Back in 21 April 2003 a health and safety manager was found guilty
for the poor quality of health and safety advice he was expected to provide!
So, although that was way back ~ some 8 years ago ~ it is timely to review that judgement, particularly as the conviction was brought under s33 of the HSWA 1974. In 2009 Magistrates were given more powers to imposed massive fines and even custodial sentences can now be handed down to those in a similar situation ...
Firstly, let's look at the facts of the case that sets the precedent ...
The health and safety manager of a food retail chain that went into receivership around that time was been found guilty of health and safety breaches which led to the death of a young kitchen assistant.
Charles Ian Helmrich pleaded not guilty at Lincoln Magistrates' Court to offences under s7(a) and s33 of the HSWA 1974 for failing to take reasonable care of the health and safety of himself and other persons between August 1997 and January 1999 at various outlets of Fatty Arbuckles. He was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay a further £3,000 in costs.
The court heard that he had been employed in August 1997 as health and safety manager at the company's Salford headquarters - a year before the incident occurred, in Lincoln. The company has since gone into receivership and so could not be prosecuted.
Mark Thorne, who was aged 17, died while 'deck scrubbing' the floor of the restaurant's kitchen in Lincoln after the premises had closed. The process involves a lot of water lying on the floor. Thorne was standing in water when he came into contact with an incorrectly wired 1960s plate warmer, which electrocuted him. He was declared dead at the scene.
Environmental health officer Sara Boothright, who led the investigation for Lincoln City Council, said at the time that the likelihood of the electrocution occurring would, in her opinion, have been
"significantly reduced" had risk assessments - in particular relating to young people - been carried out and "appropriate yet obvious control measures implemented".
Helmrich's defence barrister said that the company had been breaching health and safety legislation for several years before Helmrich had been employed and that the duty to arrange risk assessments rested with the employer, not the employee.
However, Boothright said that although Helmrich had been responsible for both food hygiene/safety and health and safety, he had prioritised food safety over health and safety, following high-profile health scares, and had not examined the company's existing position on health and safety compliance. He should have advised the company's directors of breaches, she said.
District judge John Friel said he accepted that Helmrich had not directly or remotely caused the death of the young man, but the lack of risk assessments over a prolonged period did make the events more likely. He said: "Mr Thorne's death was the catalyst for an enquiry which led to the prosecution. . . That prosecution does not set out to prove causation in relation to the death, albeit it does suggest that Mr Thorne's safety was put at risk, along with other employees' safety."
Okay, so now let's apply that earlier judgement as a precedent ~ which is clearly what the Crown Prosecutor would do ~ and look at the implications to the situation that exist in 2011 ... with the change in the law enacted in 2009 when a Private Member's Bill got through, as they rarely do, and then made new law ~ the Health and Safety (Offences) Act ...
Then, in 2010, the new coalition government commissioned Lord Young to look at the way that health and safety advice is provided ...
The Government accepted the recommendation outlined in the report, ‘Common Sense, Common Safety’ to professionalise health and safety consultants. The report recommended a qualification requirement that all consultants should be accredited to professional bodies and a web-based directory of accredited consultants should be established.
A network of professional bodies and stakeholders worked together in partnership to develop the new Occupational Safety and Health Consultants Register. The associated professional bodies agreed that a minimum standard should be set for consultants to join the register. This will help employers know that those consultants on the register have been assessed and met the minimum standard by the professional bodies that they belong to.
This minimum standard has been set at a degree level qualification, at least two years experience and active engagement in a continuing professional development scheme. All consultants who join the register are bound by their professional body/ bodies code of conduct and are committed to providing sensible and proportionate advice.
Businesses that use the register to find a consultant will be able to find details of those with experience in their type of work who give general advice on how to manage health and safety risks. These consultants will have had their qualifications and experience assessed by their professional body.
So, what does this all mean for the CDM Coordinator? ...
The HSE are currently reviewing the CDM 2007 Regulations following the extensive and lengthy consultation undertaken by HSE's Frontline Consultants and will consider further after the next CONIAC meeting at the HSE offices at Rose Court in London later this month [July] ...
Those who undertake the role of the CDM-C should be competent to do so and, where their various registered bodies claim they are capable to do that and provided them and/or their practices with a certificate and a badge to that effect simply after completing a basic entry requirement may need to reconsider their situation and review if they do need to provide better proof of competence and much clearer evidence they meet the criteria ...
Students who progress through the holistic modular training on the CDM2007.org portal now have the added benefit of bridging all that knowledge to meet the standard required to gain the new unique CDM Award which is a National Standard on the QCF Database ~ a QCF Level 4 Award ~ and CDM2007.org are currently the only organisation duly and independently accredited to provide this.
To complete the picture of a competent person able to prove it, the team at CDM2007.org have also provided the means to prove ability and experience too ~ giving all the certified proof necessary of task experience and industry capability!
Ed.
