Update January 2016

 

Looking back on 2015 – has the much promised reduction in regulatory burden had an effect on the events industry?

 The short answer is no.  The 2011 Löfstedt report recommended a range of changes to reduce the health and safety regulatory burden on business.  Few in our industry appreciate that CDM 2015 was one of those changes and it has reduced the burden on the construction industry but it was also newly applied to events as is commented on below and extensively in previous updates.  For events it has had the exact opposite effect of that intended.  In addition, we are facing a considerable increase in potential fines on all businesses and a greater risk of custodial sentences for individuals.  Companies could be fined 100% of their pre-tax profits which could be in excess of £100 million for very large companies.  Anecdotally the introduction of FFI appears to have encouraged the HSE to issue more enforcement notices in the events industry.  The removal of liabilities under HASAWA for the self-employed does not apply to event construction activities and could actually encourage unsafe working which may prove to be a headache especially for less well managed events.  It could be argued that boards of directors of event companies are actually facing a perfect storm of increased liabilities in 2016.

 

CDM Update

 The HSE guidance for the events industry was due out by the end of 2015 and is likely to be web based.  The HSE have scheduled 40 proactive inspections of events for 2016 which are likely to be the largest most complex events.  There was some enforcement action in 2015 with Prohibition Notices issued to participants for work at height violations and similar.  The HSE have prosecuted a principal contractor working in the construction industry for their failure to provide adequate welfare under CDM 2015.  Whilst generally the provision of welfare facilities is considered one of the less challenging requirements of the CDM Regulations for the events industry, this case serves as a reminder not to overlook it.  The AEO CDM Resource pack is currently being reviewed and updated in line with recent consultation with event industry health and safety professionals.

Received wisdom is that provided we take a sensible and practical approach, the HSE are very unlikely to take enforcement action based on compliance with CDM per se.  They will take (and have taken) enforcement action for obvious breaches of key legislation such as Work at Height Regs.  With the focus on the Client, CDM might increase the focus on senior management of organising companies.  What is less obvious is whether large complex stands will now have to be more directly accountable in law for their actions rather than the organiser which was more or less the default before CDM.  Time will tell. 

Increase in Penalties for Health and Safety Offences could reach £100 million

New tougher sentencing guidelines¹ outlined in the previous update, have been challenged in the courts.  Thames Water appealed a £250,000 fine on the grounds that it was too severe but the appeal was rejected.  The ruling stated that sanctions ‘needed to bring home the appropriate message to the directors and shareholders of the company’.  The ruling acknowledged that fines could well equal up to 100% of the company’s pre-taxed net profits for the year even if that amounted to fines in excess of £100 million.  The case follows appeals by Sellafield and Network Rail last year which were also rejected clearly indicating that the judiciary are taking a tougher line with corporate offenders.

Self-Employed Exempt from Health and Safety Law from 1 October 2015

 From 1^st October a new law² means that health and safety law no longer applies to 1.7 million self-employed people in the UK and, potentially, some of those working in the events and exhibitions industry.  This has caused a great deal of concern in the health and safety industry generally and some confusion with regard to self-employed service suppliers at events including self-employed workers sub contracted to larger companies.

 There is a caveat that the new provision does not apply to those working in a situation which gives rise to duties under CDM which means any event construction activity.  In any case professional event organisers and venues require all service suppliers, self-employed or otherwise, to comply with the rules of the site as a condition of entry.  Whilst the new provision does mean that, for example, a self-employed contractor working from home no longer has to comply with health and safety law in that environment, for all practical purposes this new law does not alter the status of self-employed staff and contractors when working on site at events.

 

ISO 45001 to Replace BS OHSAS 18001

ISO 45001 is due to replace BS OHSAS 18001 with a planned publication date of October 2016.  Companies reviewing their professional accreditations should follow the progress of this new health and safety standard.  X-Venture will advise clients on any policy amendments necessary to reflect best practice and IOSH courses will reflect the new standard when it is published.

 £500 million loss following Alton Towers accident

Investors like certainty.  When they perceive risk they pull out and so it has transpired following the tragic events in Alton Towers in June when a rollercoaster crashed causing 16 causalities including two who suffered amputations.  Alton Towers could lose as much as £47 million in 2015 and as a result the share price of its parent company Merlin Entertainments has lost £500 million in shareholder value.  These losses are before the inevitable law suits for compensation and possible prosecution by the HSE.  Some might argue that no sanction can make up for a life changing injury but this case serves to illustrate that in the events and entertainments industry financial and reputational losses following an accident can be out of all proportion to the actual offence comparable with other industries.  This is due to a combination of higher profile and higher public expectations of the exercise of duty of care to visitors to any venue.

Guidance for Drones at Events

The HSE and the Civil Aviation Authority have accepted new guidance for the use of drones at events to be included in the NAA A-Guide and considered for the AEV eGuide.  A drone is a Small Unmanned Aircraft with an operating mass of 20 Kg or less.  Over 20 Kg they are subject to the same regulation as manned aircraft and an exemption needs to be sought from the Civil Aviation Authority.  This applies to drones flown externally and the eGuide committee is now considering the wording regarding their use inside venues.

 

New Welfare Guide Published

The Events Industry Forum (EIF) has announced the publication of a new guide to Welfare at Events, which will be published on the Purple Guide website .  This largely applies to outdoor entertainment events.

Lasers in Exhibitions and Entertainment

The Revision of The Radiation Safety of Lasers Used for Display Purposes HS(G)95 has now been completed and the draft guidance document public consultation phase closed on 11^th December 2015.  The new document, now simply titled ‘Safety of Display Lasers’ has been produced by PLASA in association with the HSE and others. 

 

Pyrotechnics and Other (non-laser) Special Effects

The changes in European and UN legislation on the governance and management of explosives has led to a significant amount of delay in completing the The  Association of British Theatre Technicians (ABTT) Code of Practice for Pyrotechnics, consequently the development of appropriate training has been affected too.  There is a project running to create a safety rules document that will identify the core of the information required to support the safe installation and use of pyrotechnics in venues which will be produced by the ABTT.

Fibrous and Plaster Ceilings

Following the Apollo Theatre ceiling collapse³, The ABTT has developed a scheme for induction, inspection (both structural and hands on by the plaster specialist) and reporting.  All theatres with fibrous and ornate plaster ceilings are due to have been inspected fully under the new guidance by August of 2016.  

Changes to Chemical Labelling

From June 2015 the law regarding the packaging and labelling of hazardous chemical substances changed which brings Europe in line with UN globally harmonised systems.  Suppliers are to allowed exhaust existing stocks until 2017 although many have anticipated the change already.  The new system, which also affects safety data sheets, retains many of the pictograms of the old black and orange labels, and now uses a red diamond with black pictograms on a white background.  The events industry routinely involves the handling of potentially hazardous substances from cleaning products and glues to pyrotechnics and other special effects.  Full details of the new pictograms can be found in the European Commission guide ‘Chemicals at Work’ available at www.lexisurl.com/hsw93534

 

Company director jailed for manslaughter

 The boss of a fruit farm has been jailed for two and half years for the death of two workers who suffocated trying to retrieve apples from a nitrogen filled container.  The company was fined £75,000.  Whilst the context has little to do with an event environment the case illustrates the increasing propensity of courts to hand out jail terms to directors whose negligence leads to death or serious injury.

Prosecution Following the Death of a Trainee Electrician.

Grundfos Pumps has been prosecuted and fined £415,000 including costs following the death of a trainee electrician.  The 19-year-old trainee was killed during the electrical testing of a control panel.  The company did not have a risk assessment or safe system of work for the procedure and the victim was not properly supervised.

In the events industry the electrical risks are magnified by the requirement for temporary installations including 3 phase supply, time pressures and multiple contractual arrangements.  The risk is managed by strict adherence to agreed guidance such as the e-Guide.  Notwithstanding this incident illustrates the need for constant vigilance to ensure that standards are maintained.

Grundfos only avoided more serious sanctions with an early guilty plea which is not much of a strategy for risk management.

£45,000 fine for a Blocked Fire Exit

 

A south Wales recycling firm has just been fined £45,000 for blocked fire exits and other fire safety breaches at their depot (£5,000 for each breach) plus £3,207 costs.  Fire authorities are increasingly making proactive visits to inspect premises which includes event venues within their area.  If the standards fall below an acceptable level when the fire authorities visit they can be expected to use their powers to prosecute.  Under CDM the main duty holder for a tenanted area would be the organiser.

£90,000 fine for Legionella Death

A hospital has just been penalised £90,000 in fines and costs for failing to control Legionella risk in the water systems which led to a death of a patient.  The risk from Legionella bacteria in a building’s water systems is a very serious potential risk particularly in a public building such as an exhibition centre.  The hospital relied on water treatment systems but these were not sufficient to control the risk.  The hospital trust has since spent £1.7 million on improving the water system to control the risk at source.  Some events involve water features which can present a risk and employ a contractor to ensure that it is properly controlled.  Further guidance can be obtained from www.hse.gov.uk/legionnaires.

Notes

 1.     Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act
2.     The Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974 (General Duties of Self-Employed Persons) (Prescribed Undertaking Regulations) 2015.
3.     Seventy-six people were injured when part of the roof came down during a performance of The Curious Incident of The Dog In The Night-Time at the Apollo Theatre London in December 2013.  It was caused by the deterioration in the hessian wadding embedded in the ceiling originally installed in 1901. 

The nature of the threat from global jihad to the event and exhibitions industry

……we have grown used to looking out for unattended packages which almost always turn out to be just that but now we need to be on the lookout for assault teams of marauding gunmen who do not take prisoners.

Amongst the mayhem in Paris on Friday 13^th of November the armed assault on the Bataclan Theatre and the murder of 89 occupants brings home the reality of just how vulnerable public events are to attacks of this nature.  In the UK, shielded by our borders, we have been more fortunate but the frequency and ferocity of these attacks means that we need to examine the nature of this threat to our events both at home and overseas.

The post-cold war conflicts in the Balkans, Chechnya, Middle East, Afghanistan and to a certain extent sub Saharan Africa created a supply of redundant arms, explosives and skilled insurgent fighters.  Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and other jihadist groups gave some of those fighters a new focus and put their fighting skills, weapons and explosives to use.   ISIL’s subsequent rapid taking of territory in Iraq and Syria have also gained them unparalleled resources in terms of money and military hardware.  The effect in a borderless Europe was plain to see in the attacks in Paris.  This of course is a gross over simplification to a highly complex global problem and the cause of and the long term solution to this problem is for historians and politicians respectively.  The global events and exhibitions business meanwhile needs to deal with the current reality.

Threat is a combination of intent to harm and capability to do so.  Terrorist outrages are not new and in previous decades we have had the Red Brigade, Baader-Meinhof, the IRA and others who bombed public places and fought gun battles on our city streets.  They were however constrained by relatively narrow political aims and limits to their appetite for killing and destruction.  Even the IRA never bombed a tube train, although they were certainly capable of doing so, and focused on their efforts in fighting the security forces that ultimately defeated them.  The jihadists’ intent in pursuance of establishing a caliphate fuels an unrestrained appetite for slaughter and destruction aimed at soft targets, mostly public gatherings which is why the events industry is now so vulnerable.  Even if the aligned powers take a ground force war to them, it will take some time to defeat them so it is reasonable to assume that these attacks will continue.

The capability of ISIL in particular cannot be doubted.  Since October 31^st they have destroyed a Russian passenger jet, bombed a street in Beirut, and carried out six simultaneous assaults on targets in Paris amounting to three attacks of mass murder in three different countries inside a fortnight.  No terrorist group in modern history, including Al-Qaeda, have demonstrated such operational breadth and direct reach in terms of destructive capability or the ability to inspire other terrorist groups to commit similar atrocities such as the recent attacks in Jakarta.  In summary we face a terrorist threat in terms of intent and capability which is more destructive and far reaching than ever before.

We cannot know for sure the extent to which the security services are containing the threat.  In the UK they have certainly defeated many planned attacks assisted by the UK’s far tighter controls on weapons and explosives and the fact that we control our borders.  The capability of insurgent groups is thus mitigated and so far in the last 10 years the threat has been contained, in relative terms at least, to the murder of Drummer Rigby in Woolwich in 2013.

Most European countries have well trained counter insurgency police and troops that can respond quickly to an attack and contain it.  Notwithstanding, since the attackers do not usually fear death or capture they are prepared to mount bold assaults in public places.  The Bataclan Theatre is a case in point.  Even against the famously aggressive and well-trained French anti- terrorist police three ISIL gunmen armed with assault rifles held them off for two hours and forty minutes whilst inside the building, firing into the tightly-packed audience of 1,500.  It begs the question as to how effectively any event venue or organiser can plan or prepare for such an eventuality.

In sub Saharan Africa the threat from groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria and Al Shaabab in Kenya is typified by the latter’s activities killing 67 in Nairobi’s upmarket Westgate shopping mall which Kenyan security forces took four days to control.  In April four members held hostage over 500 students for ten hours at Garissa University.  It took seven hours for a response to be deployed, long after the media had already arrived, and another three hours to mount a rescue by which time 148 students had been killed.  The growing threat in African states is exacerbated by the apparent weakness of their anti-terrorist security forces and their failures in intelligence and response.  It is not certain that a group like Al Shaabab would be capable of attacking an international airport but it is reasonable to assume that they could successfully attack a more lightly defended convention centre or an executive hotel in the style of the attack on the Taj Hotel in Mumbai in 2008 and now in Mali.  Event managers spend a great deal of their time in these places.  In the UK event organisers are used to dealing with the terrorist threat by liaising with the security services and professional venue security managers but they would not get that access in many other countries.  Event companies should ask themselves whether they even fully understand the true nature of the threat in some of the countries in which they operate.

Whilst it is still statistically very unlikely that any given event will be a direct target, there is no avoiding the fact that in Paris ISIL chose to attack two events, a football match and a concert in a capital city.  Any event, therefore, including trade events like exhibitions and conferences, which tend to be held in major cities, can be considered a potential target.  It is far more likely that an event will be caught up in an attack sequence just because it is in tenancy at a venue in the same city or country during an attack.  Beyond the threat to life, the long term consequences for a venue or an event organiser affected directly or indirectly by an attack such as the one on the Bataclan Theatre could be far greater than those traditionally conceived as a ‘major incident’.

At board level and for key investors the essential question is whether the analysis of the threat changes the viability of any event in terms of whether the commercial benefits are worth the risk.  Other key stakeholders such as key exhibitors and insurers could also influence this analysis.   More likely the problem will be passed down to an operational level to review risk assessment, planning processes and security arrangements. 

Traditionally our worst case scenario planning envisages a serious fire or an explosive device causing multiple loss of life.  In either case the drill is to use the fire exits to get away from the hazard with the assumption that the emergency services would be quickly on the scene.  We now face the problem that the drill of making one’s way quickly and calmly to the nearest fire exit may be the very opposite of the best course of action in the face of, for example, marauding gunmen with assault rifles.  The question is how we nuance our emergency drills to take account of the change in threat without over complicating them.

We mostly consider these threats to arise when the event team is established in the venue but what is the response if, as seems more likely, employees are caught up in an attack on their hotel or multiple attacks close by in the city in which they happen to be staying?

In conclusion, in simple terms we have grown used to looking out for unattended packages which almost always turn out to be just that but now we need to be on the lookout for assault teams of marauding gunmen who do not take prisoners or hostages.  It is however important not to lose our sense of perspective or indeed become fixated with the events in Paris since ours is a global business exposed to a range of threats and other risks.  Event companies need to look at their operational footprint and profile and assess their exposure to risk generally.  Most companies already have robust plans and planning processes in place and train staff to deal with a crisis. These arrangements need to be reviewed to ensure they remain fit for purpose.  Perhaps the key issue here is that the scale and the nature of the threat has fundamentally changed.  Even in the worst case scenarios for which we train, the emergency and security services are quickly on hand to take control and yet we have seen that, depending on where you are in the world, that can take hours or even days.  The unpalatable conclusion is that following the events in Paris our worst case scenarios for planning and training just got worse by some measure. 

 

©X-Venture Ltd 2015

X-Venture Legal Update June 15

CDM 2015

 

Whilst we awaited final publication of the HSE’s guidance to CDM¹ many event organisers have quietly got on with applying the regulations as far as it is practical to do so.  They are right to do so for what is perhaps least well understood or appreciated is the simple principle that the ‘Client’, which in events is the organiser, under CDM is the owner of the project and the liability that goes with it.  Venues in the UK have traditionally taken a proactive role in managing health and safety on the very simple premise that they and not the organisers are a more obvious target for enforcement action by the authorities.  CDM in the long term will shift the balance of risk ownership in a legal context onto the organiser.  Whilst operations teams will continue to manage risk on a day to day basis organisers also recognise that there is a clear implication that the most senior managers within the organisation represent the CDM Client function and therefore have greater personal accountability for compliance.  This merely aligns health and safety with the natural grain of risk management in its widest sense.  Arguably, in financial terms at least, the business risks of running an event are far greater than day to day health and safety concerns.  Perhaps now CDM will mean that health and safety will take its proper place as a line management function rather than an esoteric activity for a few specialists.

 

ISO 45001

 

ISO 45001 is due to replace BS OHSAS 18001 with a planned publication date of October 2016.  Companies reviewing their professional accreditations should follow the progress of this new health and safety standard.  X-Venture will advise clients on any policy amendments necessary to reflect best practice and IOSH courses will reflect the new standard when it is published.

 

Increase in Penalties for Health and Safety Offences

 

New tougher sentencing guidelines have been proposed which will mean significantly higher penalties possibly quadrupling previous sanctions.  The new proposal takes into account the seriousness of the offence and the company’s ability to pay.  For larger companies fines for a fatality could run into the tens of millions of pounds with fines exceeding a million pounds even for some non-fatal accidents.  The guidelines also increase fines and lower thresholds for custodial sentences for individuals.  The definitive guide is expected in September.

 

New legistlation² has also abolished the cap on fines (previously £20k) for health and safety offences dealt with by a Magistrates’ Court.

 

Very serious accidents are fortunately rare in the event and exhibitions industry but managing boards and key stakeholders need to weigh up the significance of these uninsurable liabilities against expenditure on safety risk management at corporate level.

 

Exemption of Self Employed from Health and Safety at Work Act

 

The Deregulation Act 2015, which will exempt some self-employed workers from duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act, has become law.  Not all those working in the events industry will be exempt however, as it is probable that guidance to the regulations will contain a list of activities not covered by the Act which will include event construction.  In any case organisers and venues now have tighter duties under CDM regulations to manage and monitor the activities of contractors on site self-employed or otherwise.  This bill has been controversial as critics fear that it will encourage unsafe working by the self-employed.  There are large numbers of self-employed service providers in the events business and it needs to be made clear by all parties that as far as event construction activities are concerned the rules have not been relaxed.  This Bill may still be amended and will be covered in future updates.

 

Jail Term and Fines for Hoteliers’ Failure to Comply with Fire Regulations

 

A London hotelier has been handed a £200k fine and a four month jail term (suspended) for breaching  fire safety law³, including failing to conduct a fire risk assessment.  In a subsequent case the owner of a hotel in Hull was sentenced to nine months’ in jail (suspended) and fined £50k for similar failings.  Both cases arose from a routine inspection rather than a fire incident and highlight the increasing propensity for the authorities to take action against high footfall venues where visitors are put at risk.

 

It should also be noted that a fire risk assessment is required for all business premises including offices even if the employer is a tenant within a multi-tenanted building.

 

Contract Cleaner Fined for Accident with Ride-On Cleaning Machine

 

A major contractor which services event venues has been prosecuted following an accident in the public area of an airport.  Although the incident did not cause injury, the company was prosecuted and fined £30k plus £5.4k costs under the Health and Safety at Work Act and other legislation for failing to maintain the machine’s brakes.  Its maintenance contractor was also prosecuted and fined.  Such machines are a feature of events and exhibitions and could pose a serious hazard if they are not properly maintained. 

 

Mobile Access Towers

 

Not on your life! is an on going PASMA campaign backed by the HSE to promote safe use of mobile access towers in compliance with European tower standard EN 1004 and the draft British Standard, PAS 250 which can be obtained from PASMA at www.pasma.co.uk.  It should be noted that one of the areas singled out by the HSE for scrutiny under CDM at events is work at height.

 

New Guidance for Display Lasers

 

New PLASA Guidance for Display Lasers is now entering the public consultation phase.  Display lasers (typically class 3) have the potential to cause skin burns, eye damage and can pose a fire risk so this is an import revision to guidance for the events industry.  The new guidance will be available from the PLASA website www.plasa.org.

 

Pyrotechnics for Indoor Venues

 

The Association of British Theatre Technicians (ABTT) is revising and reissuing the code of practice for pyrotechnics.  The new guide should be available in June from ABTT.  Whist the ABTT guide itself only applies to fixed seat auditoria, this new guidance is expected to be accepted as best practice by other event industry bodies such as the eGuide.

 

New Guidance on Skin Cancer from Exposure to the Sun

 

Many event companies with overseas operations require employees to travel to hot countries.  In such circumstances the risk of skin cancer from exposure to the sun is as much a work place hazard as working at heights and in the UK work related skin cancer kills one person per week.  IOSH’s ‘No Time to Lose’ campaign offers free advice for employers to issue their staff which can be obtained from www.notimetolose.org.uk.

 

‘Heroism Act’ Comes into Force

 

The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act (SARAH) has now become law.  The idea is that those providing assistance in good faith, such as first aiders, do not find themselves open to legal action brought against them by the victim.  In future courts will be required to consider whether the individual was ‘acting for the benefit of society’, ‘demonstrated a predominantly responsible approach’ or ‘were acting heroically by intervening in an emergency to assist and individual in danger’.  Where this is the case they will be protected from legal action against them.  This has clear implications for first aid and security providers but also applies to anyone taking action in response to an emergency or major incident.

 

Is it Legal to Smoke e-cigarettes at Work?

 

Technically yes, since the Health Act 2006 only bans the smoking of tobacco.  This issue has long vexed theatres and similar venues when smoking is required as part of the performance but a recent case⁴ has highlighted compliance requirements in the office when an employee took her employer to a tribunal.  The tribunal ruled that since the employer did not specially ban e-cigarettes the decision to take disciplinary action against her was unfair.  HR managers may wish to review the relevant policy in this regard.

 

Notes

 

1.     HSE has now published  legal guidance (L153) (http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/l153.htm)

2.     Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act

3.     Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order

4.     Insley v Accent Catering

A Short Guide to CDM Regulations for Event Operations Managers May 2015

1      The Legal Position

 

Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM) came into force on 6^th April 2015 and apply to all ‘construction’ which now includes all event build up and break down activities including shell scheme erection.  It only applies in the UK. 

 

It should be noted that at the time of publishing this document the HSE had only published event industry guidance in draft and aeo organisers have yet to formalise a common industry approach.  This should therefore be regarded as interim guidance subject to review as common practices develop.

 

CDM is an important piece of criminal law and so it needs to be taken seriously, however the HSE have been clear that they will not prosecute or take enforcement action against event companies which are compliant with the Health and Safety at Work Act (HASAWA) and other relevant legislation and are manifestly discharging their existing duties of care.  The vulnerability for organisers here is where contractors and exhibitors working on site are not compliant with HASAWA and related law.

2      Roles and Responsibilities

 

The HSE guidance to CDM is L153 which can be obtained from the HSE website.  The HSE has in addition published guidance with organograms for the events industry which show how the various duties apply.  At the time of writing these documents were still in draft.  For most practical purposes at exhibition and conferences the organiser assumes the key roles which are as follows:

 

·         The ‘Client’ – the party on whose behalf the event is being run although this could be an external body like a trade body who commissions a professional organiser to run the event.  Essentially it is the owner of the event.  These duties will normally rest with the head of the event portfolio such as the MD or portfolio MD.

·         ‘The ‘Principal Designer’ (PD) – is the party responsible for the overall concept.  Essentially this is the event director/manager or equivalent.

·         The ‘Principal Contractor’ (PC) - is the party responsible for delivering the construction phase and this is the operations team.

 

For small events it could be that one person takes on more than one role or even all of them.

 

It is fundamental to CDM that the Client takes overall responsibility for health and safety.  It indicates that senior management will have to take a more proactive role in health and safety to ensure that they can have complete faith in the PC (operations team) to deliver on health and safety and that they have the necessary resources to do so.  Venues within tenanted areas under CDM become a ‘Contractor’ supplying services to the Client so CDM may also mean that the operations team receives less proactive support from the venues on health and safety issues. 

 

It will have to be determined on an event by event basis the extent to which either venues or organisers have the primary duties under CDM for external roads and common areas which may be shared with other users not related to the event.

 

Exhibitors with large or complex stands are seen as essentially having their own mini CDM site within the context of the whole site with their own Client, PD and PC.  For practical purposes, unless there is specific guidance on this, most organisers should continue to manage and check stands as they currently do.

3      Application of CDM During Build Up and Break Down

3.1   HSE’s Key Principles

 

The draft HSE’s guidance states that the key principles to managing construction safety are as follows:

 

·         eliminate or control risks so far as is reasonably practicable

·         ensure work is effectively planned

·         appointing the right people and organisations at the right time

·         making sure that everyone has the right information, instruction, training and supervision to carry out their work safely and without risks to health

·         have systems in place to help parties cooperate and communicate with each other and coordinate their work

·         consult workers with a view to securing effective heath safety and welfare measures

·         any actions required should always be sensible and proportionate to the risk.

 

None of the above is in addition to exiting duties under HASAWA.  The HSE have emphasised that they will take a proportionate approach to enforcement and will not seek compliance for its own sake where the key principles have been applied.

3.2   Notification to HSE

A project is notifiable if the construction work on a construction site is scheduled to:

 

(a) last longer than 30 working days and have more than 20 workers working simultaneously at any point in the project; or

(b) exceed 500 person days

 

There will be a form for notifying the HSE published in the guidance.

 

The vast majority of events will probably not be notifiable.  Even so the HSE has stated that notification is not an issue.  It will be left to the Client to decide whether or not an event is notifiable and whether or not to combine the build and break down to trigger the threshold or to treat each separately.  The HSE will not take action for failure to notify.  In the short term unless the event is quite obviously notifiable it is reasonable to wait for the events industry to develop a position on this.

3.3   Construction Phase & Construction Phase Safety Plan

 

The construction phase need not necessarily overlap exactly the build up and break down phase where CDM site conditions apply.  The most obvious example is where on the final day of build, construction type controls such as the wearing of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) can be relaxed as construction activities make way for non-construction work such as cleaning and stand dressing.  Operations teams should think about formalising this into the Construction Phase Safety Plan (CSP).

 

The CSP is a specific legal requirement under CDM and operations teams should prepare a CSP.  A suggested outline format is as follows:

 

Name of Event and Venue
Principal Contractor details	This would normally the legal entity which is the organiser – not individuals
Client Details	This would normally be the legal entity which is the organiser – not individuals or the ultimate client if the event is not owned by the organiser
Principal Designer Details	This would normally be the legal entity which is the organiser – not individuals
Description of Work/Event	Brief overview
Key dates (start/finish/other)	Build, Breakdown and indication if the construction phases are different e.g. the construction phase ending on the last day of build.
Key roles in the Event/Operations team	A organogram should suffice
How the work will be managed safely	Include details of the site rules, arrangements for daily briefing/update/coordination meetings, site inductions, welfare facilities, fire and emergency procedures and, arrangements for the control of specific risk (such as falls from height, collapse of structures, crane operations, heavy lifting etc)

 

The CSP is not the Event Safety File per se but would be included within it (see below).

3.4   Health and Safety File

 

This is a specific legal requirement.  The health and safety file as defined by L153 is ‘a file appropriate to the characteristics of the project, containing relevant health and safety information to be taken into account during any subsequent project’.  Unless further guidance or direction is given this may be deemed to be the Event Safety File which is normal event best practice and would now include the CSP as above.

3.5   Site Access Control and Site Induction

 

The aim of CDM is to ensure that only persons who are deemed to be competent (i.e having the necessary skills, knowledge and experience) with regard to working on a construction site are permitted to gain access during the construction phase.

 

Operations teams need to ensure that all potential occupants during the construction phase (i.e. not necessarily during late build and opening morning if construction activity ends prior to the end of build up) have received the site safety rules and that site access during the construction phase is restricted to the following:

 

·         Organiser’s staff

·         Venue staff assigned to the event

·         Accredited contractors’ staff (note this includes venue contractors)

·         Exhibitors and Exhibitors’ Contractors.

3.6   Key Risks and Site Rules

 

At present the eGuide should be regarded as the template for general site rules at exhibitions and similar events.  Over time it is likely that the guide will be amended by the AEV to reflect new best practice compliant with CDM.  There are three areas which the HSE has identified as warranting special attention which are:

 

·         Work at heights and in particular working on live edges

·         Control of moving vehicles and in particular the separation of pedestrians from close proximity with moving vehicles

·         Wearing of PPE

 

These areas should be targeted for improvement until specific industry guidance is produced.  It should be anticipated that the wearing of high visibility vests and safety shoes during the construction phase is likely to become a standard industry requirement.