Posted By jom
The discussion continues....

John.

Posted By jom
You lot are not working hard enough on this problem.

Why did it happen? How do you effect Future Prevention?

Stop assuming the authorities will deliver the answers like an ordered take-away pizza.

Get to grips with it. Rip it apart until you understand it all. Take it to pieces until you understand every little part of it.

What's the IOSH for, if not to through its weight into understanding an industrial accident that took nine lives?

Am I wrong?

John.

Posted By jom
Craig,

I read Patricia Fergusons release calling for an inquiry.

I think it is weak.

John.

Posted By jom
Hello Ted.

"There is information within the original thread discussing this subject including the link to the HSE statement."

No, Ted. That information is not good enough.

John.

Posted By jom
Ted,

"the full report that will not be available just yet"

What full report? From whom?

John.

Posted By jom
Ted,

"You lot are not working hard enough on this problem. please elaborate"

Okay, you clearly want an answer.

Nine deaths.

A combination of inadequate management of gas pipes and inadequate building structure. Is that right?

What do we need to know about how this occurred?

IOSH can influence the process of inquiry and learning.

Please don't sit back and think the authorities will deliver a perfect answer.

Discuss the accident and all its causes. Look for the things that could have prevented it. Anything.

I think that's what I meant when I said "you lot are not working hard enough".

Talk the bejeezus out of the subject.

John.

Posted By Edward Shyer
John,

"Are there other 19th century buildings being used as chemical factories?"

Was the Maryhill site a chemical factory I don't think so if you know better please enlighten me.

To answer your query almost all workplaces have a presence of hazardous substances including chemicals. It is also very likely that there are other 19th century buildings being used as workplaces and maybe even some that are a lot older.

It is not the buildings or the processes that are the problem it is the control measures that are (or should) be in place to prevent incidents of this nature.

Just look at the majority of the major incidents over the last 30 years and you find that two things that keep springing up as main contributory factors.

Poor/non existent safety Management.
Poor/non existent Maintenance programmes.

one life lost at work is one life too many but until the judicial system acts more appropriately we will continue to have these kind of incidents

Regards
Ted

Posted By Pete48
Jom, the case has been determined and the HSE have published their statement and recommendations at http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2007/gnnsco09107.htm
Thus this phase is complete with regard to understanding the specific cause of the collapse of the building and any guilt associated with that factual event.

Assuming that any future inquiry would be held under the Inquiries Act 2005 (??) then the following extract from guidance might be useful to post here.
"such inquiries under this Act have no power to determine civil or criminal liability and must not purport to do so. There is often a strong feeling, particularly following high profile, controversial events, that an inquiry should determine who is to blame for what has occurred. However, inquiries are not courts and their findings cannot and do not have legal effect. The aim of inquiries is to help to restore public confidence in systems or services by investigating the facts and making recommendations to prevent recurrence, not to establish liability or to punish anyone."
However...."it is not intended that the inquiry should be hampered in its investigations by a fear that responsibility may be inferred from a determination of a fact."

For me, the terms of reference would have to cover both areas of what I perceive to be of public concern at the moment:
1.) Something around looking at the relevance/impact of the particular style of H&S management in use at the companies and what would be the significance of changing the law with regard to reducing or removing risks,
Key areas might be;
required competences and prescribed H&S systems within companies,
third party or enforcement audit and inspection regimes,
sentencing guidelines especially with regard to impact of guilty pleas where there are deaths at work.
2.) And something around why the law appears, so frequently, not to provide what those most damaged by the events expect that it will provide.

I am no legal eagle so the wording and indeed the scope I suggest may be totally inappropriate but hopefully you can see my thinking here.

Looking at those terms, I do ask myself whether an inquiry would be an effective use of public money. Have I missed the point somewhere?

Posted By jom
Heather,

""you lot aren't working hard enough on this problem" What a breathtakingly arrogant statement that is."

Yes, it was. I apologise.

John.

Posted By John Murgatroyd
"The legally required health and safety consultative processes with the workforce were
not in place. The management culture actively discouraged worker participation,
including any attempt to raise concerns about health and safety.
The building itself was neither safe nor suitable for the purpose, amplifying the risks
already inherent to poorly managed, high risk processes.
Oversight by statutory authorities was inadequate and allowed a continuation of work
processes in unacceptably hazardous conditions. Problems remained unresolved and
clear breaches of health and safety law remained unprosecuted"


So, apart from the dead and injured, what's new ?
The scale is different, but the attitude and the problems are there in every worplace for all to see. If they look.

Posted By Sally
john,

May one ask what your interest and position in this is. I'm assuming from your use of the expression 'you lot' you are not a health & safety professional.

There has been and are lots of people currently disecting the events leading up to this tragedy - a message board where the professionals can rarely agree on anything simple never mind anything as complicated as this is hardly likely to add much to the debate.

Posted By craig b hartley
hi john

i totally agree with you, about the detail being rather thin, i left a link above of a 165 page document which in my opinion might explain why the HSE is lacking.

could i ask what would the penalties be in Australia for an accident similar to this?

i think that the penalty this company recieved was disgusting and shows that a re-look of coporate manslaughter needs upgrading and thats before it even comes into effect.
craig

Posted By jom
Craig,

I’m reading the university report. Thanks for the link. That’s an interesting path for the uni experts to take. I hope their involvement proves constructive. Has to better than mainstream media speculation.

The fines were 100,000 pounds per charge. That’s AU$225,000, which is at the high end of the scope available in most Aust. jurisdictions for OHS breaches. I think our record is $250,000 for one charge, in a case where the total was $2 million (900,000 pound). Two fatalities in that case.

John.

Posted By Heather Collins
Independent report? It's interesting but it certainly doesn't fit my interpretation of the word "independent".

As far as I can see the research is more or less based on interviews with 7 employees or former employees of the company none of whom can exactly be said to have an independent point of view! (Understandably so)

From reading it, it seems obvious that there were many problems at the factory. However you are not going to get a balanced picture in this way. I note also that one of the Directors who came in for some fairly severe criticism in this report died in the disaster and so has no right of reply.

Try reading some of the other "reports" published on the website and then see how "balanced" you think this one is....

Posted By jom
The Australian government has instituted a public inquiry headed by a former judge, with coercive powers to seize evidence and subpoena witnesses.

Purpose? Inquire into how and why some of our racehorses recently contracted equine flu.

Curious world, isn't it?

John.