News

Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings has applied for permission to appeal against its conviction under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, and the £385,000 fine imposed on them.

Under the legislation, the prosecution must prove that the way in which the relevant activities of the accused organisation were managed or organised caused a person's death, that there was a gross breach of the duty of care to the deceased and that the role of senior management in the offence was substantial. Referring to the background to the incident on 5 September 2008, which resulted in the death of junior geologist Alex Wright when a trench pit collapsed on him, the company's legal representative Kevin Bridges explained how Managing Director Peter Eaton left the trench site at the end of the working day and instructed Mr Wright to "finish up".

However, Mr Eaton did not realise that Mr Wright had gone against company practice and entered a 3.5m deep pit while unsupervised and with nobody else on the surface.

The prosecution had argued that the routine failure by the company to prohibit entry into pits deeper than 1.2m, and the failure of Mr Eaton to enforce such a ban, amounted to a gross breach of the duty of care. They went on to say that their own health and safety policy was ignored, as was relevant industry-specific guidance, British Standards and previous HSE advice.

In response, the defence admitted that the system of work was deficient and that there was a failure to provide specific training and conduct risk assessments and method statements for trial-pit work. In addition, they also failed to ensure their health and safety policy specifically related to trial-pits. Mr Bridges argued that none of the admitted failures related to the specific duty to ensure the safety of Mr Wright, as opposed to employees generally. The defence also suggested the industry guidance and British Standards were not specific and as prescriptive as the prosecution made out. They claimed that others in the industry adopted similar practices and that Mr Wright's entry into the pit that collapsed was contrary to company policy and was unforeseeable and unnecessary.

Given the significance of the case, a decision on whether Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings will be granted permission to appeal is expected within the next few weeks.

High street giant Marks and Spencer have been accused of failing to protect workers and shoppers in a series of alleged asbestos related failures between 2004 and 2006. The breaches were thought to have taken place when refurbishment work was being carried out at its stores in Reading, Bournemouth and Plymouth.

Richard Matthews, prosecuting, told Winchester Crown Court how the retailer had failed to properly plan its renovation work and that adequate surveys to pinpoint the location of asbestos in the shops were not carried out, despite the fact it was experienced at handling the dust and had its own code of practice for dealing with it.

As a consequence of those failures, shoppers, staff and contractors could have been exposed to the dust, it was claimed.

Mr Matthews said, "Marks and Spencer had a duty to make sure asbestos did not take those working in the store by surprise. If that meant making the store unsightly to customers or interfering with their shopping experience then so be it - better an unattractive store in the short-term than the risk of anything else in the long term."

Marks and Spencer had pleaded not guilty to breaching three counts of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 in relation to protecting its own staff, and three counts of that Act in relation to members of the public and other workers.

Co-defendants PA Realisations face one charge in relation to the spread of asbestos at the Reading store, and Wilmott Dixon Construction Limited face two charges relating to the Bournemouth store.

For more information, see the:

• Control of Asbestos Regulations SI 2006/2739.

A new online directory to help businesses find a health and safety consultant that they can trust to give sensible, expert advice was launched on 21 March.

More than 1,600 highly qualified professionals in the UK have signed up to the online Occupational Safety and Health Consultants Register (OSHCR). It has been created to increase employers' confidence that they are receiving good quality, proportionate health and safety advice should they need external help.

Before consultants can join the register, they must prove that they can meet strict eligibility criteria. Each must belong to a professional body, have a degree-level qualification, at least two years' experience and have demonstrated a commitment to continuing their professional development.

The Employment Minister Chris Grayling said, "We have launched an official Occupational Safety and Health Consultants Register for those health and safety practitioners who are properly accredited to one of the professional bodies in the industry. Those who do not have the requisite expertise and experience will be excluded from the register, making it easier for employers to access reliable, reputable advice."

OSHCR has been established by a number of professional bodies representing general safety and occupational health consultants, with support from the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Executive Northern Ireland. It is in response to the Government commissioned Common Sense, Common Safety report into the current health and safety regime, which called for improved competence in health and safety advice.

The register is now freely accessible and searchable at www.oshcr.org.

A green activist's plan to hold a "drumming for the planet" event with 50 friends in Galashiels, Selkirkshire has fallen foul of health and safety rules.

The activist, Alan Sutherland, who asked for permission to hold the event, was astonished when the local authority subsequently demanded £5million insurance cover. Mr Sutherland was informed that he would need to meet the whopping public liability insurance to meet health and safety rules. He was also told to supply a risk assessment and evidence that any damage will be made good.

Mr Sutherland criticised the red tape as being "over the top". He has vowed to go ahead with the event without permission and said, "It's ridiculous. It's not like I am planning a Borders version of T In The Park. I explained it wasn't going to be huge affair."

A spokesman for Scottish Borders Council confirmed Mr Sutherland would have to meet the rules outlined in its letter, stating, "This is a standard pack we send to event organisers." However, a TaxPayers' Alliance spokeswoman said, "Demanding such expensive insurance to cover a small gathering is pricing taxpayers out of their own park."

The Health and Safety Executive provide guidance (HSG195: The Event Guide) for those who organise music events so that the events run safely by bringing together the information needed by events organisers, their contractors and employees and help satisfy the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

The Government and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) are currently discussing a wider reform of health and safety compliance duties to work alongside Lord Young's proposed changes to risk assessment requirements for small businesses.

Speaking at the Health and Wellbeing at Work conference in Birmingham, Dr Bill Gunnyeon, Chief Medical Officer for the Department for Work and Pensions' (DWP) confirmed that Lord Young's review published last October had provided the "start point" for discussions between the HSE and the Government. Talks between the DWP and the HSE had been prompted by the funding cuts which were announced in the Government's recent Comprehensive Spending Review, which included a 35% reduction in the HSE's budget. This had led to early talks inside the HSE about cutting back on the number of proactive inspections they carry out.

Dr Gunnyeon commented, "How do we use the financial challenges and recommendations of Lord Young's review to change the way health and safety is managed? The Employment Minister is considering with the HSE on how we do that." He would not be drawn on what the potential changes may be, but said more details would be available in the coming months.

He went on to say that there had been a short hiatus after Lord Young's resignation as the Government's advisor on health and safety regulation and the compensation culture last November, but that the Prime Minister had given the Employment Minister responsibility for implementing Young's proposals contained in the report "Common Sense, Common Safety." So there are still plans to act on all the report's major recommendations, including a revised guidance for emergency services staff, an updated code of practice on adventure activities and amendments to the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) SI 1995/3163.

A victory has been achieved for campaigners concerned over the presence of toxic chemicals in household plastics, with the recent announcement of a ban on certain chemicals commonly used in plastic household items.

On February 17, the EU Commission announced that three plastic softening phthalates known as DEHP, BBP and DBP, the fragrance Musk Xylene, the flame-retardant HBCDD and the epoxy resin-hardener MDA, are to be banned within the next three to five years.

Although the most toxic phthalates have been banned in children's toys since 1999, a survey last October showed some are commonly found in products on supermarket shelves, including items regularly used by children, such as pencil cases and erasers.

This recent decision marks the first time chemicals have been banned under the EU Regulation on 'Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals' (REACH), which aims to make chemicals safer for human health and the environment by requiring businesses to prove their products are safe before they sell them.

However, companies will be allowed to apply for an exemption from the ban on using or selling the six chemicals by applying for an authorisation.

Any company wishing to be granted an authorisation will need to demonstrate they have safety measures in place to control risks, or that the benefits for the economy and society outweigh the risks of using the chemical.

"Chemicals are everywhere in the modern world and some of them can be very dangerous, " EU environment commissioner Janez Potocnik said. "This decision is an important step toward better protecting our health and the environment."

For more information, see:

• Regulation (EC) 1907/2006, on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicald (REACH).