraulic, pneumatic and gravitational energy)
ensure work equipment is stabilised by clamping or otherwise to avoid injury
take appropriate measures to ensure maintenance operations on work equipment can be carried out safely while the equipment is shut down, without exposing people undertaking maintenance operations to risks to their health and safety
When providing new work equipment for use at work, you must ensure it conforms with the essential requirements of any relevant product supply law (for new machinery this means the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008). You must check it:
has appropriate conformity marking and is labelled with the manufacturer’s details
comes with a Declaration of Conformity
is provided with instructions in English
is free from obvious defects – and that it remains so during its working life
Roofer jailed for four months after a worker was seriously injured falling through a fragile roof on to a concrete floor.
The man and another labourer, who were working for Geoff Whitehouse, trading as Midland Roofing, were working on a fragile roof on 11 August 2021 to remove old skylights at premises in Henley Road, Warwick.
The injured worker fell approximately three metres through the roof and suffered serious multiple fractures including a fractured skull.
HSE investigation
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the majority of the work could have been done from underneath the roof. The inside of the roof could have been fitted with nets prior to anyone going on to the fragile surface so that someone falling would have been saved by the nets. The work at height was not adequately planned, managed nor supervised.
Additionally, Mr Whitehouse did not have employers’ liability insurance in place. Employers’ liability insurance ensures employers to have at least the minimum level of insurance to cover against claims brought by employees that are injured at work or become ill as a result of work.
Geoff Whitehouse, trading as Midland Roofing, of Worcester pleaded guilty to breaches under Section 1(1) of the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 and Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 (as amended) at Coventry Magistrates’ Court. He was sentenced to four months in prison at Redditch Magistrates’ Court.
Working at height requires careful planning (stock image)
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Michael Griffiths, said:
“Fragile roofs can and do kill. It does not matter how careful you are standing, sitting or walking on a fragile roof, the roof can collapse as it did in this case, causing potentially life-changing injuries. This case also highlights the need for ELCI insurance in this sort of work where self-employed labourers under the control of a sole trader are ‘employees’ under Health and Safety Law.”
Employers’ liability insurance
Most employers are required by the law to insure against liability for injury or disease to their employees arising out of their employment. The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 requires employers to have at least a minimum level of insurance against any such claims. Employers’ liability insurance will cover relevant work injuries or illness whether these are caused on or off site. However, any injuries or illness relating to motor accidents which occur while employees are at work may be covered separately by the employer’s motor insurance.
Public liability insurance is different. It covers employers for claims made against them by members of the public or other businesses, but not for claims by employees. While public liability insurance is generally voluntary, employers’ liability insurance is compulsory. Employers can be fined if they do not hold a current employers’ liability insurance policy which complies with the law. Employers must display a copy of this certificate where employees have reasonable access to it. If they do not, they can be fined. Since 1 October 2008, employers have been allowed to satisfy this requirement by displaying the certificate electronically for example on the company’s intranet or website. If your employer chooses this method, they must ensure that you know how and where to find the certificate and you have reasonable access to it.
Falls from height are the most common cause of workplace fatalities accounting for 29 deaths in 2021/22. An operation at height requires careful planning and the use of suitable equipment. A risk assessment should be undertaken as part of the planning and detail the controls required to ensure workers’ safety including any fall arrest systems to be used. Any worker involved in an activity at height must be competent to carry out the task and be proficient in using the equipment provided.
The Guardian has reported that England’s Environment Agency has downgraded 93% of pollution prosecutions for serious incidents over four years, despite recommendations from frontline staff for the perpetrators to face the highest sanction according to a leaked report seen by the paper’s reporters.
93% of serious pollution prosecutions over 4 years may have been downgraded (stock image)
The EA receives over 100,000 incident reports a year, every one of which is recorded and assessed. Of 495 serious pollution investigations which were recommended for prosecution only 35 cases were taken forward to prosecution. A spokesperson for the Environment Agency said the regulator does not comment on leaked documents. However, they said it does:
“consider, record and prioritise all incidents – with all breaches and offences reported to us undergoing a robust initial assessment. We have a wide range of enforcement options, including civil sanctions, enforcement undertakings, and in some circumstances, advice and guidance. Where prosecution is appropriate, we pursue robustly and in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which sets out that the evidence must provide a realistic prospect of securing a conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest. Over 90% of our prosecutions are successful, and recent outcomes such as the £90m fine of Southern Water Services show a clear and welcome trend towards much bigger fines against offenders in appropriate cases.”
Building contractor sentenced after unsafe work methods constituted a public risk and resulted in asbestos being disturbed.
Preston Crown Court heard that in November 2020, Mr Mohammed Shafiq, owner of a roller shutter business, purchased a former warehouse in Manner Sutton Street, Blackburn to convert into smaller work units, including one for his own use – Mr Shafiq was using his own employees for this.
A report was received by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) from a member of the public, concerned about the fact that bricks from the blocked-up windows were being knocked out from inside onto the street below, causing risk to passers-by.
The HSE investigation found that as well as the risk posed to pedestrians, no edge protection had been installed to prevent the employees from falling. They were also at risk of an internal fall down an open shaft. Additionally, an asbestos survey had not been carried out on the building prior to work commencing.
Refurbishment projects may require an asbestos survey (stock image)
As a result, piles of disturbed asbestos containing materials (ACMs) such as asbestos cement and insulation, were lying throughout the site. Workers were dry sweeping construction dust and debris possibly containing carcinogenic asbestos dusts without any respiratory protective equipment or suitable personal protective equipment. None of the workers had been provided with any training in asbestos awareness.
Live electric cables were being trailed through water without RCD protection, posing a risk of electric shock, and there was a general lack of training and suitable equipment for work to be carried out in a safe manner. An experienced principal contractor should have been hired to assess risks and undertake refurbishment work in a controlled manner.
The building contractor sentenced over unsafe work was Mohammed Shafiq of Blackburn who pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, Regulation 4 of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 and Regulation 4 of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. He received a 12-month suspended sentence and was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4,636.08
HSE inspector Christine McGlynn said after the hearing:
“The public can be reassured that HSE takes concerns seriously and will not hesitate to investigate thoroughly and prosecute those who put workers and members of the public at risk.’’
Construction projects require detailed planning to ensure that they are carried out safely. The appointment of a principal contractor to plan and coordinate the construction project will help to ensure activities are done safely. Workers engaged in construction activities should be competent and have a good understanding of safe working practices. Where construction involves disturbing the fabric of a building, an assessment is required in respect of asbestos. Asbestos containing materials may be present in any building which was constructed or refurbished before 2000 and it may be necessary to engage a specialist asbestos contractor to undertake an intrusive survey.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
