HSE releases annual agriculture fatality figures · and Safety Executive (HSE). Released on the first day of Farm Safety Week, HSE’s annual agricultural fatal injury statistics

t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2018)

July 2018

The agricultural industry still has the highest rate of fatal injury in

Great Britain according to the latest statistics released by the Health

and Safety Executive (HSE). Released on the first day of Farm Safety

Week, HSE’s annual agricultural fatal injury statistics have revealed

that a total of 33 deaths were recorded in the sector between March

2017 and April 2018.

29 agricultural workers were killed at work with an additional four

members of the public – two of them children – also dying. While this

is an increase of four deaths compared with 2016/17 and one more

than the five-year average of 32, the number is broadly similar to that

seen in recent years.

The average rate of fatal injury in agriculture is 8.44 deaths per

100,000 workers, the highest of any sector and 18 times higher than

the all-industry average. Rick Brunt, Head of Agriculture at HSE said:

“While we are seeing signs of an industry eager to improve this

record, the high death rate emphasises the need for determined

action by all involved in the farming industry if we are to bring about

a real change to these appalling figures.”

The top causes of death on a farm, were:

• Being injured by an animal (8)

• Being struck by a moving vehicle (6)

• Being trapped by something collapsing (5)

• Being struck by an object (4)

• Falling from height (3).

Although the order of the top killers fluctuates each year, the overall

top four or five causes of death in the farming industry have

remained static for years.

The statistics also revealed that nearly half of the agricultural workers

killed last year were over 65.

The youngest person killed was four-years-old and the oldest was 85.

The full statistics can be accessed at:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/agriculture/resources/fatal.htm

HSE releases annual agriculture fatality figures

To subscribe to this free

newsletter, just send us email us

at [email protected]

Previous copies are available at

www.hsqe.co.uk/downloads/

Information for those with an interest in

health, safety, quality and the environment

(HSQE).

http://www.hse.gov.uk/agriculture/resources/fatal.htm

mailto:[email protected]?subject=Please%20continue%20to%20send%20me%20the%20HSQE%20Newsletter

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/downloads/


July 2018

Approved health & safety courses available at www.hsqe.co.uk

We are currently upgrading all purchases of

IOSH Managing Safely to our IOSH Managing

Safely Bonus Bundle at no extra cost. So you

will receive full versions of these IATP/RoSPA

and CPD approved courses, plus a full version

of IOSH Managing Safely, for just £135 +vat.

You can find out more at:

www.hsqe.co.uk/course/iosh-managing-safely

get these too at

no extra cost.

Buy this for

£135+vat and ...

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/iosh-managing-safely/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/coshh/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/asbestos-awareness/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/working-at-height/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/courses/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/manual-handling/



July 2018

What is heat stress?

The body reacts to heat by increasing the blood flow to the

skin’s surface, and by sweating. This results in cooling as

sweat evaporates from the body’s surface and heat is

carried to the surface of the body from within by the

increased blood flow. Heat can also be lost by radiation and

convection from the body’s surface. Heat stress occurs

when the body’s means of controlling its internal

temperature starts to fail.

Heat stress does not just happen in summer

Many workplaces can have an issue with heat stress

throughout the year, such as bakeries, kitchens, foundries

and work in confined spaces. Other workplaces may only be

at risk during hot summer months, such as the heatwave

that we are currently experiencing.

The symptoms

Typical symptoms of heat stress are:

• an inability to concentrate

• muscle cramps

• heat rash

• severe thirst - a late symptom of heat stress

• fainting

• heat exhaustion - fatigue, giddiness, nausea, headache,

moist skin

• heat stroke - hot dry skin, confusion, convulsions and

eventual loss of consciousness. This can result in death

if not detected at an early stage

Heat stress can affect individuals in different ways, and

some people are more susceptible to it than others.

Risk assessment

The HSE advise the main factors to consider while carrying

out a risk assessment are:

• Work rate - the harder someone works the greater the

amount of body heat generated

• Working climate - this includes air temperature,

humidity, air movement and effects of working near a

heat source

• Employee clothing and respiratory protective

equipment - may impair the efficiency of sweating and

other means of temperature regulation

• Employee’s age, build and medical factors - may affect

an individual’s tolerance

Reducing the risk

• Control the temperature - by using engineering

solutions such as changing the process, using fans and/

or air conditioning and/or using physical barriers that

reduce exposure to radiant heat

• Regulate the length of exposure to hot environments -

Allow people to enter only when the temperature is

cooler or during cooler times of the day; use permits to

work that specify how long people should work in

situations where there is a risk; and providing periodic

rest breaks and rest facilities in cooler conditions

• Provide mechanical aids - where possible, to help

reduce the amount of manual handling necessary

• Prevent dehydration - Water used for sweating needs to

be replaced. Provide cool water in the workplace and

encourage workers to drink it frequently in small

amounts

• Provide personal protective equipment - Specialised PPE

is available, such as personal cooling systems and

breathable fabrics.

• Training - provide training, especially for new and young

employees telling them about the risks of heat stress

associated with their work, what symptoms to look out

for, safe working practices and emergency procedures

• Acclimatisation - Allow workers to acclimatise to their

environment and identify which workers are

acclimatised/assessed as fit to work in hot conditions.

• Identify who is at risk - Identify workers who are more

susceptible to heat stress either because of an illness/

condition or medication that may encourage the early

onset of heat stress

• Monitor health of workers at risk - where a residual risk

remains

More information

Take a look at the HSE’s temperature webpage at:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/temperature/index.htm

The HSE also provide a useful heat stress checklist, which is

available at:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/temperature/assets/docs/heat-

stress-checklist.pdf

EXP

LAIN

ER:

Hea

t st

ress

http://www.hse.gov.uk/temperature/index.htm

http://www.hse.gov.uk/temperature/assets/docs/heat-stress-checklist.pdf

http://www.hse.gov.uk/temperature/assets/docs/heat-stress-checklist.pdf


July 2018

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has released its annual

figures for work-related fatal injuries for 2017/18, as well as

the number of people known to have died from the asbestos-

related cancer, mesothelioma, in 2016.

The data for work-related fatal injuries revealed that 144

workers were fatally injured between April 17 and March 18.

Although the 2017/18 figures represent an increase of nine

fatalities from 2016/17, there has been a long-term reduction

in the number of fatalities since 1981 and the number has

remained broadly level in recent years.

In recent years the number of fatal injuries has been:

• 2016/17 – 135 workers died

• 2015/16 – 147 workers died

• 2014/15 – 142 workers died

• 2013/14 – 136 workers died

• 2012/13 – 150 workers died

• 2011/12 – 171 workers died

The most common causes of fatal injuries continue to be due

to:

• Workers falling from height (35)

• Being struck by a moving vehicle (26)

• Being struck by a moving object (23)

• Trapped by something collapsing/overturning (16)

• Contact with moving machinery (13)

The new figures show how fatal injuries are spread across the

different industrial sectors:

• 38 fatal injuries to construction workers were recorded,

accounting for the largest share of any industry. The annual

average rate over the last five years in construction is

around four times as high as the all industry rate.

• 29 fatal injuries to agricultural workers were recorded. This

sector continues to account for a large share of the annual

fatality count. It has the highest rate of fatal injury of all the

main industry sectors, around 18 times as high as the all

industry rate.

• 12 fatal injuries to waste and recycling workers were

recorded. Despite being a relatively small sector in terms of

employment, the annual average fatal injury rate over the

last five years is around 16 times as high as the all industry

rate.

• 15 fatal injuries were recorded in both the manufacturing

and the transport and storage sectors. Both industries have

an annual average rate of fatal injury around 1.5 – 2 times

the rate across all industries over the last five years.

The new figures also highlight the risks to older workers; 40

per cent of fatal injuries in 2017/18 were to workers aged 60

or over, even though such workers made up only around 10

per cent of the workforce.

In addition, there were also 100 members of the public fatally

injured in incidents connected to work in 2017/18 with just

over half of these fatalities occurring on railways.

Asbestos fibres are a major cause of Mesothelioma

Mesothelioma, contracted through past exposure to asbestos

and one of the few work-related diseases where deaths can be

counted directly, killed 2,595 people in Great Britain in 2016.

The current figures are largely a consequence of occupational

asbestos exposures that occurred before 1980. Annual deaths

are expected to remain broadly at current levels for the rest of

the decade before beginning to decline.

A fuller assessment of work related ill-health and injuries,

drawing on HSE’s full range of data sources, will be provided as

part of the annual Health and Safety Statistics release on 31

October 2018

Key lessons

It is important to remember that behind these numbers are

real people that had their lives cut short due to injury and ill

health caused by their work.

The HSE release preliminary annual fatality statistics


July 2018

Director jailed after Hoddesdon explosion led to death of two brothers Worker struck by fence panels

Simon Thomerson has been sentenced to 8 months in custody

after pleading guilty to a health and safety breach that resulted

in the death of two brothers.

Luton Crown Court heard how Mr Thomerson, the sole owner

and director of Clearview Design and Construction Ltd, had

been contracted by the owners of an industrial park in

Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire to refurbish several of the units.

Brothers Ardian and Jashar Lamallari had been employed as

labourers and were working inside the unit at 16:45 on 3

October 2015 when an explosive fire occurred within one of

the units.

Both brothers suffered near 100 per cent burns and died

within 12 hours of the incident. A third man who was working

with them also suffered severe burns, but survived.

A joint investigation by Hertfordshire Constabulary and the

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Mr Thomerson

had supplied the three men with several litres of highly

flammable “thinners”, which they then poured onto the floor

of the unit to remove old dried carpet tile adhesive.

The investigation found that Mr Thomerson had given no

serious consideration to the safe use of the thinners, despite

the obvious warnings on the containers. The vapour spread

over an area up to half the size of a tennis court and was

ignited by one of several possible ignition sources that were in

the area.

Mr Thomerson pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3 (1) of the

Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. He received a

custodial sentence of 8 months and was ordered to pay a

victim surcharge of £170.

Detective Inspector Justine Jenkins from the Bedfordshire,

Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Major Crime Unit who led

the investigation said:

“This was a tragic event that led to the death of two men in

absolutely horrific circumstances. We have worked closely with

HSE and our other partner agencies to ensure that the failings

by those in control of the site were identified and prosecuted

and are satisfied that the sentence delivered today reflects the

seriousness of those failings.”

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Paul Hoskins said:

“This tragic incident led to the wholly avoidable death of two

brothers, Ardian and Jashar, destroying the lives of their young

families.

“The risks of using highly flammable liquids are well known,

and employers should make sure they properly assess the risks

from such substances, and use safer alternatives where

possible. Where the use of flammable solvents is unavoidable,

then the method and environment must be strictly controlled

to prevent any ignition.”

Key lessons

A suitable and sufficient risk assessment should have identified

the risks associated with the work and flammable substances

being used, so that an alternative substance and a safe system

of work could have be established instead.

Key lessons

Make sure you have an effective process for reporting and

investigating incidents, including near misses.

Liverpool Magistrates’ Court heard how, on 23 February 2017,

John Evans, an employee of Blok N Mesh Limited had been

helping to manually load fencing panels into shipping

containers when approximately 34 panels fell on him. Mr

Evans suffered injuries as a result including; a broken left

shoulder, fractured vertebrae in his neck, two broken ribs,

contusions to his lungs, and soft tissue damage to his face.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE),

found that workers were put at risk by the company not having

suitable control measures in place to load the panels and to

prevent them from falling. There had been two previous

incidents, which should have acted as a warning to the

company that the loading procedure was dangerous.

The investigation also found that the company failed to ensure

that work was sufficiently planned, risks were assessed and

controlled and that a safe system of work was in place. The

company subsequently loaded the fencing using specially

designed stillages, eliminating the need for workers to be

inside the container, and therefore significantly reducing the

risk of injury.

Blok N Mesh Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1)

and Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act

1974, was fined £260,000 and ordered to pay costs of

£5,177.30.


July 2018

IOSH Safety for Executives

and Directors is for senior

staff with strategic

responsibility for health and

safety. It is suited to

executives, directors and

board members. It explains

the case for good health

and safety performance,

along with how health and

safety can be managed

along side other

organisational priorities.

Assessment is via a tutor-

marked personal statement.

IOSH Managing Safely is

relevant to all industries and

organisations. It provides

information about key

health and safety risks

encountered in the

workplace and how those

risks can be managed in a

pragmatic way. It is suited

to managers, supervisors

and employee

representatives. Assessment

is via an online exam and

tutor-marked risk

assessment project.

IOSH Managing Safely in

Construction provides

information about the

construction industry, the

risks that it presents and

how those risks can be

managed in a pragmatic

way. It also covers key

legislation and roles and

responsibilities. It is suited

to managers, supervisors

and employee

representatives. Assessment

is via an online exam and

tutor-marked project.

IOSH Working Safely is

relevant to people in all

industries and

organisations. It provides

information about how

everyone can enhance their

safety, health and

wellbeing through everyday

behaviours.

Rated

“EXCELLENT”

During the 2018 quality assurance

review conducted by IOSH

Rated

“OUTSTANDING”

We are committed to

providing approved

training in vital skills at

an affordable price.

Find out more about us

at www.hsqe.co.uk

Approved online IOSH courses available at www.hsqe.co.uk


https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/iosh-working-safely/


July 2018

A Scunthorpe-based roofing contractor has been sentenced for

safety breaches after a worker suffered numerous fractures

following a fall through a fragile roof.

Grimsby Magistrates court heard how, between 11 September

2016 and 1 October 2016, the employee of Broadley Roofing

Ltd was working on a roof while the company were carrying

out external refurbishment of the warehouse of a former retail

store at Skippingdale Industrial Estate. Scunthorpe. On 30

September 2016, the worker was on the roof working when he

fell six metres on to a solid concrete floor. He suffered

fractures including his vertebrae, shoulder, ankle, and ribs.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

found that while unsecured boards had been provided to cover

nearby roof lights, the company failed to provide any other

control measures to prevent falls through the roof while the

roof sheets were being replaced.

Broadley Roofing Limited of Hebden Road, Scunthorpe, North

Lincolnshire pleaded guilty to breaching both Regulation 4(1)

and Regulation 9(2) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005

and has been fined £53,000 and ordered to pay £2,465.15 in

costs.

An Essex-based construction company has been sentenced

after two workers were seen working unsafely on a 12.5m high

pitched roof in Cardiff.

Cardiff Magistrates’ Court heard how, in August 2015, during

repair work on the roof at a Homebase store in Llanishen, a

HSE inspector witnessed two workers working on a roof which

had unprotected potentially fragile roof lights, without

sufficient control measures in place.


found the work created a risk of injury to employees from

falling from or through the roof, and to members of the public

from falling objects. The investigation found suitable and

sufficient measures had not been taken to protect employees,

such as completing the work from the basket of a mobile

elevated work platform and that members of the public had

not been protected from falling objects, by closing the store or

cordoning off below the work area. Survey Roofing Group Ltd

and the Survey Roofing Group companies, which share many of

the same directors, have received previous advice and

enforcement from HSE regarding unsafe work at height.

Key lessons

All work at height must be properly planned, including short-

term reactive work, so workers and members of the public are

not put at risk.

Survey Roofing Group Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Section 6

(3) and 10(2) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005, was

fined £36,666 and ordered to pay costs of £28,856.39.

A Leicester-based packaging manufacturer has been sentenced

after an employee suffered severe injuries to a number of his

fingers.

Leicester Crown Court heard how, on 4 March 2016, an

employee of CPS Flexible Limited (now called Fusion Flexibles

Limited) was operating a conversion machine with a heated

blade to cut through the plastic sheets. Whilst the employee

was cleaning this hot blade, it lowered without warning

causing severe, irreversible injuries to three fingers on his right

hand.


found the company had failed to both identify this risk of the

blade lowering without warning and to put in place

appropriate measures to eliminate the risk.

CPS Flexible Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of

the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, was fined £50,000

and ordered to pay costs of £8,825.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Mark Austin said:

“This incident could so easily have been avoided if the

company had taken measures to prevent this risk of the blade

falling without warning, an issue with the machine that was

known to many of the employees beforehand.

“Companies should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take

appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below

the required standards.”

Fall leads to fine Fine after worker injures hand Unsafe work at height leads to fine


July 2018


NEW

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/fire-awareness/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/abrasive-wheels/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/asbestos-awareness/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/asbestos-awareness-designers/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/coshh/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/fire-awareness/



July 2018


NEW

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/method-statements/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/vibration-awareness/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/working-at-height/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/offer-deals/mix-and-match-5-bundle/


https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/silica-dust/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/manual-handling/


July 2018

A contractor, client and director have been convicted after

conditions at a building site were found to be dangerous.

Southwark Crown Court heard that inspectors from the Health

and Safety Executive (HSE) visited a construction site in London

on numerous occasions in 2015. Inspectors found poor

conditions on site including dangerous work at height,

unshored excavations, and poor welfare facilities. This resulted

in prohibition notices, improvement notices and notifications

of contravention being served on the contractor and client.

A HSE investigation found that the contractor, Mr Bodnariu,

failed to plan, manage and monitor the work on site. The

client, WEL Estates Ltd failed to make suitable arrangements

for managing a project, and the director of WEL Estates

Limited, Mr Lew, had allowed the poor conditions on site.

Mr Bodnariu pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 15(2) of

the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015,

and was sentenced to eight months imprisonment, suspended

for 12 months, 250 hours of community service, and ordered

to pay costs of £1,000. WEL Estates Limited was found guilty of

breaching Regulations 4(1) of the Construction (Design and

Management) Regulations 2015, and was fined £20,000 and

ordered to pay costs of £5,000. Mr Yoel Lew was found guilty

of breaching Section 37(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc.

Act 1974 and sentenced to 200 hours of Community Service.

Key lessons

Construction work must be planned and managed in

accordance with the Construction (Design and Management)

Regulations 2015.

A rubber inflatable boat manufacturing and repair company

has been sentenced after an employee sustained chemical

burns while cleaning down a boat using solvents.

Key lessons

COSHH risk assessments are needed for all work involving

hazardous materials

A Magistrates’ Court heard how, on 23 March 2016, a worker

was tasked with cleaning the deck of a rigid inflatable boat

using the solvent dichloromethane. The employee was using a

fabric cloth soaked in the substance to clean the deck of a boat

being manufactured. During the work he began to feel light-

headed and so took a break. The worker returned to the boat,

knelt down inside to carry on cleaning and subsequently

collapsed. He was found sometime later by his colleagues lying

in a pool of dichloromethane. The employee was taken to

hospital, where he received treatment for chemical burns.


found the company failed to provide suitable control measures

for when employees used dichloromethane to clean the inside

of boats. The investigation found there was a failure to provide

local exhaust ventilation, suitable respiratory protection or

personal protective equipment. In addition, the company had

failed to carry out an adequate risk assessment and there was

also a lack of instruction and training provided to employees.

Humber Fabrications (Hull) Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching

Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and

was fined £10,300 with £2,214.10 in costs.

Leeds Crown Court heard how, on 3 October 2014, two

subcontracted joiners were working on the refurbishment and

construction of new build dwellings at the former Wharfedale

Hospital in Otley, West Yorkshire.

They were working in the bell tower at the site on a temporary

access platform when it collapsed. The men fell approximately

3.4 metres onto a lower platform which also collapsed. They

then fell a further 3.4m onto the ground floor of the building.

The platforms were installed by PJ Livesey Living Space (North)

Ltd to allow other contractors to access the roof structure. One

of the workers injured their ankle while the other has suffered

permanent nerve damage to the face.


found the work platforms had been designed by the site

manager, an employee of PJ Livesey. The site manager was not

competent to carry out such a design and the design had not

been reviewed by another competent person. Consequently,

the platform was unsafe and collapsed.

PJ Livesey Living Space (North) Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching

Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, was

fined £56,000 and ordered to pay £7262.16 costs

Key lessons

Temporary works must always be designed to meet British

Standards by a competent person and in the case of more

complex works such as this, be subject to a secondary

overview.

Contractor, client & director convicted Temporary works fail Hazardous substance leads to burns


July 2018

All our safeguarding

courses have been audited

and approved by the CPD

Certification Service.

Find out more at:

www.hsqe.co.uk/courses/

Approved online safeguarding courses available at www.hsqe.co.uk

NEW

Which one is right for you?

Designated safeguarding lead

(DSL) is for people that

coordinate safeguarding

activities within their

organisation. It contains the

same material as the advanced

course, plus additional content

relevant to the DSL.

Advanced is for people that

require a greater knowledge of

safeguarding. The course

contains the same content as

the foundation course, plus

additional material relevant to

those in a supervisory role or

require knowledge of the role

of social care in the process.

Foundation is for those that

require a general knowledge of

safeguarding so they can

recognise the signs of abuse,

who could be at most risk and

how to respond to any

concerns they may have

regarding the safeguarding of

an individual.

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/safeguarding-children/


https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/safeguarding-children/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/safeguarding-children-advanced/


July 2018

A property developer has been sentenced after the roof and

part of the rear wall collapsed at one of his properties.

Manchester Crown Court heard how Riaz Ahmad appointed a

group of workers, who had no experience in construction, to

carry out demolition work. In August 2017, after receiving a

call from Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council’s (OMBC)

building control department, a Health and Safety Executive

(HSE) inspector visited the site and found almost all the

internal walls and supports of the roof had been taken out. A

Prohibition Notice was served preventing any further work and

a major road running past the building was closed. A day later,

OMBC obtained an order to demolish the building. Soon

afterwards the roof and wall collapsed.

An investigation by the HSE, found the collapse could have

been prevented had a principal contractor been appointed and

a suitable risk assessment been carried out. These steps could

have ensured the stability of the building during the

demolition with regards to temporary works and control

measures such as scaffolding. Mr Ahmad did not suitably plan

the work as he employed unskilled workers, neglected the

risks from working at height and stability of the building, failed

to provide them with basic welfare facilities and did not

consider several health hazards.

Mr Ahmad was found guilty of breaching Section 2 (1) and

Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and

Regulation 19 (1) of the Construction (Design and

Management) Regulations 2015. He was sentenced to eight

months imprisonment for each offence (to run concurrently)

and was ordered to pay prosecution costs of £65,000.

A manufacturing firm has been fined after a worker suffered

crush injuries when wooden panels fell onto him.

Worcester Magistrates’ Court heard how, on 8 April 2017, a

Global Displays Limited employee was injured when a stack of

panels toppled over and crushed him. Several smaller panels

were resting against untied, upright 4m x 1m panels, causing

the whole stack to become unstable. The worker suffered a

dislocated shoulder and fractured arm as a result.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into

the incident found the company had failed to identify the risks

from storing timber boards close to work benches and a

thoroughfare used by employees. The company had not

provided a safe place for the boards to be stored so they

would not fall over.

Global Displays Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2

(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The company

was fined £14,000 and ordered to pay costs of £ 1,179.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Alastair Mitchell

said: “This incident could so easily have been avoided by

simply carrying out a risk assessment in relation to the storage

of display panel boards. This would have identified the risks

from unsafe stacking and the need for appropriate control

measures, such as a method for storing boards safely.

Key lessons

Include the storage of materials in risk assessments.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has informed Celsa

Manufacturing (UK) Ltd that it will be prosecuted following the

explosion at Celsa steelworks, Splott, Cardiff on 18 November

2015.

The explosion resulted in the deaths of Mr Mark Sim and Mr

Peter O’Brien, engineers at the company’s Rod and Bar Mill. It

also led to other workers being injured.

Celsa Manufacturing (UK) Ltd is due to appear at Cardiff

Magistrates’ Court on 11 September 2018 to face a charge

under Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act

1974.

Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act relates to

the employer's duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably

practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their

employees.

Property developer jailed Celsa Manufacturing to be prosecuted Fine after collapse of stored materials


July 2018

Three directors of a now-liquidated waste management

company have been sentenced after a series of “appalling”

failures, exposing the public and the environment to asbestos.

Stoke on Trent Combined Court heard that George Talbot and

his sons, Anthony and Stephen, knew of the hazards of

handling asbestos waste at sites in Staffordshire and

Lancashire and ignored warnings from the authorities to rectify

the problems.

The directors of Alsager Contractors Limited were prosecuted

following a joint, two-year investigation into their working

practices by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the

Environment Agency (EA).

George Thomas Talbot was disqualified as a director for a

period of seven years and was given a total fine of £46,500

after pleading guilty to breaching:

• Section 22 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

Sentenced to a fine of £7,500

• Regulations 12(1)(a) and 38(1)(b) of the Environmental

Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.

Sentenced to a fine of £12,000.

• Sections 33(1)(c), 33(6) and 157(1) of the Environmental

Protection Act 1990 on or before 27 June 2011. Sentenced

to a fine of £ 7,500.


Protection Act 1990 on or before 8 February 2013.


• Regulations 12(1), 38(1)(a) and 41(1)(a) of the

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations

2010. Sentenced to a fine of £7,500.

Anthony Thomas Talbot was disqualified as a director for a

period of four years and was given a total fine of £4,800 after

pleading guilty to breaching:

• Section 22 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

— Sentenced to a fine of £1,200

• Sections 33(1)(c) 33(6) and 157(1) of the Environmental


to a fine of £1,200


Protection Act 1990 on or before 8 February 2013.


• Regulations 12(1), 38(1)(a) and 41(1)(a) of the



Stephen John Talbot was given a total sentence of £6,000 after

pleading guilty to breaching:

• Sections 33(1)(c) 33(6) and 157(1) of the Environmental


to a fine of £3,000.

• Regulations 12(1), 38(1)(a) and 41(1)(b) of the



• The three defendants were also ordered to repay costs of

£200,000 in total.

When passing sentence, the judge described the “flagrant

breach of the prohibition notice” in relation to Peel Street. “It

is clear that the company, far from responding to earlier

warnings about their handling of asbestos, continued to create

risks and deliberately disregard a prohibition notice.”

HSE inspector David Brassington said after the hearing, “This

was an appalling breach of a prohibition notice which

potentially exposed workers to asbestos. Companies should

know HSE will not hesitate to take enforcement against those

who flout the law.”

Speaking after the case, an Environment Agency officer in

charge of the investigation said: “This successful prosecution

demonstrates how the Environment Agency works in

partnership with other enforcers like the HSE, to tackle serious

waste crime and failures to comply with regulations.

“We’re determined to tackle those who flout the law. Illegal

waste and those behind waste crime diverts as much as

£1billion very year from legitimate businesses and the

treasury. As the Environment Agency we do everything we can

to investigate these crimes and prosecute those we believe

responsible.”

“Waste crime is a serious offence; in this case we’ve seen a

continuous disregard for the laws and regulations around

managing asbestos waste.”

There is no evidence to suggest the environment or

neighbouring businesses have been harmed by the actions at

the three sites.

Fines for father and his sons following asbestos failures


July 2018

Two companies have been fined more than half a million pounds

after a site worker lost the use of his legs following an incident in

London.

Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard how, on 5 November 2015,

Mr Marcel Păduraru, a Romanian construction worker, fell onto

and then through a fragile plastic skylight into a basement over

three metres below. He suffered a severed spine and will not regain

the use of his legs. He was 30 years old at the time of the incident.

Grangewood Builders Limited had been appointed as the principal

contractor to carry out a £5,000,000 refurbishment at a large house

near Buckingham Palace on Chapel Road, London. Grangewood had

engaged Trenchco Limited of to carry out specialised demolition

work at the site.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found

that, despite work being carried out directly by the site skylight,

neither company checked if it was fragile or took action to stop

people falling through it.

Neither company ensured the work was adequately planned and,

as a result, safe systems of work were not identified and

implemented. Workers had been put at risk from construction

activities at the site ranging from demolishing a roof without edge

protection to manually handling wood beams weighing an

estimated 200kg.

The investigation also found that the Trenchco supervisor directly

controlling the work had no formal training relating to supervision

and some of the workers, including the Romanian victim, had to

rely on unofficial interpreters to pass on instructions and tell them

what the health and safety records contained.

Grangewood Builders Limited pleaded guilty to breaching

Regulation 13(1) of the Construction (Design and Management)

Regulations 2015, was fined £270,000 and ordered to pay

£7,025.98 in costs.

Trenchco Limited of Clewer Crescent pleaded guilty to breaching

Regulation 15(2) of the Construction (Design and Management)

Regulations 2015 and was fined £270,000 and ordered to pay

£7,025.98 in costs.

HSE inspector Andrew Verrall-Withers commented after the

hearing: “The risks relating to fragile skylights being fallen through

and the simple solutions to avoid this are well known. The failings

at the site were not limited to the unprotected plastic skylight.

Other activities such as the demolishing of a roof without edge

protection could also have resulted in a serious incident.

“While these companies may have wanted health and safety

compliance, their failure to pay enough attention to their actual

performance at the site resulted in a tragedy occurring. No one

should go to work and return unable to walk again”.

Key lessons

• Workers need to be competent to undertake the work required

of them

• Health and safety arrangements need to be checked to ensure

they are in place and remain effective

• Take account of people that have English as a second language

when communicating health and safety arrangements

Fall from height paralysed worker and leads to fines of half a million pounds

Information for those with an interest in

health, safety, quality and the environment

(HSQE).

To subscribe to this free

newsletter, just send us email us

at [email protected]

Previous copies are available at

www.hsqe.co.uk/downloads/

mailto:[email protected]?subject=Please%20continue%20to%20send%20me%20the%20HSQE%20Newsletter

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/downloads/

Documents

HSE releases annual agriculture fatality figures · and Safety Executive (HSE). Released on the first day of Farm Safety Week, HSE’s annual agricultural fatal injury statistics