Innov8 Safety Solutions managing director, Alan Robson, said he is delighted to announce the appointment of Karl Tindale as the firm’s new technical director and Karen Steele as PA and office manager.

“Both Karl and Karen bring a great deal of energy and experience to the team,” he said. “Karl brings a wealth of knowledge from his 22 years construction health and safety experience. Karen meanwhile has a breadth of experience gained in the public and private sectors. Innov8 has won a lot of new business this year and is ambitious to grow further. Karl and Karen will help thrust the business forward into 2012.”

Having worked for a raft of high profile construction and health and safety organisations including Balfour Beatty and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Mr Tindale said he is looking forward to starting his role at Innov8.

“I am very excited at the prospect of working with Alan and his team,” said Mr Tindale. “There is a lot happening at Innov8 at the moment, the company is growing across the region and has a number of big name clients. I am really looking forward to working with Alan to grow the company.”

While Mr Tindale amassed his experience in the Northwest construction industry, Karen Steele will be coming back to the Northwest after living inCornwallfor seven years where she was the PA and HR manager for a major accountancy firm inTruro.

“This is a tremendous opportunity to join a dynamic, growing ambitious business,” she said.

Original Source

Alister McNeilly, 26, worked for Brian George Mackie, who traded as roofing contractor Donside Slating.

Aberdeen Sheriff Court heard that on 10 November 2010, Mr McNeilly was working with a colleague to fix lead onto the flat roof area of a house in Strathdon.

Mr McNeilly was throwing lead cut-offs onto the ground while standing on the flat roof when he either slipped or inadvertently stepped off the edge. He lost his balance and fell five metres to the ground, landing near a skip.

His right hip ball joint was severed from his thigh bone and a metal plate and four pins had to be inserted. He was in hospital for four days and was off work for 16 weeks. He still experiences pain in his hip.

A subsequent investigation by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) found that no scaffold platform with guard-rails and toe-boards or any other form of fall prevention equipment were in place to prevent falls.

The investigation also revealed that Mr Mackie had not been to the site for several days prior to the incident and had not given any instructions about how to do the work.

Brian George Mackie, 43, of Auld Kirk, Rough Park, Strathdon, was fined £15,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 4 of The Work at Height Regulations 2005.

After sentencing, HSE inspector Liz Standen said: “Mr McNeilly was very lucky to survive a five metre fall. He suffered serious injuries because his employer did not ensure that the flat roof area was safe to use, with the necessary fall prevention equipment in place, before work started and he did not given any specific instructions about how to carry out the work safely.

“This incident was completely avoidable if Mr Mackie had planned the work in advance and simple measures such as suitable barriers had been in place.”

Full Story

Despite the considerable efforts made by the HSE, IOSH and others to engage and help small businesses by providing tailored information in formats that are easy to understand and access, more than 75 per cent of those questioned by IOSH said “better access to free, high-quality health and safety guidance” would benefit their companies.

They also stipulated that employer-liability insurance premiums should be reduced to recognise good health and safety management – another benefit that has been available and heavily publicised for some time.

In all, 1001 decision-makers in businesses with workforces of up to 250 employees took part in the Safety in numbers? survey, published today (10 May). Almost two thirds of them said they would also welcome tax breaks to provide subsidised employee access to public gyms, or sports facilities, while around half felt that tax breaks for employee therapy for non work-related injury or illness would encourage them to provide more health support.

These findings support the recommendations of Dame Carol Black and David Frost’s recent review of sickness absence for the Government. In it, the authors suggest tax breaks for employers who invest in helping retain injured, or ill workers to speed their return to work via treatments or vocational rehabilitation, as well as the continuation of tax relief for employee assistance programmes. The Government has yet to respond to the review.

Commented IOSH chief executive, Rob Strange OBE: “We think modest Government investment could yield enormous benefits in productivity and fewer demands on the State. Firms wanting to the do the right thing and support their workers should be helped to do so. Good health and safety is good for business and for tax-payers, too!”

Just how good for business health and safety interventions can be was underlined by the finding that one in seven survey respondents were able to pinpoint financial gains of more than £1000 for their businesses. Furthermore, 31 per cent felt better health and safety management would result in higher productivity, 26 per cent said it would improve staff retention, and 20 per cent believed it would lead to increased business for their companies.

However, such positive beliefs were more common in the larger SMEs. From among the smaller companies IOSH quotes a variety of comments received from respondents, including one who described their company’s attitude to health and safety as “blasé”, another as “lackadaisical”, and another as “lacklustre”.

Richard Jones, head of policy and public affairs at IOSH, while welcoming the positive nature of the majority of responses, said: “The negative comments are very concerning, and we think better guidance, education and training are all vital for improving attitudes.”

The HSE, asked by SHP to comment on the apparent lack of awareness among SMEs of the many resources available, said: “We seek to provide effective guidance and are currently overhauling our guidance portfolio to ensure it offers a practical, proportionate approach for organizations to help them comply with the law.

“We are focusing on externally-facing publications, Web guidance and tools that have application across business sectors. Early indications are that the revised guidance is easier both to locate and read.”

At a special lunch for IOSH’s honorary vice-presidents hosted by The Lord Brougham and Vaux at the House of Lords today (10 May), the Institution’s president, Subash Ludhra, emphasised that there is “much more to be done in a sector that makes up the bulk of the UK workforce”.

He added: “The bottom line is that, with a few changes, those working for SMEs could have a better quality of life, better health, and become more productive. A modest investment by government should yield huge benefits. Basically, firms wanting to do the right thing should be helped as much as possible to do so.”

Unnecessary electrical safety tests cost office-based businesses an estimated £30 million a year, but it’s a myth that every portable electrical appliance in the workplace needs to be tested once a year.

According to the safety watchdog, misleading advice and advertising – often, by companies who offer the testing – is contributing to low-risk businesses, such as offices, shops and hotels, paying unnecessarily for excessive maintenance regimes.

The message from the HSE is that employers need only ensure that electrical equipment is maintained in order to prevent danger – as the law does not stipulate that every item has to be tested, or how often testing needs to be carried out.

While the testing of appliances can contribute to an effective maintenance regime, in a low-risk environment most dangerous defects can be identified simply by checking the devices for obvious signs of damage, such as frayed cables, advises the Executive.

Launching the revised guidance on portable appliance testing (PAT), HSE chair Judith Hackitt said: “Businesses are responsible for protecting their employees, but they shouldn’t be wasting their money on unnecessary checks that have no real benefit.

“HSE has always advocated a proportionate, risk-based approach to maintenance. This new guidance is simple and clear to follow.”

The guidance has been revised in response to Professor Löfstedt’s independent report on health and safety legislation, which concluded that the legal requirements concerning maintenance of electrical appliances were "applied too widely and disproportionately", resulting in costly over-compliance.

Nick Starling, director of general insurance at the Association of British Insurers, added: “Insurers have never required policy-holders to undertake unnecessary portable electrical appliance tests that are not proportionate to the risk.

“We welcome HSE’s guidance, which will help businesses focus on what they do best, free from worries about health and safety myths.”

The guidance, Maintaining portable electrical equipment in low-risk environments, is available at www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg236.pdf

Original Source

This is one of the key findings from a major evaluation of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007, carried out on behalf of the HSE by Frontline Consultants.

When the Regulations came into force in April 2007, it was agreed that, following a period of operation, they would be evaluated to establish: to what extent they had met their objectives; and the cost implications for the construction industry of compliance. Completion of the evaluation by April 2012 was also a recommendation of the Löfstedt Report, which emphasised the need for a clearer expression of duties, a reduction of bureaucracy, and tailored guidance for small projects.

According to the report’s authors, the results of the evaluation show that:

• CDM 2007 has gone a long way to meeting its objectives, but some concerns remain within the industry;
• construction design, management and site practices have improved between 2006 and 2010;
• a cost impact was associated with CDM 2007, but respondents rated the benefits obtained higher than the costs; and
• industry practice was found to have a significant influence on how CDM 2007 is implemented.

On this final point, the report emphasises the negative impact of the recession on good practice. Industry stakeholders questioned as part of the evaluation told the researchers that when tendering for work, offering the lowest price was often more important than having specific competence.

Respondents also noted that both budgets and timescales were being reduced as part of the procurement process and, as a result, effort was being focused primarily on the core activities of ‘getting the work done’, rather than the values expressed in CDM of coordination and cooperation.

“In the current economic climate, purchasers have the upper hand,” the report’s authors concluded. “This can lead to contractors, designers and coordinators being unwilling to challenge a client’s demands. As a result, actions can be implemented that are not compatible with either the spirit or letter of CDM 2007 – for example, starting work without the appointment of a coordinator, or starting work on site without the required pre­construction information, or planning.

The report also highlights that CDM has had little effect on reducing paperwork and bureaucracy – despite one of the legislation’s key objectives being to simplify the assessment of competence for both individuals and organisations.

Respondents expressed concerns about the proliferation of competence assessment schemes, specifically that:

• both the registration fees and the time taken to complete the registration process were too much of a burden;
• where procurers specified the need for organisations to be registered with a particular scheme, they would not accept registration with an alternative
• scheme as evidence that the competence requirements had been met; and
• further submissions need to be completed every year or so to keep the registration live – costing more time and money.

Concerns were also expressed that some organisations were trying to use clauses in contracts to wriggle out of their CDM responsibilities – seemingly unaware that the requirements of CDM 2007 are based in criminal law and outweigh any requirements in contracts between duty-holders.

The report makes no recommendations for changes to CDM 2007, but the HSE notes that the evidence it contains will inform policy development in this area.

A spokeswoman told SHP: “HSE will consider the evaluation of the CDM 2007 research report alongside the other Government reviews of legislation and the Löfstedt recommendations. Any proposed changes to the current regulations would be subject to HSE Board approval and open to extensive public consultation.”

The report is available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr920.htm

Original Source

‘The safe maintenance campaign is drawing record levels of involvement with our Europe-wide network of focal points and more than 50 companies and organisations that joined as Official Campaign Partners’, explains Dr. Christa Sedlatschek, Director of EU-OSHA. ‘Since April 2010, the campaign has mobilised some 10,000 people though more than a hundred partnership meetings and a series of media activities, to bring safe maintenance to the fore. Benefits for organisations of being a campaign partner include greater employee engagement (43%) and better networking activities (64%)’, she continues.

The European Week will consolidate these activities, with many of the Healthy Workplaces Campaign events focused around this week.

The new Safe Maintenance Magazine features articles demonstrating a wide range of maintenance-related issues that impact safety and health in the workplace, including maintenance organisation and planning, risk assessment, human behavior, chemical safety, design, subcontracting, communication and inspection of personal protective equipment.

A wide variety of campaign material is available in 24 languages to download from the Healthy Workplaces Campaign website.

Tender Management Consultancy Ltd (TMC), PR agency Paver Smith and Curiosity Research have reported contracts in excess of £400,000 since joining Liverpool in London.

TMC, which was given a Liverpool Vision startup grant of £500 in 2008, have secured contracts with two London-based businesses who have been pitching for business with a combined total in excess of £600m; a large international company based in London working on a £150m contract; and are now in final negotiations with two other companies with global reach pitching for business worth around £1200m.

Additionally they have picked up several smaller contracts with London-based SMEs.

Jim Williams, managing director of TMC, said: “Having a presence in London has grown our business significantly by supporting us winning eight contracts with new clients based in London, one of which was secured in the last couple of weeks.

“This has amounted to around £190k of new business and has been realised through our membership of Liverpool in London. As a result of our contracts won in London we have expanded our Liverpool team to 10 people and have moved to new offices in the Connect Business Village in Derby Road.

“Liverpool in London has not only given us access to their networks, but being able to host the final contract meetings with potential clients in the boardroom surrounded by Liverpool facts, figures and iconic imagery has proved a real icebreaker and clearly a winning introduction to our city.”

Paver Smith, who have joined forces with Liverpool Vision to form the Liverpool in London business club which held its inaugural meeting last week, have reported picking up business worth more than £100k while Curiosity Research have secured a £100k plus contract.

The news comes as a further six organisations confirm their membership of the Liverpool in London office, based at the former home of the Royal Mint at Tower Hill.

Balfour Beatty, Brock Carmichael, Countryside Neptune, Fraser Wealth Management, Innov8 Safety Solutions and Liverpool Hope University join 14 others as members of Liverpool in London.

Chris Heyes, Head of Liverpool’s London office, said: “All our organisations are superb ambassadors for the city. They are seeing an opportunity in the lucrative south east market and taking it and it would have been much harder for them to have won this business if they didn’t have this base in London.

“The Liverpool in London office is not just about selling the city in the capital, it is also about Liverpool businesses meeting key decision makers and creating their own business opportunities.

“Even if an organisation already has a London base our facilities can offer them something unique as well as access to a range of exclusive events that come from Liverpool’s strong relationships with groups and other organisations at the heart of UK business.”

Membership of Liverpool’s London office gives an organisation a London office address, from where they can work, use the meeting facilities and more easily plot an expansion into the London market.

The office is supported full time by Liverpool staff who act as a point of contact and ensure meetings run smoothly. Staff can also provide business connections and invitations to relevant events.

Cllr Joe Anderson, Leader of Liverpool City Council added: “This is precisely why we established an office in London, to help our own businesses get a foothold in the capital to grow their business and create the wealth our city needs.

“I congratulate them and thank the new members for supporting our city in London. They are also helping to spread the word that Liverpool is open for business and a great place in which to invest.”

IBT Contracting Ltd was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after carrying out the work at a former photography factory in Staveley near Kendal during August and September 2011, despite not having a licence to remove asbestos.

The IBT Contracting Ltd demolition site
Kendal Magistrates’ Court heard IBT had been given a survey by the owners of the site ahead of the work taking place, which stated that the building contained 166 square metres of asbestos ceiling tiles.

But the company failed to arrange for a licensed contractor to remove the tiles safely, and instead released deadly asbestos fibres into the air during the building’s demolition.

Since coming to office in 2010, the coalition Government commissioned Lord Young to carry out a review of the health and safety culture, entitled Common sense, common safety. In addition, last year it commissioned the Löfstedt review, which called for the simplification of some regulation and a rethink around the concept of risk.

The IOSH study will assess how these and the Government’s response will affect the health and safety landscape, and occupational health and safety practitioners.

Research programme director professor Robert Dingwall said: “There is a serious concern that the flexibility created by a lighter touch from public agencies will actually be lost in an expansion of private rules from other interested parties, like insurance companies. This project will help to tell us what is happening on the ground.”

In a separate development, IOSH has urged the media, politicians, companies and health and safety professionals to “think long and hard about their perception of health and safety”.

IOSH president Subash Ludhra spoke at the IOSH “Changing Perceptions” conference on the subject in Manchester in March.

He said: “To those who tell us we can’t afford health and safety, as professionals we need to let them know they simply can’t afford to be without it.

“Health and safety is never seen as a joke when it’s there to protect our nearest and dearest. Together, if we can change the perceptions of employers, the media, politicians and the public, I’m confident that we will be stronger and safer than ever.”

In practice, the changes are fairly limited and mean that some types of non-licensed work with asbestos now have additional requirements, i.e. notification of work, medical surveillance and record keeping. All other requirements remain unchanged, e.g. relating to licensed work with asbestos, duty to manage, risk assessment, the asbestos control limit, control measures and training requirements.

Further information will be available from 6 April on HSE’s Asbestos website: http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/index.htm