Posted By John Watson
My personal view is that it does our industry a disservice. If no prison sentences arise from a case such as this, then I don’t foresee many where such an outcome is likely. It also appears that provided you intend to continue employing people then you can mitigate the level of your fine. I will remember this defence or future.

All in all a sad day for British justice.

John

Posted By Heather Collins
I accept that the level of fine is not intended to provide any sort of compensation. However it is interesting to compare the fine for killing 9 people by what appear to me to be gross breaches of H&S law with the fine for overcharging customers for airtickets http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6959725.stm

I can feel a rant coming on....

Posted By Sally
I think the other reason behind no prison sentences is that the causes are lots and lots of relatively minor mistakes by different people rather than one big one by an individual.

The causes of this incident can be traced back nearly 30 years (I think this is the right figure - it's certainly a long time)

Posted By POC
Although the consequences of this event are indeed tragic, I have to ask what benefit or what good would result in imprisoning key executives for this - none could be convicted on deliberatley failing in the duty to ensure a safe place of work. We need to deal with the cause of this tragedy and not react solely to the tragic consequences. As previously stated the cause of this was a build up from over 30 years ago.

Also, fining a company this size some huge amount of money would surely have put the company out of business compounded the grief that i am sure is already being felt by the remaining members - making others redundant is surely not the answer. And isnt it HSE/law courts policy to measure the fines as the Judge stated in porportion to the size of the company.

I think the onus must surely be on us, the pro active members of the safety profession to learn our lessons from this and use this as an example of what can go wrong to ensure that no more innocent people lose there lives in the course of their employment.

Posted By craig b hartley
hi all

persnally i feel the directors of this company got off way too lightly.shp mag this month:

Animal-rendering firm John Pointon & Sons of Cheddleton, Staffordshire, has been fined £620,000 and ordered to pay £80,000 in costs over the death of a worker on its premises three years ago.
yet The operators of a factory in Maryhill which exploded killing nine people have been fined £400,000 for health and safety breaches.

now how can roughly £45 thousand per person be justified compared with £700k as above, i do believe a jail sentence was the only answer and these directors will be sleeping snugly in there beds tonight while families will bare a life time of sorrow.

Posted By craig b hartley
your probably right pete
i'm sure the families of the victims, will seek comfort in ure disassociation.
lets put it this way
Hse spends over 1 million on investigation.
police, fire officers,and hospitals foot the bill for rescue etc. (in speaking with fire officers who were involved from start to finish they tell you of the horrendous sights they seen to which they will never forget)
cost of the forth coming public enquiry.
cost of the court case
how many millions are we at now.

so i apologise that i offended your morals and sympathies for the directors who altered the building without the proper buiding certification, skimmed across safety, ignored hse advice alledgedly. but after watching the documentary last night re-affirms my belief a prison sentence was the only answer instead of a fine that amounts to about a tenth of what was spent investigating n rescue etc

Posted By Pete48
Craig,
I am merely suggesting to you and others that we do a disservice to our profession and those who have and will continue to suffer by allowing emotion to cloud judgement. Suggesting that Directors sleep snugly in their beds is an emotional judgement based on your personal determination of guilt.
I have read many of the various allegations and checked some of the history of the plant. The fact remains however that this was a case which depended on the findings of the technical investigation of the explosion which lead to the deaths.
Mr Stewart, QC for the Crown, told the judge the case was directed against the companies and not individuals and the Crown was not suggesting the failure to assess the risks of the buried pipe was “wilful”. As he and his staff had access to all the information and are competent to determine relevant legal protocol, I am merely disassociating myself from any remarks that suggest otherwise.

Posted By craig b hartley
hi pete
here is a link to lord brodie's judgement it may help in forming a clouded judgement
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/...s/28_07_07_stockline.pdf



"The nature of that response by the court is inevitably limited to the imposition of fines
and, in that sense, inadequate"

i don't think that passing comment on an issue where i feel that the guilty party got off likely is letting my emotions cloud my judgement, my personal opinion is that if you are guilty of causing death due to disregarding the law then a prison sentence is the very least you should expect. and the workplace shouldn't be exempt

as the judge expressed in this cases it seems he found it inadequate that he could only impose a fine.

"The Advocate Depute emphasised the fact that there was no risk assessment or
system of inspection of the underground gas pipe work leading from the LPG holding
tank and into the building but he specifically accepted that it was not suggested that
the failure to assess risks in relation to the buried pipes was wilful. He added that
individuals with management responsibilities and their families were also at risk from
the hazard.
I understood the Advocate Depute to suggest that the failure to take steps to ensure
the physical integrity of the gas supply line was negligent"

so even after recommendations in 1988 by the Hse they continually failed to register this as a hazard and properly r/a. this i find totally unacceptable

Posted By Heather Collins
Craig

Thank you for the link, the judge's statement makes very interesting reading.

With regard to your comment on the company ignoring the HSE recommendation you should note the following sentence from the judge's statement "although the Health
and Safety Executive had recommended excavation of part of the pipe work in order to check its state in 1988, in early 1989, after the companies had referred the matter to their then supplier, the HSE accepted a modified proposal for pressure testing of the pipe which did not involve visual inspection"

The Judge also lists what he considered to be the mitigating factors, which included: "This is not a case of failure to heed warnings or where a decision was taken to run a risk in order to save money."

I still feel that the level at which H&S fines are set is far too low when compared to those for financial offences, but I do urge anyone who has not done so to read the Judge's statement to gain a better understanding of the factors in this case.

Posted By J Knight
Hi Heather,

There may have been no deliberate decision to run a risk to save money, but money saving is always an issue in any business decision; such as, for example, the decision to accept the minimum standard set by the law and HSE, or the decision to strive for excellence in safety,

John

Posted By Ironbath
Late last night there was a 30 minute report on the Stockline explosion. It is available on the BBC news player at http://news.bbc.co.uk/pl...l_storyid=6968489&news=1

I also read the transcript of a radio 4 report from 2005 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/facethefacts/transcript_20050812.shtml) This is not a balanced report as the company has no input but it gives a witness account of the conditions and general perceptions of safety management.

I think that the judgement is generous to the company, as it appears to attribute the accident to an oversight rather than persistent negligence of maintenance and inspection. The lack of building control and planning permissions should have had greater significance in the judgement as these inspections might have triggered questions about the gas pipeline.

It is difficult to comment on the fines as these should be dependent on the full financial position of the company, although they seem low. I wonder if the fact that the Directors’s family was involved in the explosion had any bearing.

In my mind the lessons are:

a) The potential of high numbers of fatalities from sub-comah facilities.
b) The lack of persistent regulatory involvement with a company that been issued Enforcement and Improvement notices, and employee complaints.
c) The risks from housing office based employees directly above potentially hazardous operations. This is a factor of the old industrial buildings used and is common throughout the country.

I think that companies with >50 employees (or >20 for more hazardous operations) that don’t have a competent H&S adviser (poss CMIOSH) should be compelled to have an annual inspection/report from a professional consultant. Outcomes would be sent directly to HSE/EHO’s for review. This is similar to regulation in Spain and Italy.

I also think that we need to consider separation of manufacturing roles from employees who can be located away from hazardous operations. A few years ago I argued against relocating 300 office employees to a site that also contained a top tier COMAH site. Unfortunately the economics of low cost offices prevailed.

I am certain that there are many SMEs based in old industrial buildings, much modified over the years, where risk assessments have been completed by vacation students, and where there is a lingering safety issue – be it a corroded gas pipe or overloaded circuit, or unstable structure. Yet somehow these companies don’t make it on the Regulators radar.

It is currently an unfashionable view in politics but I wish that there was a stronger regulatory regime, where an HSE Inspection had the same gravitas as an OSHA Inspection in the US and where there were the resources to identify companies with a sub standard attitude of H&S management. This means inspections of a day instead of an hour, where detail could be probed rather than a superficial inspection. In countries with a strong H&S regulatory regime there is far greater respect for H&S management and those people delivering it.

Posted By jom
Who in Scotland would make make the decison for a public inquiry into this accident?

If one is set up, I hope the terms of reference go beyond asking for an explanation of the explosion, and include examination of why so many died.

"Why did the explosion occur?"

and

"Why did nine people die?"

are different questions.

J.

Posted By jom
Has IOSH formed a view on the desirability of a public inquiry and its terms of reference?

If so, has that view been made public?

John.

Posted By jom
Thanks Craig.

So what do you and others think about the need for a public inquiry and what its terms of reference should be?

John.

Posted By peter gotch
Pete

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal quite often decide not to hold an FAI if there has been a prosecution.

In my experience, sometimes the prosecution has not adequately substituted for the purpose of an FAI.

Regards, Peter

Posted By jom
It doesn't seem credible to me that the Coroner (or Scottish equivalent) would not hold an inquest, prosecution or no prosecution.

Nine fatalities in one industrial accident is extreme.

The court case would have looked at a narrow selection of causes for the purpose of showing culpability, which was not contested. There would have been a wide range of contributing factors that would not have been part of the court case.

Is the BBC radio report accurate?(url way above) If it is, you need to work your way to understanding how it happened and why. You have to prevent it happening again. Lots of work there.

Do you think a public inquiry is needed and what should its terms of reference be?

John.

Posted By Ironbath
Well actually, John, I don't think that a public enquiry is required in this case.

To my mind a public enquiry is required where there is an unknown or (more commonly)a disputed event or sequence.

In this case we know why the explosion occurred, the reason the building collapsed. The company has admitted failing to discharge their duties under HASAW. Consequently there is no unknown.

I hope that the HSE will publish their evidence in a report similar to what they have done following other major incidents.

A public enquiry could make recommendations but wouldn't propose detailed new legislation - that would take a Royal Commission (or similar) which is unlikely since we already have a sound legal framework.

I would like the HSE/HSC to take a detailed review of the way they inspect these types of installations and then lobby the government for the funding required to do the job. The only way other similar businesses are going to get their act together is by direct regular contact with the HSE.

Posted By craig b hartley
really don't know what the last post has to do with maryhill explosion results, but it shows that every village has 1!!
I wonder what way the so called directors will run when there is a serious accident,does non profit items mean people like yourself

Posted By jom
Hello Ironbath,

"In this case we know why the explosion occurred, the reason the building collapsed."

I haven't read anything that explains the cause of the explosion and the collapse of the building.

Can you direct me to the official explanations, please?

John.

Posted By jom
Good evening Ironbath. Tis the first day of Spring here. Hooray.

Thankyou for that info.

Are there official reports available, rather than news nedia coverage?

John.