Neil Jamieson

HM Principal Inspector

of Health & Safety

Manchester Construction Safety Group

5th May 2015

OBJECTIVES

Briefly - how Construction Division is set up Sources of Intelligence Feedback from last 2014-15 Work Year Construction Division Work Plan 2015-16

How we are set up

Unit 1- Scotland, Yorkshire & North East- 5 Groups

Unit 2- North West and North Midlands – 3 Groups

Unit 3- Wales / South West/  Midlands (except the North) – 7 Groups

Unit 4- London & East South East – 6 groups

Deployment of ground troopsGroup Level

Between 7-10 Inspectors/ group Each inspector given a patch- assigned

by post code Work allocated by Principal Inspector Supported by Specialist Inspectors-such

as Electrical ,Mechanical Civil Eng, Occupational Hygienist /Scientists/ Doctors /Nurses

Sources of Intelligence

HSE’s National data base- All Inspections recorded onto system

Accidents/Dangerous occurrences/ diseases notified to HSE (F2508 system)

Concerns team – members of public, employees ,rival contractors etc.

Adverse Insurance reports (Lifts/Cranes/Statutory Plant)

MP’s questions Other Regulators such as Environmental

Health ,Building Control etc Trade associations such as CITB ,NASC etc.

How to contact the complaint and advice team

Telephone number: 0300 003 1647 Office hours 08.30 – 5pm- Monday/Friday

Email-concerns@hse.gsi.gov.uk

HSE Complaint system

Complaints made by - MOP/Workers/Union/Other employers/ MP’s/ Police

Made via telephone, letter or online Triaged by complaints team and graded Green, Amber or Red . If considered serious risk (Red) then forwarded to Principal

Inspector Complaints that are considered Green are normally used as a

source of intelligence. Amber complaints are followed up initially by complaints team

but referred to Principal Inspector if not resolved. Complainants informed of progress and outcome

Group 8 Cheshire & Manchester

Principal Inspector – Neil Jamieson

Chris Smith David Argument

Deborah Walker Grayam Barnes

Matt Greenly Karen Nicholson (VO)

David Norton

Laura Moran

Phil Redman

Group 07 Cumbria/Merseyside/Lancashire

Principal Inspector – Dorothy Shaw

Robert Supria Christine McGlynne

Christopher Hatton Jacqueline Western

Bruce Jones

Mike Griffiths Bernadette Barrett (VO)

Susan Ritchie

Allen Shute

Group 09 Staffordshire, Derbyshire

NottinghamshireShropshire

Principal Inspector – Francene Cheyney

Frances Bailey Lee Greatorex

Andrew Bowker Barbara Cliff-(VO)

Mark Molyneux

Alastair Choudhury

Lindsay Hope

Some notable achievements from 2014-15

Three changes of Chief Inspector of Construction Completed review and launch of CDM Regulations

2015 282 construction prosecution cases heard in 2014/15,

covering 327 breaches Leadership and Worker Involvement (LWI) Toolkit

seminars held across country- (In the Northwest 18 have been held)

Several Solar Panel and Loft conversion seminars held across country.

Achievements

Working well together (WWT)

• Support given to 16 regional groups• HSE provides partial funding and support • Over 80 WWT events in 2014-15• Over 40% attending from small firms• Over 5000 attendees

Some notable achievements from 2014-15

CD Sector Launched Five Busy Builder Sheets:

preventing injury during plasterboard handling preventing injury from handling heavy blocks construction dust old lead paint. fragile roofs

Some notable achievements from 2014-15

1200 Asbestos Inspections 10000 Pro-active InspectionsHealth Initiative- June 2014Refurbishment Initiative Sept/Oct 2014

Refurb’ Initiative September/October 2015

• 1748 sites visited• 2180 contractors inspected• 360 sites at which a (PN/IN) notice served

• 20% of sites visited get a notice

• 753 Notification of Contraventions (NOC’s)• 314 Prohibition Notices (PNs)• 221 Improvement Notices served• and 2 notices for not having ELCI

A few examples of what was seen by CD inspectors during the

initiative

Work at Height (inside)

Joists not boarded No edge protection at

first floor around stairs No handrail to stairs

Bad practice-poor maintenance

Electrical Safety

Risk of tripping, joists not boarded & poor condition of equipment

A prohibition noticed served on this extension work shown below, was inspected during a unannounced spot-check – exposed scaffolding was found , putting workers

at risk from falling through on to the building works.

Facilities were particularly poor at the site below – an Improvement Notice was served for lack of hot water, no

lighting or means of drying hands and lack of general cleanliness

Unsecured machinery - no edge protection in place

Bad practice-unsecured sockets

2014 Health Inspection Initiative

• Visits:– Aimed to conduct 500

inspections during the two-week period

– 570 sites visits with 896 contractors inspected.

– 839 inspections recorded.

2014 Health Initiative• 13 Prohibition Notices;

• 108 Improvement Notices

• 267 Notices of Contravention issued at 146 sites

Notices of Contravention

Dust

Welfare

MSD

Vibration

Other Substances

Noise

Improvement Notices

Dust

Welfare

MSD

Vibration

Other Substances

Noise

Other (Management)

2014 Health Inspection Initiative - topics

Silica

2014 Health Inspection Initiative - topics

Other hazardous substances

2014 Health Inspection Initiative - topics

Manual handling

2014 Health Inspection Initiative - topics

• Noise and vibration

2014 Health Inspection Initiative - topics

Welfare

2014 Health Inspection Initiative - topics

Asbestos

2014 Health Inspection Initiative- Enforcement

• Strong returns despite no specific enforcement expectations:– 13 PNs were served. – 108 INs were served – 267 NoCs were issued at 146 sites.

2014 Health Inspection Initiative- Enforcement topics

2014 Health Inspection Initiative- Conclusions

• Long latency disease effects of health issues means fewer topics / appropriate situations for PNs compared to immediacy of safety?

• INs and NoCs valuable enforcement tools for health?

• A perception of managing health risks well and going beyond requirements by – e.g. wellbeing initiatives.

• Higher proportion of dust/ welfare enforcement– More ‘visible’?– A significant issue on most sites?

2014 Health Inspection Initiative- Conclusions : dusts

• Most significant enforcement area but still an improving picture:

• Contractors starting to look more at removing risk or improving available controls.

• Risk awareness amongst larger contractors is generally high but let down by application.

2014 Health Inspection Initiative- Conclusions : dusts

• Focus has moved on from silica to include other dusts.

• Much greater appreciation / use of extraction systems but not always to the correct standard and dry sweeping remains an issue.

• Reliance on RPE

2014 Health Inspection Initiative- Conclusions : other substances

Fewer mentions. Most related to:

• Asbestos: missing surveys and instruction / training.

• Lead: Roofing and old paint

• Dichloromethane / Solvents: e.g. as a carpet adhesive.

• Dermatitis: Rendering, cement etc.

• Isocyanate products: Manually applied rather than sprayed.

2014 Health Inspection Initiative- Conclusions : noise and vibration

• General focus on management arrangements than specific controls

• Sites placing a lot of reliance on monitoring / recording vibration trigger time

• Reliance on hearing protection for noise

2014 Health Inspection Initiative- Conclusions : manual handling

• Broader discussions covering both management arrangements and specific controls

• Earlier work on kerbs and paving seems embedded.

• More evidence of good practice References made to MAC tool, lifting solutions and designing out.

2014 Health Inspection Initiative- Conclusions : manual handling

• There were some recurring problems:– Heavy Plasterboard– Heavy glazing / installation problems

2014 (Health in ) Refurbishment Inspection Initiative - Enforcement

• Commonest health issues :– Dust – 12%– Welfare – 12%– Asbestos – 10%

• Health related enforcement action carried out:– 46 PNs were served out of a total of 314 – 92 INs were served out of a total of 221

2014 (Health in ) Refurbishment Inspection

Initiative - EnforcementAsbestos : PNs 24, INs 24Dust : PNs 21, INs 31Manual handling : PN 1Welfare : 33 InsVibration : 3 InsNoise : 1 IN

CD Work Plan 2014-15HSE received 8,251 RIDDORs for construction incidents in 2014/15

Provisional Fatalities =36 but more likely than not will rise

In the North west

5 Fatal accidents Struck/crushed by falling steelwork

Electrocution

2 fragile roof fatalities

1 Asphyxiation

Building firm sentenced after worker’s friend suffers devastating injuries

13th Feb 2015

An Oldham building firm has been fined after a friend of a worker sustained life-changing injuries when he fell from the second floor of a partially built house.

Oldham company, was fined £50,000 and ordered to pay £8,595 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to two breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974

Cheshire house builder in court after joiner badly injured in fall

A Cheshire building company was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £3,633 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

The HSE investigation found that there were no handrails or other safety measures in place around the void, despite the company’s own health and safety document highlighting this requirement.There was also no crash decking beneath the joists to catch the workers if they fell through the gaps while they fitted the floorboards.

Plasterer breaks back in fall at Cheshire mansion

A building company which was the main contractor for the development, was prosecuted after an investigation found the company had failed to make sure adequate guard rails were in place on the first floor landing to prevent falls.

Company was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £1,376 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to two breaches of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

House builder in court for ignoring safety warnings

Company prosecuted after it continued to stack bricks on scaffolding without measures in place to stop them falling and injuring people below.The company was served with a Prohibition Notice requiring the bricks to be stored at ground level or for brick guards to be used. The site was visited on three occasions up until April 2014 but on each occasion bricks were still being stacked on scaffolding platforms, with no measures in place to prevent them from falling.Fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £1,445 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 after failing to comply with a Prohibition Notice.

Builder fined over unsafe roof work in Stalybridge

A Tameside builder has been fined after he allowed workers to carry out unsafe roof work in Stalybridge, despite previously receiving a formal warning about the issue.

4 men were working on the first day of a project to replace the dormer roofs on a semi-detached house. One of the workers was seen by the inspector passing building materials to a second worker on a scaffolding tower.

The scaffolding did not have any edge protection, such as boards or safety rails, and there was no protection around the flat roof they were working on. This meant there was a risk of workers falling to the ground below.

The MD was served with a Prohibition Notice requiring the work to stop until improvements had been made.Company was fined £1,280 and ordered to pay £1,865 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to two breaches of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

Building firm prosecuted after joiner falls through ceiling

A Manchester company was prosecuted after an investigation found he had been asked to help install partition walls without any floorboards in place, the company had been hired to carry out loft conversions at two neighbouring properties.

The firm had installed new floor joists but wanted the partition walls to be fitted before the floorboards, so they could be easily lifted up in the future.

Company , was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £5,518 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Building firm director in court over health risk

The director of a Stockport-based building firm has been fined after the health of workers was put at risk for more than three months.

The Director , from Macclesfield, was prosecuted after it emerged bricklayers, plasterers and a roofer could have suffered skin burns or lead poisoning as there was no hot water to wash off dust and contaminants.

He was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £3,102 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Firms in court after Liverpool worker’s life-threatening roof fall

A Principal Contractor and their sub contractor were both prosecuted after an investigation found they had allowed workers onto the roof without safety measures in place.

Two of the men, were allowed to climb onto the roof to remove the panels from above. No safety equipment, such as nets or harnesses, were provided to stop them falling or to prevent them from being injured.

The Principal Contractor was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay costs of £23,502 after being found guilty of a single breach of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 by failing to monitor the roof work to make sure it was safe.

The Sub Contractor was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay £6,191 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a single breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 by failing to ensure the roof work was carried out safely.

Three injured in floor collapse at Trafford mansion

A luxury house builder was fined £33,000 and ordered to pay costs of £15,000 after pleading guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by failing to ensure the safety of workers.Their sub-contractor was fined £9,000 and ordered to pay £15,000 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 by failing to ensure the structure did not collapse as a result of its work.HSE’s investigation found that work at the site had been badly planned, putting multiple lives in danger.

9 metre fall from Dormer Roof

The IP who is aged 32sustained :

Fractured skullFractured backFracture PelvisOne kidney and spleen removedHospital for 8 weeks

Another lift of scaffold should have been fitted to ensure adequate edge protection

What happenned?

Company prosecuted:Fined - 12KCosts - 4kInjured person – will not work againOngoing loss of reputation and

business

Now do you think it is a good idea to work like this ?

2015-16 Work Plan -Background“Fifth” year of 3 year planImplements sector strategy

– 3 broad areas Asbestos Large sites Small sites

Continuity FROM 2014 /15 with a developing change of focus

Construction Operational Activities Our main operational activities will

continue to target the following

Any matters of evident concern or with the potential to cause a catastrophic event identified during a site visit will be appropriately addressed. The following five generic issues will also be considered where appropriate during site visits:

– Work at height. – Asbestos risks. – Provision of welfare facilities. – Site conditions (Good order). – Respiratory risks and adequacy of PPE use

Construction Operational Activities Our main operational activities will continue to target the following:

Asbestos removal work- the licensing regime

Small sites/projects – less than 20 persons

Refurbishment. Major projects/large contractors and

clients. Local Priorities.

Targeted areas Small Sites Refurbishment Asbestos Major Projects/large contractors Local Priorities Home Build

Quick summary of the work that will can carry on

Supply chain initiative with lift installation and maintenance sector

National fragile roof initiative targeting clients Review of the agreement with BCA Entertainment industry/temporary structures Timber Frame Structure interventions Revision of Electrical guidance Health Summit planned for 2016

Some dates for your diary

Unit 2- Five Micro Initiatives planned :

Nottingham – May 2015 Cheshire - July 2015 Manchester - November /December 2015 Liverpool - January 2016 Staffordshire - March 2016

Questions?