Author: Foxxweb

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published its annual statistics on work-related ill health and workplace injuries. The figures also show that 138 workers were killed in work-related accidents in 2023/24, while 61,663 workers sustained a self-reported non-fatal injury in the workplace during the same period.

The statistics reveal that 1.7million workers reported they were suffering from work-related ill health in 2023/24, an estimated 0.8 milliondown to stress, depression or anxiety.

An estimated 33.75 million working days were lost in 2023/24 due to self-reported work-related ill health or injury.

HSE’s statistics also reveal the impact that the work-related ill health and workplace injuries are having on Britain’s economic performance. Preventing or tackling work-related stress can provide significant benefits to employees, improving their experience of work and their overall health; and also to employers including increased productivity, decreased absenteeism and reduced staff turnover

In 2022/23, the estimated annual costs of workplace injury and new cases of work-related ill health reached £21.6 billion.

Age discrimination in the workplace is a pervasive issue that affects many aspects of employment, including hiring decisions. From a health and safety perspective, age can be a significant factor, with employers often making assumptions about older workers’ abilities and risks. How age might influence hiring decisions from a health and safety viewpoint, highlighting the legal, ethical and practical considerations involved.

The intersection of age and workplace safety Workplace safety is paramount in any organisation, and employers have a duty to ensure a safe working environment for all employees. This responsibility often leads to careful consideration of potential employees’ physical and mental capabilities, which can be influenced by age. While it is illegal to discriminate based on age under laws such as the Equality Act, age-related concerns about health and safety still play a role in hiring decisions.

Common assumptions and stereotypes

• Physical ability. Employers might assume that older workers are more prone to physical limitations, such as reduced strength, stamina or agility. This can be particularly relevant in industries that require manual labour, heavy lifting or prolonged physical exertion.
• Cognitive decline. There is a stereotype that cognitive abilities decline with age, affecting memory, reaction times and the ability to learn new skills. In safety-critical roles, this assumption can lead employers to favour younger candidates who are perceived as more mentally sharp.
• Health risks. Older individuals are often viewed as being at higher risk for chronic health conditions, which could potentially lead to more frequent absences or a higher likelihood of medical emergencies on the job. Employers might be concerned about the impact of these health issues on overall workplace safety.

The HSE has recently released detailed annual statistics on work-related fatalities, which show that the rate of fatalities increases with age. Workers aged 60 or over accounted for 42% of those killed at work, and workers aged 60-64 are twice as likely to be killed. These figures are four times higher for workers aged 65 and over, despite comprising only 11% of the workforce. The cost-of-living crisis is increasing the amount of people working beyond retirement, which could be the cause of the increase in fatality levels amongst these age groups.

Legal and ethical considerations

Discriminating against older workers based on these assumptions is not only ethically questionable but also legally precarious. Employers must ensure that their hiring practices do not violate these protections by unjustly favouring younger candidates.
Ethically, it is important to recognise the value that older workers bring to the table. Experience, knowledge and a strong work ethic are qualities that can enhance workplace safety rather than compromise it. Employers should focus on individual capabilities rather than making broad assumptions based on age.

Best practices for employers

• Objective assessments. Use objective, job-related criteria to assess all candidates. This can include physical fitness tests, cognitive assessments and health screenings, provided they are relevant to the job and applied equally to all applicants.
• Reasonable accommodations. Be willing to make reasonable accommodations for older workers. This might include ergonomic adjustments, modified work schedules or assistive technologies that can help mitigate any age-related limitations.
• Training and development. Invest in ongoing training and development for all employees, regardless of age. This ensures that older workers remain competent and confident in their roles, thereby maintaining high safety standards.
• Inclusive culture. Foster an inclusive workplace culture that values diversity, including age diversity. Encourage intergenerational collaboration and mentorship, which can enhance safety practices and create a more cohesive work environment.

Conclusion

Age should not be a barrier to employment, especially when it comes to health and safety considerations. While it is natural for employers to be concerned about the physical and cognitive abilities of their workforce, it is crucial to base hiring decisions on objective criteria and individual assessments rather than age-based stereotypes. By doing so, employers can ensure a fair, inclusive, and safe workplace for employees of all ages.

The HSE is launching a new research project to map AI’s impact on health and safety across its regulated industries. This will help it to consider the risks and opportunities of AI use in industrial settings.   

The HSE is asking industry to help by providing information about AI that is being trialled or used in the workplace. It says it is keen to gather a wide a range of AI uses to ensure the information collected is representative.   

HSE’s role in regulating AI includes:

Regulating the use of AI where it impacts on health and safety in workplaces where HSE is the enforcing authority.

Regulating the use of AI in design, manufacture and supply of workplace machinery, equipment and products for use in the workplace as a Market Surveillance Authority under the Product Safety regulatory framework.

Where AI impacts on HSE’s role to protect people and places, including building safety, chemicals and pesticides regulation.

The central principle of health and safety law is that those who create risks are best placed to manage and control that risk in a sensible, proportionate and pragmatic way. As benchmarks develop for the use of AI, the HSE wants to reach a point where AI risk is no longer novel and is managed in the same way as any other risk.

HSE expects a risk assessment to be undertaken for uses of AI which impact on health and safety and appropriate controls put in place to reduce risk so far as is reasonably practicable, including to address cyber security threats.

The focus of the work the HSE is doing to continue to develop its regulatory approach to AI includes:

Coordinating work on AI, sharing knowledge and identifying key issues through an internal AI common interest group, bringing together colleagues from across HSE.

Working with government departments to shape the approach to AI regulation.

Supporting the standards making process, to establish benchmarks for AI interaction with machinery and functional safety by engaging with international standards organisations (BSI, IEC and ISO).

Establishing relationships with industry and academic stakeholders, to share knowledge and learning on AI use cases and the impact on health and safety.

Collaborating with other regulators, though forums including the AI Standards Forum for UK Regulators, Information Commissioners Office AI Regulators Forum and the United Kingdom Health and Safety Regulators Network Innovation Sub-Group, to encourage a consistent regulatory approach.

Identifying AI developments of interest to HSE through horizon scanning activities and monitoring AI developments in Great Britain and around the world, from a practical and regulatory perspective.

Building its capability and experience in AI across specialist and scientific areas of HSE and working with partners as appropriate.

Supporting research bids that align with HSE’s areas of research interest (on GOV.UK) and help develop safe use of AI and the ability to regulate AI use.

Setting up and trialling of an Industrial Safetytech Regulatory Sandbox (on discoveringsafety.com) to explore practical barriers to adoption of Industrial Safetytech in construction and how to break them down.

1)           TATA CHEMICALS

On 5 June, Tata Chemicals Europe Limited was fined more than £1 million at Chester Crown Court.

The case was brought against the firm following the death of a young father who died while erecting a scaffold tower in a chemical plant in Northwich.

2)           OPENREACH

Telecommunications giant Openreach was given a £1.34 million fine after an engineer died while trying to repair a telephone line in Wales. Alun Owen died after he slipped and fell into the River Aber in Abergwyngregyn and was swept away on 6 October 2020.

3)           BAM NUTTALL Ltd

Construction company BAM Nuttall Ltd was fined £2.345m following the death of worker Gary Webster, who lost his life from drowning in the river Aire on 30th October 2017. He had been on a boat removing debris at the bottom of the weir gates at Knostop weir when it capsized.

4)           HOUSING COMPANY

On 19th June, Avant Homes (Scotland) Ltd were fined more than £300,000 after a driver was crushed to death by falling concrete blocks at a construction site in South Lanarkshire.

5)           CHARITABLE TRUST

Wilts & Berks Canal Trust were fined £30,000 after a male volunteer was fatally crushed while carrying out restoration work as part of its project to preserve, conserve & improve the route of the Wilts & Berks Canal at Pewsham Locks.

6)           EXPLOSIVES MANUFACTURER

On 27th June, Chemring Countermeasures Limited were fined £670,000 after a male worker was killed in a explosion at the factory in Salisbury, whilst cleaning a vessel used in the production of MTV – an explosive substance in military flares.

7)           ENGINEERING COMPANY

On 15th July, EMC Elite Engineering Services Ltd was fined after a worker sustained multiply injuries while working at a HS2 construction site in Hertfordshire, as he fell more than 30 feet & landed on a concrete floor below.

8)           ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION COMPANY

A Cheshire based electrical transmission company was fined £240,000 after a worker was left paralysed following a fall from height, whilst demolishing and replacing electricity pylons in East Staffordshire.

9)           RECYCLING COMPANY

The national recycling company Veolia ES (UK) ltd was fined £3m after a worker was killed as he fell about 12m to the ground, whilst decommissioning an old North Sea rig, at an onshore facility in Great Yarmouth.

10)LIVESTOCK AUCTIONEERS

Operators of livestock market in the Welsh town of Whitland were fined after a man was  knocked down, trampled on & killed by a cow being auctioned that had managed to escape.

Just about every business generates some type of waste as a byproduct of its day to day operations. Those same businesses pay haulers big bucks to transport their waste in bulk to landfills, adding on to an already burdened waste stream. But, much of that same waste can typically be baled and recycled. Companies that have implemented the use of recycling balers in their operations have realized the benefits of recycling using recycling balers.

Consider either a vertical or horizontal recycling baler for your business:

Reduced Hauling Costs: By pulling recyclable waste out of your waste stream, you will have less material that needs to be hauled away each month. This results in fewer pulls of your skip or compactor and lower bills, saving you money on your bottom line.

New Revenue Streams: Not only do you pay less for hauling, using a recycling baler in your business will generate a new revenue stream for you when recyclers pick up valuable commodities like cardboard, aluminium, non-ferrous metals, shrink wrap, paper, plastics, and more!

Improved Work Areas: Baling up large stacks of recyclables helps to free up valuable floor space in work areas. Cleaner work areas with less debris means fewer hazards for employees, reduced fire risk, and less odour or vermin.  This all helps to maintain a clean and safe work environment that nurtures productivity!

Labor Efficiency: Implementing recycling balers as a part of your company’s sustainability program helps to reduce the time needed to spend on waste handling. Think about a stack of cardboard boxes that used to need to be cut down to save space in a skip to maximize pulls. By recycling, you remove the cardboard from the skip, but also the need for employees to spend the time breaking down each box before depositing them into the baler loading door.  This means your staff can spend less time on waste handling and more time on more valuable tasks that improve your business model!

Business Image:  In today’s competitive marketplace, image is everything. Many consumers base their buying decisions on the values of the company making the products or services they want. Employees like to work at places that share their common values of social and eco-responsibility. Sustainable practices make work spaces healthier for both employees and consumers alike. Positioning your company as a leader in environmental stewardship will pay dividends far beyond some of the examples listed above.

Civic and Government Compliance: Using a recycling baler in your business helps ensure compliance with local regulations, ISO 14001 certification related to waste handling, curb side deposits, and more. It also helps you track your monthly expenditures and savings.

Plastic Liners are essential components of fish hatcheries and aquaculture farms. They help maintain water levels, prevent seepage, and ensure proper management.

By providing the right materials and installing and maintaining the liners correctly.

Benefit from effective water containment and sustainable farming practices.

The Benefits

• Water containment – Plastic liners are primarily used to create a waterproof barrier, maintaining water levels within the aquaculture. Crucial in areas with porous soil or when the water source is limited.
• Liner Material – The liner material is created using polyethylene (RPE). Which is chosen for its durability, resistance to ultraviolet degradation and long-lasting performance.
• Liner Installation – The process of installing plastic liners involves preparing the site by clearing and levelling the area, removing sharp objects, and compacting the soil to create a stable foundation. Once the liner is unrolled, it is secured in place using sandbags.
• Maintenance and Repair – Maintenance is crucial to maximizing the lifespan of your liner. Monitor for signs of damage! This includes punctures, tears, and wear. Any breach in the liner can result in water loss, contamination, or inefficient water management.
• Advantages of Liners – Plastic liners provide a cost-effective solution compared to alternatives such as concrete construction. Liners are also flexible and adaptable to various layout sites. Being relatively easy to install and maintain, they are a popular choice for aquaculture operations.
• Environmental consideration – Some liner materials can be recycled.
• Regulations – Fish Hatcheries and Aquaculture farms are subject to regulations that govern their operation. It’s important to understand and comply with [relevant regulations such as] to ensure environmental sustainability.

A workplace transport case has highlighted the importance of providing pedestrian routes on construction sites, so that all pedestrians are kept safe from all forms of vehicle.

A Yorkshire metals recycling company has been fined £1.2m after a worker was injured after being struck by a wagon at a processing site.

On 10 August 2020 an employee of CF Booth Limited was walking across the site yard in Rotherham when he was struck by a moving 32-tonne skip wagon. The man was not wearing his hi-vis jacket and did not see the wagon approaching.

Causing the man sustained a fractured skull and collar bone in two places, but has since made a full recovery.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that at the time of the incident the site was not organised in such a way that pedestrians and vehicles could circulate in a safe manner.

A suitable and sufficient workplace transport risk assessment was not in place for the segregation of vehicles and pedestrians. The company had failed to take steps to properly assess the risks posed by the movement of vehicles and pedestrians. The incident could have been prevented by adequately assessing the risks and implementing appropriate control measures such as physical barriers and crossing points.

At Sheffield Magistrates’ Court on 25 April, CF Booth Limited pleaded guilty of breaching Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. It was fined £1.2million and ordered to pay costs of £5,694.85.

Waste firm to pay £68,500 for liquid cyanide leak in Derbyshire

The Environment Agency prosecuted a waste transport company for causing liquid cyanide to leak from a lorry at an industrial estate in Heanor, Derbyshire.

J & G Environmental Ltd of Fareham, Hampshire had previously pleaded guilty to the charge of causing an illegal water discharge. It prompted the Fire Service to set up decontamination protocols and caused hundreds of fish deaths in a nearby pond.

The incident, which occurred on 6 February 2018, happened when a container ruptured as the driver started moving them around, having borrowed a forklift truck. Hundreds of litres of a liquid, which contained diluted cyanide, began to escape going onto the floor before entering the drainage system and natural waterways.

J & G Environmental Ltd were fined £16,000 and ordered to pay costs of £52,500

Buckinghamshire firm pays heavily for packaging oversight

A Buckinghamshire company made a financial contribution of almost £21,000 to a local charity, plus Environment Agency costs, after it failed to comply with packaging waste regulations designed to protect the environment.

Hi-Tech Coatings International Limited, an Aylesbury-based coatings manufacturer, pledged £20,935.76 to the Berks, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust, after failing to comply with the law.

The law in question—the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2007 (as amended)—aims to ensure that businesses fund the recycling of the packaging waste that they place on the UK market.

Any company handling more than 50 tonnes of packaging a year, and with a turnover in excess of £2 million, must register with the Environment Agency or a packaging compliance scheme, and meet their responsibilities for recycling waste packaging.”

East London waste boss fined for obstructing site checks

The owner of a waste treatment plant in Barking barred environment inspectors from entering the site unless they handed over thousands of pounds in bogus fees.

Gurjit Athwal, director of Keep Green Ltd was fined £3,000 with more than double again in costs and other court charges, after twice refusing entry to officers from the Environment Agency.

She was charged with breaching regulation 34(2) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. The law explains how the Environment Agency has “a duty to make appropriate periodic inspections of regulated facilities to ensure that the operator is complying with their permit.”

In addition to the £3,000 fine, magistrates ordered Athwal, of Cavendish Gardens, in Barking, to pay another £3,000 in costs, and a victim surcharge of £1.

What are Polyethylene terephthalate, or “PET” Bottles?

This is the most common resin in the polyester family and is used in the making of clothing, food containers, and most commonly, plastic bottles. PET bottles are desired by food and beverage manufacturers and the packaging industry for their low cost, transparent quality, and lightweight composition. They typically designed for “one time” use and discarded as waste after human consumption of the liquid product stored inside.

This creates a significant plastic waste problem that has global impacts. Handling and transportation of PET bottle waste is not only difficult and expensive, there is a natural disparity between weight and volume.

What Are Plastic Bottle Compactors?

Plastic bottle compactors are machines that are used by business owners and recyclers to provide many benefits. The use hydraulic pressure to compress PET bottles with the force of a platen or ram against a floor or back of a chamber of the machine. Reducing storage space, improve workplace safety, and make bales that are easy to stack, transport, and recycle. The use of plastic bottle compactors results in easier and cheaper transportation and guarantees that the bottles cannot be resold.

These machines can be vertical or horizontal in design and fed manually or by use of a conveyor or tipper. The machine continually cycles either manually or automatically until the densified plastic fills the chamber in a “bale full” status. Before being ejected from the machine, the material is then bound by wire or strapping in a process called baling. That is why plastic bottle compactors are commonly referred to as PET balers.

What are Polyethylene terephthalate, or “PET” Bottles?

This is the most common resin in the polyester family and is used in the making of clothing, food containers, and most commonly, plastic bottles. PET bottles are desired by food and beverage manufacturers and the packaging industry for their low cost, transparent quality, and lightweight composition. They typically designed for “one time” use and discarded as waste after human consumption of the liquid product stored inside.

This creates a significant plastic waste problem that has global impacts. Handling and transportation of PET bottle waste is not only difficult and expensive, there is a natural disparity between weight and volume.

What Are Plastic Bottle Compactors?

Plastic bottle compactors are machines that are used by business owners and recyclers to provide many benefits. The use hydraulic pressure to compress PET bottles with the force of a platen or ram against a floor or back of a chamber of the machine. Reducing storage space, improve workplace safety, and make bales that are easy to stack, transport, and recycle. The use of plastic bottle compactors results in easier and cheaper transportation and guarantees that the bottles cannot be resold.

These machines can be vertical or horizontal in design and fed manually or by use of a conveyor or tipper. The machine continually cycles either manually or automatically until the densified plastic fills the chamber in a “bale full” status. Before being ejected from the machine, the material is then bound by wire or strapping in a process called baling. That is why plastic bottle compactors are commonly referred to as PET balers.

Since the WASPI Campaign began in 2015 there have been many questions and contributions to debates on the subject.  In fact, if you search “WASPI” in Hansard (the Parliamentary Record) there have been 948 mentions.  As a comparison, the topic of menopause only got 446 mentions, despite the vastly greater coverage it gets in the media, thanks, in no small way to the work of Carolyn Harris MP and many women celebrity endorsers.

In addition to WASPI specific mentions, there have been 1,973 mentions of women’s pensions, and 3,915 about State Pension generally.

This shows the level of support for WASPI women and our issue and is a credit to the women who have campaigned consistently over the years, and are still seeking compensation for the maladministration by the Department for Work and Pensions. A department which has consistently denied any failures to provide information and have defended their actions all along.   Even now that the Ombudsman has found maladministration (July 2021) they refuse to acknowledge it.

It’s more than time for the Government to accept responsibility and compensate women affected by the maladministration.

A Bill now set to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a compensation scheme for women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1960 inclusive who have been affected by increases in the state pension age; and for connected purposes.  religious, cultural considerations.