In this month’s article I have returned to H&S having discussed the new WAMITAB Competency scheme last month. The stimulus for the title is actually based on some real conversations that I have had this month when out and about visiting sites. I think that almost everywhere I went the issue of H&S came up, with most people feeling that it was effectively stopping the job… at least where it was being followed!
I can certainly understand where these concerns come from, particularly as more and more pressures are placed on managers from all sides. I am sure that most of you will feel that H&S is just another example of the vice being tightened and making previously simple tasks even more impossible.
It is probably true that H&S has become a bit of a weight for us all to carry, but I think that it is too tempting to blame it for everything that is wrong in the world! At the end of the day most H&S legislation is founded on common sense and if you look closely it tends not to be terribly prescriptive, with most requirements based on the completion of risk assessments.
The HSE web site is an excellent resource and I would recommend you look at it as there is a great deal of information and it is pretty easy to navigate around. One of the more humourous parts of the website is a section on H&S myths, all of which have received some publicity and false claims as fact. I thought that bringing your attention to some of these might give you some appreciation of how H&S is given a bad name…
MYTH ONE : ALL OFFICE EQUIPMENT MUST BE TESTED BY A QUALIFIED ELECTRICIAN EACH YEAR.
I thought this was a good one to start with, as it is something that I come up against quite a lot. Portable Appliance Testing can be a costly expense and I can understand why you might want it to be carried out… many of you mention it to me, describing it as a bit like an insurance policy, stating “well at least we have done everything we can”.
All of this is perhaps reasonable, but actually, the law doesn’t require you to have PAT testing undertaken, it just requires employers to assess risks and take appropriate action.
The HSE’s advice is that for most office electrical equipment, visual checks for obvious signs of damage and perhaps simple tests by a competent member of staff are quite sufficient.
MYTH TWO : KIDS MUST WEAR GOGGLES TO PLAY CONKERS.

I remember reading about this in the papers last year and thought that it was a case of H&S gone mad. Unfortunately the reality is that some schools did in fact require kids to wear goggles when playing conkers, but the HSE maintain that this has nothing to do with them. Quite rightly they say that the risk from playing conkers is incredibly low and just not worth bothering about. They go on to recognise that if kids deliberately hit each other over the head with conkers, that’s a discipline issue, not health and safety.
I appreciate that skip hire staff won’t be playing conkers at work, but there are parallels, as all too often companies jump straight into issuing PPE for tasks, without really thinking about other (and better) control measures. A decent risk assessment should be the starting point, particularly where the precautions are based on the risk hierarchy.
MYTH THREE : WORKERS ARE BANNED FROM PUTTING UP CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS IN THE OFFICE.
This has a seasonal airing and some companies may be banning such frivolity, but again this shouldn’t be pinned on H&S. This doesn’t mean that it is a free for all, with you still needing to take some basic precautions… use a stepladder and not a chair, also use sensible footwear when using the steps and think about where you are putting the decorations, avoiding sources of heat. All of this seems to be common sense and doesn’t stop the festive season!
Again, this can have broader relevance, as the risk is from staff doing tasks in a dangerous manner, rather than the activity being dangerous in its own right. Make sure that a decent risk assessment has been undertaken, precautions have been communicated and, importantly, that they are enforced.
These three myths are based on well intentioned concerns, but all too often H&S seems to make people switch off their common sense and either do nothing, or do too much. Both can be dangerous and both certainly give H&S a bad name.
The HSE refer to “sensible risk management” and we would certainly concur with this principle.
Nigel Mair is a WAMITAB assessor and verifier and runs the North West Regional Assessment Centre, delivering WAMITAB qualifications and other H&S, waste and environmental training.
If you have any questions for Nigel, please email them through to nigel@theskip.net

In this month’s article I am afraid that I am going to return to a familiar theme, with yet another tragic accident occurring in the industry.
Many of you will probably have already seen the news reports which give some details of the accident which occurred 2 years ago in Coventry when an 11 year old school girl was killed after being struck by a refuse lorry on her way to school.
As is so often the case, there was previous form leading up to the incident, which with the correct level of control should have prevented the death from occurring. These circumstances once again shine a very bright spot light on the working practices of the sector and although it was a refuse vehicle, the lessons should resonate loudly with all of us involved in waste transport.
In addition to the trauma and sorrow surrounding the loss of life, the council was also fined a hefty £125,000 and a further £40,000 in costs when it admitted breaches under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act in a prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
You may be surprised to learn that the police had actually been secretly watching and filming bin crews over several months following a number of complaints about the way that the lorries were being driven.
These were presented as evidence in court and showed lorries reversing at considerable speed over long distances around blind bends and being driven erratically, to include mounting the pavement.
What makes the circumstances even worse is that the council had already had one “wake-up call” only three months earlier when a 15-year-old girl was also run over by a reversing bin lorry. Fortunately she escaped with only minor injuries but the court was told that the council failed to take any significant action after the incident.
The council admitted failing to operate a safe system of work including inadequate supervision, information and instruction for the refuse collection service. It also admitted failing to ensure suitable risk assessments for refuse employees.
Paul Smith, the investigating inspector for the Health and Safety Executive said: “There is a tragic history of pedestrians, particularly children and old people, being run over by refuse collection vehicles.
These incidents must act as a stimulus for the industry to review it’s procedures, making sure that vehicle risks are properly controlled.”
Lessons?
I think we all have a duty to learn from these incidents… I am sure that the council concerned have made several major changes to their processes and procedures, but I would urge you all to do the same before you become involved in such a tragic situation… “barn door, horse, late” springs to mind.
I would suggest that you could look to the failings mentioned above and make sure that you are not also in danger of making the same mistakes.
It mentions a safe system of work, to include adequate supervision, information and instruction and suitable risk assessments. I have mentioned all of these in previous articles, but have you done anything about it… I am wagging my finger school teacher like at the computer screen as I type this!!
Ask yourself a question…
When was the last time you actually considered providing any training or instruction to your drivers/crews?
If the answer is never, or not very often, then I am afraid that you could be moving in the direction of the council mentioned in this article. I think we are all aware of the risks of operating vehicles, so you are not really going to have any defence should something go wrong, unless you can demonstrate that you have that elusive “safe system of work” in place.
It doesn’t have to cost the earth
The cost of doing nothing is certainly not “nothing” as the council found out with a hefty fine and costs. Also, just think about the damage to your business from being involved in such an emotive incident. This of course certainly doesn’t reflect the loss suffered by family and friends of the individuals involved in any accident, but it probably brings it home to you and your company.
Nevertheless, I think that we have to live in the real world and recognise that monetary costs are going to be a factor in how far you are prepared to go with changes. But, with a bit of planning and a few phone calls you might even find that all this doesn’t have to cost you very much. For example, are you aware that there is funding available to help with training and the delivery of NVQs to staff? This would go some way towards helping you to introduce and, perhaps more importantly, be able to demonstrate that you have introduced, a safe system of work.
If any of this strikes a chord with you and you want to discuss the options available to you in more detail, then please contact me as we need to try and stop these tragic incidents from occurring again and again.
Nigel Mair is a WAMITAB assessor and verifier and runs the North West Regional Assessment Centre, delivering WAMITAB qualifications and other H&S, waste and environmental training.
If you have any questions for Nigel, please email them through to nigel@theskip.net

By Nigel Mair
In this article I want to consider two of the accidents that have happened in the waste industry over the last few years. These are absolute tragedies for the individuals involved, which makes it even more important that we all reflect on the causes, learn any specific lessons and consider how they may relate to our own organisations.
Although the names of the organisations are part of the public record, I have removed them from this article.
Accident 1
A 32-year old family man was driving a tipper truck at a waste transfer site. He had just discharged a load at a transfer shed and moved the truck to another part of the site to secure its tailgate when he was struck from behind by the bucket of a shovel truck driven by another employee, sustaining severe injuries from which he never recovered.
The company pleaded guilty to breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and were sentenced at the Old Bailey and fined £100,000, with £4,982 costs.
The HSE Principal Inspector had the following comment:
“The deceased’s family have lost a father, a husband and a son, and our sympathies are with them at this very sad time. The case shows everyone in the waste transfer industry the importance of planning for workplace transport and having safe systems of work in place. A one-way traffic system, the use of a banksman and designated pedestrian walkways, all of which were subsequently introduced by the company, may have prevented this fatality.”
The Judge added these comments:
“It is a very dangerous practice to drive a shovel truck, with the bucket raised a few feet off the ground, so that the driver’s forward vision is obscured. The penalty should reflect public concern at an unnecessary loss of life. Companies must be deterred from operating in a slack way.”
What lessons can we learn from this accident?
Unfortunately these circumstances are all too familiar and it highlights the need to really think about the way that you manage your sites. Transport and pedestrians are a very bad mix and you need to do everything you can to minimise the risks…if you read through the details again, how easily could that happen on your own site?
Make sure that you have thought about the issues by assessing the risks of vehicles on site, to include the way that you try and separate them from pedestrians. Having introduced robust safe systems of work you also need to think carefully about how these are communicated to everybody concerned and also, of course, how you monitor and enforce them.
Accident 2
A company has been prosecuted and fined for what the HSE described as ‘systemic failures’ in the way it operated a transfer station, that subsequently led to an employee of another organisation sustaining injury in a workplace transport accident.
Company X shared a workplace with Company Y, who had been engaged in some building work on the site, including the installation of dividing walls to create several bays, and it was during the works that the site agent (an employee of Company Y) was struck from behind by a wheeled loader as he walked down a service road, sustaining cuts, bruises and strains that were serious enough for him to be off work for several months.
The HSE said that Company X did not do everything it could to inform Company Y of the risks from the plant on site. This resulted in the accident.
Company X was found guilty of failing to look after, so far as is reasonably practicable, the H&S of people who they didn’t employ.
The HSE says the case underlines the need for companies sharing a workplace to co-operate with each other on risks and co-ordinate control measures.
The HSE Inspector said:
“This incident was not the result of the actions of an individual. Rather it is the result of systemic failures, which gave rise to the circumstances in which the incident occurred. Whilst Company Y also had a duty to ask about the risks to their employees, the greater burden was on Company Y. As the operator of the site it should be familiar with all the activities on site and the attendant risks to health and safety. In meeting its obligations under health and safety legislation, Company X should have ensured that information about those risks was communicated to Company Y. If that had been done it is unlikely that the employee would have been injured.
The site was busy with a considerable number of vehicle movements, which present well-known risks to safety. The loader driver was involved in a routine task. However the details of the task were not communicated to Company Y.
Employees from Company Y had visited the site prior to work commencing and developed a method statement and risk assessment for the job but were not made aware of the procedure for loading waste out of the waste compound. Therefore this was not reflected in the documents prepared. These documents were then passed to Company X for comment, but none was made. There was a lack of clarity over the project supervision that allowed the job to go ahead without adequate comment on the method statement and risk assessment. This allowed the risks associated with a routine activity to go ahead unchecked, leading to the incident in which a man was injured.”
What lessons can we learn from this accident?
Once again, this highlights a few important issues for you to consider. When I am on sites I often hear comments such as “he doesn’t work for us, so I don’t have to worry about him”. Unfortunately this is not true. It is your site, your operations and therefore, as set out in the accident, very much your responsibility.
You need to think carefully about the way that you manage third parties on your site, to include visitors, contractors and others. Have you made sure that you have told them clearly of the risks and that you have thought about how their work will impact on the site operations?
The two accidents set out the unfortunate consequences when things go wrong. A bit of forethought, planning and proactive management will hopefully ensure that you avoid the same pitfalls.

Nigel Mair is a WAMITAB assessor and verifier and runs the North West Regional Assessment Centre, delivering WAMITAB qualifications and other H&S, waste and environmental training.
This article was originally published in Issue 18 of The Skip