Maritime Health and Safety Update

Safety matters in every workplace!

I am very pleased to introduce a comprehensive Maritime specific Health and Safety update covering all aspects of Maritime. We have recently set our strategy for 2023 and as part of that national strategy we recognise that we need to be more effective in communicating with our Maritime members in every sector on Health and Safety issues that are relevant to you and your colleagues.

Health and Safety should not be viewed as a minor issue, bureaucratic red tape, or of lesser importance to industrial matters within the workplace such as pay, pensions or sick pay.

I have witnessed negativity towards Health and Safety in many formats, yet the one fundamental that we all want to ensure is that every single worker returns home to their loved ones at the end of their respective shift.

Why is it that Health and Safety is viewed in such a way by many, as an inferior subject to industrial matters, yet a safety issue in the workplace can turn emotive very quickly?

How organised are we in terms of safety in your workplace? Is Health and Safety a standing item of discussion at your branch or regional council? If not, why not?

Do we just expect to roll out the Health and Safety issues when we have a dispute to strengthen the argument whilst not fundamentally organising around health and safety?

I have a concern with regards to Health and Safety structures and our involvement in safety inspections, risk assessments and safety representation in all sectors and this is something that we need to place a clear focus on for 2023.

In order to assess our Health and Safety Representative cover in every workplace we will be seeking to complete a national matrix of Health and Safety Representatives to ascertain where we have gaps, but also where we have reps who require training and improved support to assist with undertaking the role of a safety representative.

If you are interested in becoming a Health and Safety Representative or would like more details on the role then contact our dedicated Health and Safety department for more information

Darren Procter, National Secretary

Maritime sector safety strategy

As part of the continued campaign to bring Health and Safety to the forefront of the Maritime agenda with the aim to improve members’ understanding of and participation in health and safety in the workplace, your National Secretary proposed a number of objectives which should be used as part of the Maritime Health and Safety strategy for in 2023.

At its meeting on 12th January, your National Executive Committee resolved as follows:

We instruct the General Secretary:







To continually update a national matrix for Health and Safety Reps within the Maritime sector

To identify potential Health and Safety Reps

To provide full training and support for all elected Health and Safety Reps

To continue to pursue improved workforce involvement and engagement through effective Safety Committees and mandatory training for Safety Reps and Safety Officers at national level meetings within the Maritime sector





To furnish members with a greater understanding of Health and Safety legislation in their particular sector

To produce a quarterly Health and Safety newsletter with a dedicated section on the union’s work around mental health that is to be issued to members via text and email







To continually monitor Health and Safety representation

To revise the RMT Maritime Health and Safety publications

To put Health and Safety on an equal footing with industrial matters in the workplace.

HEALTH AND SAFETY CONFERENCE

At the recent RMT Health and Safety Advisory Conference, which was attended by 170 rank and file delegates, there was NOT ONE single Maritime delegate in attendance or a resolution submitted by a Maritime branch for debate.

As this publication identifies, there are many issues of concern across all sectors of Maritime and we must become actively engaged if we are to tackle any of them!

Let’s ensure that at the next Health and Safety Conference we have a number of resolutions and delegates from Maritime branches!

TYPE 2 DIABETES a growing global health threat that puts seafarers at

risk

taken from an article by Gard for World Diabetes Day in November 2022

Diabetes is a chronic disease that occurs when the pancreas is no longer able to make insulin, or when the body cannot make good use of the insulin it produces. Insulin is a hormone, that acts like a key to let glucose from the food we eat pass from the blood stream into the cells in the body to produce energy. All carbohydrate foods are broken down into glucose in the blood. Insulin helps glucose get into the body’s cells.

Not being able to produce insulin or use it effectively leads to raised glucose levels in the blood, known as hyperglycaemia. Over time high glucose levels are associated with damage to the body and failure of various organs and tissues. There are three types of diabetes, Type 1, Type 2 and Gestational, or diabetes during pregnancy. People with Type 1 diabetes produce very little or no insulin. The disease usually develops in children or young adults. People with this form of diabetes need injections of insulin every day in order to control the levels of glucose in their blood. There is no cure for Type 1 diabetes and for those without access to insulin, the disease is fatal.

Type 2 diabetes accounts for 90% of all

cases of diabetes worldwide. It is characterised by insulin resistance and relative insulin deficiency, either or both of which may be present at the time diabetes is diagnosed. The diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes can occur at any age. Type 2 diabetes may remain undetected for many years and the diagnosis is often made when a complication arises or a routine blood or urine glucose test is done. It is often, but not always, associated with obesity, which itself can cause insulin resistance and lead to high blood glucose levels. People with Type 2 diabetes can often initially manage their condition through exercise and diet. However, over time most people will require oral drugs and/or insulin.

There is an increasing prevalence of Type 2 diabetes, which is associated with more sedentary lifestyles and a higher consumption of unhealthy foods, which lead to obesity.

By 2045, it is estimated that this number will increase to 629 million, one in ten adults; and diabetes-related health expenditure will exceed USD 776 billion.

Type 2 diabetes is a leading cause of blindness, amputation, heart disease, kidney failure and early death. Every 8 seconds someone dies from diabetes. The good news is that over 50% of Type 2 diabetes is preventable and complications for those with the condition can be avoided with good management and care. The International Diabetes Federation which is an umbrella organization of over 230 national diabetes associations, has produced an interactive test for individuals to gauge their own risk of developing type 2 diabetes within the next ten years based on their individual risk factors.

CLICK HERE for interactive test

DIABETES IN SEAFARERS

Research shows that seafarers have a higher risk of developing Type 2 diabetes compared with the general

Diabetes affects at least 425 million people worldwide, that is one in eleven adults

population. By far the greatest number of seafarers currently working on merchant vessels come from the Philippines. These seafarers undergo a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) which screen for diabetes as well as other health conditions. Based on a review of Filipino Seafarer examinations for 2015 and 2016 done by Del Rosario Pandiphil, diabetes made up 58% of the endocrine diseases found. Endocrine diseases are diseases where a gland produces too much or too little of a certain type of hormone; in the case of diabetes, the pancreas.

The PEME allows for early recognition of seafarers at risk followed by careful monitoring and treatment. Treatment is aimed at correcting lifestyle issues:

n Changes in diet to reduce the intake of high sugar foods and beverages and other carbohydrates and increase servings of fruit and vegetables. Guidelines for Healthy Food

Onboard Merchant Ships provides tips for healthy food plans

n Exercising at least three times a week for 30 minutes each time, aiming to achieve an exercise heart rate of 75% of maximum. This can be easily calculated as follows: (220 – age) x 0.75 = recommended heart rate during

exercise to derive cardiovascular benefit. For an average 45-yearold, this would mean an exercise heart rate of 131 beats per minute

n Monitoring the blood sugar levels with tests such as urine glucose tests, blood sugar tests and a diabetes control measuring test, an HBA1C, which provides a measure of diabetes control over the last six weeks. The seafarer must also keep a logbook of their diabetes control to enable them to understand their health condition, and to take responsibility for its management

n Using prescribed medication regularly and notifying their doctor of any change in their diabetes control, so that appropriate adjustments to their treatment regime can be made.

According to Dr. Marcus Brauer, a General Practitioner at a PEME Clinic in South Africa, the early detection and effective early management of Type 2 diabetes is one of the most effective parts of the PEME routine, as it not only preserves and maintains the health of the seafarer, but also assists them to understand and manage their condition, allowing them to remain gainfully employed in their chosen career.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Type 2 diabetes is a growing health threat to seafarers as well as the general population. The risk of

developing the disease can be greatly reduced by adopting a healthy lifestyle including adjustments to diet and increase in exercise. The International Diabetes Federation (IDF) recommends these dietary guidelines for the general population:

n Choosing water, coffee or tea instead of fruit juice, soda, or other sugar sweetened beverages

n Eating at least three servings of vegetable every day, including leafy green vegetables

n Eating up to three servings of fresh fruit every day

n Choosing nuts, a piece of fresh fruit, or unsweetened yoghurt for a snack

n Limiting alcohol intake to a maximum of two standard drinks per day

n Choosing lean cuts of white meat, poultry or seafood instead of red or processed meat

n Choosing peanut butter instead of chocolate spread or jam

n Choosing wholegrain bread, rice, or pasta instead of white bread, rice, or pasta

n Choosing unsaturated fats (olive oil, canola oil, corn oil, or sunflower oil) instead of saturated fats (butter, ghee, animal fat, coconut oil or palm oil).

According to the IDF, there is “overwhelming evidence from studies in the USA, Finland, China, India and Japan that lifestyle changes –achieving a healthy body weight and moderate physical activity – can help prevent the development of Type 2 diabetes in those at high risk.”

Surely prevention is better than cure.

HSE, MCA and the regulatory gap!

For the most part, when there is high activity around an oil and gas operation there is regulatory cover with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) having jurisdiction. The Offshore Installations, “Safety Case Regulations” provides the means by which the HSE have oversight and this extends around an installation out to an area referred to as the 500-metre zone. So, whether it is a barge, a ship, a diving vessel or whatever, if it is within the 500-metre zone of an “installation” the HSE will have oversight.

However, when that ‘installation’ is no longer tied to the seabed it ceases to be an ‘installation’ and moreover when it is moving it becomes a vessel. The same applies when any barge or vessel is no longer within the 500-metre zone, they are no longer covered by the HSE. No problem you might think, the Maritime and Coast Guard Agency (MCA) and the Marine Accident

Investigation Branch (MAIB) will pick it up right? Wrong! If the moving installation or vessel is out with the UK territorial waters (12-mile limit) then it is in international waters and is covered by the Flag State of the vessel!

This scenario has been around forever, but it took a recent fatality to put it firmly in the spotlight. The drilling rig, Valaris 121, was being towed from an oil and gas site to a port on the east coast of Scotland when 50-year-old Jason Thomas from Wales went missing while the rig was around 100 miles south-east of Aberdeen. The circumstances surrounding his disappearance were out with the jurisdiction of the UK Regulatory authorities HSE and MCA, and both confirmed that the Flag State of the vessel would be the authority charged with looking at the event, in this case Liberia. However, after RMT had gone public about the regulatory ‘gap’ and after Tayside Police had

visited the rig when it tied up in the port of Dundee, the HSE declared they would be sending a team to look at the loss of the worker. RMT was told this was down to the fact the Police had asked the HSE to consider the ‘circumstances’ around the event. We await the outcome of HSE enquiries in the hope they can at least provide some answers to the family.

This event confirmed the concerns which RMT has been raising for some considerable time with the MCA, HSE, BEIS, DWP, HMRC, and anyone else who would listen! The vast majority of the work around the renewables sector will be undertaken by vessels and all of that work outwith territorial waters is effectively unregulated by the UK authorities. A major event causing serious injury or even death will fall to the Flag State of the vessel concerned. There is no Safety Case Regulations for Wind Turbines and the only jurisdiction for HSE is work on the actual Turbine structure. Hundreds if not thousands of workers are in a regulatory gap that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency by the UK Government!

For many years in the offshore oil and gas sector we have been aware of the ‘gap’ in regulatory enforcement and oversight in certain scenarios associated with Maritime activities.

DIVER HEALTH AND SAFETY REPRESENTATION

Putting aside the obvious concerns captured in the ‘Regulatory Gap’ article which many divers especially in the Inshore Diving sector will be impacted by, there is another obvious shortcoming for the diving sector in terms of representation. There is no structure for the election of and training of Safety Representatives in the dive teams. In the offshore diving sector, there tends to be a ‘rep’ assigned to attend what are largely Maritime Health & Safety meetings on board a vessel, but this is usually a Supervisor. For the Inshore sector there is no structure of any kind for the dive teams.

This is an issue which RMT has raised with the HSE who are responsible for “Diving at Work” irrespective of whether it’s from a vessel or a quay side. However, they are only

responsible when diving is actually taking place. If the diver is hurt on the deck of a vessel or during a transfer then the divers, just like the rest of the workforce referred to in the ‘Regulatory Gap’ article, are not covered.

The dive teams have unique and specific issues which they should absolutely have the appropriate representation to raise on their behalf. The expression ‘workforce engagement’ is widely used when talking about health and safety and the involvement of the workforce. However, in the absence of any representative structure and the considering the contractual approach used for divers, it is difficult to see how they can have any meaningful input. RMT see this issue as a priority and will continue to pursue the issue with the regulator.

OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS REPRESENTATIVES

The Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989 (SI971) have been around a long time, but have never been more important. After nearly two years of low manning and low activity, we are now seeing installations across the North Sea being pushed to the limit to maximise returns from the high oil and gas prices. Evidence seen by RMT suggests this maximizing of profits could be impacting on safe operations as regular maintenance of safety critical equipment is pushed back. We are aware of a significant problem with the backlog of maintenance and this poses a serious threat to the safety of offshore operations.

You have the right under SI971 to raise legitimate concerns with

your Trade Union representative and we ask every RMT Safety Rep out there to exercise your right. You can pick up the phone and get the RMT office at 01224 582688 or the Regional Organiser at 07711 359705. You can email the Aberdeen office at: M.Brown@rmt.org.uk and your message will be passed to the relevant officer.

If you have concerns about maintenance on your installation, get in touch. We will keep your identity confidential, and we will not take any action without your approval. We can make anonymous representations on your behalf and have ‘off-therecord’ conversations with HSE inspectors. We want to keep your installations running, but not at any cost!

DIVERS’ STORIES

This is one of many reports submitted for a comprehensive report by Regional Organiser, Jake Molloy which gives cause for concern around ‘medical advice’ within the diving sector.

FORT WILLIAM EVENT, LATE 2019

I was asked to attend the sat trial of the new system at Fort William as part of the team. We arrived as a team on the pier at fort bill at 7am to start the trial. During the journey up to Fort Bill I was informed that if we could arrange the gas in time, we would be doing a gas trial instead of an Air one, which had been the plan up to that point. The job was to be a 54 msw dive for 30 mins bottom time.

On arrival I was informed that the gas was a 12% mix with spare 30% and a 50/50. I asked why we did not have a 16% or above as a spare? I was informed by both very experienced supervisors, whom I knew and respected, that this was the mix they always used at Fort Bill for their training diving. Once there, we checked the appropriate paperwork to ensure that certification etc. was all in date and I inspected the new SPHL which was attached to the system for compliance. Whilst doing this I immediately picked up a few nonconformances that were quite integral to the compliance, of which three stood out:

1  pipe work on the internal engine was not attached, fuel was very strong smelling, and nothing was clean.

2 the air for the skipper of the vessel was not in the cylinders and they were all oxygen cylinders 100%

3 you could not lock the SPHL trunk door off-of the system without someone inside the chamber blown down.

I then condemned the lifeboat but was informed that this was ok to use as it was. All checks were completed on the bell and system, and all were passed on the system, but there were a few problems inside the bell with gauges missing. The dive supervisors were both ok with this, and onboard gas checks were completed. At this point I asked whether we should reconsider doing a deep dive to 54 msw as the first manned dive, given the problems that were evident, but this was considered to be ok.

The dive got underway, which was to be two rescues and return to surface 30 min dive time. At this point I realised that the chamber was not heating to the required temp and set about exploring why. I realised this was due to a lack of thermal insulation on the pipe work, which we set about correcting.

The first diver left the bell to be rescued from the bell top and the rescue was set in motion, but before the rescue diver could leave the bell, diver 1 reported that he was on bailout. At this he was told to return to the bell, which he did, but could not get into the trunking due to his pillar valve catching on the bell trunk. It was then explained to me that this was probably due to them never having used this bell with a 37 helmet before, and this was the first attempt, which again surprised me?

We eventually got the diver into the bell and made to leave bottom. This proved impossible due to the fact the top door on the bell would not seal, letting vast quantities of gas vent out of the bottom seal. We therefore repeatedly tried to reseal the door which would not seal in any way. At about circa 140 min at depth the decision was made to enrich the mix

in the bell from 12% to a richer mix to match the air for sur D 02 which they would now need for the time at depth. This was achieved by dumping 02 into the bell from adds. After many attempts to seal, the decision was made to disconnect the top door spring system to see if it would then seal, as it looked like it was off centre.

This was achieved and I took over the in water stops of the ascent from the supervisor, as he had a lot on his plate, at this time the dive B/T was circa 190mins.

All in water stops were completed correctly and I had added a stand-by diver into the chamber as a safety measure in case of the obvious 02 tox problem that was likely to occur as the Sur D 02 now required circa 15 stops. As the divers entered the chamber, I made them put on their thermal suits as the temp in the chamber was still only about 15-degrees due to the heating problems. At this point was told that Dr B [Name] had been informed, which both myself and the two dive supervisors were surprised to hear, as there was no omitted decompression so far and this was therefore not necessary.

Dr B phoned twice to change our tables, which again I did not understand as all was correct as far as we were concerned. All the Sur D 02 stops were run as the table by myself and I was

watching at all times for the obvious 02 problems which did not occur up to that point.

Before we got to the last period Dr B called back for the 3rd time to tell us that once the divers had completed the last 02 stop, he wanted us to blow back down to 18msw to run a full table 6. I completely disagreed with this and told both supervisors and the ops managers I considered that this would completely overload the UPTD point and also up the chances of a Cns 02 event. I was told to do as Dr B suggested even though none of us agreed. So this I reluctantly did, watching all the time for the obvious 02 problems. At one point I took one diver off 02 as he was in a bad way.

We eventually got the divers back on surface and out by 05.30 the following morning, having all of us stayed on duty from 07.00 the day before. I informed both divers that they would both suffer chronic 02 problems within a day and that there was nothing to worry about, but that if they were unhappy to seek further medical advice.

The next day we were told to report to Aberdeen NHC for a de-brief and investigation. This took place internally and no blame was at any point apportioned to anyone, more a lessons learned and format, although the no 1 supervisor felt very unhappy about what we were made to do. On the 2nd day the divers really felt unwell with the chronic 02 chest problems and were sent to the medical centre at NHC where they were advised to go to see the specialist at Aberdeen hospital where I believe they spent the night.

Many things were highlighted at the meeting by a number of us, not least was the need to call the Doctor in the first place and why were we made to do a full table 6 at the end when there was no omitted decompression? Also, we argued that we were not really ready to do the trial and felt pressure to do so. I then returned home and was asked by [name] to remain with [company] and this I decided to do.

VDU SAFETY FOR ADMIN STAFF IN PORTS

Computers: an introduction

Many jobs involve working with computers for long periods of time, but it is important that you sit in a way that does not harm your arms, back, hands, shoulders or neck. Your employer should help prevent discomfort and injury by ensuring your work station is set up properly.

If you get aches or pains whilst at your desk you should tell your supervisor and/or your RMT representative. You can avoid serious injury by taking action when you notice a problem, although it’s better to prevent injuries before they begin. There are simple steps that can be taken to stay healthy while working with a computer.

Setting up the workstation safely

Under the Display Screen Equipment (DSE) regulations, employers must minimise the risks of working with computers by making sure that workplaces are well designed and that workers know how to reduce risks.

Employers must:

 carry out a risk assessment of the workstation

 provide properly set up computer workstations

 organise your work so that health and safety risks are minimised

 provide training, information and guidance to computer users

 provide a free eye and eyesight test and pay for glasses if they are needed for DSE work.

You can reduce the risk of injuries by:

 using your workstation correctly

 taking regular breaks from the screen

 adjusting your chair height to fit your workstation

 reporting any injuries, such as eye strain or pain in the hands, arms or neck.

Computer screens (visual displays/ monitors)

Problems caused by computer screens – also called visual display units (VDUs), monitors or display screen equipment (DSE) – are usually the result of improper use, rather than the screen itself.

There is no evidence that screens damage eyes, but long periods of working at a computer screen can cause discomfort. You must ensure the size of text and images on the screen are the right size for you and take regular breaks.

Injuries that may be caused by working with computers:

 If your workstation is not set up properly, you may suffer from headaches caused by screen glare or bad posture

 Work-related upper limb disorders (WRULDs) – also called repetitive strain injury (RSI) – occur when computer users get aches, pains and disorders after long periods of working with a computer. increasing use of Personal Display

Assistants (handheld PCs) can lead to poor posture and positioning and in turn, aches and pains.

Laptop computers

Some jobs require employees to use computers outside of the office, so a laptop computer may be provided. Because of their small size it can be hard to establish a good fit between the worker and the laptop. This makes it more difficult to maintain good posture.

Carrying a laptop also increases back injuries and the risk of attack and theft, so it’s better to use a desktop computer or a docked laptop whenever possible.

What can your employer do?

All employers have a duty to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of their employees under the Health and Safety at Work Act.

The Display Screen Equipment regulations also require employers to perform a suitable risk assessment of computers – even for flexible and home workers – and take steps to control risks.

Make sure that risk assessments are thorough and correct. Safety reps have rights under the management regulations to be consulted by their employers about anything affecting members’ health and safety, including new technology.

DID YOU KNOW???

Did you know that there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) and the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) for Health and Safety Enforcement activities and accident investigation?

Memorandum of Understanding

Between the Health and Safety Executive, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Marine Accident Investigation Branch for health and safety enforcement activities and accident investigation at the water margin and offshore

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Memorandum of Understanding is made between the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) and the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB). Its purpose is to ensure effective collaborative working between these organisations where their duties for health and safety enforcement and accident investigation overlap at the water margin, offshore and on inland waterways in and around the United Kingdom.

1.2 The HSE is a non-departmental statutory body corporate sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), whose main function is to make arrangements to secure the health, safety and welfare of people at work and to protect the public from dangers arising from work activities. It is responsible for the inspection and regulation of occupational health and safety, and major accident hazards, associated with work activities. This includes offshore oil and gas exploration, production and storage and offshore renewable energy structures. For offshore oil and gas exploration and production, HSE works in partnership with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) as part of the Offshore Safety Directive Regulator (OSDR).

1.3 The MCA is an Executive Agency of the Department for Transport (DfT). Its main functions are to develop, promote and enforce high standards of marine safety, to minimise loss of life amongst seafarers and coastal users, and to minimise pollution from ships to the sea and coastline. MCA is responsible for enforcing all merchant shipping regulations in respect of occupational health and safety, the safety of vessels, safe navigation and operation (including manning levels and crew competency). Merchant shipping health and safety regulations extend to all those working on the ship, and any work activities undertaken on board.

2021

1.4 The MAIB is responsible for investigating accidents related to ships and crew in the territorial sea and to UK registered vessels worldwide, to determine their circumstances and causes with the sole objective of preventing similar accidents in the future (i.e. a safety investigation). It is not the purpose of an MAIB investigation to determine liability nor, except so far as is necessary to achieve its objective, to apportion blame.

2. POWERS AND LEGISLATION

2.1 Details of HSE’s, MCA’s and MAIB’s powers and legislation, inspection, investigation and enforcement policies and contact details are outlined on their respective websites.

HSE:- http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/law.htm

MCA:- www.gov.uk/government/organisations/maritime-and-coastguard-agency

MAIB:- www.gov.uk/government/organisations/marine-accident-investigation-branch

2.2 In general, HSE, MCA and MAIB have jurisdiction over the following areas:

SCOPE OF JURISDICTION

HSE MCA MAIB

Work activities covered UK ships and those All marine incidents / by the Health and Safety working on them accidents in the territorial at Work etc. Act 1974 anywhere in the world. sea and on inland and its relevant statutory Foreign flag ships and waterways. provisions (e.g. docks, those working on them in Incidents / accidents jetties, loading / cargo UK waters (including involving UK ships operations, ship repair, inland areas such as anywhere in the world. offshore installations, ports). Investigate a foreign energy structures, wells, Search and rescue co- vessel outside the pipelines and fish farms). ordination in UK SAR area. territorial sea when no UK flagged vessel is involved if directed to do so by the Secretary of State.

2.3 Sometimes the jurisdiction of HSE, MCA and MAIB can overlap. Information on the agreed principles used to identify which organisation will take the lead for enforcement and/or accident investigation when jurisdiction overlaps is provided in an Operational Working Agreement (OWA) (see www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/howwework/framework/mou/owa-hse-mac-maib.pdf). This includes a decision making process for day-to-day enforcement demarcation issues.

2.4 The underlying principles of this MOU are that, insofar as the relevant legislation permits:

• the MAIB and HSE/MCA investigations will be independent and can proceed in parallel; and, the public interest requires that safety considerations are of paramount importance, which may mean that the interests of an MAIB accident investigation take precedence over a criminal investigation. Any need to agree precedence or to deconflict investigations will be agreed using the principles in the MoU.

3. PRINCIPLES OF COLLABORATIVE WORKING

3.1 This MOU outlines the principles of co-operation to be adopted between HSE, MCA and the MAIB (including when HSE is working as part of the OSDR partnership). The MOU seeks to promote effective collaborative working (e.g. coordination of regulatory activity and knowledge sharing), while recognising and respecting the different regulatory and other legal frameworks within which each organisation operates. As such this MOU is a statement of intent; nothing in it shall create any legally binding or enforceable obligations on the HSE, MCA or MAIB.

3.2 The principal purpose of collaborative working is to enhance the effectiveness of HSE’s, MCA’s and MAIB’s delivery of their operational and policy objectives. This will be achieved through:

• a common understanding of each other’s roles and responsibilities (e.g. who will be the lead regulator for the range of complex offshore activities) and good regulatory practice;

• regular sharing of knowledge in areas of mutual interest;

• agreeing consistent standards and interpretation of regulatory requirements as far as practicable; and

• close co-operation on activities and projects of strategic or commercial relevance.

3.3 HSE, MCA and MAIB will undertake to use their best endeavours to co-operate effectively to enable and assist each other to carry out their responsibilities and functions, and to maintain effective working arrangements for that purpose. Such cooperation should avoid difficulties which might arise from uncoordinated approaches by the organisations (e.g. inconsistent standards, policies, and regulations, uncertainty over jurisdiction and duplication of inspection, accident investigation and enforcement activity).

4. INTENDED ACTIVITIES AND ASSOCIATED BENEFITS

4.1 It is anticipated that the activities to be undertaken pursuant to this MOU, and the associated benefits of such collaborative working, will include:

• creating a common understanding of HSE's, MCA’s and MAIB’s roles and responsibilities, regulatory priorities and approaches, including roles in relation to the health and safety of crews on ships and those on board undertaking work, in particular connected to the offshore energy sectors;

• ensuring that the health and safety enforcement activities of the MCA and HSE in relation to work activities at the water margin and offshore are consistent, co-ordinated and, wherever possible, comprehensive;

• avoiding so far as is possible conflicting requirements being put on dock operators, ships' masters, offshore duty-holders, other employers or people in control of or at work, thus minimising the burden on industry, particularly where there is overlapping legislation;

• avoiding the duplication of activity where legislation empowering HSE, MCA and MAIB overlaps, by facilitating co-operation in all aspects of policy development (e.g. agreeing the principles of who will lead for enforcement and/or safety investigation activities under different scenarios, including domestic and international representation at meetings) and operational implementation (e.g. ensuring effective and efficient prosecution of offences by adopting a co-ordinated approach);

• collective planning and co-operation to ensure that proportionate and effective regimes are in place to support emerging energy technologies (e.g. offshore renewable energy structures and floating storage and regasification units);

• sharing statistical data and analysis relating to trends and performance, and initiating research if appropriate; and

• establishing clear lines of communication for HSE, MCA and MAIB staff, thus providing mutual assistance and support for al parties concerned to carry out their respective responsibilities.

5. FUNDING AND COST RECOVERY

5.1 Organisations will generally bear their own costs when contributing to activities directly connected with this MOU, unless alternative arrangements for specific areas / projects are agreed on in advance. When there are specific requests for additional work (e.g. for research, technical assessments or secondments), appropriate cost recovery or funding arrangements will be put in place.

6. REVIEW OF THIS MOU

6.1 The MOU will be reviewed every three years, unless terminated sooner or extended by collective written agreement.

SIGNED

Captain Andrew Moll

Sarah Albon Brian Johnson Chief Inspector of Marine Chief Executive Chief Executive Accidents Health and Safety Maritime and Coastguard Marine Accident Executive Agency Investigation Branch Department for Transport

TUG COMPANY FINED £2 MILLION AFTER DEATH OF CREWMAN

Heard at Liverpool Crown Court today, 20 February, the tragic death sparked an investigation by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) which identified a catalogue of the company’s failures.

On the evening of Mr Webb’s death, January 27, 2019, Svitzer Marine’s tug Millgarth was cast off from the Tranmere north jetty, in the river Mersey, in storm force conditions.

either side, Mr Webb fell into the river. He was eventually rescued by Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service, but Mr Webb died from the effects of cold water immersion.

The investigation by the MCA revealed Svitzer Marine had not completed a risk assessment of the Tranmere jetties, despite crews raising concerns. Svitzer Marine had failed to instruct crews in how to operate rescue equipment, failed to ensure rescue equipment was correctly fitted, and failed to ensure safety drills were being conducted.

Svitzer Marine was fined £2million and ordered to pay £136,711 costs, totalling a sum of £2,136,711.

put the defendant on notice.”

MCA senior investigator Mark Flavell, leading the case, said:

“My thoughts are with the family of Mr Webb, who today can take some comfort in seeing justice being served.

“Svitzer Marine has been convicted of failing to discharge properly the obligations to respect workers ‘safety. Simply put, this was a fatality that should not have happened, and the company has failed Mr Webb and his family.

Mr Webb, the vessel’s chief engineer, released the mooring lines and attempted to return to the tug, stepping down from the jetty on to a fender. The tug was free from the jetty and rolling in the swell of the river.

Expected to stand on top of a narrow, wet fender with unprotected drops

During the sentencing Judge Byrne described what happened as an “avoidable incident”, adding: “This operation was inherently unsafe in any conditions but in these conditions even more so.”

The judge expressed his condolences to Mr Webb’s family. After listening to the list of failings conducted by Svitzer he said: “Previous events should have

“This case highlights the consequences of complacency, of failure to adequately assess risks which can be prevalent in everyday tasks, and of failure to undertake safety drills to ensure crews are competent in the use of life saving equipment.

“As with most incidents of this nature, it was an avoidable tragedy, and the MCA will take action to stamp out such failures.”

Svitzer Marine Ltd pleaded guilty to failing to operate a vessel safely and failing to provide a safe system of work, causing the “avoidable tragedy” of 62-year-old Ian Webb falling into the water.

© Rob Foy / MarineTraffic.com

Ian Webb, 62, was a 30-year veteran of Svitzer and its predecessor companies on the River Mersey

41% of us are getting 6 hours of sleep or less

FATIGUE

The Health and Safety Advisory Conference afternoon session focused on the conference theme of fatigue. Current figures suggest that just 41% of us are getting 6 hours of sleep, or less, when working days but that this figure rises dramatically to 63% for those who work at night.

Conference heard from Shelly Asquith from the TUC about what makes workers fatigued and what are the risks? Nicola Healey, from the HSE (Health and Safety Executive) is a Senior Human Factors Specialist who spoke about what is fatigue and how it can impact on safety? Also, we heard from Anna Vereker who is a Principal Human Factors Specialist from the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) about managing fatigue.

The panel spoke about industry challenges such as effectively managing shift work, fatigue risk and software shift modelling and fatigue-risk modelling products. The RSSB encouraged RMT participation and to promote their fatigue survey. Following these presentations many questions were asked from the floor for the panel on fatigue related factors.

CLICK HERE for presentations and further details from the conference around fatigue

RMT BENEFIT

Have you had an accident in the workplace?

As a member of RMT there are lots of benefits available to members and one is legal representation for accidents.

Members who are injured at work, at home, on holiday* or on the road in the last three years can take advantage of the RMT’s free legal service.

The RMT legal service has a formidable reputation for fighting hard to get the maximum amount of compensation for members in the shortest possible time. Injured members can trust the RMT to get enough compensation to repay lost earnings – or compensate for future lost earnings – and other medical

–

LEGAL REPRESENTATION

expenses, such as travel costs to and from hospital appointments.

Expert advice is available on claims resulting from:

• Industrial disease or illness

• Personal injury (at work or elsewhere)

• Road traffic accident

• Training exercise injuries

• Defective equipment accidents

The RMT legal service is also available for members’ families if they were injured in a non-work-related accident or on the roads.

*where claims can be pursued in the UK courts.

TO MAKE A CLAIM

Members or their families who require legal assistance should contact their

local representative or regional office for a L1 form and information about how to progress your claim.

Members should ensure that all accidents at work are reported to the employer.

Legal proceedings must be served within three years of the date of an accident, otherwise the claim will become statute barred and could result in the right to claim damages being lost.

For industrial disease claims, legal proceedings must be served within three years of the date of knowledge, i.e. when the member first knew that the disease could be attributed to a negligent act or omission by an employer.

SNAP POLL SHOWS MORE THAN HALF OF EMPLOYERS ARE GUILTY OF “WELLBEING WASHING”

Over half of employers are guilty of ‘wellbeing washing’, a snap poll by safety professionals’ organisation IOSH has found. The safety body said the term was coined to shame employers wanting to appear mindful of their workers’ wellbeing yet that fail to provide them with any real benefits.

The term ‘worker wellbeing’ appears to be trending these days as more employers switch on to the fact their workforce is their greatest asset, especially in the current workers’ jobs market.

But another term has been coined to shame employers that want to appear mindful of their workers’ wellbeing yet fail to provide them with any real benefits ‘wellbeing washing’.

Looking for that ‘quick fix’ to keep their people onside (and hopefully attract new talent), these employers are increasingly being called out for offering free fruit, gym memberships, yoga classes and the like with one hand while pushing staff towards unsustainable workloads, long hours and burnout with the other.

It’s a phenomenon highlighted recently by IOSH Research Programme Lead Dr Karen Michell, in her blog ‘Want to really do right by your people?’ web poll.

So IOSH decided to test just how widespread ‘wellbeing washing’ has become by asking visitors to our website a few questions on the matter, starting with “Do you think your employer is guilty of wellbeing washing?”

This snap online poll, which attracted more than 400 responses from nearly 60 countries over three working days, confirmed that wellbeing washing really

is a thing, with more than half (51%) of respondents pointing an accusing finger at their employer. Those who found their employer guilty as charged referred to wide-ranging examples of staff ‘benefits’ they didn’t want or need, including:

• Online ‘wellbeing services’

• Employment Assistance Programmes that focus on out-ofhours issues but don’t deal with work or office-related matters

• Discounts on holidays (which are still too expensive)

• Wellbeing walks (but with no time to go on them)

• Fruit and ice cream

• Shopping discounts (but having to pay for staff parking)

• Mental Health First Aid (described as a ‘box-ticking’ exercise that can sometimes see untrained volunteers do more harm than good).

Those employers providing benefits their employees won’t thank them for

might be interested to see what benefits workers say they’re not getting but would actually welcome. These include:

• Work risk assessments for stress

• Access to a wider variety of healthy lifestyle classes, not just gym membership or yoga

• More support for women on menopausal issues

• Better mental health support

• Better management

• Flexible working

• A more responsive attitude to worker surveys.

In her blog, Dr Michell advises employers they won’t get away with adopting a one-size-fits-all approach to worker wellbeing, while simply renaming a rest area as ‘The Chill Zone’ is a definite ‘no-no’: “Helping to keep your people contented while also attracting new talent will be vital to your operation – in fact, your whole future will depend on it,” she writes.

Workers aren’t stupid!

NEW OFFSHORE SAFETY GUIDANCE WITH POTENTIAL TO PREVENT MAJOR OIL & GAS ACCIDENTS SEES THE LIGHT OF DAY

An Aberdeen-headquartered process safety software and consultancy firm Salus Technical has launched what it describes as “a potentially life-saving” guidance document based on extensive research into non-compliance letters sent to duty holders on the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) by the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

Salus Technical reported on Monday, 30 January 2023, that its team of process safety engineers, led by the firm’s founder and MD, had written and published “a potentially life-saving” guidance document – titled How offshore inspection scores reveal major accident prevention measures –based on analysing 147 non-compliance letters that the HSE sent to duty-holders in 2019.

Explaining the rationale, David Jamieson, Salus Technical’s Founder and MD, remarked: “Each year, the Energy Division of the UK HSE visits over 100 offshore oil and gas installations to carry out inspections on a wide range of topics. If a topic inspection finds poor performance, the HSE writes to the duty holder outlining the action they need to take to improve.

“The total number of non-compliances each year is public record, but not the detail that lies within. We believe that the detail is where the true value lies –greater understanding and awareness can inform changes to prevent incidents taking place.”

Following the submission of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the HSE, the company’s team set about analysing

in detail the 147 letters and converting this into “a truly anonymous database,” removing all reference to duty holders and installations.

“This is about learning, not pointing the finger. It’s also important to note that each one of these non-compliances was resolved by the duty holder prior to the HSE releasing the information, a

powerful signal that the industry takes its safety obligations very seriously,” added Jamieson.

Salus Technical underlines that its team produced a guidance document grouped by inspection topic, breaking down the detail of each topic, highlighting common areas of concern, and offering “real, actionable advice” to

Training and competence

No one deliberately acts unsafely. There must be a general awareness of process safety throughout an organisation so that personnel can understand how their actions can impact on safety. The workforce must be competent to perform their role and be provided with adequate support and resources.

Risk assessment

SECE

Risk assessments must be robust, performed at the right time, and with the right people present. The cumulative risk across an installation must be understood at all times.

There should be a clear link between performance standards and the Maintenance Management System (MMS). There should be robust procedures in place to risk assess Safety and Environmentally Critical Equipment (SECE) impairments and backlog.

Human factors

Human factors should be implemented across the organisation and clear training provided for those that need it. There should be a procedure in place for Safety Critical Task Analysis (SCTA). Safety critical procedures should be subject to SCTA as appropriate.

Emergency response

Emergency response risk assessments and plans should be up to date, understood by all personnel, and regularly drilled.

Key themes from the document: Source: Salus Technical

prevent major accidents from happening in the future.

Jamieson further pointed out that a lot of the firm’s findings were recurring, as multiple duty holders experienced the same issue that year, adding: “This means it’s more than likely that many others will also be grappling with these, and indeed may potentially be unaware that these are non-compliance issues.

“If that knowledge is in the public domain, then duty holders have an opportunity to resolve these issues. Learning from others in the industry aligns with Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) Process Safety Leadership principles, and as members of OEUK we are fully committed to these.”

According to Jamieson, the company tried to make it easy for people to implement changes by creating “a onepage summary for leaders within the industry, and also written assurance checklists so that any duty holder can easily perform an audit against our findings.”

Furthermore, the guidance document has been peer-reviewed by a number of

senior figures within the industry, including Mark Wilson, Offshore Energies UK’s HSE and Operations Director, who commented: “The insights gained from Salus’s analysis of the Health and Safety Executive’s inspection findings can help to shape and enable new risk-based approaches. This development has the potential to benefit safety performance across the industry.

“This latest report links to the ongoing work that OEUK and our members have been undertaking –particularly in the areas of hydrocarbon release prevention, maintenance backlog reduction, operational risk assessment and workforce engagement.”

The above article was recently published by Offshore Energy biz on the January 31, 2023, by Melisa Cavcic.

MUSKOSKELETAL DISORDERS IN PORTS?

Possible MSDs include back pain and muscle injuries, and are often the result of poor handling techniques or tasks involving repetitive movements and/or excessive force.

Injuries can also be caused by the vibration created by some vehicles –this is known as whole-body vibration. Some people may not fully recover from MSDs and they can greatly affect your quality of life.

Where MSD hazards can be found in ports:

■ Manual manoeuvring of lifting gear and attachments or slung loads.

■ Handling of twist locks and unlocking poles.

■ Lifting/manoeuvring of lashing bars.

■ Breaking out pre-packed or palleted loads.

■ Storage and warehousing activities.

■ Hauling mooring ropes off large ships.

■ Vibration transmitted through the seat or feet of employees who drive mobile machines, such as

ro-ro tugs and other similar vehicles, over uneven ground or on rails.

HOW YOU CAN REDUCE MSD RISKS

For manual handling:

■ Use mechanical aids such as motorised winches for hauling mooring ropes of large ships, vehicle-mounted hydraulic hoists, portable roller conveyors, pallet trucks, scissor lifts and customised trolleys

■ Consider whether a load can be changed to make it easier to carry, for example smaller packages, providing handles or hand-holds

■ Adopt safe lifting techniques. For whole-body vibration

■ Use appropriate machinery for the job

■ Maintain plant and equipment, e.g. container cranes and rubbertyred gantry cranes. Maintenance should include seats, suspension and visibility through windows

■ Maintain roadways, quays, container park surfaces and rails

■ Take account of vibration information when buying or hiring equipment

■ Provide drivers with information on how to reduce risks to their health

Which laws apply?

■ Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (as amended)

■ Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005.

The above information is extracted from HSE publication ‘A Quick Guide to Health and Safety in Ports’ which is available from the HSE website or from our Health and Safety department: healthandsafety@rmt.org.uk

Do you or any of your colleagues experience any symptoms? Have you raised this with your employer? Get in contact with your union if you would like more information on this serious matter.

Port workers carry out a number of activities which, if not properly managed, may lead to a variety of ‘musculoskeletal disorders’ (MSDs).

NEW VESSEL TYPE COULD BE NEEDED TO CARRY ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Article by David Osler

Lithium-ion batteries can enter into an uncontrollable self-heating state in event of a fire, warns protection and indemnity insurance specialist.

Safety considerations surrounding electric vehicles are sufficiently different from those that apply to internal combustion engine vehicles that a new vessel type may be needed for their carriage, according to a P&I club safety specialist.

In particular, consideration should be given to vehicle spacing, which is governed by deck layouts, and the use of different firefighting equipment, said Simon Hodgkinson, head of loss prevention at West of England. He was speaking after the loss of MOL Car Carriers’ 60,000 gt Felicity Ace, which suffered a serious fire off the Azores in February, while laden with 4,000 new Volkswagen-Audi Group cars.

This incident marked the latest in a long line of major car carrier casualties over the past decade, including Höegh Xiamen, Golden Ray and Grande America.

Questions are inevitably being asked about the safety of the vessel type, and insurers are responding by seeking higher premiums to reflect perceived greater risk.

Investigations into Felicity Ace are still ongoing, and the causes of the fire may never be definitively determined, not least because the hull now sits on the seabed.

But Mr Hodgkinson believes there is good reason to suspect that the casualty

was at least aggravated by the presence of electric vehicles on board.

Electric vehicles are actually less likely to start fires than internal combustion engine vehicles. But once they do, the fire is harder to put out.

“Older ships were designed to carry internal combustion engine vehicles, whether that is a pure car carrier, a car and truck carrier or a ro-ro. Design has not quite caught up with the changeover to electric vehicles,” he said. “In the perfect world, if you carry both types [of vehicles], you design the vessel to deal with the more difficult type to work with. That will be the electric vehicle, which is a bit more of an unknown and a bit more tricky to work on.”

The internal combustion engine has been around for more than 130 years, and in terms of firefighting requirements, is pretty much a known quantity.

Electric vehicles are a relatively new technology. What is apparent is that fires can create a state of ‘thermal runaway’ – when high temperatures cause a chemical reaction within a lithium-ion cell, resulting in it entering an uncontrollable self-heating state –which is difficult to deal with.

It is precisely this risk that caused airlines to ban some models of mobile phones from being carried on planes some years ago.

Petrol and diesel driven cars are typically filled to around just 5% of fuel tank capacity, to facilitate a car being driven onto and off the ship. That is a relatively small amount from a firefighting viewpoint. But electric vehicle manufacturers cannot afford to see their vehicles’ batteries go flat after leaving the factory and arriving at the dealer, so electric vehicles tend to be about 75% charged during their time at sea. That is a significant amount of energy to be converted to heat in the event of thermal runaway.

Car carriers would prefer charging to be lower, in the hope that the situation will be more controllable if something goes wrong. “At the moment, there are debates between the companies transporting the cars and the manufacturers, and things are coming to an agreement as to what is the right level [of charging] when transporting a car,” said Mr Hodgkinson.

Once electric vehicles do ignite, the fire can spread rapidly to other cars, both ahead and behind them, and possibly above or below them on multiple decks separated by perforated steel, depending on the configuration of the car carrier.

Spraying electric vehicle batteries with water cools them off, cooling down the heat and creating steam. But in the event of a fire, it is necessary to keep cooling efforts going until all energy has drained away. The issue here is that the amount

of water that can be used in the hold of a ship is limited by stability considerations.

So-called water mist systems developed for engine rooms over the past two decades may be more suitable for the task. These work by pushing water through a very small nozzle at very high pressure, creating artificial fog by reducing the size of water particles to microscopic levels, and thus massively increasing their overall surface area.

Firefighters may also be able to use lances to pump water directly into battery casings, a technique similar to that used to tackle fires inside containers. But the best thing to do is to prevent thermal runaway from occurring in the first place, which is best achieved by putting fires out while they are still small, or even better still, stopping them occurring in the first place. This can be done with the installation of extra closed-circuit television and additional thermal cameras, in a bid to detect danger as soon as possible.

“If you can catch [the fire] before the thermal runaway has hit the ignition, you can constantly cool it until the

battery runs flat. If you can keep the fire to one car, you can probably contain it. If you allow it to get to 12 cars, you probably can’t.”

Second hand electric cars, which are starting to be shipped from first world countries to emerging markets, feature older technology and are not necessarily in the best condition, which can increase the firefighting challenges.

The operator of Felicity Ace, Mitsui OSK Lines, stated soon after the vessel’s sinking that it had stopped taking bookings for used fully-electric cars on its pure car and truck carriers after ‘a review of its standards.’ “In future, there needs to be consideration given to developing a vessel purely to carry electric cars. Although they look the same, they are definitely a different vehicle. They need to be treated in a

different way to deal with the issues,” said Mr Hodgkinson.

But while few vehicle carrier operators extol the virtues of their vessel fleets, with many of them being on timecharter rather than owned or managed, one operator, Höegh Autoliners, has been talking up its latest class of new pure car and truck carrier – the ‘Aurora’ class, which is due to come on stream from 2024. The company has stated that its new ships will have far superior fire detection compared with previous ships and, crucially, dedicated spaces for electric cars.

RESCUE BOAT LIFTING ARRANGEMENT FAILURE

A recent report by Safety4Sea identified a failure onboard a Marshall Islands flagged vessel that resulted in the injury of two crew members. The Republic of Marshall Island (RMI) Maritime Administrator has recently been notified of a marine casualty and is recommending that owners, operators and Masters of RMI-registered vessels fitted with Jiangyin Wolong “JY40KR” rescue boats thoroughly inspect the release hook and entire support post, including mounting hardware, for signs of deterioration.

The incident occurred during a planned drill, the ship’s rescue boat was being lowered to the water with two crew members aboard when the release

hook support post failed. The rescue boat and two crew members fell about 9 meters to the water. The two crew members were quickly recovered from the water and transported ashore for medical treatment. Immediately prior to the incident, the rescue boat had been hoisted, swung over the side, and lowered several meters without anyone on board.

During the investigation, it was found that significant deterioration of the lower end of the support post for the release hook had occurred due to corrosion. The lower side of the release hook support post was below the deck and only visible following removal of a portable fuel tank.

The Jiangyin Wolong model “JY40KR” rescue boat involved in this incident was manufactured in 2008. No defects or issues were noted when the boat was tested in 2019 or in November 2022 during the last annual inspection.

The Felicity Ace was hauling millions of dollars’ worth of European cars on board, all of which were destroyed in the fire.

The rescue boat release hook support structure showing significant deterioration of the post.

HSE PUBLISHES ANNUAL WORKRELATED ILL-HEALTH AND INJURY STATISTICS FOR 2021/22

The estimated number of workers in Great Britain suffering a work-related illness is 1.8 million with stress, depression, and anxiety making up around half of cases, new figures show.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) recently published its annual statistics on work-related ill health and workplace injuries.

The figures from Great Britain’s workplace regulator show there were an estimated 914,000 cases of work-related stress, depression, or anxiety in 2021/22.

An estimated 17 million working days were lost due to work-related stress, depression, or anxiety in 2021/22. This is over half of all working days lost due to work-related ill health.

HSE has been warning of a growing crisis in stress and poor mental health related to work. The workplace regulator launched a major campaign last year to remind employers of their

responsibilities to their employees’ mental health.

HSE’s Chief Executive, Sarah Albon, said: “Stress and poor mental health is the number one cause of work-related ill health. The effects of stress, depression, and anxiety can have a significant impact on an employee’s life and on their ability to perform their best at work.

“Britain is one of the safest places in the world to work but we need all employers to do more and take seriously their responsibilities to support good mental health at work. That’s why improving mental health in the workplace is a key priority in our 10year strategy ‘Protecting People and Places’, and why we’re developing new partnerships across industry to help employers support their employees.”

HSE’s annual statistics release shows the impact work-related ill health is having on Great Britain’s economic performance:

HEALTH AND SAFETY STATISTICS

KEY FIGURES FOR GREAT BRITAIN (2021/22)

• 36.8 million working days were lost due to work-related ill health and non-fatal workplace injuries in 2021/22.

• The annual economic cost of work-related injury and new cases of ill health (excluding long latency illnesses such as cancer) was £18.8 billion in 2019/20.

• The figures also show that 123 workers were killed in workrelated accidents in 2021/22 and a further 565,000 workers sustained a non-fatal injury.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact on the workplace. Of the 1.8 million suffering a work-related illness, an estimated 585,000 reported it was caused or made worse by the effects of the coronavirus pandemic. Around a quarter of these workers were in human health and social work. In addition, 123,000 workers suffering with COVID-19 believed they were exposed to the virus at work.

1.8 million working people suffering from a work-related illness, of which

914,000 workers suffering work-related stress, depression or anxiety

477,000 workers suffering from a work-related musculoskeletal disorder

123,000 workers suffering from COVID-19 which they believe may have been from exposure to coronavirus at work

2,544 mesothelioma deaths due to past asbestos exposures (2020)

123 workers killed in work-related accidents

565,000 working people sustained an injury at work according to the Labour Force Survey

61,713 injuries to employees reported under RIDDOR

36.8 million working days lost due to work-related illness and workplace injury

£18.8 billion estimated cost of injuries and ill health from current working conditions (2019/20)

MENTAL HEALTH

60%

of the world population is in work

61%

of workers work in the informal economy

207 million

unemployed people are expected in 2022

a

301 anxiety

million people lived with

million people lived with 280 depression

Many of these people are working-age adults.

The report focuses on the prevention of psychosocial risks, protection and promotion of mental health and support of workers with mental health conditions, so they can participate and thrive in the world of work.

As it says, an estimated 12 billion workdays are lost annually due to depression and anxiety costing the global economy nearly US$ one trillion. WHO’s global guidelines on mental health at work recommend actions to tackle risks to mental health such as heavy workloads, negative behaviours and other factors that create distress at work. For the first time WHO recommends manager training, to build their capacity to prevent stressful work

in 2019 in 2019 in 2019

15% of working-age adults had a mental disorder in 2019

of total societal cost of mental health conditions is driven by indirect costs such as reduced productivity

12 billion

50% working days are lost every year to depression and anxiety people died by 703 000 suicide

US$ 1 trillion

cost to the global economy due to depression and anxiety, predominantly from lost productivity

Sources: IHME, 2019 [5]; ILO, 2018 [7]; ILO, 2022 [8]; Christensen et al., 2020 [9]; Chisholm et al., 2016 [10]

environments and respond to workers in distress.

“It’s time to focus on the detrimental effect work can have on our mental health. The well-being of the individual is reason enough to act, but poor mental health can also have a debilitating impact on a person’s performance and productivity” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General.

A copy of this policy briefing can be found online or by contacting our health and safety department for a link to the briefing.

A WHO/ILO joint policy brief calls for global action to address mental health at work. The brief illustrates practical strategies for governments, employers, workers, and their organizations in the public and private sectors.

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT AND WOMEN

Guidance for workplace representatives on ensuring it is a safe fit

The TUC is calling on employers to:

• avoid suppliers who do not provide a range of sizes for men and women, and ensure that their suppliers have properly assessed the appropriateness of their equipment to women and men

• work with trade bodies to pressure manufacturers and suppliers to provide a full range of PPE

• make sure that they provide the same range of sizes for women as for men

• ensure that women try on several sizes or types of PPE before it is issued to ensure it is best fit

• let staff feedback on the suitability of PPE

• work with safety committees and trade union health and safety representatives to ensure that the correct range of suitable PPE is provided.

CANCER - A WORKPLACE GUIDE

The RMT has created a publication that offers workplace guidance around Cancer, an insight into statistics, case studies, explanatory notes and identifies where further information can be found on this sensitive issue. If you would like copies sent to your vessel or branch then please get in contact and we will ensure these are distributed accordingly.

The findings in the report are based on 2,655 responses to a Trades Union Congress (TUC) survey and 3086 responses to a Prospect/WES survey. This report covers:

• The law on personal protective equipment

• Problems with PPE for women

• Examples – Case study

• Taking action

If you would like further details or a copy of the report in full then visit the TUC website or contact our Health and safety department.

CLICK HERE to download the report

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK

Tell us what you think of this publication, what you would like to see included in future editions and if you have a health and safety concern, want advice, posters for your workplace, information then get in contact with us at healthandsafety@rmt.org.uk to assist your needs.