Posted By jom
A public inquiry will be held into the Maryhill (Stockline) accident.

BBC report here:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/...gow_and_west/7021669.stm

or TinyUrl:

http://tinyurl.com/yvtw3y

Terms of reference not detailed, but implication is that role of HSE will be examined.

Does IOSH have any opinion on what the Terms should be?

John.

Posted By Phillip
9 dead £400 000 fine quote from the BBC news

"The company has never apologised and they have never said sorry.

"They have never shown any remorse."

The risk assessment was done by a student.

Why are companies allowed to run HSE in such a reckless manner?

Why is it permissible for unqualified people to undertake risk assessemnts where such consequences exist?

Posted By Ian Waldram
I agree with the last posting - a detailed reading of the 'Independent Report' adds a lot of helpful information in understanding some of the workforce concerns - though it's interesting that none of them, and none of the 'independent experts' who compiled the report based on what the employees told them seems to have been particularly concerned about the gas pipeline and possible accumulation of any leak in the basement.

From an IOSH perspective, it does of course strongly reinforce our view that all organisations need to employ competent OSH advisors, either directly or contracted, (which is what the law says), and that HSE's reluctance to come out with a clear definition of what competence should mean in a range of situations doesn't help when trying to advise on or enforce minimum standards for organisations like Stockline. It seems pretty clear from the employees' evidence that Stockline didn't appoint anyone with anything like the necessary competences to advise on suitable controls for chemical hazards (which apparently is what the employees were most concerned about), let alone hazards associated with gas-fired boilers in enclosed spaces, structural alternations to an old building, and any other hazards we may learn of during the inquiry.

Of course, though the primary responsibility clearly lies with Stockline, there were others involved whom I would expect to have raised questions about gas risks. These people include: HSE (who did so, and the Inquiry will no doubt reveal how tenacious their follow-up then was); Stockline's insurers; the gas suppliers. All of these parties should have sufficient OSH competences to identify the hazard and ask questions about Stockline's controls to ensure pipework integrity - I just hope that no IOSH members had any of these roles (or if they did, that they can demonstrate how they did all that was reasonable to confirm the hazard was recognised by Stockline and its employees).

Posted By Heather Collins
John

With respect, this is not the first thread of this type you have started, http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...iew&forum=1&thread=30969 and http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...iew&forum=1&thread=30430

To be honest it looks as though you have an agenda here with IOSH (although you are not a member apparently) and this specific incident.

I think it may be time for you to explain why you are so interested in this specific incident and not (apparently) in any other incident that has caused fatalities or injuries. On certain other forums my "journoalert" meter would be off the scale by now....

Posted By jom
Heather,

I’m not a journo, but I do write about safety in engineering, particularly about major accidents and their investigation.

My purpose is simple – learning for the sake of future prevention. Damn right I have an agenda with this specific incident. It is important. I would have thought IOSH to have an agenda on this incident stronger than mine.

I’m particularly interested in the process of learning and the dissemination of learnings. I think we are great at technical investigation, but feel we are not good at dissemination. I believe we have to improve the discussion of major accidents.

I’m not a member of IOSH – is that a problem?

Why my interest in this accident?

HSE’s bulletin on the accident was not detailed. Many questions unanswered.

It’s not about gas pipes corroding. It’s about why a company and a workforce did not control a hazard that was eminently controllable.

That’s something that the process industries worlwide are grappling with after the Texas City and Buncefield accidents.

How do we get to grips with this? By inquiry. A public inquiry into Maryhill will now happen. Good. Who’s going to ask the questions? Barristers. They represent their clients’ interests. Who will represent the wider industrial workforce? Who will search for the fundamental learnings?

I’ve just got this whacky idea IOSH might be that party.

John.

Posted By David Bannister
Jom, your drum is now sounding tedious.

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
Jorn,

I suspect what you are seeking clearly falls outside the Royal Charter and therefore IOSH cannot be "that party".

Have a good look at http://www.iosh.co.uk/index.cfm?go=about.charter

Posted By Heather Collins
John

So you "can't be bothered to work through all that detail" when someone points you to a document that might have the answer you seek. However you expect all of us to jump through hoops to answer your detailed questions on the Stockline incident, the HSE report, what we think IOSH should do, etc, etc.

Sorry but you need to find another outlet for your obvious (and perfectly understandable) frustration with the enforcing authorities. Either that or wait for the outcome of the enquiry like the rest of us.

No it's not a problem per se that you are not a member. My issue is with your constant criticism of the conduct of an Institution that you are not a member of. I suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way. Please don't think that this means we aren't concerned about the lessons to be learned here. We (as individual members) most certainly are. My point is that I believe we've had this conversation before...

Posted By Pete48
Hello Jom, I am not sure what value IOSH would add to the public inquiry. My feeling is that we should be more concerned with ensuring that any lessons learnt from the inquiry are understood and applied in the workplace. The public inquiry system is quite capable of asking the right questions and getting to the truth of the matter without IOSH. I expect that comments, lobbying and views may arise from both IOSH and its members as the inquiry proceeds.
I found the recent news release from the Scottish Government site useful in checking where we are at the moment.
http://www.scotland.gov....eleases/2007/10/01152802
It seems abundantly clear that the UK parliament and the Scottish parliament have already recognised the key issues and which system to adopt for the best chance of reaching a conclusion. The Lord Advocate's remarks are strikingly supportive of a need to establish facts beyond the original court case.

The remit and schedule of the inquiry have yet to be announced: no doubt once they are, the speculation will commence on this forum and others.
I look forward to our exchanges, challenge us as much as you like, its good for the soul.

Posted By jom


>So you "can't be bothered to work through all that detail"

Hey, Heather, I did not use that phrase. Please don't misrepesent.

But, thanks, I've gone back to it and most of the 15 pages is administrive detail. The purpose of IOSH is contained in just a few paragraphs. (Item 3)

No, it doesn't charge IOSH with the task of involving itself in a public inquiry.

The inquiry will be the first under the UK Inquiries Act 2005, so it'll be history making.

The Act seems to be silent on representation before the panel. Royal Commissions allow effected parties to be represented and allow them the power to question witnesses. That's a huge power. That means barristers.

The panel may appoint assessors to assist. I suppose they will appoint some person or body who has wide knowledge of the principles and practice of industrial safety.

Will they ask HSE to assist? HSE's role will be examined, so that would be tricky.

>"No it's not a problem per se that you are not a member. My issue is with your constant criticism of the conduct of an Institution that you are not a member of."

Sorry, I'll try not to be critical where I don't have the right.

John.

Posted By jom
Is it possible to get an explanation as to why the last message was removed?

John.

Posted By jom
Jim,

Were you told why?

John.

Posted By jom
Dear Jane,

As far as I can guess, the following item from the guidance must be the one that applies. It would be courteous to explain where the breach lies, but you leave us guessing.

"You must not use the forums to make complaints against any individual or organisation. We’re not trying to stifle debate but to protect IOSH from being accused of encouraging unwarranted attacks on others. Discussion about comments made by public figures on health and safety topics may be allowed at the discretion of the moderators."

I think that can only possibly apply to one post - the first one removed.

It cannot apply to the posts that followed that were also removed.

Could we have those ones restored, pleased?

An explanation of why the first was removed should be provided at the time of removal. Could you provide it now, please?

John.

Posted By jom
Pete,

"Hello Jom, I am not sure what value IOSH would add to the public inquiry"

Pete, the answer is simple: to make sure they ask the right questions.

Do you think that's a good idea?

John.