It is an attempt to raise the safety bar in terms of providing safety advice to employers by consultants. The scheme is a voluntary one. An accreditation of this kind will help employers make the right selection when they seek safety advice from consultants. The scheme will be formally announced after finalizing all details. A formal certification of safety consultants will be the starting point of the scheme. As of now, the scheme will only cover consultants who deal with more conventional safety issues. Occupational safety and hygienic issues like chemical hazards are at the moment not covered under the accreditation scheme.

The scheme is not mandatory and those safety consultants who wish to get accreditation will have to pay a charge towards administration. An online register will be accessible to all members.

IOSH is one such organization that has been involved in the formulation of the scheme. Chief executive of the body Rob Strange said that IOSH agreed with Lord’s Young’s assessment that ‘cowboy consultants’ with their below-par standards of OTT advice, have given safety and health a bad name. Unqualified advice provided by such consultants put lives at risk. He added that it was important that businesses looking for safety advice, especially smaller firms, get good advice from competent consultants and can safely trust those providing the service. Both consultants and small businesses have expressed their support for an accreditation scheme. It will set a much-needed standard for qualified, experienced and competent safety and health consultants and contribute its bit to restore faith in health and safety.

On September 17, 2007, Duncan MacGillivray, instead of putting his car in reverse gear, accidentally put it in forward as he was trying to exit a parking bay. His car tipped off on the edge of the pier and fell three metres into the sea. Here, Mr. MacGillivray drowned. An investigation by the HSE found that there were only some barriers at the pier and the area where the victim had parked had none at all.

The case was heard by the Dunoon Sheriff Court. It was found that the council had assessed the risk to people using the car park despite being operated by the council. To prevent such accidents, sufficient edge protection had also not been provided by the council. Argyll and Bute Council was found guilty of breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

HSE Inspector Mike Orr commented that the accident, cause by drowning was tragic and it could have been prevented if suitable risk assessments had been conducted by the council. The apparent risks of an unprotected car park edge that led to a vertical drop into the sea should have been looked into by the council, which it failed to do causing this unfortunate accident.

He says that the care industry must take enough measures to ensure the proper risk assessment of the jobs they offer and that the homes are equipped with enough staff members. This is to ensure proper care of the employees.

Recently the Swan House care home had to pay its employee Ms. Hunt of Winslow, in Buckinghamshire, £12,500 in damages as she had been assaulted by an elderly patient. In September 2005, an elderly patient Jack Tooby caught Ms. Hunt in a headlock when she was assisting another patient to go to the bathroom. The dementia unit where this happened was staffed only by Ms. Hunt. She somehow managed to press the emergency alarm to contact a colleague.

Ms. Hunt sustained injuries to the neck, shoulder and nerves. Therefore, she had to resign from her job and take up a job teaching adults with learning difficulties.

David Thompson of Thompson solicitors says that the care home had failed to assess the risk it was posing to its employees. They also had failed to train the employees to face such problems. The care home had not taken into consideration that a patient with problems of violent behaviour could potentially be dangerous for the untrained personnel. He is of the opinion that the negligence of the company resulted in Ms. Hunt’s loss of employment.

This was in response to a consultation announced by the government on the requirements of “narrative” reporting.

The government has announced that the major objectives it proposes to achieve by this consultation are

1. The company narrative must be made coherent without increasing business regulation
2. The quality of the narrative must be increased to be on par with the best in the world. Special focus should be on social and environmental issues.
3. The shareholders must be able to access all the required information about the business thus giving them a degree of control over it.

The business minister Edward Davey seconds this opinion saying that increased empowerment of the shareholders must happen. The accountability of the directors must also increase. He says that though in this area a good record has been exhibited there is still a need to safeguard the rights of the shareholders. Indirectly this will also benefit the business as it will be forced to work on issues that will ensure its long term victory.

It aims to find possible ways by which students can be trained beforehand; to deal with hazards in the workplace in future, rather than learning through practical hazardous experiences after one is employed.

Jukka Takala, Director of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) considers education as an essential medium to create awareness of OSH in society.

However, the goals cannot become accomplished, by simply resorting to rote teaching methods about OSH and risk management, at the school level. It should be included in the university curriculum, to prepare young students to become smart entrepreneurs and employees in future, who can take safety measures in case of emergency.

However, the report draws attention to a number of problems. There is a shortage of teachers, who have mastery over the subject and there is a dearth of good books for university students. Most importantly, there is scarcity of funds to develop the curriculum for their specific needs.

There is also a concern about the methods adopted by the universities. They may limit the study of the subject to theory without inclusion of any practical knowledge.

The study, however, examines some successful cases of OSH implemented in Europe. It examined the reasons for its success, and how it can be replicated, elsewhere.

Finally, the study suggests for the development of the syllabus according to the practical needs of university, which means adopting a blend of OSH and risk management, which can be implemented in the university, for providing safety to students and other employees.

More than half (57%) of the business leaders who took part in the fourth ‘Health of the Workplace’ report by Aviva, said that work socialising usually meant drinking at the pub. Just one out of five (23%) employers conducted team-building days with a poor one out of ten (13%) organising sporting events for their workforce.

Though 45% of bosses said that it was not obligatory to drink alcohol at company events, only 7% of managers actively discouraged their employees from consuming too much alcohol. More than a quarter (27%) of employers said that would not sympathise with employees who called in sick the following day. About 26% said that they would find this behavior concerning and fear that it would be a negative influence on other employees.

About 40% of employers said that they would feel responsible for creating an unhealthy work environment if any worker called in sick the following day. Another 17% said that they would find the situation amusing provided it did not occur very often.

Even as trips to the pub were the most common form of socialising, the study found that just 23% of employers believe that alcohol can create a positive team spirit and help employees bond. One out of ten (10%) felt that they should attend special events to keep their employees happy while 33% weren’t very enthusiastic about attending such events.

Close to 52% of employees surveyed said that they were not very enthusiastic about socialising with their team at pubs. One out of five employees (21%) admitted that they didn’t enjoy socialising with colleagues.

Christopher Bennett, a 25- year veteran with GMFRA (Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service) felt that his back problems were being exacerbated after being forced to sleep on reclining chairs, which had replaced beds.

Mr. Bennett, in 2007, had requested the authority to permit him to use his own mattress to lie down during nightshifts as this form of ‘horizontal resting’ would be more comfortable. But his request was turned down and he was asked to lie down on the snooker room benches or make use of GMFRA’s rest facility.

He mailed his co-workers in February 2008, making reference to an article about firefighters who had faced disciplinary action for refusal to sleep on the reclining chairs, costing £400, and asked them if the chairs had resulted in back pain. Following this, he was fired on grounds of gross misconduct. His appeal to reconsider the decision was also rejected.

The Tribunal ruled the dismissal as being unfair and a violation of Mr. Bennett’s right to freedom of expression (under the Human Rights Act). Following a seven-day hearing in June and September ’09, the Tribunal declared that Mr. Bennett, through his mail, was protecting public safety. The Tribunal felt that the email had a public and political significance attached to it, as it emphasised how important it was for firefighters to be fit and alert to attend to fires and rescue efforts. The case has been settled out of court with Mr. Bennett receiving compensation to the tune of £80,000.

Ms Ross quoted the Piper Alpha tragedy and how the North Sea safety underwent a transformation following an inquiry by Lord Cullen. Even as there are ongoing efforts to improve safety standards on the UKCS (United Kingdom Continental Shelf), the SCR here has worked successfully. Norway and UK are recognized for their safety regimes that can be used as a prototype to develop a global safety standard.

She said that American officials had visited UK to understand the working of its safety system. Those from the oil sector had to face different standards as they traveled the world on various work-related matters, even if they were working for one company. She commented that an international standard would bring about homogeneity and help oil professionals. She also added that different requirements, regulators and focuses result in non-homogeneous standards. The industry can shape systems to satisfy the legalities in the regions where professionals are required to work.

Ms Ross said that it was high time that stakeholders and regulatory authorities held a meeting to develop the standards. With the current pressure facing the industry, if it fails to take a responsible step, then it is likely that standards will be enforced on them. She argued that if a global foods standard can work so well, then surely can one for the oil and gas industry.

Bond Pearce is organizing an international meet in Aberdeen, where Ms Ross is scheduled to present her speech, calling for an international oil and gas industry safety standard.

An incident which occurred in 2007 brought to light the lack of safety precautions at the HPA. E coli O157 bacteria was spilled on the floor of the Centre for Infections located in Colindale. This caused the staff members who were present in the vicinity to be exposed to the bacteria. The spillage put them all at risk of contracting an infection.

The accident occurred when the bacterium was being transported for disposal to the hazardous waste disposal unit in the facility. It was found that the employees who were in charge of executing this task were not properly trained in the safety norms to be followed in the task.

HSE investigators further found that some equipment which had been found faulty almost a year and a half back were still malfunctioning at the time of the spillage. This showed a definite disregard for the safety of the staff employed there.

The E Coli bacterium is classified as a level 3 health hazard. Biological agents such as this are classified according to different levels of risk with level 4 being the most hazardous. The HPA facility was lacking in adequate safety measures to tackle a hazard of this nature, the HSE investigators found.

Following these revelations, HSE has charged the HPA with violating the safety provisions in the Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The case was heard at the City of London Magistrates where a fine to the tune of £25,000 and costs of £20,166.10 were imposed on the HPA.

Following the sentencing, HSE inspector Higham pointed out that when there are special safety measures outlined for handling such bacteria there is a need for such facilities to understand the importance of using them too. Absence of these safety regulations led to the exposure of many employees to these risks, she said.

The incident took place at Middleton’s Stakehill Industrial Estate on July 15’ 05. The company was prosecuted by the HSE for not failure to safeguard the health and safety of its employees and not providing suitable First-Aid training to an on-duty worker.

Last year, there were more than 30 fatalities and close to 22,000 severe injuries reported in the manufacturing industry.

Abel Lages was busy cleaning the yard when a wooden pallet filled with 55 bags of polypropylene dropped down on him. He was stuck inside and died after sustaining serious injuries. Polypropylene is used to make plastic items such as buckets and washing bowls. It is unsafe to stack the material as it can very easily tip out of a hole in the bag and make the sack lop-sided.

HSE’s Principal Inspector in the Greater Manchester region, John McGrellis said that TS (UK) had failed to ensure the safety of its employees. He said that Lages’ death could have been avoided if the company hadn’t been negligent. McGrellis added that polypropylene bags contained labels that clearly described how to store the bags safely, but the company had been indifferent to this advice.

The company pleaded guilty to violating Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and Regulation 3(2) of the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981. Apart from a £140,000 fine, it had to pay up £10,588 towards costs of prosecution.