Confined spaces - A couple of cases

Case 1
A silo cleaning company was fined £15,000 each of two breaches of the Confined Spaces Regulations 1997 (with costs of £15,000) after pleading guilty to breaching Regulations 4(2) (failing to provide a safe system of work) and 5(1) (insufficient emergency arrangements). A worker who had not been trained in confined-space access and egress, nor provided with adequate equipment, died of heat exhaustion inside a feed silo.

Case 2
A metal-treatment company has been fined £533,000 (with costs of £200,000) following a double fatality at its manufacturing plant. The Crown Court heard that a works manager and a maintenance manager died of asphyxiation and were found unconscious on stairs leading to a concrete-lined pit after argon gas had leaked from a large pressure vessel. Following a number of false alarms, the pit’s oxygen alarm system had been silenced. This was coupled to the fact that the ventilation system was also not in operation after the machine had lost power during a power cut. The power cut happened a month prior to the incident and had not been switched back on. The HSE inspector commented “... the risks from confined spaces and asphyxiation due to the presence of argon were well-known to the company, which had experienced of a similar double fatality. Despite this warning the company failed to undertake a proper risk assessment for entry into the confined space. Although they had implemented a safe system of work and permit-to-work procedure, they had not properly trained employees in their use, or ensured that these systems and procedures were being followed through their auditing procedure.”

If you need help to manage your Health and Safety, please contact us via our website

Food Safety - Scores on the Doors

Consumers in most areas can see how well a food business complies with food hygiene regulations through ‘Scores on the Doors’ schemes run by their local authority.

The primary purpose of these ‘Scores on the Doors’ schemes is to allow consumers to make informed choices about the places in which they eat out and from which they purchase food, and, through this, to encourage businesses to improve hygiene standards. Journalists also make use of the ‘Scores on the Doors’ system to publicise the standards of food businesses.

Local authority enforcement officers are responsible for inspecting food businesses to ensure that they meet the legal requirements on food hygiene. Under ‘Scores on the Doors’ schemes, each food outlet is given a hygiene rating or hygiene score that reflects the inspection findings and may display this in their premises where consumers can see it. Scores are also available via websites where consumers can see the scores for all the businesses in the local area.

At the moment, more than 200 local authorities across the UK have Scores on the Doors schemes in place. These schemes vary in their design and the way that they are operated. Some authorities use a star grading system, usually three or five star ranges, others use smiley face symbols. The Food Standards Agency is hoping to standardise the system nationwide to make it easier to understand.

Freedom of information legislation means that inspection reports on food hygiene are in the public domain and any member of the public can ask to see them. ‘Scores on the Doors’ makes food safety conditions at individual premises even more obvious and accessible to the public and the media

To maximise the potential ‘Scores on the Doors’ score it is obviously important to demonstrate good cleaning and food safety practices during the inspection. Just as important as this, however, is to be able to prove that management and staff have received adequate training in food hygiene and that there is a sufficient written food safety management system in place. The weighting given to training and management systems in the scoring of ‘Scores on the Doors’ is high. This often means that where these are lacking, a low score is given even when the physical conditions and practices on site during the inspection are good.

Creating a food safety management system does not have to be complicated. The Food Standards Agency has provided a very easy to use system called ‘Safer Food, Better Business’, which can either be found on the internet or can be provided in paper form from your local authority Environmental Health Department. The hazard analysis part of the system is in a really easy to use ‘fill in the gaps’ format and the record keeping diary is also very simple. There is no requirement for endless records and emphasis is put on only recording things that go wrong and what corrective action is taken.

Training is also easy to do. The ‘Safer Food Better Business System’ itself can be used to aid in house training and excellent food safety courses are available from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and other organisations. These are often available through local colleges, local authorities and many private training centres.

Need Help? Contact us at our website

COSHH and smaller businesses

COSHH (the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002) is often an area for concern for businesses, especially smaller businesses. It an area of health and safety that is poorly understood and is viewed with mysticism.

Like all aspects of health and safety, small businesses need a considered approach to COSHH, but they must not assume that it does not apply to them or that it does not affect them. A simple process would be:

• review the substances present of site
• assess the hazards associated with them
• reduce the number of hazardous substances
• replace hazardous substances with safe (or at least safer) alternatives
• assess the risk from the use of the reduced inventory of substances
• implement control measures
• enforce the appropriate use of control measures

Above all, apply common sense. For further advice and guidance, please contact us.

Health & Safety - What's the minimum that I can get away with?

With respect to health and safety it is not uncommon to hear phrases (from employers) such as: “I only want to do what I have to …”, “What’s the minimum I must do to be legal…” and “What can I get away with doing…”? The most common duty, with respect to health and safety at work, is to reduce the level of risk to as low a level as is reasonably practicable (ALARP). Although there are some cases where a higher standard is required, most cases fall under the auspices of Section 2 or Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, Etc 1974. This may be paraphrased as creating the duty on the employer to “ensure the health and safety of employees (and non-employees who may be effected by the undertaking), so far as is reasonably practicable (SFARP)”. This means that the minimum legal standard is to do what is reasonably practicable.

What does Reasonably Practicable mean?
The term "so far as is reasonably practicable" (SFARP) means that the degree of risk in a particular situation can be balanced against the time, trouble, cost and physical difficulty of taking measures to avoid the risk, as decided by the Court of Appeal in Edwards v The National Coal Board 1949. If these resources are so disproportionate to the risk that it would be unreasonable to expect any employer to have to incur them to prevent it, the employer is not obliged to do so unless there is a specific requirement that he does. The greater the risk, the more likely it is that it is reasonable to go to very substantial expense, trouble and invention to reduce it. If, however, the consequences and extent of a risk are small, insistence on great expense would not be considered reasonable. It is important to remember that the judgement is an objective one and the size or financial position of the employer are immaterial.

How does this relate to Risk Assessments within the workplace?
All employers are required (by Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, as amended) to undertake assessments of the risks (to employees and to non-employees) arising from their undertaking. After determining the level of risk, SFARP has the effect of helping to determine how far to go with the control measures that need to be introduced to reduce the risks does to ALARP. When considered in this light, the question’s that were raised at the start of this article become poignant. Doing the minimum actually means reaching quite a high standard of health and safety as the only defence to not doing more is that it is not reasonably practicable to do so.

Is there an order that needs to be considered when determining the measures that are needs to reduce risks to as low a level as is reasonably practicable?
Schedule 1 to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 specifies a hierarchy that is to be followed when contemplating and introducing measures to control the risks:
(a) avoiding risks
(b) evaluating the risks which cannot be avoided
(c) combating the risks at source
(d) adapting the work to the individual, especially as regards the design of workplaces, the choice of work equipment and the choice of working and production methods, with a view, in particular, to alleviating monotonous work and work at a predetermined work-rate and to reducing their effect on health
(e) adapting to technical progress
(f) replacing the dangerous by the non-dangerous or the less dangerous
(g) developing a coherent overall prevention policy which covers technology, organisation of work, working conditions, social relationships and the influence of factors relating to the working environment
(h) giving collective protective measures priority over individual protective measures and
(i) giving appropriate instructions to employees
Other pieces of legislation, such as the Work at Height Regulations 2005, Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002, Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, etc. create similar hierarchies.

What about the “knock-on” effects of control measures into other areas?
Risk assessments need to be well thought through and they need to be holistic: all factors need to be considered, including any new risks created by the introduction of the control measures designed to reduce the existing risk. For example:
• a small reduction in the toxicity of a substance should be weighed against the increased risks that might be associated with a flammability or explosion risk, etc.
• the reduction in manual handling risks brought about by the use of mechanical handling (such as a fork lift truck or a conveyor system) need to be balances against the increased risks arising from vehicle movement, falling loads, machinery guarding and mechanical risks, etc.

Need help? Contact us at LRB Consulting.co.uk

New Fire Safety Legislation

The Fire Safety (England) (Employees' Capabilities) Regulations 2010 came into force on 06 April 6 2010.

These regulations have been issued to close the percieved gap in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO). They require that employers delegating fire safety tasks to employees take into account the fire safety capabilities of the employees to whom these tasks are delegated. This "new" fire safety legislation formalises a duty which was (arguably) already implicitly present in the existing legislation, i.e., the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

Regulation 2 of this new legislation requires the employer to take employees’ capabilities into consideration when entrusting them with fire safety responsibilities:

Every employer must, in entrusting tasks to employees, take into account their capabilities as regards health and safety, so far as those capabilities relate to fire.

This is an example of legislation being used to enforce the application of common sense. Fire safety is essential to the safe running of all businesses. If you need help with any aspect of your fire safety (or your health and safety), please contact us through our website.

Active Monitoring and Record Keeping

In common with the many other aspects of running a successful business (such as sales, production, finance, quality, etc.) companies need to measure their health and safety performance to find out if they are truly being successful. Monitoring of the health and safety activity may be split into two important, yet distinct areas: Active Monitoring and Reactive Monitoring.

Most people are familiar with, and comfortable with the concept of reactive monitoring. This is the process of investigation into things that have gone wrong (such as accident investigation) and involves learning from mistakes. These mistakes may have resulted in injuries and illness, property damage or near misses.

Active monitoring is an important aspect of modern safety management that appears to be very difficult for some companies to accept and to buy into. It is the things that we do that generally keep employees (and other persons) from harm; but it is the records and documents that we keep (and complete) that will help to protect the Company. The court case described below puts some of this into context.

Reactive Monitoring and Active Monitoring

Reactive monitoring occurs when companies investigate (suspected) failures in their health and safety systems. Typical examples include accident and incident investigation as well as investigations into cases of ill heath, and near misses etc. Even from these few examples, it can be seen that reactive monitoring involves responding to some form of health and safety failure, such as: an accident, incident, near miss, failure of equipment, etc.

The role of active monitoring is very different. Active monitoring aims to avoid failures and help to improve (health and safety) performance by looking at the operations, systems, equipment and people to ensure that there are no faults or failings (or to identify them before they lead to accidents and incidents are correct them). Active monitoring gives the company feedback on its performance without the need for an accident, incident or case of ill health. It allows companies to measure successes rather than merely to respond to recorded failures. It also allows shortfalls to be identified and addressed before accidents, incidents and ill health occur. Monitoring and checking is an essential part of the model for “Successful Health and Safety Management” espoused in the HSE publication: HSG65. In this model it is referred to as measuring performance. Similarly, monitoring is also a requirement of OHSAS 18001 and BS8800. Active monitoring involves checking conditions, plant, and systems, to ascertain if performance is being maintained to the defined standards, using the techniques of safety inspections and safety audits. Active monitoring measures the effectiveness of an organisation's defences against accidents whereas reactive monitoring simply measures the number of times loss has resulted from a breach of these defences.

Active monitoring can be used as an effective means of promoting the Corporate and Social Responsibility of a business. According to the information placed prominently on the website of a large UK based company: “What sets us apart from our peers in the management of health and safety is the extent and depth of our active monitoring programme. The traditional approach of reactive monitoring (recording accidents and incidents) only measures where things have gone wrong. The active monitoring programme we employ provides information on the effectiveness of our systems and hence allows us to identify potential weaknesses before they result in accidents.”

Active Monitoring and its relationship to the risk assessment process

The effectiveness of the risk assessment process in helping to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees and the health and safety of non-employees bends on several factors. Two of the most important are:
• The quality, accuracy and relevance of the original risk assessment, and
• The appropriate use of the control measures identified in and arising from the risk assessment.

Having completed the risk assessment, the significant finding of the assessment need to be communicated to employees to:
• ensure that they are aware of the hazards to which they may be exposed, and
• ensure that they are aware of the control measures that are to be used to avoid or, where avoidance is reasonably practicable (or practicable - as the case may be), to control the risk to the lowest level that is reasonably practicable (or practicable)

The role of active monitoring is to supplement and support this training by checking that:
• the control measures identified in the risk assessment are being used appropriately, and
• the control measures are effective in avoiding or reducing the risk.

Who should carry out Active Monitoring activities?

Active monitoring can be carried out by a range of people, some of whom are third parties, not direct employees, including:
• Operatives/workers
• Charge hands, leading hands, foremen, supervisors, etc.
• Managers
• Service engineers
• Insurance engineers (often used for statutory examinations)
• Consultants/auditors
• Customers, clients, etc.

It is normal practice for the daily safety checks of the fork lift truck(s) to be carried out by the fork lift driver, store man, etc., while it is also good practice for these records to be checked regularly by the manager or supervisor responsible for the area or operation where the fork lift trucks are used. The role of this second check is to ensure that the daily checks are being made, not to repeat them. The fork lift trucks would then be subject to a more detailed check and maintenance process from the (third party) person or company contracted to maintained and service the fork lift trucks. On top of this, the lift trucks will also be subject to statutory inspection and test (under the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998, LOLER) at twelve monthly intervals (or six monthly is used to lift people).

Some case Law Involving Active Monitoring

In a Scottish case, M (a Scottish tyre-fitting firm) was fined £10,000 for failing (in the words of the Procurator Fiscal) to “give effect to arrangements that were appropriate for monitoring and reviewing its health and safety policy. It didn’t check that people were actually following it.” Regulation 5 of the Management of Health and Safety Work Regulations 1999 places a duty on employers to ensure effective planning, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures within their health and safety arrangements. This point is expanded with the Approved Code of Practice that supports the Regulations where the point is made that “Active monitoring reveals how effectively the health and safety management system is functioning”

The case followed a road traffic accident (RTA) in which one of T’s employees and the driver of a broken down (client) lorry were killed at the road side. One of M’s tyre fitters attended an early morning breakdown on the A90 Dundee-Aberdeen road. The broken down vehicle had stopped in the nearside lane (there being no hard shoulder available on this particular stretch) and the hazard warning lights had been switched on. The section of the road in that area was unlit and, according to witnesses also on the road at the time of the crash, the two drivers could barely be seen. This indicates that they were not wearing high-visibility jackets. Unfortunately, the driver of a third vehicle that was travelling north failed to spot the breakdown in time. This third vehicle collided with the broken down truck, shunting it into the recovery vehicle, which had been parked in front and killed the two men on the scene.

The driver of this third vehicle pleaded guilty to a charge of reckless driving. During the investigation into the incident, the HSE discovered that M had a good, up to date, written Health and Safety Policy that addressed issues such as the wearing of Hi-visibility fluorescent jackets, the placing of traffic cones at the site of the breakdown and parking the recovery vehicle between the broken down vehicle and the oncoming traffic. It also discovered, however, that none of these measures had been implemented in practice. The court heard that M’s driver had seen the policy and had signed it to acknowledge that he had read it. It also heard that the Company had carried out a vehicle check about a month before the accident. According to Procurator Fiscal, the failing of M was in not putting into practice what it had put down on paper. The Company could not demonstrate that it monitored the use and effectiveness of policies and procedures or the control measures arising from its risk assessments. It did not take enough steps to ensure that its employees were working to the Company’s procedures.

This case highlights the fact that it is not enough to have a health and safety policy and expect everyone within the organization to understand it and to work to that policy. People must receive suitable and sufficient training in the policy and then the effectiveness of the policy must be established.

An example of what some sectors are doing to carry out and promote active monitoring

The Association of Charity Shops has created a series of information sheets for its members; one of these outlines the importance of active monitoring in the (charity) retail arena (www.charityshops.org.uk). It outlines the importance of regular monitoring activities over the range of potential health and safety issues in this market sector. Suggested frequencies for checks vary from daily (such as checking that fire escapes are unobstructed) through weekly, monthly and quarterly and on up to half yearly (such as a review of COSHH and manual handling assessments).

Examples of Records

Record keeping is an important aspect of the management of health and safety at work. There are, however, still many companies that, despite carrying out checks, do not keep suitable records. Most companies are better at making and keeping records of failure (such as accident investigations) than they are keeping making records of good performance (such as: housekeeping standards and lighting levels in access corridors clear at the time of the check). Some records are easier to generate and to keep than others. Most companies keep records of statutory examinations (such as of local exhaust ventilation systems or of lifting equipment) and most keep records of their completed risk assessments. Few keep records of internal inspection and testing of their machinery guarding, operational checks on their local exhaust ventilation systems, etc. Fewer still keep records of their internal checks on the operation and effectiveness of their health and safety policy. Some aspects of this are simple to do and can be delegated to a range of managers, supervisors and other employees. These simpler aspects include maintenance logs and recorded checks on the presence and operation of machinery guarding, light guards, perimeter guards, etc. Other aspects are more complicated, involved or specialised and need to be organized and controlled by directors and managers or delegated to other competent persons.

Keeping records of Active Monitoring need not take much time

One of the important points to consider when keeping records of active monitoring is to design the paperwork to minimise the amount of time taken in recording the information while still obtaining meaningful records that be kept and, where necessary, referred to. In most cases, this can be achieved by designing a simple (yet suitably comprehensive) checklist.

The checklist should be designed such that in cases where is as it should be, the use of a tick, initials or other simple mark suffices. In certain cases, it may be necessary to record other simple data, such as the date, pressure, operative’s names, etc. The default position should be that the checklist is easy and quick to complete in situations where there are no defects. In the event of defects being found (such as a missing machinery guard or disabled safety interlock, etc.) then checklist will take longer to complete as details of the defect and of the (proposed) corrective action need to be recorded. It may also be necessary to go into more detail if the corrective action required action by somebody else.

Typical examples of simple daily/weekly checks and records:

Daily fork lift truck driver checklist
Condition of battery charging stations checklist
Daily or weekly recorded checks on the presence and effectiveness of (fixed and adjustable) machinery guards and safety features (such as the DC injection brakes on radial drills)
Daily checklist for the operation of the light guard on a guillotine, etc.
Daily (or shift based) records of the operation of the safety features (fixed guarding and interlocked guarding) on power presses
Housekeeping checklist/site walk down checklist
Road vehicle regular inspection checklist

Typical examples of Monthly/Quarterly checks and records:

Racking inspection checklist
Fire extinguisher location and condition checklist
Fire door condition and operation checklist
Access equipment inspection checklist (such as step ladders, steps, etc.)
Monitoring of the general condition of the premises, walkways, lighting, heating, etc.
Availability, condition and use of personal protective equipment
First aid box and emergency eyewash station checklists
General housekeeping checklist
Workplace inspections and audits
Visual inspection records for portable electrical equipment

Typical examples of six monthly/annual checklists:

Formal review of the suitability and effectiveness of the Health and Safety Policy (such as through an audit)
Formal review of the suitability and relevance of risk assessments and checking that they are up to date
Checks that all statutory examinations are being carried out at the appropriate frequencies (such as those applicable to lifting equipment, pressurized systems and local exhaust ventilation systems)
Training needs assessments for employees and training records
Portable appliance testing/inventory
General condition checking of the fixed electrical installation

Typical examples of “as used” checks and records:

Safety harnesses and lanyards that are not used often may be subject to inspection and checking before each use, rather than on a more regular basis.
The condition of guarding and safety devices on equipment that is not used often may be tested and inspected before each use rather than as part of a regular machinery safety inspection regime.

Personal Protective Equipment: Records of availability and condition of issued PPE

Most employers need to provide personal protective equipment (PPE) to employees. Some companies record the issue of such PPE, but in most cases this is only done the first time that PPE is issued or in the case of more expensive items of PPE. Very few companies are able to demonstrate that employees still have the PPE that they were issued with and that it is in good condition. This is particularly the case in companies where the employees do not work on the company’s own site (such as contractors). Potentially, many companies are leaving themselves exposed in this area. This sort of record keeping is often seen as difficult and time consuming to undertake. A relatively simple solution is to create a PPE condition monitoring sheet that the employees complete or, preferably, that is completed in conjunction with a supervisor, charge hand, foreman, etc. The sheet can be devised a number of ways, but two ones include:
• A simple table of the issued items of PPE against the employee’s name. The resulting boxes are initialled to indicate that the employee still has the PPE and that it is in good condition (clean and free from defects). In this case, the sheet is used to record the details of a group or team of workers and a new sheet is used each month.
• A simple table of issued items of PPE against the month. Initialling the boxes has the same meaning as above In this case, the form is used month on month (until completed), allowing one form to be used for several months, reducing the amount of paperwork involved. Other information may also be obtained and recorded on this single employee form, such as the condition of hands and lower arms in cases of work that may have a risk of dermatitis, etc.

COSHH: Workplace exposure monitoring as an example of Active Monitoring

If the COSHH risk assessment (as required by Regulation 6 of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, COSHH) shows it is necessary, then workplace exposure monitoring may be required to meet the requirements of Regulation 10 of COSHH. This requires the use of and suitable occupational hygiene techniques to estimate the amount of employees’ exposure to substances hazardous to health. In the case of airborne contaminants, this measurement will normally involve collecting a sample of air from the employee’s breathing zone using some form of personal sampling equipment. Alternatively, it may involve sampling the air at the workplace periodically, or even require the use of continuous static sampling equipment.

What ever the method used, this is a form of Active Monitoring. The purpose of measurements is to demonstrate that the control measures in place (arising from the COSHH risk assessment) are suitable and sufficient to protect the health of employees and of others who may (potentially) be exposed to the hazardous substance.

In the case of workplace exposure monitoring, employers must keep and maintain a record of any for at least five years. In the case of personal exposure monitoring, as opposed to (general) workplace exposure monitoring, then the details should be recorded as part of the employee’s health file and, as such, the record must be kept for at least forty years.

Monitoring of common areas

Common areas within shared occupancy premises are areas that are often neglected in instances where the landlord is not on site and does not have a (regular) site presence. In a recent case, a firm of architects occupying second floor offices in a multi-let building were found liable to one of its employees for injuries the employee sustained as they left the lift on the ground floor. Safety devices that should have prevented the lift doors from closing failed and the doors shut on the employee's hand. The firm was found to be in breach of its statutory duty to meet minimum health and safety requirements regarding the use of work equipment by workers at work, even though the accident occurred outside of the architects' demise, in equipment which formed part of the common parts of the building and which it was the landlord's responsibility to maintain and repair.

The fact that an employer can be in breach of statutory duty in respect of equipment such as a lift that is outside of its demise within the premises and also outside of its control should be of concern to tenants. It should also be considered that this case may provide some useful ammunition to tenants who are experiencing difficulty in getting their landlords to comply with repair and maintenance obligations. The potential for statutory liability on the part of a tenant as an employer may help persuade a court that an injunction against the landlord compelling compliance with its repair and maintenance obligations is an appropriate remedy. This case also implies the need for some level of active monitoring of common areas. Part of the active monitoring procedure may include requesting the landlord to confirm, in writing, that certain issues that may be taken for granted are actually being addressed. This may include confirmation that the landlord has arranged:
• Inspection and testing of the fixed electrical installation
• Inspection, test and maintenance of the fire alarm system
• Inspection, test and maintenance of the emergency (or escape) lighting system
• Inspection, test and maintenance of the lift

Monitoring of off-site activities

In cases where much of the activity takes place off site, other routes for carrying out monitoring and checking need to be considered. Companies should consider periodic, unannounced site visits by either their own staff or by specifically contracted staff (such as consultants, etc.). Where may of the activities carried out on different sites are similar, simple audit (or monitoring) checklists may be developed.
Alternatively, feedback may be sought from other interested parties, such as other contractors working on the site or from customers on whose site (or behalf) work is being carried out. This can be as simple as a few questions added to documentation that the customer needs to sign anyway (such as delivery notes, job completion dockets, etc.).

Summary

It is the law, as well as good management, that the health and safety policy and the risk assessments carried out for the undertakings of the business must be both operational and effective. It is well established (refer to HSG 65) that the effectiveness of the health and safety policy and of the risk assessments should be verified and checked through some form of monitoring or auditing process. Active monitoring of systems allows the (potential) failures to be identified before they cause loss or harm. The effectiveness of the health and safety policy and of the risk assessments may be established, and demonstrated, through various active monitoring techniques and records. Organisations are now becoming more aware of active monitoring and of the advantages that it can bring.

Michael Ellerby
LLB BSc CMIOSH MIIRSM CChem MRSC CSci
Director
LRB Consulting Limited
Michael@Lrbconsulting.co.uk

The importance of Paperwork in health and safety

I first posted this blog about two years ago. It is still true (and simple) now.


Recently, I spent a morning in Birmingham visiting a neat little site for a major client. There were a few niggly areas to address, but the main one (which seems to affect a huge number of sites) was the retrieval of relevant records. While almost everything was in place, it was difficult to establish this with the paperwork trail. The importance of the paperwork trail can be seen by considering safety to be split into two simple things:

1. The things that we do to protect ourselves, employees and others
2. The proof of what we have done

Clearly, it is the things that we do that are most important for protecting people from harm. The proof element becomes important after things have gone wrong or when there is an enforcement visit. The proof element is essential for protecting the Company from harm. By way on schoolboy analogy: "if you are called into the Head's office to be caned, ensure that you have book down the back of your trousers. The records are those books - your corporate protection"