Welcome to the 8th and final episode in our Safety Season podcast. Join Martin English, Andrew Brammer, Crispin Kenyon and Anna Naylor who are answering some of your questions asked throughout the series.
Podcast
James Muller: Hello, and welcome to the eighth and final of Weightmans safety season of podcasts. Today, we have a panel of speakers who are going to be answering some of your questions from throughout the series over to our panel.
Martin English: Hello, everyone. Welcome to the eighth edition of the Health and Safety Podcast series.
Martin: Thank you very much for listening. Thank you very much for tuning in today.
Martin: What we're gonna do to finish the podcast series is we're gonna take a look at some of the questions that have been asked and try and answer a selection of those questions that relate to some of the podcast that we've heard. Today, you'll be hearing from me I’m Martin English, and you'll be hearing from my colleagues, Andrew Brammer, Crispin Kenyon, and Anna Naylor. And we've all taken a question each to answer on behalf of this podcast today. So I think without any further ado, we'll move on to the questions. So going back to the podcast, it was about accidents in the workplace.
Martin: Andrew, there was a question asked, are there any steps a business can take to prepare for a serious workplace accident? So how about you answer that question, Andrew?
Andrew Brammer: Thanks Martin. What a great question.
Andrew: Perhaps the easiest way to answer that is to set out a list of actions that I would recommend a business take to prepare for a serious workplace accident.
Andrew: The first thing and this is the most important is have a plan. It's vital that an organisation has a plan how to deal with a workplace serious incident whether it's a multinational operation or just a small business, having a plan will always be useful.
Andrew: And what I think that plan should identify is immediately your first aiders.
Andrew: Then the contact number of a key decision maker or the name of a single person that will take overall control of the post incident situation.
Andrew: Ideally, that person should be a director or someone of sufficient seniority to be able to make signs quickly inefficiently, and let's call that person an incident lead.
Andrew: The plan should then have the name of a another person, a backup incident lead, just in case your key incident lead is unavailable.
Andrew: I'd also have a list of names and contact numbers of other people within the business that need to be kept up to date about the outcome of the incident. It's probably a good idea to have a dedicated mailing list just for that purpose.
Andrew: I'd also recommend you have the details of your insurer because invariably you're going to need to nominate or lodge your claim.
Andrew: And then, of course, I'd recommend the details of a good lawyer to give immediate support and advice.
Andrew: Also access to your HR team because you may need to obtain HR records.
Andrew: And finally, carry out a dry run. And assess how well people perform to your plan under pressure.
Andrew: I can go on and talk about how to respond to it in section if there's time later on, but those are my key tips on how to deal and plan for a workplace incident.
Andrew: Over to you, Martin.
Martin: Thanks, Andrew That is really helpful and very insightful. I found that helpful myself, actually.
Martin: Maybe we'll go back to that in due course as well, Andrew, or maybe it's something we can go back to in a new series of the health and safety podcast.
Martin: Right. Moving on then.
Martin: Crispin. A question has been asked, and it's a really interesting question. And the question is, the health and safety executive has mental health high in its profile at the moment. When it comes to mental health, how does an employer or an organisation manage the mental health risk?
Crispin: Thanks very much, Martin. Yeah. Good, another good question.
Crispin: Statistically, the HSE say that one in four people will some kind of mental health problem in the course of their life. And, that's, on the one hand perhaps shocking, but on the other, perhaps not surprising.
Crispin: Because mental health in the workplace and in our private lives has taken a much needed increasing profile, over the last ten years or so. And, I think it's hoped to be that, the perceived stigma of needing help with mental health has been diluted, but it's I think inevitably still there lurking in the shadows.
Crispin: HSE has run many campaigns to highlight the issue, particularly in, work areas such as construction, and, others where there remains a tendency, unfortunately, for certainly the male of the species, not to feed able to share their concerns.
Crispin: And the principle problem I think, from my experience is that there's a difficulty for employers in being able to monitor the mental health of their workforce in the same way that that they can and indeed should, deal with such things as musculoskeletal problems, noise and exposure to asbestos and irritants. All of those are, well known and recognised, and can be recognised.
Crispin: The difficulty with the mental health area is that it really depends on an individual being open and perhaps themselves having insight in into their problems, higher education has been a bit of a focus of late with some cases going up to the court of appeal in respect of duties of universities.
Crispin: And the effect of the COVID lockdown during the pandemic has been and I understand that from our university clients, to disconnect, students. And those with who got vulnerable vulnerabilities in their mental health, has contributed to the number of sadly, the number of students suicides, since twenty twenty to twenty one.
Crispin: Universities, I think they do have welfare facilities, and opportunities for their students to engage with tutors and the academic community, but it does again take insight for the student to want to take advantage of what is on offer.
Crispin: So back to the problem for the employer is that can you recognise it and what can you do about it? And there's a bit of tension there because, of course, whatever the employer is doing, the individual may be subject to assistance from mental health, and social services, and so forth. And I think there can be a fear amongst, employers and, the higher education sector that what they're offering is treading somehow treading into the territory, for the mental health practitioners.
Crispin: But, I think I think it's important for employers and, the higher education sector to be able to offer these facilities.
Crispin: And, like all, exposures and risks in the workplace and elsewhere, it comes back to the basic, assessment of what those risks are, recognising them, and taking steps as far as you can to guard against them. So it it's a, an increasing problem across the nation, the effect of restrictions from the NHS and the mental health services, does create a burden, but vital work should continue by employers and the higher education sector amongst others, to assess the risks and do their best to put the control measures in place, and, in that way, they will continue to look after those for whom they have responsibility.
Crispin: I don't know if that's, of any help, Martin.
Martin: Thanks, Crispin. That's really helpful. I suspect this is a topic that we're gonna be coming back to time and time again in the future as it becomes more prevalent and more of an issue for organizations and employees to grapple.
Crispin: Yeah. I agree.
Martin: Thanks, Crispin. And turning Anna to Inquest.
Martin: There's an interesting question that's being posed around Inquests and prevention of future death reports, which, of course, is one of one part of responsibility, sometimes known as PFD reports.
Martin: And the question is Should we welcome PFD reports, and can we expect any developments in terms of their use by Kona's in the future?
Anna Naylor: Thank you, Martin, for this question. If you've managed to listen to our Inquest podcast, you'll know that pursuant to regular twenty eight of the coroner's investigation regulations two thousand and thirteen, where an investigation gives rise to concerned that a future death would occur. Coroners have a duty to make a report and send it to the person they believe have the power to take appropriate action. Coroners are given guidance about how to exercise this duty, what should be written within these reports, and the fact that recommendations should not be made by coroners, they're more of a vehicle to flag up concerns as opposed to suggesting how those concerns should be remedied.
Anna: Generally speaking, PFD reports are encouraged by legal representatives, especially those acting for the families of the deceased.
Anna: But they can be resisted by those representing other interested persons at the inquest.
Anna: On the one hand, they can be viewed as an important way to ensure lessons are learned from death, and some clients particularly large state bodies see them as a lever to actually promote change.
Anna: It can be difficult to push for change within publicly funded organisations who are accountable for their spending.
Anna: Some, however, see PFD reports as simply a paper exercise and don't believe that they reach their full potential to secure meaningful change.
Anna: There's also inconsistencies in the way that Coroner's used PFD reports.
Anna: Some coroners definitely issue more than others.
Anna: There's also concerns about the fact that coroners actually have no powers to compel action to be taken.
Anna: In addition, the way that the system operates at the moment means there's little way to draw together the threads and themes from different PFD reports issued across the country.
Anna: And often recipients view them as a punitive measure and somewhat of limited relevance.
Anna: Especially when many years can sometimes have passed since the death occurred.
Anna: There was a an independent advisory panel on deaths in custody, which recently compiled a report looking at the way that the PFD system could be better utilised.
Anna: There are a number of recommendations flowing from that report, including, for example, instructing lawyers to take a less adversarial approach to PFD reports.
Anna: So at the end of an inquest, when PFD issues are being considered, lawyers would be instructed to, present the facts, and be less adversarial in the way that they approach PFD reports.
Anna: The report also recommended ensuring funding for yearly reviews of PFD reports to help identify trends.
Anna: Monitor quality of reports and responses and have also an improved database.
Anna: There were also suggestions about having post request review meetings to ensure an efficient response to PFD reports.
Anna: And these recommendations, I think they're really sensible, but they're unlikely to address the widely held belief that PFD reports really represent somewhat of a slap on the wrist for the recipient and that they bring about reputational harm. I'd also question whether the system can reach its full potential without a mechanism in place to address those who choose to respond to PFDs in a cursory manner or who don't respond to them at all.
Anna: Martin, back over to you. I hope this helps answer that question.
Martin: Thank you, Anna. That is really interesting. And I know it ties in with some campaigning that's been going on with inquest around the need and their view for some kind of oversight body or regulatory body to deal with recommendations and learning that come from inquests and inquiries. So I think it's a watch this space topic as well in due course.
Martin: Okay. So one question that has come in, which I think is worth discussing as well on this podcast today was a question posed about the interview between inquests and public inquiries, and I think it's a really interesting question. And it says, why do some fatal investigations result in an inquest? And why do some result in a public inquiry? And does it matter?
Martin: It is a good question. And the first point to make is, while it's not necessarily either. So there are occasions where you might not have an inquest altogether if there's a sufficient criminal investigation in the court process. And if that satisfies the state's duty to investigate, you may see that there's no inquest or whatsoever. And you see that most commonly in homicide defences in criminal cases for murder in particular, fatal road traffic collision cases that result in the conviction of someone.
Martin: So the first point to make, of course, is that you might not see an inquest or a public inquiry. However, If you want me to talk about accident or workplace accidents in particular I think it is likely that you'll see an inquest or an inquiry. The default position, I think, to help everyone, is it's usually an inquest. The vast majority of such incidents will proceed along the lines of this process.
Martin: Inquiries can and do take the place of Inquest. It's a much rarer process. There are only about ten active inquiries in the country at the moment, and it's probably worth pointing out that some of those inquiries aren't actually looking into how someone came about their death.
Martin: So we do get inquiries.
Martin: We, you know, how do inquiries come about. Well, sometimes you see inquest that can't remain in the public domain. So where the hearing hearings can't be held in open core, Inquest must be held in open court. So if we reach a point in an inquest where the hearings can't be held in Open court anymore, we see them converted to a public inquiry process.
Martin: And the obvious examples with that is the Salisbury Novichok deaths. Which has converted from an inquest into a public inquiry and the Manchester arena inquiry where there was certain information around the involvement of security services, MI five, MI six, which meant that public open hearings couldn't take place.
Martin: But there are other times where we see public inquiries too, usually to enable broader terms of reference than the statutory questions and inquest would answer.
Martin: The obvious example of that is the Grenfell Tower inquiry, the natural course of processing relation to the Grenfell Tower tragedy would have been an inquest, but very early on with the level of public concern around what happened. An inquiry was established and the inquiry allowed broader terms of reference to answer questions that went further than an inquest. And that was a very early decision that was made.
Martin: Does it matter? That's a very good question. They are very similar processes, they're both inquisitorial, the both fact finding, neither have parties.
Martin: And ultimately, for an inquest, they're answering the stat statutory questions around how who, when, and where someone died, or they're answering specific terms of reference.
Martin: Both of them veer away or are prohibited from answering questions on liability, civil or criminal liability. Both have very similar protections and processes around self-incrimination.
Martin: Broadly similar across both of the inquest and inquiry rules, and I would say the similarity that that probably people need to take home most of all, is the importance of complying with the processes. Whether you're involved in an inquest, whether you're involved in an inquiry, the importance of complying with that process and assisting the coroner or the chair to complete that process is of equal importance.
Martin: The mechanism is where there is some difference. Inquiries are usually well resourced. They have greater detail, more comprehensive in the discovery and disclosure exercises that take place. And as a little quirk, inquiries are generally televised, There are no prohibitions to the use of cameras, so you see it on TV. You generally have them uploaded onto YouTube, live or with a slight delayed live feed to for people to watch and observe.
Martin: The inquiries usually have more detailed findings, but by and large, they're generally the same, and it's worth pointing to conclude that there is a middle ground, so we do get Judge led inquests.
Martin: Major incidents, terrorist incidents are prime examples where the matter is still an inquest, but as judge has been assigned, to act as a coroner and lead a judge led inquest. Usually having the type of funding and resources in place and the legal supporting place, to run an inquest quite similar to a public inquiry.
Martin: I would say that the interplay between in question inquiry and how that then interplays in relation to associated proceedings like health and safety proceedings, is a topic for itself. And maybe a topic that we'll look at in the future when we move on to a new series of the health and service health and safety podcast.
Martin: Other than that, I think that as a, a very, very insightful set of questions that have been provided to us, Thank you for giving us the opportunity to answer those questions. Thank you to Andrew and Crispin and Anna for providing their expertise in relation to some of the questions that have been posed. I hope you've enjoyed this podcast in the series of podcasts, and I think it's only, now a matter of waiting for season two.
Martin: Thank you very much.
James: Thank you for that, and thank you to all of our speakers from throughout the series.
James: Unfortunately, that brings Weightmans safety season of podcasts to a close.
James: We hope you found it to be insightful and informative.
James: Thank you for listening, and do keep an eye out for more Weightmans podcasts in the future.