January 2014

Examiners Report
NEBOSH National
Diploma in
Occupational Health
and Safety - Unit A

Examiners Report
NEBOSH NATIONAL DIPLOMA IN
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Unit A: Managing health and safety
JANUARY 2014

CONTENTS

Introduction

General comments

Comments on individual questions

2014 NEBOSH, Dominus Way, Meridian Business Park, Leicester LE19 1QW
tel: 0116 263 4700

fax: 0116 282 4000

email: info@nebosh.org.uk

website: www.nebosh.org.uk

The National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health is a registered charity, number 1010444

Introduction

NEBOSH (The National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health) was formed in 1979 as
an independent examining board and awarding body with charitable status. We offer a comprehensive
range of globally-recognised, vocationally-related qualifications designed to meet the health, safety,
environmental and risk management needs of all places of work in both the private and public sectors.
Courses leading to NEBOSH qualifications attract around 35,000 candidates annually and are offered
by over 500 course providers, with exams taken in over 100 countries around the world. Our
qualifications are recognised by the relevant professional membership bodies including the Institution
of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) and the International Institute of Risk and Safety
Management (IIRSM).
NEBOSH is an awarding body to be recognised and regulated by the Scottish Qualifications Authority
(SQA).
Where appropriate, NEBOSH follows the latest version of the GCSE, GCE, Principal Learning and
Project Code of Practice published by the regulatory authorities in relation to examination setting and
marking. While not obliged to adhere to this code, NEBOSH regards it as best practice to do so.
Candidates scripts are marked by a team of Examiners appointed by NEBOSH on the basis of their
qualifications and experience. The standard of the qualification is determined by NEBOSH, which is
overseen by the NEBOSH Council comprising nominees from, amongst others, the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE), the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and
the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH). Representatives of course providers, from
both the public and private sectors, are elected to the NEBOSH Council.
This report on the examination provides information on the performance of candidates which it is
hoped will be useful to candidates and tutors in preparation for future examinations. It is intended to
be constructive and informative and to promote better understanding of the syllabus content and the
application of assessment criteria.
NEBOSH 2014

Any enquiries about this report publication should be addressed to:

NEBOSH
Dominus Way
Meridian Business Park
Leicester
LE19 1QW
tel:
0116 263 4700
fax:
0116 282 4000
email: info@nebosh.org.uk

General comments

Those candidates who prepare diligently for this unit assessment can provide comprehensive and
relevant answers in response to the demands of the question paper. This includes the ability to
demonstrate understanding of knowledge by applying it to workplace situations, which is an express
requirement of the syllabus.
There are always some candidates, however, who appear to be unprepared for the unit assessment
and who show both a lack of knowledge of the syllabus content and a lack of understanding of how
key concepts should be applied to workplace situations.
In order to meet the pass standard for this assessment, it is essential that candidates acquire a high
degree of knowledge and understanding right across the Unit A syllabus. Candidates then need to
demonstrate that they have developed the necessary standard of knowledge and understanding by
answering the questions in an appropriate and relevant way, which frequently requires the application
of principles to new situations. Referral of candidates in this unit is invariably because they are unable
to write a full, well-informed answer to one or more of the questions asked.
Some candidates find it difficult to relate their learning to the questions and as a result offer responses
reliant on recalled knowledge and conjecture and fail to demonstrate a sufficient degree of
understanding. In other words, some candidates lack the ability to apply what they have learned in a
way that would be useful in real-world situations. Candidates should prepare themselves for this
vocational examination by ensuring that they understand the numerous interrelationships that exist
between syllabus concepts, such that they can recognise important and relevant issues and then draw
upon this knowledge to give a well-rounded, comprehensive answer at a professional standard. It is
not acceptable to attempt any examination at this level by rote-learning pre-prepared answers.
Candidates should note that Examiners Reports are not written to provide sample answers but to
give examples of what Examiners were expecting and more specifically to highlight areas of under
performance.
Common pitfalls
It is recognised that many candidates are well prepared for their assessments. However, recurrent
issues, as outlined below, continue to prevent some candidates reaching their full potential in the
assessment.

Many candidates fail to apply the basic principles of examination technique (e.g. time
management) and for some candidates this means the difference between a pass and a
referral.

In some instances, candidates do not attempt all the required questions or are failing to
provide complete answers (e.g. only giving a single page answer to a 20 mark essay style
question). Candidates are advised to always attempt an answer to a compulsory question,
even when the mind goes blank; applying basic health and safety management principles can
generate credit worthy points.

Some candidates fail to answer the question that was set and instead provide information that
may be relevant to the topic in general terms but is irrelevant to the question that was asked
and so they cannot be awarded marks.

Many candidates fail to apply the command words (also known as action verbs, e.g. describe,
outline, etc). Command words are the instructions that guide the candidate on the depth of
answer required. If, for instance, a question asks the candidate to describe something, then
few marks will be awarded to an answer that is an outline. Similarly the command word
identify requires more information than a list.

Some candidates fail to separate their answers into the different sub-sections of the questions.
These candidates could gain marks for the different sections if they clearly indicated which
part of the question they were answering (by using the numbering from the question in their

answer, for example). Structuring their answers to address the different parts of the question
can also help in logically drawing out the points to be made in response.

Candidates need to plan their time effectively. Some candidates fail to make good use of their
time and give excessive detail in some answers leaving insufficient time to address all of the
questions.

Candidates should also be aware that Examiners cannot award marks if handwriting is
illegible.

Candidates should note that it is not necessary to start a new page in their answer booklet for
each section of a question.

UNIT A Managing health and safety

Section A all questions compulsory

Question 1

(a)

(b)

Outline potential costs to an organisation if a health and safety

management system is not implemented effectively.

(7)

Outline the meaning of the terms insured AND uninsured costs

of accidents, clearly showing the relative size of these two costs
as demonstrated by accident costing studies.

(3)

This question related to Element 1 of the syllabus and assessed candidates

knowledge of learning outcome 1.1: Explain the moral, legal and economic reasons
for the effective management of health and safety.
Many candidates were able to achieve good marks, particularly on the first part of the
question. Answers to the second part (the meaning of insured and uninsured costs)
varied in quality, with many candidates demonstrating a lack of knowledge of these
terms. It was also evident that many candidates seemed unaware of the findings of
the numerous accident costing studies that have been conducted over the years, any
one of which would have satisfactorily answered this part of the question.
Most of the responses were in an appropriate amount of detail for an outline, 10 mark
question. However, there were still those candidates who opted to give less than the
required amount of information and simply provided lists of information, leading to
lower than expected marks in some cases. Some candidates failed to say anything at
all about the relative size of insured and uninsured costs, possibly because they may
have failed to read the entire question.
Candidates should ensure that they are familiar with the basic principles and
arguments for good standards of safety management and that they read around the
topic in order to broaden their understanding.

Question 2

Witness interviews are an important part of the information-gathering

process of an accident investigation.
Describe the requirements of an interview process that would help to obtain
the best quality of information from witnesses.

(10)

This question related to Element 2 of the syllabus and assessed candidates

knowledge of learning outcome 2.4: Explain loss investigations; the requirements,
benefits, the procedures, the documentation, and the involvement of and
communication with relevant staff and representatives, specifically Investigation
procedures and methodologies.
This question sought to assess candidates knowledge of how to conduct a witness
interview as part of an accident investigation, which is an essential skill for all health
and safety practitioners. Many candidates were able to give good answers that
achieved correspondingly high marks.

Although points could have been taken in any order, candidates that adopted a
chronological approach appeared to do better than those who took a less structured
approach, with less evidence of duplication and sidetracking into irrelevant areas
being noted. Some candidates wrote at length on one or two points (e.g. establishing
rapport) and were duly awarded credit for these where the points they made were
relevant; however, candidates that only wrote about a small number of issues will not
have gained high marks on this question.
This is clearly an area that many candidates know well and as such the question
yielded a relatively high average mark. Candidates should ensure that they focus on
what is being asked by the question (in this case the requirements of an interview
process) so that they do not wander into associated areas such as the generalities of
accident investigation, rendering assistance etc, which were not signposted in the
question and therefore carried no marks.

Question 3

In relation to European Union law:

(a)

outline the implications of a European Directive as it applies to

Member States;

(2)

(b)

identify key functions of the European Commission;

(3)

(c)

outline reasons why the government cannot easily revoke health

and safety regulations based on European Directives.

(5)

This question related to Element 8 of the syllabus and assessed candidates

knowledge of learning outcome 8.3: Outline the influence and role of the European
Union on UK health and safety legislation. Of particular relevance to this question
was knowledge of the status of European directives and of the role of one of the EUs
main institutions the European Commission.
Candidates had to show an understanding of the underpinning principles in order to
achieve good marks but it was apparent from the limited quality of most answers that
this area of the syllabus is not well understood.
Part (a) was the best answered of the three parts of this question, with many
candidates showing an understanding that Directives are binding as to the result to be
achieved.
Despite only being asked to identify, few candidates were able to demonstrate
knowledge of the functions of the European Commission in answer to part (b). It was
therefore clear that this part of the syllabus was less well understood.
Part (c) was not well answered. Considering current activity by the UK Government
and publicity surrounding deregulation, it was felt that candidates might have been
more aware of the associated issues. Candidates who were able to say in answer to
part (a) that Directives bind Member States and who were able to say in answer to
part (b) that the Commission can institute proceedings against Member States for
violations of EU obligations, could have used that knowledge to answer this part.
Questions on European law are consistently limited, despite being regularly
questioned. Candidates should seek to ensure that all areas of the syllabus receive
attention during the revision phase.

Question 4

Outline a range of factors to be considered in selecting the optimum

solution for the control of risk following a risk assessment.
An outline of the hierarchy of controls is not required.

(10)

This question related to Element 5 of the syllabus and assessed candidates

knowledge of learning outcomes 5.1 and 5.2: Outline common risk management
strategies and Outline factors to be taken into account when selecting risk controls.
The wording of the question was almost identical to the wording of the second point
under learning outcome 5.1 - Factors to be considered in the selection of an optimum
solution based on relevant risk data. Also of relevance was the part of learning
outcome 5.2 beginning Factors affecting choice of controls
This question sought to assess understanding of the thought process involved in
selecting risk controls. The question required candidates to think carefully about the
real life issues faced by those whose responsibility it is to select and implement
control measures - a skill that all health and safety practitioners must master if they
are to be effective in practice.
Those candidates who had prepared well for the examination will have developed a
good understanding of the criteria that are normally employed when selecting the
optimum solution for the control of risk, and will, for example, have understood the
implications of managing risks so far as is reasonably practicable. Such answers
gained relatively good marks. In other cases despite a specific direction not to do so,
many candidates opted to give a certificate level outline of the hierarchy of controls,
which gained little credit.
The answers to this question raise two issues. First, some candidates appear
unfamiliar with the requirements of the syllabus, as evidenced by those responses that
seemed unable to go beyond the basic hierarchy of controls. Second, a number of
candidates failed to observe the clear directions given in the question, leading to
answers that failed to address the question that was set. Becoming familiar with the
syllabus content will help to address the first point, while taking full advantage of the
10 minutes of reading time to note specific instructions in the questions should help to
address the second.

Question 5

Outline issues that should be considered when planning a health and

safety inspection programme.
Information on specific workplace conditions or behaviours that might be
covered in an inspection is not required.

(10)

This question related to Element 3 of the syllabus and assessed candidates

knowledge of learning outcome 3.3: Describe the variety of monitoring and
measurement techniques, and specifically, The key elements and features of health
and safety audits, workplace inspections, safety tours, safety sampling, and safety
surveys.
This was a practical question, which focussed candidates attention on the planning of
inspections rather than on their specific content. In so doing, the question evaluated
understanding of the practical considerations to be borne in mind when developing a
programme of health and safety inspections.

This question yielded high marks. It was clear from a number of answers that personal
experience of planning health and safety inspection programmes was being used,
which often helped provide a logical approach to the answer, thus yielding good
marks. Most candidates gave a good range of points and took notice of the clear
instruction not to give information on specific workplace conditions. However, there
were some candidates who fared less well, either because they provided too narrow a
range of issues or because they ignored the italicised instruction that followed the
question. Some candidates confused inspections with audits.
Candidates should ensure that they follow all directions given in the question. When
preparing for the examination, candidates should ensure that they understand the
differences between different monitoring techniques so that they do not confuse them.

Question 6

With reference to the Hale and Glendon model of human performance,

explain why people sometimes fail to take effective action to avoid danger at
work.

(10)

This question related to Element 7 of the syllabus and assessed candidates

knowledge of learning outcome 7.2: Explain the nature of the perception of risk and
its relationship to performance in the workplace and specifically Individual behaviour
in the face of danger, principles of the Hale & Glendon model.
This question required a general knowledge of the principles of the Hale and Glendon
model which deals with behaviour in the face of danger.
The Hale and Glendon model has featured in the diploma syllabus for a number of
years and so it was not unreasonable to expect a fair level of understanding of its
application. Answers to this question were limited, showing that this area of the
syllabus is not well understood. Several answers made reference to the Hale and Hale
model or to the generalities of HSG 48, both have which have featured in past papers,
but neither of which was relevant on this occasion.
Candidates are reminded that all areas of the syllabus are liable to be assessed and
so they should use the syllabus as a guide to their revision. Course providers may
wish to check that this model receives an appropriate amount of coverage in their
study material.

Section B three from five questions to be attempted

Question 7

An organisation proposes to build a new gas compression installation to

provide energy for its manufacturing processes. An explosion in the
installation could affect the public and a nearby railway line. In view of
this, the organisation has been told that a qualitative risk assessment for
the new installation may not be adequate and that some aspects of the
risk assessment require a quantitative risk assessment.
(a)

(b)

(c)

Explain the terms qualitative risk assessment AND quantitative

risk assessment.

(5)

Identify external sources of information and advice that the

organisation could refer to when deciding whether the risk from
the new installation is acceptable.

(5)

As a preliminary part of the risk assessment process, a hazard

and operability study is to be carried out.
Describe the principles and methodology of a hazard and
operability (HAZOP) study.

(10)

This question related to Element 4 of the syllabus and assessed candidates

knowledge of learning outcomes 4.1 Describe how to use internal and external
sources of information in the identification of hazards and assessment of risk, 4.3
Explain how to assess and evaluate risk and to implement a risk assessment
programme and 4.4 Explain the principles and techniques of failure tracing
methodologies with the use of calculations.
This was a popular question attempted by most candidates although very few
managed to gain more than half the available marks. Answers to part (a) often failed to
differentiate clearly between the two assessment types with many candidates mixing
the two up. In other instances candidates stated that qualitative only related to words
such as high, medium and low whilst quantitative related only to numbers on 1-5
matrix without due consideration of many other principles.
Part (b) appeared problematic for many candidates, who often gave a standard listing
of all sources of information rather than tailoring their responses to the scenario. This
part of the question only required candidates to identify and so those candidates who
gave a good range of relevant external sources were able to gain good marks.
There were some encouraging answers to part (c), although a good number were
comparatively limited, with some candidates obviously being unfamiliar with the
HAZOP process, indicating that they had chosen this question as a least worst
option. Some candidates described the FMEA process instead of HAZOPs.

Question 8

(a)

(b)

(c)

Compare AND contrast the functions, rights and entitlements of

Safety
Representatives
appointed
under
the
Safety
Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977, with
those of Representatives of Employee Safety elected in
accordance with the Health and Safety (Consultation with
Employees) Regulations 1996.

(10)

Identify the five topics on which employees or their

representatives must be consulted.

(5)

Identify the circumstances under which the employer is not

obliged to disclose information to employees or their
representatives.

(5)

This question related to Element 6 of the syllabus and assessed candidates

knowledge of learning outcome 6.4: Explain the role, influences on and procedures
for formal and informal consultation with employees in the workplace.
This question focused on the functions, rights and entitlements of those tasked with
representing employees in consultation with the employer.
Few candidates attempted this question, which may indicate a general lack of
knowledge and understanding of the role and function of representatives. The major
requirement for part (a) was to clearly differentiate between the two types of
representative. Although some candidates did outline some rights and functions of the
two types of Rep, few actually followed the instruction in the question and made an
effort to Compare and contrast, meaning that few marks could be awarded. Those
who chose to present their answer in a tabular format were more successful in
drawing comparisons between the two, although this could also have been achieved
by writing a careful narrative that compared the two types of representative so as to
highlight similarities and contrasted them so as to show the differences.
Parts (b) and (c) were better answered with candidates in most cases being able to
identify a reasonable range of points, although few candidates were able to recall all
relevant points.
Detailed knowledge of the functions, rights and entitlements of representatives was
required in order to gain a good mark on this question. Candidates should therefore
focus not only on simply learning about the two types of Rep as separate entities, but
could also usefully consider the differences and similarities in order to develop a better
understanding.

Question 9

A machinery accident at work has resulted in a fatality. Following an initial

investigation into the fatal accident, an enforcing authority inspector
decides to make a further visit so that statements can be taken from
witnesses and others, including the Managing Director, under the Health
and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The Managing Director, who was
controlling work at the scene when the accident occurred, has refused
permission for the inspector to make a further visit and to take statements.
(a)

Identify the authorities that might be involved in investigating the

accident or initiating and/or conducting criminal prosecutions AND
outline the involvement of EACH authority in these
circumstances.

10

(5)

(b)

(c)

Outline the specific powers of inspectors that are relevant to this

issue AND outline the possible courses of action that the
inspector may pursue.

(9)

Outline the legal criteria that must be satisfied to obtain a

conviction under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate
Homicide Act 2007.

(6)

This question related to Element 9 of the syllabus and assessed candidates

knowledge of learning outcome 9.3: Explain the responsibilities and powers of
enforcing authorities and officers and the range of options related to enforcement
action, their implications and appeal procedures.
This was a very popular question, although few candidates managed to obtain more
than half the marks that were available.
In answer to part (a), many candidates managed to identify at least some of the
authorities that might be involved and outline their involvement in the investigation.
However, many answers were limited to mere mention of the HSE, with few
candidates recognising the role of the Police, Crown Prosecution Service (Procurator
Fiscal in Scotland) or Coroner.
In part (b) many candidates failed to read the question with sufficient care and so
failed to note that this was a further visit to the premises. Many of the answers that
were provided gave a generic outline of inspectors powers, some of which were not
necessarily of relevance to the scenario. Some candidates lost their way and delved
too deeply into topics such as enforcement notices, with some even quoting sections
from the Health and Safety at Work Act in an apparent attempt to gain some marks.
Part (c) answers were limited. A number of candidates made irrelevant reference to
s37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, whilst many still clearly think that the 2007
Act carries personal liability for manslaughter something that course providers may
wish to address.

Question 10

An employee suffered a fractured skull when he fell 3 metres from storage

racking as he was loading cartons on to a pallet held on the forks of a lift
truck. An investigation revealed that, despite a safe system of work
having been written and provided to employees some months previously,
it had become common practice for employees to be lifted up on the forks
and for them to climb up the outside of the racking. Employees stated that
they could not understand the written safe system of work but admitted
that they had not brought this to their employers attention.
(a)

(b)

Outline possible relevant breaches of the Health and Safety at

Work etc Act 1974 AND the Management of Health and Safety at
Work Regulations 1999.
The injured employee intends to bring a negligence claim (delict in
Scotland) against his employer.
With reference to relevant case law, outline what the employee
will need to show in order for his claim to succeed.

(c)

(10)

Shortly after the injured employee brings his negligence claim, he

is dismissed for a serious breach of safety rules. The injured
employee considers this to be unfair and so decides to bring
further proceedings, this time for unfair dismissal.

11

(6)

(i) Identify the body that would hear such a claim.

(1)

(ii) Outline the orders that could be made if the injured employee
wins his dismissal case.

(3)

This question related to Elements 8, 9 and 10 of the syllabus and assessed

candidates knowledge of learning outcomes 8.5 Describe the structure and functions
of courts and related institutions in the UK; 8.7 Explain the principles of employment
and discrimination law as it affects health and safety issues; 9.1 Explain the key
requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Management of
Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999; and 10.1 Explain the duties owed at
common law.
This new question required practical application of knowledge of criminal and civil law
to a realistic scenario. At this level of study, candidates are expected to have a
comprehensive knowledge of the two statutes named in the question and should be
able to apply this knowledge as required by the learning outcomes.
In general, the question was fairly well answered, although marks were lost in the
answer to part (a) in cases where candidates either failed to cover a sufficient range of
possible breaches or where they failed to adequately identify the breaches (e.g.
vaguely stating that section 2 had been breached, which is unacceptable at this
level). It would also seem that the 1999 Regulations are less understood than the
1974 Act. In some cases, candidates failed to write anything at all about the 1999
Regulations, perhaps because they had did not read the question, or possibly due to a
lack of knowledge. Some candidates made reference to irrelevant law such as
PUWER and LOLER reading the question would have prevented this.
Due to the fundamental nature of both the 1974 Act and the 1999 Regulations, a lack
of knowledge of their requirements is of particular concern. Course providers may
wish to note this weakness when delivering the topic in the future.
In part (b), several candidates did not make reference to relevant case law, despite
being asked to do so. Some candidates made irrelevant reference to claims under the
now largely defunct tort of breach of statutory duty, which failed to gain marks.
The standard of answers to part (c) (i) varied from very good to very limited, with some
candidates making guesses such as county court, magistrates Court and high
Court. Most candidates were able to outline at least two of the three possible orders
in answer to part (c) (ii).

12

Question 11

(a)

Outline the meaning and relevance of the following terms in the

context of controlling human error in the workplace:

(i)

ergonomics;

(ii)

anthropometry;

(iii)

task analysis.

(b)

Excluding ergonomic issues, outline ways in which human

reliability in the workplace may be improved. In your answer,
consider individual, job and organisational issues.

(6)

(14)

This question related to Element 7 of the syllabus and assessed candidates

knowledge of learning outcome 7.6: Explain how job factors could contribute to
improving human reliability.
This question sought to assess candidates knowledge of the role of ergonomics,
anthropometry and task analysis, as well as techniques for improving human
reliability.
Part (a) was not well answered, showing that the student body as a whole has a
limited grasp of the meaning of these terms - something that course providers may
wish to act to address.
A mixed range of responses was seen in the answer to part (b), with a limited level of
detail being evident in many answers. Despite the clear prompt in the question that
candidates should consider individual, job and organisational issues, many failed to
do so, meaning that answers frequently lacked structure and digressed into unrelated
areas that failed to gain credit. Where the suggested headings were used, candidates
invariably fared much better, with some good answers being provided.
It was noted that some candidates gave relatively wordy answers to the three parts of
part (a). While such answers will have been awarded due credit, candidates should
note the number of marks available and provide proportionate answers so that they do
not spend a disproportionate amount of time labouring for just two marks.

13

The National Examination

Board in Occupational
Safety and Health
Dominus Way
Meridian Business Park
Leicester LE19 1QW
telephone +44 (0)116 2634700
fax +44 (0)116 2824000
email info@nebosh.org.uk
www.nebosh.org.uk