Health and Safety | Ashbrooke Management Consultants

21 September 202421 September 2024

Dangerous machinery leads to fine

A North London food manufacturer has been fined £150,000 for failing to prevent access to dangerous machinery.

The failings came to light following a routine inspection by Britain’s workplace regulator – the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in October 2023.

During the visit to Wembley-based Oriental Delight (UK) Limited, the HSE inspector identified multiple failings related to the guarding of machinery. Three machines were deemed unsafe due to interlocking safety devices being defeated and guards being completely removed.

However, it was not the first time the food company had come onto HSE’s radar, with prohibition notices being issued in both 2016 and 2019.

Identical dangerous machinery failings were again found at the inspection in October 2023, demonstrating that the company had not only failed to sustain improvements, but had effectively ignored the HSE’s previous enforcement action by continuing to use these machines in an unsafe manner.

On 4 September 2024, at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Oriental Delight (UK) Limited pleaded guilty to three breaches of Regulation 11(1) of The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and was fined £150,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,020.

Following the hearing, HSE Inspector Marcus Pope said:

“This case sends out a clear message to the food manufacturing industry that HSE will not hesitate to prosecute when inspectors find serious health and safety failings, particularly when previous enforcement and advice has been provided. Once again, we see how critical it is that all employers make sure they properly assess and apply effective control measures to minimise the risk from dangerous parts of machinery.”

Dangerous machinery regulation

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 aimed at preventing dangerous machinery. 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 the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER), pressure equipment must meet the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000 and personal protective equipment must meet the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (PPE).

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 and ensure no dangerous machinery is used. 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 machinery 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

If you require advice on health and safety in your workplace, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

10 September 202410 September 2024

Landlord ignored gas safety duties

A landlord ignored gas safety duties and was given a suspended sentence of 26 weeks and electronically tagged for 4 months after putting the lives of her tenants at risk by not maintaining gas appliances at a property in Kent.

Dawn Holliday, 62, refused to undertake gas safety checks even after the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) took enforcement action against her.

Ms Holiday claimed to have no money for undertaking maintenance to the property, leaving the tenants with a very temperamental boiler that banged and often left the occupiers with no heating or hot water, as well as a condemned cooker for several years. However, an HSE investigation found that Ms Holliday was receiving full rent from the tenant for the property on First Avenue in Eastchurch, when the enforcement action was taken.

Despite the Improvement Notice served on Ms Holliday to undertake gas safety checks, she ignored this and further requests from HSE. She also claimed the tenants had moved out and had not been paying rent, the investigation found this claim to be completely untrue.

On the 2nd September 2024 at Sevenoaks Magistrates Court, Dawn Holliday, of Golden Leas Holiday Park, Plough Road, Minster on Sea, pleaded guilty to three charges under Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 Section 21 and Gas Safety (Installation & Use) 1998 36(2) and 36(3) and was sentenced to imprisonment of 26 weeks, suspended for a period of 12 months, District Judge Leake also imposed an electronically monitored curfew on Ms Holliday at her address for a period of 4 months with the curfew hours of 20:00-06:00 and awarded HSE £750 in costs. Additionally, the Judge made a remediation order pursuant to section 42 of the 1974 Act, for Ms Holliday to undertake the gas safety inspection required of her by the 6th December 2024 thereby complying with her gas safety duties.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Joanne Williams said:

“We are dedicated to ensuring that landlords operate within the law and provide safe accommodation for tenants. We do not tolerate disregard for health and safety and consider the non-compliance of HSE enforcement notices as a serious offence. In this case Ms Holliday chose to flagrantly ignore the support, guidance and warnings from HSE to assist her in compliance with the law and continued placing her tenants at serious risk of injury or even death. Wherever possible we will continue to work with landlords to improve health and safety. However, we will not hesitate to take enforcement action where necessary and prosecute individuals who ignore warnings and the law.”

The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 imposes gas safety duties on dutyholders to ensure that gas installations and appliances are installed safely and are maintained and inspected. Dutyholders can include employers as well as landlords or others in control of premises.

If you require health and safety advice for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

2 September 20242 September 2024

Farms are not playgrounds

A recent prosecution case highlights the dangers for children in agricultural environments and that farms are not playgrounds. In the case, video footage taken by a neighbour captured the moment a farmer allowed one of his grandchildren to illegally ride in his tractor and ultimately led to his conviction.

Howard Walters, 78, was given a 12-month community order after he was spotted with the child in the tractor cab as he fed cattle on his farm in South Wales.

Walters had already been issued with a prohibition notice by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in November 2020 after admitting to inspectors he allowed his pre-teen grandchildren to ride in his tractor. However, just two months later, he was filmed by his neighbour flagrantly breaching the terms of that notice.

A HSE inspector who investigated Mr Walters says the law is “very clear”. Children under 13 are specifically prohibited from driving or riding on or in any agricultural machine, including the tractor cab.

At the time of committing the offence, Walters, of Tirmynydd Farm in Birchgrove, Swansea, was already the subject of a suspended prison sentence for unrelated environmental offences. In a case that was heard on 27 August 2024 at Swansea Crown Court, he was fined £500 for breaching the terms of that sentence. As part of his community order, Walters must attend 25 days of rehabilitation.

Agriculture remains one of the most dangerous industries in Britain, with on average around 29 people killed each year. Being killed by vehicles remains the most significant cause of work related fatality over the last five years.

Unfortunately, children are among those deaths with it often being the case that they are family members, with many killed by farm vehicles. Guidance is available for farmers on how to prevent accidents to children on farms.

Howard Walters, of Tirmynydd Farm in Birchgrove, Swansea, pleaded guilty to breaching section 33(1)(g) Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was given a 12 month community order and ordered to pay £3,000 in costs.

HSE inspector Simon Breen said:

“The law around children being allowed in the cabs of any agricultural vehicle is very clear. For any child to ride on agricultural machinery like a tractor is unsafe and illegal. The fact this farmer chose to ignore a prohibition notice for putting his grandchildren at risk is all the more staggering. We will take action against those who break the law. The solution is very simple – young children should never ride in agricultural vehicles.”

The HSE has published detailed guidance about child safety on farms and in agriculture which is available on its website.

How farmers can keep children safe on farms

Children must not be allowed in the farm workplace (young children should enjoy outdoor space in a secure fenced area).

Any access to the farm workplace by children under 16, for example for education, or knowledge / experience, must be planned and fully supervised by an adult not engaged in any work activity.

Children under the age of 13 years are specifically prohibited from driving or riding on any agricultural machine. It is illegal.

Properly trained, instructed, and supervised older children may, in tightly controlled circumstances, be able to help with some straightforward low risk tasks.

If you require health and safety advice for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

23 August 202423 August 2024

Employee looses legs in accident

A company has been fined £160,000 after an employee looses legs in accident whilst working at its site near Warrington.

On 20 June 2022, Andrew McAuley, from Runcorn, an employee of William Stobart & Son Limited was picking orders at the firm’s warehouse in Appleton Thorn.

The 64-year-old was working in close proximity to a forklift truck (FLT) which was being used to load pallets of slate tiles onto a waiting truck. The FLT was carrying two pallets, one on top of the other. The top pallet was not secured to the one below, and when the driver turned the vehicle, both pallets became detached from the forks, with the upper pallet striking Mr McAuley, crushing his legs.

Mr McAuley had to have both legs amputated below the knee. He has been left dependent upon a wheelchair and unable to drive or climb stairs, leading to the need for extensive adaptations to the family home.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that William Stobart & Son Limited failed to ensure this area of the warehouse was organised so that vehicles and pedestrians were segregated and circulated in a safe manner and loads were secured so far as was reasonably practicable.

William Stobart & Son Limited, of Ashville Way Industrial Estate, Sutton Weaver, Runcorn, Cheshire pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £160,000 and ordered to pay £4,478 costs at a hearing at Warrington Magistrates Court on 30 July 2024.

Accident preventable

After the hearing HSE Inspector Lorna Sherlock said:

“Mr McAuley has been left with devastating and life changing injuries. The company failed to implement a safe system of work for loading and unloading activities, thereby exposing employees, and others, to the risk of being struck by loads or workplace vehicles. This case illustrates the consequences of failing to segregate vehicles and pedestrians, and to properly secure loads. This injury could easily have been prevented. Employers should make sure they assess work activities sufficiently and apply effective control measures to minimise the risk from workplace transport.”

Employee transport safety

Employers who operate depots must ensure that a suitable and sufficient risk assessment is undertaken covering the transport risks. When considering the risks from vehicle manoeuvring, employers must ensure that vehicles have large enough windscreens (with wipers where necessary) and external mirrors to provide an all-round field of vision. It is often worthwhile adding extra mirrors to reduce blind spots for drivers. Side mirrors can allow drivers of larger vehicles to see cyclists and pedestrians alongside their vehicles and can be effective in improving visibility around the vehicle from the driving position. These mirrors are fitted to larger road-going vehicles as standard.

Drivers should not place items in the windscreen area or in the way of mirrors or monitors, where they might impede visibility from the driving position. The area of the windscreen that is kept clear by the wipers should not be obscured, and nor should the side windows. Windows and mirrors will also normally need to be kept clean and in good repair. Dirt or cracks can make windows or mirrors less effective.

Some types of vehicles (such as straddle carriers, large shovel loaders and some large quarry vehicles) often have poor visibility from the cab. Visibility can be poor to the side or front of a vehicle as well as behind and loads on vehicles can severely limit the visibility from the driving position.

Lift trucks and compact dumper vehicles in particular can have difficulty with forward visibility when they are transporting bulky loads. Employers should recognise these risks in their risk assessment and think about ways to minimise them.

Closed-circuit television (CCTV) may help drivers to see clearly behind or around the vehicle. CCTV can cover most blind spots and the cost of fitting CCTV systems has fallen since the technology was first developed. Companies who have fitted CCTV have found that it can reduce the number of reversing accidents, so the systems usually pay for themselves in a few years.

Colour systems can provide a clearer image where there is little contrast (for example, outside on an overcast day). However, black-and-white systems normally provide a better image in lower light or darkness, and usually come with infra-red, which can be more effective than standard cameras at night.

Monitors should have adjustable contrast, brightness and resolution controls to make them useful in the different light conditions in which they will be used. Drivers may need to use a hood to shield any monitor from glare.

If possible, fit the camera for a CCTV system high up in the middle of the vehicle’s rear (one camera), or in the upper corners (two cameras). This will provide a greater field of vision and a better angle for the driver to judge distance and provide. It also keeps the camera clear of dust and spray, and out of the reach of thieves or vandals.

However, CCTV systems do have some limitations which employers should consider:

If the vehicle leaves a darker area to a more strongly lit area (for example, driving out of a building) the system may need time to adjust to the brightness.
A dirty lens will make a camera much less effective.
Drivers may find it difficult to judge heights and distances.

Drivers should not be complacent about safety even with CCTV systems installed. They should be trained in proper use of the equipment and employers have a duty to provide such training and instruction.

Reversing alarms may be drowned out by other noise or may be so common on a busy site that pedestrians do not take any notice. It can also be hard to know exactly where an alarm is coming from, and people who are less able to hear are also at greater risk. Alarms can also disturb nearby residents. However, reversing alarms may be appropriate (based on the risk assessment) but might be most effectively used with other measures, such as warning lights.

Additional advice on transport safety can be found in the HSE Guide to workplace transport safety (HSG 136, 2014) which is available free on the website.

If you require health and safety advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

6 August 20246 August 2024

Recycling company fined £3 million

Recycling company fined £3 million after a man died and another was seriously injured while decommissioning a North Sea gas rig.

Stephen Picken, 62, and Mark Kumar were working for Veolia ES (UK) Limited at an onshore facility in Great Yarmouth.

Both men were working as demolition operatives also known as “Top Men”, undertaking the decommissioning and dismantlement of offshore structures.

Recycling Activity

On 17 October 2019, the two workers were removing an overhanging piece of metal pipework (known as a skirt pile), weighing in excess of 27 tonnes, from a jacket (a structure placed in the sea, designed to support oil and gas rig platforms), when it gave way. The pile struck the mobile elevating work platform (MEWP) containing the men, throwing them to the ground about 12 metres below.

Stephen Picken died at the scene and Mark Kumar suffered serious life-changing injuries.

Investigation

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) identified serious failings with the planning and the risk assessment which did not adequately cover the planned works. Shortcomings in supervision of the incident were also identified. The company did not risk assess the skirt pile being removed as it was considered low risk. As a result, there was no cutting plan or safe system of work for the skirt pile.

Demolition, dismantling and structural alteration work must be carefully planned and carried out – HSE has guidance on this which is available free here.

Recycling company fined £3 million

Veolia ES (UK) Limited of Pentonville Road, London, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. At a sentencing hearing at Ipswich Crown Court, on 22 July 2024, the company was fined £3,000,000 and ordered to pay £60,000 in costs.

After the hearing, HSE inspector David King said:

This incident, in an emerging industry, highlights the level of controls required to safely demolish what are large, dangerous structures. Veolia did not meet these standards and tragically one life was lost, and another forever changed. The Health and Safety Executive’s mission is to protect people and places. Organisations that endanger their employees by failing to meet the required standards, should be aware that we will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action.

If your business requires health and safety advice, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

24 July 202424 July 2024

School technician lost a finger

A local authority has been sentenced after a school technician lost a finger while operating a machine.

A school technician at The Forest School in Horsham, lost his right index finger when it was sliced off by a circular bench saw on 13 June 2022.

The 29-year-old, who worked in the design and technology (DT) department, had been operating the saw to cut pieces of wood that were set to be used for a DT lesson. The school technician lost a finger in the accident.

While pushing one of the sheets of wood through the saw, the technician who was 27 at the time, felt a pain in his right index finger and immediately turned off the machine. As he looked down, he saw his finger lying on the bench.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found West Sussex County Council, the local authority in charge of the school, failed to ensure that the technician was trained to use the bench circular saw, as a result the school technician lost a finger. Whilst the technician had used the saw many times previously, he had not been trained on how to use it safely.

West Sussex County Council pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 9 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The local authority was fined £16,000, ordered to pay £4,294.60 in costs and a victim surcharge of £190 at Brighton Magistrates’ Court on 3 July 2024.

HSE inspector Russell Beckett said:

Workers must be trained properly when using high risk woodworking such as bench circular saws. This incident could have been prevented had West Sussex County Council provided [the technician] with proper training.

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

The above incident where a school technician lost a finger highlights the importance of training and other issues for workers using 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 – in the current case, the school technician lost a finger having not received any training in the safe use of the circular saw.
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 circular saw machine), ensure that the use of the equipment is restricted to those people trained and appointed to use it – in the current case where the school technician lost a finger, the local authority should have restricted access to those workers who had received training.
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

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

If you require advice on health and safety in your workplace, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

17 July 202417 July 2024

Company Director Fined

A company director fined after an employee was struck by an object while manufacturing large steel cable drums for the offshore industry.

The man, who is now 54, had been working for Code-A-Weld (Great Yarmouth) Limited when the incident happened on 19 November 2022. Although the company had manufactured steel drums previously, they had never manufactured drums of this size – with these ones weighing in excess of seven tonnes.

However, during the process, the jacking set-up failed at the company’s site in Harfreys Industrial Estate in Great Yarmouth which resulted in a catalogue of serious injuries including fractures to the man’s face and skull, and him losing the sight in one eye.

He was airlifted to hospital, placed into an induced coma and spent just under three weeks in hospital whereby he needed facial reconstruction surgery.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that Code-A-Weld (Great Yarmouth) Limited failed (i) to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment; (ii) control risks from welding in confined spaces; and (iii) to provide the full training required.

The investigation also found that company director, David Fowler, failed to provide safe systems of work in relation to metal fabrication work, despite previous HSE interventions regarding failure to risk assess activities in the fabrication workshop.

Had the company put in place correct measures, such as suitable risk assessment, safe systems of work and planning for jacking activity, the incident could have been prevented.

The HSE publication, Health and safety in engineering workshops provides valuable practical advice and can be downloaded free at: Health and Safety in engineering workshops.

Following a sentencing hearing at Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court on 20 June 2024, DJ Williams issued their written judgment on 5 July as follows:

Company Fined

Code-A-Weld (Great Yarmouth) Limited, of Harfreys Industrial Estate, Bessemer Way, Great Yarmouth, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £24,000 and ordered to pay £3,500 in costs.

Director Fined

David Fowler, of Harfreys Industrial Estate, Bessemer Way, Great Yarmouth, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 37(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. He was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £1,500 in costs.

HSE Statement

Those in control of work have a responsibility to devise safe methods of working and to provide the necessary information, instruction and training to their workers in the safe system of working. If a suitable safe system of work had been in place prior to the incident, the life-threatening injuries sustained by the employee could have been prevented.

HSE inspector Natalie Prince

If you require advice for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

2 July 20242 July 2024

Risk Management in the UK

Risk management is a critical aspect of any business or organisation, and in the UK, it is taken very seriously. The UK has a robust framework for risk management, guided by various institutions and regulations that ensure businesses can identify, assess, and mitigate risks effectively.

The Institute of Risk Management (IRM) is a leading body in the UK that provides internationally recognised qualifications, training, and research in risk management. Their commitment to developing risk management professionals is evident through their extensive resources and events that cater to enhancing skills and knowledge in the field.

The UK government also plays a significant role in establishing risk management principles. The “Orange Book” is a guidance document published by the Government Finance Function and HM Treasury, which lays out the concepts and processes for risk management in government organizations. It complements other publications, such as the “Green Book”, which offers advice on appraisal and evaluation.

Moreover, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 outlines the minimum requirements for risk assessment in the workplace. It mandates the identification of potential hazards, the evaluation of the likelihood and severity of harm, and the implementation of measures to control or eliminate risks.

The private sector in the UK is also bustling with companies specialising in risk management. These organisations offer a range of services, from consultancy to software solutions, helping businesses navigate the complexities of risk in various industries.

In conclusion, risk management in the UK is a multifaceted discipline supported by a strong institutional framework, government regulations, and a dynamic private sector. Whether it’s for public or private entities, the resources and expertise available within the UK provide a solid foundation for managing risks and safeguarding the interests of stakeholders. With the right approach and tools, organisations can turn risks into opportunities for growth and resilience.

Risk Management Top 10 for 2024

Common Risks Faced by UK Businesses: Navigating the Challenges of 2024

In the ever-evolving landscape of the business world, UK companies face a myriad of risks that can impact their operations and bottom line. As we delve into 2024, it is crucial for businesses to stay informed about the potential challenges they may encounter. Here’s an overview of the common risks that UK businesses are currently facing:

Cyber Incidents

Cybersecurity remains a top concern for UK businesses, with cyber incidents such as cybercrime, IT network disruptions, malware, ransomware, and data breaches leading the list of risks. The sophistication of cyber threats continues to grow, with hackers leveraging new technologies to exploit vulnerabilities. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI)-powered attacks has made it imperative for businesses to bolster their cyber defences and remain vigilant against these evolving threats

Business Interruption

Business interruption, including supply chain disruptions, holds the second spot on the risk list. The UK’s recent history with Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of business resilience. Companies must navigate import/export costs, cash-flow challenges, staff shortages, and the ripple effects of global events on their supply chains.

Natural Catastrophes

Climbing up the risk ladder, natural catastrophes such as storms, floods, earthquakes, and wildfires pose significant threats. Extreme weather events underscore the need for robust disaster recovery plans and insurance coverage to mitigate the financial and operational impacts of such incidents.

Shortage of Skilled Workforce

The scarcity of skilled professionals is a growing concern, affecting businesses’ ability to maintain productivity and innovation. This risk calls for strategic workforce planning and investment in training and development to bridge the skills gap.

Climate Change

The physical, operational, and financial risks associated with global warming continue to be a pressing issue. With climate change moving up the risk rankings, businesses must integrate sustainability into their core strategies and adapt to the changing regulatory landscape.

Political Risks and Violence

Political instability, terrorism, and civil unrest can disrupt business operations and pose security challenges. Companies must be prepared to respond to political risks and ensure the safety of their assets and personnel.

Legislative and Regulatory Changes

Changes in legislation and regulation, such as tariffs, economic sanctions, and protectionism, can have far-reaching effects on businesses. Staying abreast of legal developments and maintaining compliance is essential for operating within the law.

Macro-economic Developments

Economic shifts, including inflation, deflation, and monetary policies, can alter the business landscape. Organizations must be agile and ready to adjust their strategies in response to macro-economic changes.

New Technologies

The advent of new technologies brings both opportunities and risks. Innovations like AI, autonomous vehicles, and the Metaverse can transform industries, but they also introduce new challenges that businesses must navigate.

Market Developments

Lastly, market developments such as intensified competition, mergers and acquisitions, and market fluctuations require businesses to be competitive and adaptable to sustain growth and success.

In conclusion, UK businesses must adopt a proactive approach to risk management, staying informed and prepared for the diverse range of risks they face. By understanding these common risks and implementing effective strategies to address them, businesses can enhance their resilience and secure a competitive edge in the marketplace.

Risk Management in practice

Managing risk is a critical aspect of business strategy, especially in a dynamic and interconnected global economy. In the UK, businesses face a variety of risks that can impact their operations, reputation, and bottom line. Understanding these risks and implementing strategies to manage them is essential for business resilience and success.

Cyber Incidents

Cyber incidents top the list of risks for UK businesses in 2024, as they did in the previous year. The digital landscape is constantly evolving, and with it, the nature of cyber threats. Businesses must stay vigilant against cybercrime, IT network disruptions, malware, ransomware, and data breaches. Investing in robust cybersecurity measures, employee training, and incident response plans is crucial. Regularly updating IT infrastructure and adopting best practices for data protection can mitigate the risk of cyber incidents.

Business Interruption

Business interruption, including supply chain disruptions, remains a significant concern. The UK’s recent history with Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of business continuity planning. Companies should assess their supply chain vulnerabilities and develop strategies to ensure operational resilience. This may include diversifying suppliers, stockpiling critical inventory, and establishing alternative logistics arrangements.

Natural Catastrophes

The emergence of natural catastrophes as a top risk reflects the increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events. Businesses should evaluate their exposure to natural disasters and consider insurance coverage as part of their risk management strategy. Additionally, developing disaster recovery plans and investing in infrastructure that can withstand extreme conditions are proactive steps businesses can take.

Shortage of Skilled Workforce

A shortage of skilled workers can hinder a business’s ability to grow and compete. To address this risk, companies should invest in training and development programs, foster a culture of continuous learning, and explore new recruitment channels. Building partnerships with educational institutions and offering apprenticeships or internships can also help bridge the skills gap.

Climate Change

The risks associated with climate change, such as physical, operational, and financial impacts, are increasingly recognized by UK businesses. Adopting sustainable practices, reducing carbon footprint, and integrating Environmental Social Governance (ESG) criteria into business operations can not only manage risk but also create opportunities for innovation and growth.

Political Risks and Violence

Political instability, terrorism, and other forms of political risk can have sudden and profound effects on businesses. Companies should monitor political developments and have contingency plans in place. Risk transfer mechanisms, such as political risk insurance, can provide financial protection against such uncertainties.

Legislative and Regulatory Changes

Changes in legislation and regulation, including tariffs and economic sanctions, can disrupt business activities. Staying informed about regulatory changes and engaging with policymakers can help businesses anticipate and adapt to new requirements. Compliance programs and legal counsel can ensure that businesses navigate these changes effectively.

Macro-economic Developments

Economic conditions such as inflation, deflation, and monetary policies can impact business performance. Businesses should conduct regular economic analyses and scenario planning to prepare for macro-economic shifts. Diversifying revenue streams and maintaining financial flexibility can provide a buffer against economic turbulence.

New Technologies

The advent of new technologies, including AI and the Metaverse, presents both opportunities and risks. Businesses should evaluate the potential impact of emerging technologies on their operations and industry. Investing in research and development and staying ahead of technological trends can turn these risks into competitive advantages.

Market Developments

Finally, market developments such as intensified competition and market fluctuations require businesses to be agile and responsive. Conducting market research, fostering innovation, and maintaining strong customer relationships can help businesses stay competitive in a changing market landscape.

Conclusion

In conclusion, managing risk is an ongoing process that requires attention, resources, and strategic thinking. By understanding the top risks facing UK businesses and taking proactive steps to address them, companies can build resilience and position themselves for long-term success.

If you require risk management advice for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

30 June 202430 June 2024

The Evolution and Importance of Corporate Governance in the UK

The importance of Corporate governance in the United Kingdom has undergone significant evolution and refinement, especially in recent years. The UK Corporate Governance Code, which sets the standards of good practice in relation to board leadership and effectiveness, remuneration, accountability, and relations with shareholders, is a testament to the UK’s commitment to maintaining the highest standards of corporate governance.

The 2018 Corporate Governance Code was updated in January 2024, following a limited consultation that focused on a number of changes. This updated 2024 Code, which applies to financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2025, reflects the UK’s adaptive approach to corporate governance, ensuring that the framework remains relevant and continues to foster an environment of trust, transparency, and accountability.

The 2024 Code is separated into five sections: Board Leadership and Company Purpose; Division of Responsibilities; Composition, Succession and Evaluation; Audit, Risk and Internal Control; and Remuneration, and it operates on a ‘comply or explain’ basis. This edition of the Code includes a small number of changes from the 2018 Code. Provision 29 now asks boards to make a declaration in relation to the effectiveness of their material internal controls. A new Principle has been included to encourage companies to report on outcomes and activities. A number of provisions have been removed related to Audit Committees as these provisions are now within the Audit Committees and the External Audit: Minimum Standard.

One of the key aspects of the UK’s corporate governance model is the ‘comply or explain’ approach. This principle requires companies to either comply with the code or explain why they have not, which allows for flexibility and acknowledges that there may be legitimate reasons for non-compliance in certain circumstances. This approach has been influential and is considered a hallmark of the UK’s corporate governance system.

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) plays a pivotal role in maintaining and updating the UK Corporate Governance Code. The FRC’s efforts to strengthen the code, particularly in response to the government’s consultation on Restoring Trust in Audit and Corporate Governance in 2022, demonstrate a proactive stance in enhancing the quality of risk management, internal controls, and the board’s consideration of corporate governance activities to achieve strategic objectives.

The latest revisions to the code include a new principle encouraging companies to report on outcomes and activities, and a provision asking boards to make a declaration regarding the effectiveness of their material internal controls. These changes underscore the importance of not just having a set of rules but also ensuring that these rules lead to tangible outcomes that enhance corporate governance practices.

Corporate governance is not just a concern for large, publicly traded companies; it is relevant for all businesses. While the UK Corporate Governance Code is specifically applicable to companies with a premium listing on the London Stock Exchange, many other companies choose to follow the code voluntarily. Moreover, large private companies are required to disclose their corporate governance arrangements under The Companies (Miscellaneous Reporting) Regulations 2018.

The focus on the importance of corporate governance in the UK reflects a broader global trend towards greater transparency, accountability, and sustainability in business practices. As companies face increasing scrutiny from investors, regulators, and the public, the UK’s corporate governance framework serves as a model for balancing the interests of various stakeholders and ensuring long-term, sustainable success.

For more detailed information on the UK Corporate Governance Code and its application, readers can refer to the resources provided by the FRC. The evolution of corporate governance in the UK is a clear indicator of the country’s dedication to fostering robust business practices that not only promote financial stability but also contribute to more inclusive societies.

The UK Corporate Governance Code serves as a benchmark for corporate governance standards in the UK, emphasizing the importance of good practices in board leadership and company purpose, division of responsibilities, composition, succession and evaluation, audit, risk and internal control, and remuneration. The Code operates on a ‘comply or explain’ basis, which allows companies the flexibility to deviate from the Code’s provisions, provided they offer a transparent explanation for doing so.

Key principles of the UK Corporate Governance Code

Board Leadership and Company Purpose: The board should promote the purpose of the company, ensure that the company’s values and strategy are aligned with its culture, and meet its responsibilities to shareholders and stakeholders alike.
Division of Responsibilities: There should be a clear division of responsibilities at the head of the company, ensuring a balance of authority and no individual has unfettered powers.
Composition, Succession, and Evaluation: Boards should be composed of an effective combination of skills, experience, independence, and knowledge of the company to enable them to discharge their duties and responsibilities effectively.
Audit, Risk, and Internal Control: The board should present a fair, balanced, and understandable assessment of the company’s position and prospects and maintain a sound system of risk management and internal control.
Remuneration: Executive remuneration should be aligned to the long-term success of the company and its values, and should be designed to promote effective risk management.

These principles are designed to foster trust and transparency between companies and their stakeholders, ensuring the long-term sustainability and success of businesses within the UK’s market economy. For a more comprehensive understanding of the Code and its provisions, the Financial Reporting Council’s official documentation provides detailed guidance.

The ‘comply or explain’ approach is a cornerstone of the UK Corporate Governance Code, offering flexibility and promoting transparency in how companies apply the principles of the code. This approach allows companies to either adhere to the code’s provisions or, if they do not, to provide a clear explanation for their non-compliance.

How companies typically comply with the code

This is how companies typically comply with the code:

Adherence to Provisions: Companies start by striving to comply with the provisions of the code as closely as possible. This involves aligning their corporate governance practices with the recommendations set out in the code.
Disclosure: If a company chooses not to follow a specific provision, it must disclose this fact in its annual report and accounts. The disclosure is not merely a statement of non-compliance but should include a reasoned explanation.
Explanation of Non-Compliance: The explanation should provide shareholders with a clear understanding of why the company has chosen a different path. This might include describing the context, the specific circumstances of the company, and how alternative measures are consistent with the overarching principles of the code.
Engagement with Shareholders: Companies often engage with their shareholders to discuss governance arrangements, especially when deviating from the code’s provisions. This engagement is crucial for maintaining shareholder trust and support.
Review and Monitoring: Companies regularly review their governance practices against the code’s provisions. This ongoing process helps ensure that their practices remain appropriate and effective over time.
Reporting Outcomes: The updated 2024 Code encourages companies to report on outcomes and activities, which means that companies are expected to provide insights into how their governance practices have impacted their performance and strategy.

The ‘comply or explain’ approach is not about rigidly following rules but about ensuring that companies have governance frameworks that are most effective for their particular circumstances. It recognizes that one size does not fit all and that companies can be successful with different governance models, provided they are transparent about their practices and the reasons for any deviations from the standard code.

For more detailed insights into how companies apply the ‘comply or explain’ approach, the Financial Reporting Council’s website offers a wealth of information and guidance.

Example

An ‘explain’ statement is a key feature of the UK Corporate Governance Code’s ‘comply or explain’ approach. It allows a company to articulate its reasons for deviating from a specific provision of the Code. Here is a hypothetical example of what such a statement might look like:

To our shareholders,

In accordance with the UK Corporate Governance Code, we present our ‘explain’ statement concerning our deviation from Provision 18, which relates to the composition of the Audit Committee.

As per the Code, the Audit Committee should comprise at least three independent non-executive directors. However, our company has appointed only two independent non-executive directors to this committee during the reported period.

The decision to operate with a smaller Audit Committee was made in the context of our company’s current stage of development and the specific challenges we faced over the past year. Given the specialized nature of our industry and the scarcity of individuals with the requisite expertise, we found it challenging to recruit additional directors who met the independence criteria without compromising the necessary industry experience.

We believe that the current members of the Audit Committee possess a deep understanding of the sector and the complex financial mechanisms relevant to our business. Their expertise has been invaluable in navigating the intricate issues we encountered, which were exacerbated by the unique economic pressures of the past year.

We have taken measures to mitigate the risks associated with having fewer members on the Audit Committee. These include the implementation of additional oversight mechanisms and the engagement of external advisors to assist the committee in its duties.

Our commitment to good corporate governance remains steadfast, and we continue to seek qualified candidates to expand the Audit Committee. We anticipate resolving this deviation from the Code’s provisions in the upcoming financial year.

We appreciate our shareholders’ understanding and are open to engaging further on this matter.

This example illustrates how a company might explain its reasons for not complying with a particular provision of the Code. The statement provides context, justifies the company’s decision, outlines the mitigating actions taken, and indicates a commitment to aligning with the Code’s provisions in the future. It’s important to note that each ‘explain’ statement will be unique to the company’s circumstances and should be crafted to provide shareholders with a clear and comprehensive understanding of the situation.

Importance of Corporate Governance and the Shareholders’ Response

Shareholders’ responses to ‘explain’ statements in the context of the UK Corporate Governance Code can vary, but they generally expect clear and rational explanations for any deviations from the code. The ‘comply or explain’ approach is designed to foster an environment of transparency and accountability, allowing shareholders to understand the reasons behind a company’s governance choices.

When a company provides an ‘explain’ statement, shareholders typically:

Evaluate the Explanation: Shareholders assess the explanation provided to determine if it is reasonable and justifiable given the company’s specific circumstances.
Engage in Constructive Dialogue: Investors may engage in discussions with the company to better understand their governance practices and the rationale behind not complying with certain provisions of the code
Consider Company’s Individual Circumstances: Shareholders and their advisors are encouraged to consider the company’s unique situation when evaluating ‘explain’ statements, rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach to corporate governance.
Exercise Voting Rights: Shareholders may use their voting rights at annual general meetings to express their approval or disapproval of the company’s governance practices.
Seek Additional Information: If the explanation is not satisfactory, shareholders may request further information or clarification from the company’s board.
Monitor Company’s Performance: Shareholders often monitor the company’s performance to ensure that the alternative governance arrangements are effective and do not adversely affect the company’s long-term success.
Use Stewardship Code as a Guide: In line with the UK Stewardship Code, investors should engage constructively and discuss any departures from recommended practice with the company.

It’s important to note that while some investors may accept well-reasoned explanations, others may view deviations from the code more critically, especially if they believe it could negatively impact the company’s performance or governance standards. In some cases, persistent non-compliance without satisfactory explanations can lead to shareholder activism or a loss of investor confidence.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of the ‘comply or explain’ approach hinges on the quality of the explanations provided and the active engagement of shareholders in the governance process. Companies are encouraged to be as transparent and detailed as possible in their explanations to maintain trust and support from their investors.

If you require advice on corporate governance, contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

29 June 202429 June 2024

Engineer tragically died working near river

Openreach Limited has been fined £1.34 million in a prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an engineer tragically died working near river whilst trying to repair a telephone line.

Alun Owen, from Bethesda, died after he slipped and fell into the River Aber in Abergwyngregyn and was swept away on 6 October 2020. The 32-year-old has been described by his family as a ‘loving and selfless character’.

An investigation by the HSE and North Wales Police, found that a number of Openreach engineers had been attempting to repair the telephone lines, which ran across the river, over a period of two months. They had been working both near and in the river. At the time of the incident, there had been flooding in the area which meant the river was much higher and faster flowing than usual.

Mr Owen entered the water and made his way to an island in the middle of the river in order to try and throw a new telephone cable across to the other side by taping it to a hammer and then throwing the hammer. Whilst attempting to cross the remaining section of the river, he slipped in a deeper part and the force of the river swept him away.

The investigation found that there was no safe system of work in place for work on or near water, nor had Mr Owen – and others working by the river – received training, information or instruction on safe working on or near water.

Openreach Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £1.34 million and ordered to pay costs of £15,858.35 at Llandudno Magistrates’ Court on 5 June 2024.

“This was a tragic incident that resulted in the death of a much loved young man. Mr Owen’s family, friends and colleagues have always remained in our thoughts. His death would have been preventable had an effective system for working on or near water been in place. Mr Owen should not have been put in the unsafe working situation. Companies should learn the lessons from this incident if they have staff who may work on or near water and be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below the required standards.”
HSE inspector Christina Roberts

Engineer tragically died working near river

North Wales Police Detective Chief Inspector Andy Gibson said:

“Our thoughts remain with Alun’s family at this difficult time. North Wales Police worked closely with HSE and whilst it was a protracted and lengthy investigation, it was critical that any failings were identified and acted upon.”

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.

If you require advice on health and safety in your workplace, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.