Changeworks Communications - Expect the worst if you don't comply with health and safety regulations, says Bibby Consulting & Support

our clients

Briggs Equipment

Bucks-Biz

Company fined for asbestos exposure

September 30, 2011 - Michael Slade, Managing Director of Bibby Consulting & Support, has responded to news that Marks & Spencer was fined �1m (and ordered to pay �600,000 costs) for failing to protect customers, store employees and construction workers from potential exposure to asbestos in two of its stores.

"When construction companies are carrying out refurbishment work there should be safe systems of work in place and full risk assessments carried out," he said, "particularly for something as hazardous as asbestos. And if those safe systems of work are in place it is the responsibility of everyone involved to make sure that they are followed."

At Marks & Spencer's Reading store, the contractors were said to be working overnight in enclosures on the shopfloor with the aim of completing small areas of asbestos removal before the shop opened each day. As well as Marks & Spencer being fined, the contractor was found guilty of contravening the Health and Safety at Work Act at the second store in Bournemouth and fined �100,000 plus �40,000 costs.

"Marks & Spencer has incurred a particularly hefty fine because they are technically the overall project manager," Slade explained, "and therefore are ultimately responsible for the health and safety of employees and customers at their stores."

He went on: "If part of the problem was that the timetable for opening the store forced the contractors to work with a hazardous material when unprotected people were on site, then both parties would be culpable. If a contractor finds himself being given a target that puts people in harm's way, then the onus is on them to point out that work cannot continue on that basis."

HSE guidance says: "Large retailers and other organisations who carry out major refurbishment works must give contractors enough time and space within the store to carry out the work safely. Where this is not done and construction workers and the public are put at risk, the HSE will not hesitate in taking robust enforcement action."

The HSE claimed that Marks & Spencer had failed to ensure the work was completed to the appropriate minimum standards set out in asbestos removal legislation. And although the company had produced its own guidance on asbestos removal in its stores, this was deemed to have been followed "inappropriately" by its contractor.

Slade concluded: "The HSE guidance is clear � if anyone involved in construction work follows the advice in the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP), they will be doing enough to comply with the law. But it's one thing having the systems in place and quite another ensuring they are adhered to. Nobody should take risks with other people's lives, no matter what the pressures may be."

This case comes on the back of new European Commission guidance saying that in general the UK was failing to implement, in full, recognised asbestos removal procedures.

- Ends -