Contents:

• What does your Quality Manual look like?

• Fake Health & Safety Agency scams
• New Asbestos regulations in force
• Changes to Noise at Work Regulations
• New guidance on safety-related control systems
• No compensation culture in UK says report
• Changes to Fire Risk Assessment Regulations come into force in 2005

Does this sound familiar? Does your quality manual look like this? The revised standard issued by the ISO in 2000 was much less prescriptive than the old standard. It sets out principles to be achieved, but allows companies much more freedom as to how they meet them. The quality manual is required to contain only three elements, the scope of the quality manual, the documented procedures (or references to them), and a description of the interaction between the processes of the quality management system. The quality manual can therefore be as short as two or three pages.

The procedures should reflect what your company does. They don't need to be wordy, probably about a page for each, but they do need to reflect what you do. If the procedures are what the consultant thought you ought to do, rather than what makes sense for your business, perhaps it is time to review them.

If your quality management system is heavy on paperwork, but light on added value for the business, talk to QES Connect about how we may be able to simplify things for you.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has urged companies and other organisations to ignore information they receive from three firms purporting to regulate health and safety legislation.

HSE has received hundreds of complaints from companies across the country that have been sent requests for payment in return for compliance with health and safety law. We received one recently and they look quite convincing!

The three firms, all based in north-west England, have written to companies all over Great Britain asking for between £125 and £249 to ensure they comply with health and safety law.

A Liverpool firm calling itself the Health and Safety Enforcement Agency (HSEA) demands £125 for a health and safety compliance pack. The Manchester-based Health and Safety Compliance Agency (HSCA) says a health and safety compliance register will become law on 1 May and that all businesses should apply for registration, for a fee of £129.25. A third company, the Health and Safety Registration Enforcement Division (HSRED), which gives a Rochdale address, tells recipients to pay up to £249 for health and safety registration.

Anyone receiving literature from any of these companies can ignore it; there is no legal need for anyone to buy literature or services from these companies.

Justin McCracken, HSE's Deputy Directory General, said: "None of these companies is connected to HSE. Organisations should be very wary of any approach from these firms, or any company 'offering' similar services. All three firms use wording suggesting they are official enforcement bodies, but they are not.

If you are in doubt about your compliance with Health & Safety Law, give us a call. If you are not already one of our clients, our H&S Survey is free!

The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations came into force on 21st May and requires those who control the maintenance and repair of buildings (usually the owner or occupier) to assess whether asbestos is present, establish its condition and manage any associated risks. It is intended that the regulations will reduce the risk associated with the material.

However, a number of reports in the press suggest that many of those responsible for maintenance and repair are not prepared for the new regulations. According to a BBC Wales survey, one council admitted that, so far, it has only surveyed one in seven of its properties, and another has only carried out a total of 12 new asbestos surveys to date.

If asbestos is likely to be present in a building, a survey will be necessary and if the asbestos is found to be in a poor condition or is likely to be disturbed during repair and maintenance, 'clean-up' work will have to be undertaken. It could take a high profile prosecution to make duty holders pay attention to the new regulation. In a recent case, a Preston company was fined £22,500 for Safety and Environmental offences after failing to identify asbestos in a redundant cold store before commencing demolition work.

Duty holders must act now to protect workers and avoid prosecution.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has recently updated its popular guide aimed at managers, engineers and technicians with responsibility for safety-related control systems in any industry.

"Out of Control: Why control systems go wrong and how to prevent failure". Now in 2nd Edition, this guide features a description and analysis of 12 incidents. In these, control system failures caused fatal crushing, amputation, physical trapping, microwave injury, gas releases, an acid spillage, the listing of a drilling rig and the malfunctioning of a radiation shield.

The guide shows how the incidents could have been prevented by the application of straightforward precautions and a summary of a further 22 incidents lists primary and secondary causes. Together, these results reveal the relative importance of each activity in a typical development lifecycle.

For the 34 incidents analysed, 44% had inadequate specification as their primary cause. The other results were 20% changes after commissioning, 15% design and implementation, 15% operation and maintenance and 6% installation and commissioning. This means approximately three-fifths of all control system failures are built-in before operation commences.

As technology advances our lives depend more and more on the correct operation of electrical and electronic control system. An understanding of how and why electrical and electronic control systems fail can help prevent further incidents in future.

Paul Davies, HSE's Chief Scientist commented, "This guidance allows everyone involved with the development and use of control systems to learn from others and avoid repeating disastrous mistakes. It provides a good introduction to the issues to consider when building and relying on a control system for safety, and points to many sources of further information."

Copies of 'Out of Control: Why control systems go wrong and how to prevent failure (2nd edition)', (HSE ref: HSG 238) are available from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk, CO10 2WA

It is often said that the UK is going down the same litigious route as the US, and developing a "compensation culture". In fact, as a recent report from the Better Regulation Task Force shows, this is fortunately not the case. Statistics show that claims for civil costs in the UK in 2000 were 0.6 per cent of GDP, compared with 1.9 per cent of GDP in the US. The UK also compares favourably with a number of other countries including France 0.8%, Australia 1.1% and Germany 1.3%.

Between 1989 to 2000 (except in 1993 when the figure went up to 0.7 per cent) this figure has remained at 0.6 per cent. Over the same period the figure in the US has fluctuated between 2.28 per cent and 1.88 per cent. There are three key reasons why the UK could not follow the US litigious route: o in civil cases in the UK, unlike the US, juries are seldom used. Juries will often be more sympathetic towards a claimant; they can identify with him or her, and will therefore be inclined to award higher damage awards; o punitive damages can only be awarded in very restrictive circumstances; o the loser pays the costs of both sides. The general presumption in the UK is that costs follow the event. In reality, the loser will pay the costs of the winner so far as is reasonable. It is also said that because the UK does not have contingency fee arrangements (the fee paid is a percentage of the damages won) that we are avoiding going down the US route.

Of course the best way to prevent any litigation, or threat of litigation, is to manage those risks that cause people to have accidents or suffer injuries. Employers are required by law to manage their health and safety risks. The risk of prosecution for non-management of health and safety risks should be a strong enough incentive to make employers act. But other incentives are also needed such as linking risk management to insurance premiums. The report recommends that businesses which demonstrate that they manage their risks could be charged a lower insurance premium.

If you would like help with managing safety risks, contact QES Connect Ltd for advice.

If you are an employer, the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 require you to carry out a Fire Risk Assessment of the Workplace and record its significant findings. New legislation coming into force in early 2005 will extend this to cover all buildings to which the public have access. This will replace fire certificates issued by the Fire Brigade.

Are you satisfied that your arrangements for preventing fires and for dealing with emergencies should they occur, are adequate? If not, contact us for assistance with fire risk assessment.

Produced by QES Connect Ltd. Except where stated, the material included in the newsletter is taken from freely available public sources. It may be reproduced without permission for non-commercial purposes.