Group Newsletter
Issue 7 Volume 4
January 2013
1
Exhibitions Information
Page 3
Group News
Page 5
SGUK News
Page 6
HSE Information
Page 7
Other stories/information
Page 12
2
Please remember that if you are employed by an SME or are an individual wishing to do a NEBOSH Certificate then please contact
us as some sponsorship may be available if you meet the criteria. Courses are provided either by SETA in Stockport or ACT
Associates
Please contact the Secretary for details cathy.nixon@mohsg.org.uk
Mike, Cathy and Dave Spence attended the meeting and lunch in the House of Lords to collect the Alan Butler Silver Award for
2012. This was presented on 21 January 2013, by David Eves CB, ex Vice President , Safety Groups UK and John Cairns, Vice
Chairman, Safety Groups UK
At the luncheon following the meeting and presentation of the Bronze and Silver categories, the Gold winners were presented
with their Awards.
Following the presentation of the Gold category the Maurice Adamson Award for outstanding contribution by an individual for
their contribution to the Safety Groups movement was awarded to Mike
3
Please add these dates to your diary and consider visiting the shows . These shows are supported by Safety Groups UK
4
The following additional Exhibitions are to be supported by Safety Groups UK with Mike and Cathy manning the stand.
April 23 – SHE Show South, Doubletree by Hilton, Milton Keynes
May 14 – 16 Safety Expo, NEC, Birmingham
June 25 – SHE Show North West, Hilton Hotel, Blackpool
Other local events taking place, though not supported by Safety Groups UK include
18 September – North West Regional Association Conference, Barton Grange Hotel, Barton, nr. Preston
Exhibition enquiries to Mike Nixon on exhibition@nwra.org.uk
October South Cumbria Conference contact Martin Fishwick on mgfishwick@live.com
5
Discounts available through SGUK
Please remember if you work for a small company, or Consultant, who perhaps do not receive a discount at Arco to request a
Safety Groups UK card which gives 15% off in Arco shops only (not online). You must produce a card to obtain the discount.
(only available to members).
Members 15% Exclusive discount
Safety Groups UK has negotiated corporate benefits for Group members. ACT is working with Safety Groups UK to provide an
exclusive discount to all Safety Groups UK members.
ACT offer an exclusive 15% discount off the list price of any product or service to all Safety Groups UK members.
ACT is established as a high quality single point solutions provider of auditing, consultancy and training services. We have
evolved into an integrated provider of all learning solutions including conventional, e-learning and blended learning options.
Obtaining the 15% discount
Call ACT on 01384 447915
E-mail – actsales@actassociates.co.uk
Quote ACTSG12
For more info on our products and services go to www.actassociates.co.uk
6
Council in court over worker's 230 volt shock
Bury Council has appeared in court after one of its employees suffered an electric shock from a 230 volt mains cable.
The 33-year-old from Prestwich, who has asked not to be named, suffered burns to his wrist, leg and groin and singed his facial
hair while removing a lamp post on Harper Fold Road in Radcliffe on 9 June 2011.
The local authority was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an investigation found he had received inadequate
training and supervision for the work.
Trafford Magistrates' Court heard today (14 December 2012) that new street lights had recently been installed on the road and the
old lights had been disconnected.
The injured worker and a colleague were in the process of removing one of the old lamp posts, using a jackhammer to break the
concrete around the base, when he struck a mains electricity cable.
HSE discovered the two workers had not been given service drawings for the lamp post they were removing, which would have
shown where the mains cable ran.
Their manager had also not received any health and safety management training, despite it being part of his job to ensure work was
carried out safely.
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council, of Knowsley Street in Bury, was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £7,594 in costs after
pleading guilty to breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by failing to ensure the safety of workers.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Principal Inspector John McGrellis said:
"The council employee needed several days off work to recover from his burn injuries but he could easily have been killed.
"He shouldn't have been put in a situation where he didn't know what the potential dangers were as he used a jackhammer to break
up the concrete around the lamp post.
"It's vital that people carrying out work near to power lines receive appropriate supervision and training to ensure their safety."
More information on electrical safety is available at www.hse.gov.uk/electricty.
7
A chemical manufacturing company from Daventry has been fined for exposing its employees to a range of hazardous chemicals.
One member of staff, a 46-year-old despatch officer, was diagnosed with occupational asthma and rhinitis after handling a
variety of toxic substances, mainly in liquid form, that were classed as hazardous to health at Endeavour Speciality Chemicals Ltd.
They are used for flavouring and smell purposes in food production.
The female employee is now no longer able to work with chemicals and has been found another job within the firm.
Northampton Magistrates' Court was told today (21 December) how employees were required to manually pour substances into
containers ready for despatch to customers. Necessary ventilation and appropriate organisation of the workplace had not been
provided.
A Health and Safety Executive investigation found the company had failed to assess the risk of ill health from packing operations
involving chemicals, and had also failed to implement the necessary control measures required to prevent, or adequately control
employees' exposure.
Endeavour Speciality Chemicals Ltd, of Low March Industrial Estate, Daventry, Northamptonshire, admitted breaching Regulations
6(1), and 7(1) of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 and was fined a total of £15,000 and ordered
to pay costs of £5,000.
After the hearing HSE Inspector James Wright said:
"The company's failure to assess the risks, and implement control measures for what was a simple work process, has resulted in
an employee suffering years of ill health, and has probably prevented her from ever working with chemicals again.
"The measures that were required to have made this work safe were inexpensive and not difficult to implement. These could have
included effective fume cupboards suitable for the work, local exhaust ventilation, good hygiene practices, exposure monitoring
and suitable PPE. Companies should ensure they have suitable arrangements in place to manage the risks from the handling of
hazardous substances."
"Every year, thousands of workers are made ill by hazardous substances, contracting lung disease such as asthma, cancer and
skin disease such as dermatitis. These diseases cost many millions of pounds each year to industry, to replace the trained worker,
to society, in disability allowances and medicines, and individuals, who may lose their jobs."
Further information and advice about working with chemicals can be found at www.hse.gov.uk/coshh
8
A Coalville fabrication company has been fined after a worker had part of his finger severed in a packaging machine.
The employee, who does not wish to be named, was working at Kenray Forming Ltd on the Stephenson Industrial Estate in
Coalville when the incident happened on 6 September 2011.
The worker, 41, of Leicester, was test running the bagging machine when he slipped. His automatic reaction was to put his hand
out to steady himself and it went straight into the front of the unguarded machine. The man's left hand came into contact with
one of the vacuum pull belts and his fingers were trapped between the belt and the rollers.
His ring finger was severed just below the first knuckle and the rest of his fingers had multiple fractures. He was in hospital for
three days and has since gone back to work at the company.
Hinckley Magistrates' Court was told today (20 December) that an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found
that the company had failed to guard dangerous parts of the machine.
Kenray Forming Limited, Telford Way, Stephenson Industrial Estate, Coalville, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. They were fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,932.
After the hearing HSE inspector Richenda Dixon said:
"The incident was entirely preventable. It would not have happened if the available guards, which are there to protect machine
operators, had not been removed. Kenray Forming Ltd should have had a system in place to ensure the guarding mechanisms
remained permanently in place.“
Free guidance on health and safety in packaging machinery is available at: www.hse.gov.uk/food/package.htm.
9
A Cambridge instrument company and a health and safety consultant have been fined for risking the health of employees from
hazardous chemicals.
Paint sprayer Adam Coventon, 36, suffered irritation to his eyes, breathing difficulties, headaches and lost the ability to
concentrate after working with harmful substances at Prior Scientific Instruments Ltd in Fulbourn. He is now no longer able to
work.
Cambridge Magistrates' Court heard yesterday (10 January) that his job was to prepare and paint small components for scientific
instruments, which involved working with chemicals including trichloroethylene, a powerful de-greaser used to clean metal
before it is painted, and paints containing isocyanates.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Prior Scientific Instruments did not provide suitable
equipment to adequately remove the hazardous fumes from the workplace, especially where items were left to dry.
HSE also found that in addition to inadequate controls, the company failed to provide employees with the necessary health
surveillance for workers using hazardous substances. Health surveillance is a key part of ensuring that peoples' health has not
been affected by the chemicals they use at work.
The Court was told that between September 2002 and December 2009 the company employed Keith Whiting, trading as KW
Consultants, as a health and safety consultant. However, he did not provide suitable information and advice to enable the
company to ensure the health and wellbeing of employees.
Prior Scientific Instruments Ltd, of Wilbraham Road, Fulbourn, Cambridge, was fined £9,000 and ordered to pay full costs of
£2,852 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
Keith Whiting, trading as KW Consultants, of West Street, Chatteris, Cambridgeshire, was fined £1,500 with costs of £1,000 after
pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(2) of the same legislation.
10
After the hearing HSE Inspector Robert Meardon said:
"Prior Scientific Instruments failed to ensure the health of its employees because it employed the wrong person to give it health
and safety advice.
"Mr. Whiting's background was in quality control and he did not have adequate knowledge of health and safety for the work going
on in this company. He failed to make them aware of the 'do's and don'ts', regarding the use of hazardous chemicals.
"In 2010, the Government commissioned Lord Young to review health and safety laws and among the findings, the inquiry
recognised that there were a lot of people claiming to be health and safety experts, who were in fact, not. The national register of
health and safety consultants has been set up as a result. All the consultants who are registered are members of a recognised
professional body, and it is important that firms seeking to use a consultant choose one from the register.“
Adam Coventon's partner, who does not want to be named, said:
"This whole thing has had a huge effect on our lives, as we have to constantly plan around Adam's symptoms. We all just wish
that his remaining symptoms go so that he can once again be fit and strong.
"This case highlights the important job the Health and Safety Executive do, and the need for companies to monitor and control
chemicals they use so they do not wreck peoples lives in the way that ours has been.“
Further information and advice about working with chemicals can be found at www.hse.gov.uk/coshh
11
A healthcare manufacturer has appeared in court after an employee at a Chorley factory lost part of his thumb when it became trapped in
machinery.
Synergy Health (UK) Ltd was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an investigation found the guards on its dry wipes
machine were not sufficient, and the worker had not received adequate training.
Leyland Magistrates' Court was told today (4 January 2013) that the 39-year-old from Bamber Bridge had been working on a machine at the
plant at the Matrix Park industrial estate on Western Avenue on 27 November 2011.+
He reached into the tunnel leading out of the machine to stop it becoming blocked with wipes that had not been cut properly, and his left
hand became caught in the slatted conveyor belt.
The worker lost the top of his thumb to the first knuckle when the conveyor belt forced it against a metal plate.
The court heard that the company had failed to carry out a proper risk assessment for the work, and so had not identified the risk of worker's
hands becoming trapped in the conveyor belt.
Synergy Health, of Whitehall Way in Swindon, Wiltshire, pleaded guilty to a breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations
1998 by failing to prevent access to dangerous machine parts. The company was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,573.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Christina Goddard said:
"This incident could easily have been avoided if Synergy Health had carried out a proper assessment of the risks and made sure its employees
were properly trained.
"The risk of workers hands becoming trapped by moving conveyor belts in well known in the industry and so it is important suitable guards
are in place.
"If the guards the company installed following the incident had been there at the time then it is extremely unlikely the employee's hand would
have become trapped.“
Information on improving safety in factories is available at www.hse.gov.uk/manufacturing.
12
A food manufacturer has appeared in court for safety offences after one of its workers lost the tip of her finger using a badlyguarded machine in a Doncaster factory.
Ms Junu Thapa, 37, of Flint Road, Doncaster, severed the end of the ring finger on her left hand as she tried to clear a blockage in
a packing machine at King Asia Foods Ltd on 9 November 2010.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigated the incident and today (10 Jan) prosecuted the company for breaching
regulations designed to safeguard workers using machinery.
Doncaster Magistrates heard that Ms Thapa was in the production area at the firm's premises in Doncaster Carr industrial estate.
A mobile screw conveyor was being used to fill a packing machine with powdered ingredients but the machine was known to
block regularly.
HSE found that the fixed guard over the top of the hopper, which prevented workers getting access to the dangerous screw part,
had been modified. Instead of being fixed at all four corners, it was fixed at only two, allowing it to be lifted while the machine
was running.
Ms Thapa attempted to clear a blockage while the machine was operating and her hand slipped, hitting the screw mechanism. She
was released from hospital after treatment the same day and has since found work with another firm.
King Asia Foods Ltd, of Middlebank, Doncaster, was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,506 after admitting breaching
the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.
After the hearing, HSE inspector Lincoln Marks said:
"This incident would not have been possible had the fixed guard not been modified, and had a safe system of work for clearing
blockages been established by King Asia Foods and understood by all employees.
"The risks from screw conveyors are well understood in industry and yet poor controls against those risks continue to be a major
cause of serious injury.
"This case highlights the dangers of companies not properly safeguarding their employees, and the importance of robust
management systems for the checking of guarding arrangements."
The latest HSE figures show 28 people died while working in the manufacturing industry in Great Britain in 2010/11 and there
were more than 3,800 injuries. Information on improving safety is available at www.hse.gov.uk/manufacturing.
13
Penalties for failing to comply with REACH not well-known
Britain’s manufacturers must get to grips with the European rules on the restriction or banning of certain hazardous substances,
or face the prospect of unlimited fines or a custodial sentence if found to be in breach of the law.
The warning shot was delivered by EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, following a survey that highlighted a strikingly low
level of awareness about the consequences of non-compliance for manufacturers.
The EEF survey shows 20 per cent of companies still believe REACH is not applicable to them, while a further 30 per cent say it
isn’t important to their business. For small businesses, just under a third of companies with turnover below £2m a year are
unaware of how they will be affected.
Even where smaller companies are aware of REACH, half are not monitoring developments. This compares with 72 per cent of
large companies and 83 per cent of medium-sized firms that say they are keeping up with the changes.
The findings support long-standing fears that companies have failed to recognise the full scope and significance of the REACH
(Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) Regulation in relation to their own use of certain substances, and that
there is a misconception that it is limited to chemical companies.
In reality, says EEF, the Regulation is gradually restricting the use of hazardous chemicals in certain areas, or implementing
widespread bans, including substances that have been commonly used in manufacturing processes for many years under
controlled conditions.
This process, continues EEF, has major implications for all companies, in areas ranging from worker safety to controls on how
substances are used, through to the potential need to modify processes and substitute restricted substances with other
materials.
EEF wants the Government to do more to raise awareness of the implications of REACH for businesses. It is also calling for more
user-friendly guidance and a clearer understanding of when the Commission is likely to give permission for continued use of
banned substances.
14
Describing REACH as the ‘elephant in the room’, the manufacturing organisation’s head of climate and environment, Gareth Stace,
said: “For many companies, there is the very real risk of lost business if they are unable to advise their customers whether their
products contain certain materials and where they are, and how their use is being monitored. Furthermore, if companies don’t plan
for substance bans, it could prevent production entirely.”
He concluded: “When armed with the right information manufacturers are doing the right things – substituting substances that are of
concern with safer alternatives. But we need to see government and European regulators and legislators do all they can to raise
awareness and make it easier for companies to understand the implications of it on their business.”
The next major deadline for registration of chemicals is June 2013, which could result in certain substances being withdrawn from
the market. Failure to comply with the REACH requirements is a criminal offence, with the possibility of unlimited fines and up to two
years in prison.
For details about a substance-alert scheme, which can help companies monitor the risks to their business, go to eef.org.uk/REACH
15
An employee at a Bolton fabric firm was dragged around a large rotating roller after his clothes became caught in the device, magistrates heard.
The 39-year-old local man, who wishes to remain anonymous, was trying to straighten a crease on a roll of fabric as it was being wound up,
when the incident occurred on 17 October 2011. His clothing got caught on a pin, which attaches the roller to the motor and he was flipped
round three times, suffering cracked ribs and bruising to the side of his body.
HSE inspector Emily Osborne, who prosecuted the case, told SHP that the worker would probably have only been dragged round once if it had
not been for a defect on the nearest emergency-stop button. The machine was eventually stopped after his colleague activated another
emergency stop, which was further away.
Inspector Osborne added that the employee was fortunate that he did not come into contact with any other parts of the machine as he was
pulled round.
The incident, which occurred at Flameproofings Ltd’s factory on the Lyon Road Industrial Estate, prompted an investigation by the HSE. The
investigation found that there were no guards on the machine to prevent workers from accessing dangerous moving parts. The HSE
subsequently issued three Improvement Notices – two relating to guarding and the other to the thorough examination of the local exhaust
ventilation on the production line – and initiated prosecution proceedings.
Trafford Magistrates’ Court heard that the company had carried out an assessment, which identified the risk of workers, clothes becoming
entangled as a hazard, but it failed to act on this.
The company mitigated that it has since installed a new guard on the machine and changed its procedure for removing creases. It complied with
all three Improvement Notices.
Sentenced on 18 January, Flameproofings Ltd was fined £6000 and ordered to pay full costs of £3600 after pleading guilty to breaching
regulation 11(1) of PUWER 1998.
Inspector Osborne said: “The worker was badly injured because his employer didn’t do enough to ensure he could not become entangled in the
machine.
“Flameproofings failed to act on the findings of its own risk assessment and install a suitable guard on the machine. It should also have made
sure the defective emergency-stop button was fixed and working properly.”
16
A mechanic suffered serious burns when an empty oil drum exploded while he was carrying out hot work.
The 26-year-old was working at Windermere Auto Centre’s garage in Kendal when the incident took place on 27 July 2011. He
was using an oxy-propane torch to remove the lid of an empty oil drum so it could be used to store scrap metal.
While he was using the torch, the remaining oil inside the drum set alight, causing an explosion. The mechanic suffered burns to
his hands and arms and was kept in hospital for five days. He was unable to return to work for two weeks owing to his injuries.
The HSE visited the site on the same day as the incident and found that the firm had failed to identify the risk that the torch could
act as an ignition source for the vapour from the remaining oil in the drum.
The parent company of Windermere Auto Centre, Kankku Ltd, was issued a Prohibition Notice, which ordered it to stop carrying
out hot work until the risks were properly assessed.
HSE inspector Anthony Banks told SHP that the firm should have properly considered if it needed to use the drums for storage,
which would have avoided the need to carry out the hot work. He said: “There were several ways the top could have been cut off
the oil drum safely, but the company should have considered whether it needed to do this in the first place.
“It would have been much more sensible to use another container to store scrap metal at the garage, rather than using a drum
which still had small amounts of a flammable substance inside.
“Sadly, these types of incidents are all too common, and it’s only luck that the mechanic wasn’t more seriously injured, or even
killed in the explosion.”
Kankku Ltd appeared at Kendal Magistrates’ Court on 15 January and pleaded guilty to breaching reg.6(1) of the Dangerous
Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002, for failing to eliminate the risk of an explosion. It was fined £6000 and
ordered to pay £4746 in costs.
In mitigation, the firm said it cooperated with the investigation and has subsequently appointed a heath and safety consultant. It
continues to use the drums for storage but removes the lids by a cold-work procedure, which involves the use of hydraulic
shears. The company also said it had no previous convictions.
17
East Ham indoor barbecue-clothes-drying poisons six people
A fire chief has criticised a woman who used a barbecue indoors to dry clothes that led to six people, including her grandchildren, being taken to
hospital.
Two adults and four children in East Ham, east London, had to be treated for carbon monoxide poisoning, London Fire Brigade (LFB) said.
London Ambulance Service (LAS) was called on Wednesday at about 16:20 GMT.
Fire brigade head, Dave Brown, said it was the first incident of its kind he had seen in 28 years.
'Serious fire risk' Mr Brown, head of operations, prevention and response, said: "I have never heard of anybody using a barbecue to dry clothes let
alone using one indoors.“ He branded the woman's behaviour "dangerous".
LFB said the elderly woman lit the barbecue in the garden of the home in Hockley Avenue and then placed it in the kitchen with the door open.
She left the house with her four grandchildren, aged between 10 months and four, and two daughters-in-law, aged 26 and 29, inside. Someone
then closed the door.
LAS said it responded to reports of people collapsing and the patients were taken to Whipps Cross Hospital. They have since been released.
Mr Brown said: "Never, ever bring a lit or smouldering barbecue indoors.
"Not only is it a serious fire risk but it also emits carbon monoxide which is a poisonous gas that can kill or seriously injure."
Carbon monoxide is produced when fuels such as gas, oil, charcoal, coal and wood do not burn completely.
In April last year, a six-year-old girl died after inhaling carbon monoxide fumes from a barbecue her parents had brought into their tent to keep
her warm at a campsite at Bransgore in the New Forest, Hampshire.
Symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning
Headaches
Breathlessness
Nausea
Dizziness
Collapse
Loss of consciousness
Tiredness
Vomiting
Source: Health and Safety Executive
Please be vigilant when using barbecues, this is an unexpected story for the time of year
18
Apprentice Cameron Minshull, 16, killed in Bury factory accident just weeks into new job
A boy of 16 was killed in a horrific accident after he was dragged into machinery at a factory just weeks after starting an apprenticeship.
Cameron Minshull is believed to have become trapped in an industrial metal lathe. He suffered serious head injuries and died later in hospital.
A joint investigation police and Health and Safety Executive investigation has been launched.
The probe will examine the machine and the company’s health and safety policies.
Cameron, from Unsworth, Bury, had been working at Zaffar Engineering UK for a matter of weeks after starting as an apprentice.
He was flown from the in Huntley Mount Road factory by air ambulance to Wythenshawe Hospital, but pronounced dead a short time later.
Cameron, a former pupil at Castlebrook and Radcliffe Riverside high schools in Bury, leaves two sisters, aged 2 and 13, and a 15-year-old
brother.
His devastated family said his death would leave ‘a big hole in many people’s hearts’.
His mum Joanne Hill said: "We have lost a very precious part of our lives and there are no words to describe how we are feeling.
"Cameron was a much-loved son, brother, nephew, grandson and great-grandson and a friend to many. He will leave a big hole in many
people’s hearts. “
Police and paramedics were called to the factory unit at 10.45am on Tuesday. Cameron was pronounced dead at around 12.20pm.
A GMP spokesman said: "A joint investigation by GMP and the Health and Safety Executive is now underway to establish the circumstances
surrounding the incident.“
Zaffar Engineering UK Ltd were not available for comment.
An inquest is due to be opened and adjourned.
19
Each year, RoSPA takes many enquiries from members of the public and employers about staying safe during the winter months.
We are committed to the philosophy that life should be as safe as necessary, not as safe as possible, and we encourage people particularly children - to get out and about to enjoy the wintry weather.
In line with this, we hope this page will help you to find some proportionate and sensible safety advice for the winter period.
Winter driving
Winter driving advice for employers
Slips, trips and falls
Clearing ice and snow
Water and leisure safety
Home safety (including Christmas safety)
Workplace safety
20
Fire safety warning to small businesses after newsagent fined
Small businesses have been warned not to ignore fire safety after the owner of a Greater Manchester newsagent was convicted for
fire safety offences.
Yakup Patel failed to carry out a fire risk assessment, provide a fire alarm or a means of escape from fire.
Bury and Rochdale Magistrates’ Court heard on 10 January that Mr Patel, who runs Hayhurst News in Bury, Lancashire, had not
provided a fire alarm inside the shop or on the first or second floors of the three-storey building that were used as an
office/store room and flat respectively.
The court was told that when officers from Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority (GMFRA) inspected the premises in July
2011, they found that there was no fire alarm inside the building.
The only escape route from the upper floors was not protected from smoke or the spread of fire.
In addition, the back gate was padlocked, so that anyone trying to escape from a fire at the back of the building would find
themselves trapped in a small back yard.
Officers served a prohibition notice preventing Mr Patel from using the second floor and restricting his use of the first floor to
storage only, with which he complied.
In mitigation, Mr Patel said he took the matter seriously and had immediately taken remedial action. He had since spent over
£32,000 on the premises and had installed a fire alarm system beyond the level required.
"Unfortunately Mr Patel has learned the hard way that as a business you must consider fire safety," said Peter O'Reilly, director of
protection and prevention at GMFRA, who took the prosecution.
“As a result of his ignorance, he now has a criminal record.
"I would urge all small businesses to review their fire risk assessments and if they don't have one to do it as soon as possible."
Mr Patel pleaded guilty to four breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and was fined a total of £1,000. Costs
of £1,994 were also awarded against him.
21
This could be a useful document to some of you.
http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Publications_and_Forms/Publications/Chemical_and_Hazardous_Substances/Your_Steps_to_Chemical_Saf
ety.pdf
22