Health, Safety and Environmental Committee
SAF05-M3
Minutes of
the Ninety Second Meeting of the Health, Safety and Environmental Committee held on
16 November 2005.
Dr JBC Blood (Chair)
Mr S Alsbury Mr
M Harris Professor
I Reid
Mrs K Bedwell Dr
RA Haskins (ab) Mrs
L Sands
Dr E D
Brown (ab) Mr
R A Hill Dr
B L Sharp (ab)
Mr M C
Brown Mrs W Jones Mr M Stringfellow (ab)
Mr M Clarson (ab) Mr D Jordan Mr D M Wilson
Dr S Dann (ab) Mr R Kirkwood Mr
R Wilson
Mr AR Eyre Mrs W Llewellyn (ab)
Mr T
Fleming Mr T M Neale
Mr O Folkerd Mr
H M Pearson
In Attendance
: Mr R Harrison, Dr B P Vale, Mr JM Town
.
05/21. Apologies for
Absence
Apologies
for absence were received from Dr Brown, Mr Clarson,
Dr Haskins, Dr Sharp, Mr Stringfellow.
05/22. Business of the
Agenda
No items were unstarred.
The Chair
welcomed new members of the Committee and the new Secretary Dr B P Vale and explained
that he had been co-opted to membership of the Committee for a further year and
had agreed to extend his period of office as Chair. Members warmly welcomed his return as Chair
for a further period.
05/23. Minutes
The Minutes of the Ninety-first
meeting held on 15 June 2005 were confirmed.
05/24 Matters Arising
from Previous Meetings
SAF05-P13
1. Fumes from Jet
Nozzle Rig (Aeronautical Engineering)
It was noted that several members of the Committee had visited the site
of the Jet Nozzle Rig immediately prior to the meeting. The Health, Safety and Environment
Manager (HSEM) outlined the actions that had been taken to alleviate the
discomfort to staff associated with the operation of the Rig and these had
included secondary glazing and an operating protocol during working hours. £420k had been allocated to resource a
solution to the issue. As yet no
alternative location had been determined and it was clear that this was a
complex matter which would require an environmental analysis before any
alternative location could be agreed on.
The possibility of relocating the facility off site would be extremely
costly, but this option together with using any existing off site facilities
should not be discounted. It was for the
Estates department to investigate possible options and develop proposals and a
scheduling of the work. Mr M Harris
volunteered to be involved in the process and to liaise with Departments.
2. Compulsory
Health and Safety Training for Heads of Department/Heads of Service Sections
It was noted that
Council had approved the recommendation to introduce compulsory health and
safety training for Heads of Department and Heads of Service Sections and that
a series of training courses had been organised.
05/25. Terms of
Reference
SAF05-P15
Members of the Committee noted a Minute from Council which referred to
the role of the Committee and its remit, namely whether the Committee was of an
advisory or executive nature. It was not
felt that there was a problem since executive action was undertaken by the HSEM
and through the Executive Management Group. The Committee was advised that the
issue of the current structure would be looked at by the internal auditors on a
special review basis who would report in due course. It was agreed to defer consideration of the
terms of reference until that report was made.
05/26. Future Business
of the Committee
The Committee received a verbal report from the HSEM on the future business of the Committee for 2005/06. There were a number of items which the
Committee could expect to consider and these included: a review of the Health
and Safety policy statement; fire safety on campus particularly in the light of
the destruction of the Medway building; the Health and Safety audit programme
and where the University was in terms of compliance; Stress Management
following the outcome of the stress survey;
Asbestos issues where progress was being made; Environmental and Sustainability issues; Control of contractors on campus; Management of campus events; Waste Minimisation.
A numbers of these items appeared elsewhere on the agenda.
05/27. Asbestos Update
The Deputy
HSEM reported that dealing with asbestos on campus was a long term issue but that good
progress was being made. The extent of the problem was difficult to predict
because it was linked to the re-development and refurbishment of
buildings. The costs associated with the
removal of asbestos from the old swimming pool had been very high.
05/28. Sustainable
Development Action Group (SDAG)
SAF05-P16
At the request of the Chair of the Sustainable Development Action Group the Committee endorsed
the membership of the group nominated by the Chair. A member
suggested that the Director of the
05/29. Health, Safety
and Environmental Manager’s Report
The HSEM reported that the access of contractors
onto the site particularly out of hours
was becoming a matter for concern. There
had been examples of contractors arriving unexpectedly on campus expecting access and causing
difficulties for Security staff. There were clearly HSE implications for
apparently unsupervised contractors working on site. It was proposed that there should be a clear
procedure for notifying Security in advance of who was authorised to work on
campus and that without
prior notification no access would be granted.
It was agreed that the HSEM should develop a pro forma to be used by
Heads of Departments to notify Security in advance of who was expected to
arrive and providing an emergency contact number.
The Registrar asked to be kept informed of developments in this area.
05/30 University Health and Safety Policy
SAF05-P17
The HSEM advised
the Committee that the University was required by law to have in place a
statement on Health and Safety policy.
This should consist of two parts : a statement
by the Vice Chancellor and the management document underpinning it. The current document had not been updated
for some time and now required revision.
The auditors would also be considering the document.
The
Committee had a number of corrections and clarifications to make. The document made clear the responsibilities
of Council and the Executive Group. It was felt that the HSE Committee’s role in relation to
Council should be made clearer. This touched on the role of the Committee which was
already under consideration and the document could not be finalised until this
review was complete. It was further
noted that the Executive Group was a line management function rather than a
formally constituted University Committee, but this did not affect their responsibilities in
this area.
The
Committee felt that it was not clear why the responsibilities of academic and
non teaching departments differed, eg in respect of
departmental Health and Safety Committees. It was agreed that this be
considered with a view to consistency of practice. The lack of definition as to
the student representatives on HSE Committee who were normally from the Science
or Engineering Faculty and the LSU’s Ethical
and Environmental Officer was queried.
It was felt however, that it was not appropriate for the
University’s policy document to constrain student membership in any way. It was requested that there be some
clarification of the respective roles of Radiation Protection Officer and
Adviser to reflect their internal and external positions.
It was
suggested that the HSE Manager’s annual report to Council should not be a
starred item on the agenda,
although it was acknowledged that the Chair, who was a member of
Council, could unstar it if needed. It was suggested that Departments could be
encouraged to drive forward a health and safety culture rather than simply
adopt the policies.
Members
identified some matters of detail which needed to be amended before the
document went forward for approval.
05/31 Blood Borne Viruses/ Pathogens
SAF05-P18; SAF05-P19
The Committee considered papers from
the Occupational Health Adviser on Blood Borne Viruses/Pathogens. The policies were brought forward because it
was felt that existing guidance was too limited. The Committee was asked to recommend to
Council the implementation of the policies subject to the approval of Ethical
Advisory Committee. It was noted that
vaccinations could not be made compulsory but staff should be advised that they
were available. departments should build this advice
into Departmental procedures and in many case this had been done. The Occupational Health Adviser would assist
Heads of Departments to identify individuals for whom immunisation would be recommended. Staff travelling overseas would be subject to
different policies and a policy on overseas travel was in preparation. As far as students and fieldwork trips were
concerned a risk assessment should be undertaken and Heads of departments
should be reminded to consider the possibility of immunisation
, eg against tetanus, as part of the
process. The Committee recommended the
policies for implementation subject to the approval of Ethical Advisory
Committee
05/32 Display Screen Equipment
SAF05-P20
The Committee considered a paper
from the Occupational Health Adviser which was intended to update existing
policy in this area. The policy moved
staff in the direction of self assessment.
It was felt that there was a problem attaching to the definition of
workstations. They were generally desk based but on occasion staff worked at
benches of varying heights in laboratories and the guidance was difficult to
apply. The Committee was advised that
the Department’s responsibility was to reduce risk and if different
arrangements were found to be more suitable then they must be fully understood
and documented.
The
Committee recommended the policy for implementation.
05/33. First Aid Provision
SAF05-P21
The
Committee considered a
paper from the Health, Safety and Environment Manager on First Aid provision. There were currently two categories of staff
offering first aid support on campus namely, those for whom it was a
contractual requirement to have a First Aid qualification and who were rewarded
via their salary and also a volunteer body who were trained and received an
honorarium of £100.
The
recommended ratio of trained First Aiders to staff
was 1:50. There were 200 First Aiders
on campus so the
University was well within the desirable range.
The number of volunteers on campus had grown to the extent that the cost
of the honoraria
was now £20,000 per annum. The Committee
was asked to consider reviewing the payments with a view to ending them. It was anticipated that in the short term
this would lead to a drop in the number of qualified First Aiders
but that numbers would recover because individuals were generally willing to be trained in this valuable
life skill. It was agreed that this was
complex issue and a number of factors should be considered. The annual cost of £20k was not significant
in terms of the University’s overall budget but was a large part of the
HSE budget which could be spent on more frequent training of First Aiders. If, however, staff were already been paid for this
service then it would not be appropriate to withdraw or reduce the payment and
it was felt that discussions with the Trade Unions would be appropriate. The payment recognised in a small way the
service provided. Moreover, although the number of First Aiders
seemed plentiful their distribution was not clear and in some areas where
higher numbers are useful, eg for student field
trips, it may be difficult to make up deficits .
It was
noted, however, that
fewer than 50% of Universities paid their First Aiders.
It was
agreed that the HSEM should seek advice from the Personnel Office and that all
First Aiders should be consulted . The proposal would be considered at the next
meeting of the Committee in the light of additional information.
05/34 Fire Risk Assessment/Nominated Fire Marshals
SAF05-P22
The
Committee considered a
paper from the Fire Officer on the progress of fire risk assessments. It was noted that about 20% of the programme
had been accomplished. Some
deficiencies in practice had been identified and these had been addressed on an
ongoing basis. It was of concern to the
Committee that many buildings did not have AFD (Automatic Fire Detection) systems . Although the University was not in breach of regulations in this
area, the installation of such systems wherever possible had to be addressed. It was confirmed that it was present in all
residential buildings and in all new buildings.
The Fire
Marshal system had worked well and there had been 20 participants on the recent
course. The Fire Marshals had greatly
assisted in reducing the number of incidents of calling out the fire brigade.
The
probable cause of the fire in the Medway building had been an electrical
fault. Estates had begun a check on all
electrical systems. It was noted that Portakabins had no fire alarm systems but because they were
one storey buildings they were considered to be a low risk. It was noted that there
were no 3 or 4 storey buildings without a fire alarm system although some were manua systems.
05/35 Membership
SAF05-P23
The membership of the Health, Safety and Environment Committee for
2005/06 was noted.
05/36. Accident
Statistics
SAF05-P24
The
Committee received an analysis of accidents for the period April-June 2005 and
July-September 2005
05/37 Asset Risk
Improvement Task Group
SAF05-P25
The
Committee received the Minutes of the Asset Risk Improvement Task Group meeting
held on 2 November 2005.
05/38 Any Other Business
1. The Occupational Health Adviser reported that analysis of the
questionnaire on stress in the workplace was underway. There was a much higher response rate on
paper than online. She expected that the
report would be available in February.
2. A member reported on the poor
state of road lighting on campus. It was
estimated that up to 20-30% of the lighting on campus was defective. The HSEM undertook to raise this with the
Security Office.
05/39 Dates of Meetings
for 2005-06
Dates of meetings for the current session were noted as follows-
Wednesday
22 February 2006, 2pm
Wednesday
14 June 2006, 2pm
Author: Brigette Vale
Date December 2005
Copyright © Loughborough University. All
rights reserved.