NDIP ER January
NDIP ER January
NDIP ER January
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 2013
CONTENTS
Introduction
General comments
2013 NEBOSH, Dominus Way, Meridian Business Park, Leicester LE19 1QW
tel: 0116 263 4700
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
EXTERNAL
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 2013
EXTERNAL
General comments
Many candidates are well prepared for this unit assessment and 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.
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, acquisition of knowledge and understanding
across the syllabus are prerequisites. However, candidates need to demonstrate their knowledge and
understanding in answering the questions that are asked. 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.
Some candidates find it difficult to relate their learning to the questions and as a result offer responses
reliant on rote learning and conjecture and fail to demonstrate a sufficient degree of understanding.
Candidates should prepare themselves for this vocational examination by ensuring their
understanding, not rote-learning pre-prepared answers.
Candidates should therefore 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 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. 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 read the question properly, resulting in them providing information
that, although of general relevance to the topic as a whole, is irrelevant to the question. Such
answers 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.
EXTERNAL
Candidates should note that it is not necessary to start a new page in their answer booklet for
each section of a question.
EXTERNAL
Question 1
(6)
(b)
Identify the maximum fines that courts could impose for a failure
to report the injury AND name the courts in which such fines
could be levied.
(4)
This question related to Elements 2 and 9 of the syllabus and assessed candidates
knowledge of learning outcomes 2.3: Explain the statutory and the internal reporting
and recording systems for injuries, ill-health, dangerous occurrences and near misses
and 9.3: Explain the responsibilities and powers of enforcing agencies and officers
and the range of options related to enforcement action, their implications and appeal
procedures.
Part (a) was fairly well answered with most candidates showing an awareness of the
changes to RIDDOR and the new over 7-day reporting requirements. However, some
candidates were apparently unaware of the changes and referred to the old over 3day criteria. Other candidates erroneously thought that the employee had suffered a
major injury and incorrectly proceeded on that basis. Only a few candidates made
explicit reference to the fact that, for reporting purposes, the day of the accident is not
counted but rest days are.
In response to part (b) there were many vague answers on courts and levels of fines.
Some references were made to the civil courts, showing a clear misunderstanding of
the basics of the legal system, whilst opinions on fines ranged from 5000 to 50,000.
References to custodial sentences were not required.
EXTERNAL
Question 2
(b)
(2)
(8)
Question 3
(b)
(3)
(7)
EXTERNAL
Question 4
(b)
(6)
(4)
This question related to Elements 4 and 9 of the syllabus and assessed candidates
knowledge of learning outcomes 4.3: Explain how to assess and evaluate risk and to
implement a risk assessment programme and 9.3: Explain the responsibilities and
powers of enforcing agencies and officers and the range of options related to
enforcement action, their implications and appeal procedures.
In part (a) it was clearly evident that many candidates had not read the Approved
Code of Practice to Regulation 3 and so were unaware of what constitutes a suitable
and sufficient risk assessment. Many candidates gave answers based around the
simple 5 Steps approach, which failed to encompass the range of points covered in
the ACoP.
Part (b) answers were limited. Responses lacked detail with only a very few candidates
being able to go beyond the issuing of notices to consider other actions such as formal
cautions. Some candidates listed the powers of an Inspector for which no marks could be
awarded.
Question 5
(10)
EXTERNAL
Question 6
(b)
(3)
(7)
This question related to Element 1 of the syllabus and assessed candidates knowledge
of learning outcome 1.3: Explain the principles and content of effective health and
safety, quality, environmental, and integrated management systems with reference to
recognised models and standards.
Part (a) was quite well answered with many candidates identifying a range of risks to
which an organisation may be susceptible. Many candidates misread or misunderstood
the question in part (b). Instead of discussing board-level initiatives that would be
appropriate to placing health and safety management on a par with other areas of
business risk, they reverted to an answer style more appropriate to developing a
positive health and safety culture. This perhaps highlighted a lack of ability to think at a
strategic level.
Question 7
(2)
(b)
Outline the two main types of damages that the injured employee
may claim AND give examples of what may be claimed under
EACH type.
(4)
(c)
(d)
(7)
Explain the possible breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc
Act 1974 that are relevant to this situation.
(7)
This question related to Elements 9 and 10 of the syllabus and assessed candidates
knowledge of learning outcomes 9.1: Explain the key requirements of the Health and
Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work
EXTERNAL
Regulations 1999 and 10.2: Explain the criteria required to establish a successful civil
action for breach of statutory duty, the main defences available and the procedure for
assessment of damages under civil law.
This was the most popular question in this section of the paper However, answers
were often limited, especially in parts (c) and (d).
Most candidates were able to identify likely defendants for a straightforward 2 marks
in part (a), although several unaccountably outlined defences instead of identifying
defendants.
Answers to part (b) were of a satisfactory standard with most candidates appreciating
the significance of general and special damages. Some candidates confused the two
types of damages, which limited their ability to gain marks.
In part (c) a number of candidates seemed unaware of the tort of breach of statutory
duty, instead giving inappropriate answers covering the tort of negligence. Several
candidates thought that the Health and Safety at Work Act could be used in civil
proceedings.
Answers to part (d) showed a lack of familiarity with the Sections of the Health and
Safety at Work Act. Where references were made to the correct Sections of the 1974
Act, there was often a lack of accompanying explanation, possibly showing a lack of
ability to apply the Acts requirements to a realistic scenario. References to
Regulations were not required and gained no marks.
Question 8
(b)
(6)
selection of contractors;
(ii)
control of contractors.
(4)
(10)
EXTERNAL
Question 9
(b)
(c)
(4)
(10)
(6)
Question 10
(b)
Using the Hale and Hale model, outline the factors that could
have led to the accident as described above.
(6)
(14)
10
EXTERNAL
In part (a) candidates were invariably able to say that Hale and Hale is about human
perception, but were unable to give much more detail beyond that. Some confused
this model with the one in HSG 48 so gained no marks.
Only a few candidates were able to draw the model in answer to part (b) and fewer
still were able to apply the principles to the scenario that was given. Several
candidates gave little more than a description of what had happened, the general level
of response being rather generic. Those candidates who drew the model then used it
to outline factors that may have led to the accident fared better than those who
provided generic answers.
Question 11
(a)
(b)
(8)
(12)
11
EXTERNAL