Click here to download these minutes in Word 2 format (22 kbytes)

held on 1 February 2000

PRESENT: Councillor A Bryning (Chair), Mr C Barker, Dr R Burr, Dr B J Hunt, Ms M Needham, Mr R Oswald, Mr A Waddington, Mr A Whitaker, Mr A Madeley (Secretary)

In attendance: Mr N Annis, Mr A Evans, Ms K Montgomery, Mrs L Mullett, Ms A Park,

The University Safety & Radiation Protection Officer (USRPO) reported that apologies had been received from Rita Balderson, Sarah Barber, Debbie Srao and the University Secretary. The University Secretary had asked that the committee be informed that she regarded it as an important committee and it was her intention to attend as many meetings of the committee as possible. She was unable to be present at the current meeting due to a commitment at one of the associated colleges.

The (USRPO) reported that he had not received any requests for alterations to the minutes of the meeting held on 25 October 1999.

The USRPO reported that, after the last meeting of the Health and Safety Committee, UNIAC had re-arranged their report of the review of the Safety Office to identify their recommendations more clearly. The report had then been submitted to the Audit Committee with the inclusion of the University's Management Response. The USRPO had prepared a summary of the actions to be undertaken and the dates by which it was hoped to implement these actions. The USRPO thanked the members of the Health and Safety Committee for the constructive comments that they had made at the previous meeting, along with the written comments that had been submitted to the University Secretary. These comments had helped to inform the Management Response. The Action Plan indicated that there was a considerable amount of work to be undertaken by the Safety Office and the Health and Safety Committee would be kept fully informed of the progress with these actions.

In the discussion the following points were raised

• the original review had compared the Safety Office with the other universities audited by UNIAC. This group was not considered to be true comparators for Lancaster and consequently a comparison would be made with the 94 Group of institutions. The 94 Group was a grouping of 16 universities which had similar overall profiles and were research based institutions.
• any targets set for the Safety Office would be reported and discussed at the Health and Safety Committee
• the Management Action Plan did not accept the recommendation by UNIAC that the Safety Office role in occupational health be extended. The USRPO replied that UNIAC had misunderstood the nature of occupational health which was multi-disciplinary and required input from safety professionals and occupational physicians. The remit of the Safety Office would clarify the involvement of the Safety Office in occupational health.
• concern was expressed that the time scales that had been placed on implementing the Management Action Plan might make it difficult for the Health and Safety Committee to discuss and amend actions that were taken before the next scheduled meeting. The USRPO replied that there would be an opportunity at the next meeting to do this.
• members of the committee requested that they be informed as discussions and implementation of the Management Action Plan were taking place rather than receiving reports shortly before the next meeting of the Health and Safety Committee. The USRPO undertook to keep the committee informed as and when the actions were taken.
• the Audit Committee would review the progress with the Management Action Plan.
• in response to a question, the USRPO confirmed that, although he was unhappy with some of the recommendations and responses to the UNIAC review the overall action plan was fair and he hoped that worthwhile results would follow from implementing the Action Plan.

The USRPO reported that the draft policy had been circulated to members of the committee, all Heads of Departments and Area Safety Officers in early January. The policy itself was relatively short and the main changes from the earlier policy were that

• the audit programme would be driven from the Safety Office
• the audit would commence with a meeting between the Safety Office and the Head of Department to discuss the Head of Department's understanding and implementation of the university safety policy.
• departments were advised to undertake a safety inspection at least once a year.

A brief description of the way in which the audit would be undertaken was also given in the draft policy. The frequency at which the audits would take place was based on an assessment of the risks posed by each department and section of the University. In the case of high risk departments the suggested frequency was 3 years, for medium risk departments 5 years and for low risk departments 7 years. A programme of audits for the next 7 years was given as part of the policy. In order to give an indication of the type of questions that would be asked sample questions were included. Guidance was also given on how to conduct safety inspections along with examples of the type of checklist that could be used by departments. The USRPO stressed that the example safety audit questions and the departmental checklists were just examples which would need refining to reflect the different activities of each individual department.

In the discussion that followed the following points were raised.

• The frequency of once every 7 years would mean that some Heads of Department would never be involved in a safety audit. The USRPO replied that it was hoped that the Safety Office could become involved with the training for new Heads of Department.
• Media Services and the Pre School Centre had been omitted from the schedule of departments and sections to be audited. The USRPO agreed to rectify this omission.
• It would not be possible to conduct audits only outside term time.
• Recommendations made in the audit report would be followed up after a suitable period.
• Trade Union representatives were no longer part of the audit team as they had been in the earlier policy.
• Trade Union appointed safety representatives could continue to carry out inspections of the workplace as described in section 10 of the University's Manual of Safety.
• The audit reports would be brought to the Health and Safety Committee.
• The example of questions did not include the issue of work related ill health. In addition to considering the physical impact of work it was now necessary to consider illness caused by work, in particular stress. The USRPO replied that guidance had recently been issued by the University's Safety Association and the Universities and Colleges Employers Association. Alan Whitaker reported that the Employment Policy Committee was beginning to review the issue of stress and that there should be liaison between the Safety Office, the University Medical Officer and the Employment Policy Committee on this matter.

The committee approved the revised policy subject to the inclusion of the two sections that had been omitted.

The USRPO said that his report provided details of safety training conducted by the Safety Office as well as accidents and fires that had been reported to the Safety Office. In the case of the staff groups whose employment was primarily of a practical nature, i.e. catering, cleaning, grounds and maintenance staff, brief descriptions of each accident were included in the report. In the discussion the following points were raised

• The number of accidents to cleaners caused by sharp objects in the waste sacks was still high. In reply the USRPO said that this issue had been discussed at a meeting of North West Universities Safety Officers and it was clear that a similar problem existed elsewhere. Furthermore, the efforts by Lancaster University to control the problem were greater than at other institutions. No suggestions for actions, that were not already being undertaken at Lancaster, had been forthcoming from this meeting. An Inspector from the Health and Safety Executive had been present at the meeting. The USRPO confirmed that the notices adjacent to each bin would be maintained, letters would be written to each kitchen where such an event occurred and emphasis of this problem would be given at the Intro Week safety talks and in the written information provided for new postgraduate students. Consequently, he regretted that there was little more that could be considered reasonably practicable.
• A member of the committee suggested that, as a recent departmental safety inspection had indicated that the electrical equipment used by cleaners was not being inspected, the audit for cleaning services should be brought forward from 2001. The USRPO agreed to do this but said that it would be necessary to move one of the other high risk departments to the following year.

The USRPO said that his annual report followed the normal format of summarising the safety training activities undertaken by the Safety Office during 1999 and the statistics relating to the accidents and fires that had been reported to the Safety Office during 1999. The three major injuries that had been reported to the Health and Safety Executive involved an electrician and two porters. In the case of the electrician, he had stepped in a hollow in a paved path and fractured a bone in his ankle. One of the porters had been unblocking a toilet and had slipped on the wet floor caused by the blockage, sustaining a broken wrist. The second porter was ascending external stairs whilst carrying mail when he tripped, landed heavily and fractured his wrist. The USRPO went on to say that the accident statistics showed very little difference compared with previous years. The most significant difference was the continuing reduction in the number of accidents that had occurred during the playing of Aeroball, from a peak of 22 in 1996 to 4 in 1999. However, there had already been three such accidents in the first 4 weeks of 2000. In the case of fires, the statistics indicated a small downward movement but it was difficult to draw any firm conclusions from the figures.

A member of the committee enquired about training provided for Area Safety Officers. The USRPO replied that all newly appointed Area Safety Officers received a guidance document produced by the Institution of Environmental Health. In addition they were requested to contact the Safety Office in order to discuss the role of the Area Safety Officer and any training requirements. If training was identified as being necessary the Safety Office would arrange such training, either internally or provided by an external organisation. An example of external training that had taken place during 1999 was that two newly appointed Department Radiation Officers had been sent on a 4 day radiological safety course run by the National Radiological Protection Board.

The USRPO reported that these regulations had been laid before parliament just before Christmas 1999 and came into force just after Christmas. Although they were new regulations they were largely an amendment of the preceding regulations. Where the regulations would have an impact on the University's existing policies this had been identified in the paper that was presented to the committee. The paper also indicated the actions that it was intended to take in order to implement the amended regulations.

The USRPO reported that the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) were intending that these regulations would come into force in March 2000 but as yet they had not been published. However, considerable guidance and information had been made available by the HSC on the intended content of the new regulations. Discussions had already taken place and were continuing within the Genetic Modification Safety Committee with the intention of producing University procedures and guidance to implement the regulations.

The USRPO reported that these regulations had been laid before Parliament in December 1999 and came into force at the beginning of 2000. A summary of the regulations was currently being prepared by the Safety Office and, on completion, would be circulated to members of the Health and Safety Committee and Department Radiation Officers. Discussions would then be held with Departmental Radiation Officers with the intention of presenting proposals to implement the regulations at the next meeting of the Health and Safety Committee. Guidance on the implementation of the regulations was expected to be published by the HSE early in 2000.

The USRPO reported that, when the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 came into force, there was an exemption from the requirement to carry out risk assessments if a fire certificate, issued under the Fire Precautions Act 1971, was in force for the building in question. Virtually all the University buildings had such fire certificates and therefore no risk assessments were required. The exemption was removed in December 1999 and the process of risk assessment would commence shortly. However, it was important to note that the original view of the UK Government was that buildings with a fire certificate met a satisfactory standard of fire precautions and therefore further action was unlikely to be necessary. One of the complicating factors in relation to this legislation was that the fire precautions regulations originate from the Health and Safety Executive and the fire certificate legislation originates from the Home Office. Consequently there was an element of uncertainty of how the two different sets of legislation interacted. Lancashire Fire & Rescue Service were still discussing this issue. It was intended to present guidance on how departments could contribute to maintaining fire precautions to the next meeting of the Health and Safety Committee

The USRPO reminded the committee that one of the recommendations of the UNIAC Review was that a plan of work for the Safety Office should be written. The majority of the work carried out by the Safety Office was of a routine nature and would be described in the Remit of the Safety Office which was currently being discussed between the Safety Office and the University Secretary. The plan of work that was presented to the Health and Safety Committee described those activities that the Safety Office planned to carry out during the Academic Year 1999/2000. The items listed in the plan were in addition to the Remit of the Safety Office. The majority of work resulted from the new legislation referred to earlier in the agenda.

The USRPO said that these minutes were presented for the Health and Safety Committee to note, but he would attempt to answer any questions raised.

A member of the committee expressed grave concern that the proposals to improve the guarding to staircases, particularly in Fylde College, had not as yet been carried out. At the previous meeting of the Health and Safety Committee it had been reported that the Director of Estates had indicated that the work would be carried out during the Michaelmas term 1999. This work had not yet taken place. This work was in response to the legal requirement contained in the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 which came fully into force on 1 January 1996. The survey that had identified the staircases where the guarding presented a high risk had been conducted in 1998. Alan Whitaker said that the University appeared to have been less than prompt in complying with this requirement and he would bring this matter to the attention of the Estates Committee.

Tuesday, 23 May 2000 at 2.00pm in the Senate Chamber