Health, Safety and Environment Committee
SAF06-M4
Minutes of the meeting of Health, Safety and Environmental
Committee held on 14 December 2006 at 2.00pm
|
|
Mr J Blackwell (Chair) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professor J V Beaverstock |
Mrs K Bedwell |
Dr E D Brown |
|
Mr M C Brown (ab) |
Dr S Christie |
Mr M Clarson |
|
Dr S E Dann (ab) |
Mr A R Eyre |
Mr T Fleming |
|
Mr C Gamble |
Dr R A Haskins (ab) |
Mr R A Hill (ab) |
|
Mrs W Jones |
Mr D Jordan |
Mr A Kawalski |
|
Mrs W E Llewellyn |
Ms J Marsden |
Mrs C Moore |
|
Mr T M Neale |
Mr H M Pearson (ab) |
Mrs L Sands |
|
Mr M Stringfellow (ab) |
Professor R C Thomson (ab) |
Mr J M Town |
|
Dr C Woodruff (ab) |
|
|
06/50 Apologies for
Absence
Apologies
for absence were received from Malcolm Brown, Sandie Dann,
Bob Haskins, Roy Hill, Michael Pearson,
Martin Stringfellow, Rachel Thomson,
Cyril Woodruff
06/51 University Health and Safety Policy
.1 The Chair thanked members for making
arrangements to attend the additional meeting to consider the
University’s Health and Safety policy document. This was an urgent matter and it was hoped
that, subject to the Committee’s deliberations, a recommendation could be
made to the next meeting of Council. The
University’s current policy needed to be revised and brought up to date
to satisfy its statutory obligations.
The Committee was invited to consider as part of the policy document
amendments to its Terms of Reference and Constitution.
.2 The
Committee noted that in accordance with good practice the Vice
Chancellor’s statement acknowledged her overall responsibility for Health
and Safety matters within the University.
.3 The
Health and Safety policy statement was
the document which indicated the specific Health and Safety issues which the
University committed itself to and against which the HSE would evaluate the
University’s actions. In addition
to the Vice Chancellor’ s statement, the document included the policy
statement itself, a statement on individual responsibilities, and a section on
the implementation of the policy.
.4 The
Committee gave detailed consideration to all sections of the document. Under section 2, para 2.8 it was noted that
while there were a range of Health and Safety provisions and resources attached
to them, the current arrangements required local managers to manage risk and
make provision for Health and Safety
matters within their budgetary planning.
There was no proposal for a separate Health and Safety budget. If departments were unable manage issues at a
local level then this should be drawn initially to the attention of the HSEM
and subsequently to the Chair of HSE Committee.
It was noted that the evaluation and
auditing of risk did not explicitly appear in the policy, although it was
implied in para 2.3 and para 2.14. It
was felt that this could be more clearly articulated.
No specific reference was made to
Occupational Health matters. Generally
Health and Safety policy was interpreted to include Occupational Health issues,
but in the interests of clarity it was agreed that a definition to this effect
be included in the policy at an early stage.
It was also suggested that para 2.12 and other similar paragraphs be
amended to include reference to occupational health matters and near
misses.
The policy document essentially
related to employees, but it was agreed that it had a wider applicability. An additional paragraph should be added in
relation to on site contractors and University tenants.
Section 3 outlined the
responsibilities of the University’s Officers. It was noted that a section on the Fire
Officers and Radiation Protection Officer should be added.
With respect to para 3.12 it was
agreed that competence rather than seniority was important and that reference
to the NEBOSH qualification was not necessary as it was not consistent with the
rest of the document.
It was noted that, in respect of
para 3.14 and the requirement to undertake training, that much First Aid
training was undertaken on a voluntary basis and that in some circumstances
staff were not contractually obliged to undertake some types of training.
The Committee noted that there were
a number of editorial changes required to the document either for the purpose
of clarification or updating and these were to be undertaken by the HSEM prior
to the document being forwarded to Council.
.5 The Registrar advised the Committee that
its current Terms of Reference were considered to be vague and did not make the
role of the Committee sufficiently clear.
Long terms problems such as the Jet Nozzle Rig had highlighted
this. Audit Committee had expressed
concern and had recommended a review of the Terms of Reference and a reduction
in the size of the Committee. The role
of the Committee was to monitor Health and Safety issues on behalf of Council
and hold the responsible Officers to account.
The Committee felt that the proposed Terms of Reference of the Committee
were acceptable in terms of its Health and Safety remit. Its environmental responsibilities were less
clear and could be more well defined.
It was felt that ‘personal
security’ should be amended to ‘personal safety’. It was noted that section 4.3 should refer to
‘Faculty and Academic’ rather than ‘Faculty and Departmental’.
.6 The Committee noted that the proposals in
Appendix 1 were intended to reduce the size of the Committee to facilitate more
focussed consideration of Committee business.
It was proposed to reduce the Trades Union representatives from 3 to 2
per
There was opposition to the reduction
in Trades Union membership and it was agreed that their number should remain at
3. It was felt that the Faculty
representatives nominated by the Dean should normally be Heads of Department,
rather than DSOs or Departmental Superintendents as was currently the
case. It was agreed that while a Head of
Department would be an appropriate choice, there was concern about the lack of
representation of DSOs and Superintendents. The Committee, however, was not intended to be
a representative Committee. It was
agreed that the Minutes of HSE Committee meetings could be circulated to DSOs
and that there should be a standing agenda item for items to be raised by DSOs.
There was some discussion about the
role of DSOs in Departments and some concern that their roles were not fully
acknowledged and their duties not built into workload models. The Committee did not feel it was its role to
comment on this other than to refer to sections 3.6 and 3.12 of the policy
which emphasised the requirement to consider the resources and allocation of
duties required to carry out the role of DSO.
The Committee acknowledged the high
standard of health and safety management in Estates Services and felt that they
were a model which other services should emulate.
The HSEM undertook to make the
amendments to the document and it was agreed to forward the amended document to Council.
06/52 Date Of Next Meeting
21 February
2007
Author – Dr Brigette Vale
Date – December 2006
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved