NEWHAM COUNCIL FINED £125,000
Following the death of a 13 year old boy the London Borough of Newham pleaded guilty to an offence of breaching the duty they owed under s3(1) HSWA. The guilty plea acknowledged that the Council had not carried out prompt and effective repairs to communal areas at their properties. On 27 August 2005, Ryan Dean and three friends were playing on the first floor of Walter Hurford Parade when Ryan fell backwards down a stairwell whose adjoining wall was only two bricks high in some places. The wall had been damaged by vandalism some months earlier. The council was informed about the initial damage to the wall at Easter and over the next few months tried, on five occasions, to repair the wall. Each time the job either was not found or the wrong type of maintenance employee was sent. The job remained unfinished. HSE investigating Inspector Dominic Long said: "Local Authorities have a legal obligation to ensure that tenants and other members of the public are not placed at unnecessary risk arising from poor procedures for repairing damage to buildings. This case should serve as a reminder to Councillors and Chief Executives of the importance of effective maintenance systems to ensure repairs are carried out quickly and to appropriate standards. Had such a system been in place, Ryan Dean's death might have been prevented." Since then, the council has changed its procedures so that such repairs are flagged up as health and safety emergencies and dealt with within eight hours. A check visit is also carried out to ensure that the job has been completed. The council is also reviewing its policy relating to decanting buildings (emptying them of tenants, shopkeepers etc. prior to demolition) as it seems that because Walter Hurford Parade was in the process of being decanted the caretakers and estates staff overlooked it and regular inspections were not carried out. 3 May 2007; Central Criminal Court—maximum penalty unlimited fine. Case sent to Crown Court for sentencing following a plea of guilty before the Central London Magistrates Court. One presumes discounts on the penalty imposed were made for the prompt guilty plea and the fact that Newham LBC is a public authority and as such any fine would punish those who would otherwise receive services from the Council. Ed—it is a continuing scandal that public authorities seemingly only change their ways after a tragedy. Newham LBC is, of course a health and safety enforcing authority in its own right. It should have known better. But as is often the case did the left hand know what the right hand was doing or should have been doing?
ROUGE TRADER FINED
The HSE has been investigating and prosecuting unregistered gas fitters in the Ashford area of Kent. HSE inspector Mr Fussell said " We are currently investigating a number of incidences in Ashford and the surrounding area, where gas fitters have carried out unregistered gas work and claimed to be CORGI registered. The penalties for these offences are severe and range from prosecution to imprisonment." Mr Fussell prosecuted one such installer, a Westley Maplesden who appeared at Maidstone Crown Court on 27th April 2007. Maplesden, installed a new boiler at a local Ashford animal charity, Sugarloaf Animal Sanctuary, in Ruckinge. The owner Mrs Janet Buckley received carbon monoxide poisoning, and was taken to hospital for treatment. Fortunately Mrs Buckley did not receive a fatal does carbon monoxide. Mr Maplesden had left the gas installation with numerous faults and was not CORGI registered to work on LPG gas. He was fined £4000. Mr Fussell went on to add " People should check their installer or fitter is registered by asking to see their current CORGI photo ID card which has a photo of the installer, their CORGI registration number, their trading title and the expiry date of the card. Every year about 30 people die from carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning caused by gas appliances and flues which have not been properly installed or maintained."
CAPITAL FOLLY
Capitals Demolition (UK) Ltd of Woodham, Surrey have pleaded guilty to offences in two separate magistrates courts in the space of 2 weeks. The Prosecutions arose from site visits paid in May and June 2006 at Crampshaw Lane, Ashtead and Gresham Road, Staines. At the first site the Inspector found poor standards during demolition work. Necessary precautions had not been taken to prevent falls through fragile asbestos cement sheets and the site had not been properly fenced to prevent risks to the public. On 23rd April this year the company pleaded guilty to all 3 charges in Guildford Magistrates Court and were fined a total of £11,000 and HSE costs of £5861 were awarded. Speaking after the case HSE's Inspector Ms. Abosede Ogunsekan said 'The director's of this company have been running companies in the demolition industry for some years and they should have been well aware of the precautions necessary. There can be no excuse for not ensuring that such basic measures were taken. Falls through fragile roofs continue to be a source of many fatal and major injury accidents in the industry and I hope that the level of today's fines sends a clear message to the rest of the industry that flagrant disregard for the law and poor safety standards even when no accident has occurred are unacceptable. I would also point out that recent changes to the CDM Regulations strengthen the duty on clients to ensure that contractors they appoint are competent and can demonstrate satisfactory safety performance". HSE’s second visit to a Capital Demolition (UK) Ltd site in Staines revealed employees working from an unsafe working platform at a clear risk of falling from a considerable height (about 4m). The company appeared at Staines Magistrates court on April 18th and pleaded guilty to the offence and was fined £10,000 with £4,295 costs imposed. HM Inspector of Health and Safety Tristan Charles said "these cases show that the courts take breaches of health and safety seriously, even when an accident has not occurred. Capital Demolition UK Ltd has been in court twice in 7 days, both times pleading guilty to the offences. These cases have cost them £31,156, including costs, which could have easily been avoided if the sites were adequately managed and the work adequately planned.” Ed—it is repeated follies such as these that shows that good and consistent health and safety practice is illusory for many businesses.
FISHING’S DEADLY
Fishing is, by a large margin, the most dangerous profession in the country, according to figures released by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB). Last year, 16 fishermen lost their lives at sea, the largest number for some years; 19 fishing vessels were lost. Commenting on the figures, the Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents, Stephen Meyer, said: "Although the number of fishing vessels lost at sea was the lowest for many years, the fact that 16 fishermen lost their lives is a tragedy for them and their families." Mr Meyer was speaking on the release of this year's Fishing Vessel Digest, a publication aimed at drawing the attention of the fishing industry to some of the lessons arising from investigations into recent accidents. He continued: "Ensuring a boat is in good condition and well fitted out is not just about safety; it also saves money. The last thing any fisherman wants is a breakdown, broken gear or an accident. They all cost money and valuable fishing time. Last year I drew attention to a few common sense measures that could dramatically reduce the likelihood of an accident. I make no apology for repeating the advice I gave then" - To carry out maintenance checks, to check all doors and hatches, to seek professional advice on the effect any modifications will have on a vessel's stability, to identify a suitable lifejacket that can be worn without getting in the way, to ensure the vessel has an in-date life-raft, that it has a good hydrostatic release, and that it is well positioned to float free, to fit an EPIRB; Whilst at sea: - to make sure a good lookout is kept at all times and that the wheelhouse is never left unattended - to think through how to shoot and recover nets, and how to deal with problems such as coming fast - to consider the possible dangers and how to reduce them - to wear inflatable lifejackets on deck - to keep other lifejackets accessible for emergencies. Ed-surely all this is common sense?
A FAILURE TO GUARD EFFECTIVELY
British Engines Ltd employee Leslie Anderson of Gateshead, 42 at the time of the accident, suffered sever lacerations to his left hand when it came in contact with a cutting disc on 8 February 2006. The company pleaded guilty to breaching the duty in s2(1) HSWA. They were fined £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,514.48. HSE Inspector Andrew Mulligan said: "Employers must ensure that machinery is operated to a safe system of work that employees are made fully aware of, and that all dangerous moving parts are guarded as far as practicable. If this had of been the case here Mr. Anderson would not have suffered such a horrific injury. Mr Anderson, of Gateshead was at work at the British Engines foundry in Glasshouse Street. He was trimming the edges of a docking cylinder using a swing arm cutter when his left hand came into contact with the cutting disc. He suffered severe lacerations and was taken to hospital, where his wedding ring finger was amputated.
FATAL LOAD STRIKE
The HSE has warned offshore operating companies of the importance of having properly secured heavy loads, following the death last year of an offshore worker. The warning came after Aberdeen-based offshore operator Well Ops (UK) Ltd, formerly Cal Dive International Ltd, was fined a total of £110,000 at Aberdeen Sheriff Court. On 20 February 2006 Mr Derrick Love age 34, from Invergowrie, died after being struck by a 12m long well intervention tool weighing 370 kg (800lbs) on the offshore multi service vessel, MSV Seawell. He was a deck operator who was part of the team on the deck floor. He was employed by TDM International Ltd an Aberdeen based contractor who provided labour to Well Ops (UK) Ltd. The tool was being lifted in what is known as a slick line operation involving a single wire and multiple sheave (pulley) and winch arrangement. The tool parted when it came into contact with one of the sheaves and fell 12 metres, striking Mr Love. HSE Principal Inspector Ken Staples commented after the case: 'This case has highlighted the importance of companies with duties under the law to ensure that they have robust management systems in place to identify the hazards associated with lifting operations and suitable and sufficient measures in place to reduce the risks to those engaged in such operations. HSE has drawn their concerns and findings from a number of inspections and investigations to the attention of the Well Services Contractor Association in order that their members can improve their lifting operations." Ed- Lifting operations have been the subject of intense inspection activity by HSE Inspectors. In particular the Offshore Division's Key programme 2 which ran from December 2005 to March 2007 involved 74 offshore inspections targeted at lifting operations. As a consequence, inspectors served a total of 11 Enforcement Notices. The key findings from the programme of inspections included: * Onshore management failing to make arrangements to audit offshore lifting operations to make sure that they systems used offshore are fit for purpose and implemented effectively and; * Offshore management needing to ensure that lifting operations are properly planned, supervised, and the testing and issue of lifting equipment is adequately controlled.
ASBESTOS REMOVAL INDUSTRY INVITED TO IMPROVE
Asbestos-related disease accounts for over 3,500 deaths each year, creating what is the UK's biggest single cause of work related deaths. Nationally approximately 600 of these deaths each year arise from work with asbestos in the construction industry and allied trades. To help tackle this problem, the HSE has called its eighth special leadership summit to ask the asbestos removal industry to make further improvements in reducing ill-health caused by work with asbestos. The invitation-only summit to many licence holders in the Berkshire, Hampshire, Oxfordshire, Isle of Wight and Dorset Licenced Asbestos Contractors' Leadership Summit was held at the DeVere Royal Bath Hotel, Bournemouth on Wednesday 23rd May 2007 The summit follows an assessment of the industry's performance by the HSE which considered whether adequate precautions were being taken to prevent ill health from work with asbestos. It revealed that although the industry collectively had made significant improvements in recent years, there is still room for further improvement. That said the evidence available suggests that the number of deaths will begin to reduce from a predicted peak in 2011, but the rate of reduction of incidence is not known. The summit and similar ones aims to encourage individual organisations to determine the further steps that they can take to reduce exposure to asbestos and so lessen the incidence of disease. Welcoming the event, Charles Gilby, Asbestos Licensing Principal Inspector in HSE's Field Operations Directorate, said: "We are determined to work with the industry, and our objective is to convince them that higher standards to protect health are achievable and needed. We will explore how individual licence holders can make those necessary improvements and hence reduce the number of deaths from asbestos related diseases." Terry Jago, Chief Executive of The Asbestos Removal Contractors Association (ARCA), also welcomed the event, saying: "The main aim of the Asbestos Liaison Group (ALG) has always been to improve standards within the asbestos removal industry. ARCA's Site Audit Accreditation Scheme has also highlighted the need for greater management awareness in this respect. ARCA are therefore delighted that the HSE has taken this initiative." The programme for the event will included sessions on: * management responsibility; * organisational improvement; * problems of complacency; and * organisational / individual vulnerability. This is the eighth event of its type for the industry and a further four events will be run in other parts of the country.
PAINT SPRAYING AND OCCUPATIONAL ASTHMA
The HSE has issued a health alert to highlight the risk of occupational asthma in pain sprayers. Vehicle paint sprayers are 96 times more likely than the other employees to develop occupational asthma, through breathing in harmful chemicals in paint mist. This health alert coincides with World Asthma Day. The HSE's advice to paint sprayers is 'don't expose yourself' to the risk. Vehicle paint sprayers seemingly do not know how long it takes for paint mist to clear in their workshop - it can vary from 25 minutes for a spray room to 10 minutes for a spray booth. The “mist” is in many cases invisible. HSE advice is that the 'clearance time' should be displayed prominently so that all workers are aware of it, and that employers should ensure that air-face masks are worn for the entirety of the 'clearance time'. Steve Coldrick, Head of Disease Reduction Programme at HSE said: "We know that levels of occupational asthma are particularly high in this industry but they don't have to be. The problem is that air-fed masks are removed too soon, so we want vehicle paint sprayers to wear their protective masks until the paint mist has cleared. Our advice about clearance times is simple. Know it. Show it - and then Do it." It is considered that vehicle paint sprayers are at most risk because almost all lacquers and base coats, as well as some water-based paints contain harmful chemicals which are breathed in through paint mist. Wearing air-fed masks is common practise but will only protect people if they are kept on until the invisible paint mist has completely cleared. A clearance time check can be carried out quite easily by using a small smoke machine to fill the room with smoke, then seeing how long it takes to clear. These machines can be bought for less than £50 from high street electrical retailers or suppliers of DJ equipment. Asthma is a serious health problem and symptoms such as severe wheezing, coughing and a tight chest, often prevent sufferers from doing everyday tasks like walking up stairs. Occupational asthma occurs when a person reacts to a substance they are exposed to at work and it can be prevented by taking simple steps to eliminate exposure to harmful substances. More information on occupational asthma is available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/asthma/index.htm The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations requires employers to control exposures to hazardous substances to protect employees' health. Employers must assess the risk of exposure (exposure means taking in chemicals by breathing in, by skin contact or by swallowing). Employers should also carry out regular health surveillance which means regularly looking for early signs of work related ill health and putting procedures in place to achieve this.
CDM EVOLUTION NOT REVOLUTION?
Leaders of all aspects of the building industry - from clients to contractors - are being urged to learn more about the new Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM 2007) which came into force on 6 April 2007. CDM 2007 as the new regulations are known were introduced following extensive consultation with the construction industry. The HSE believe the implementation of these regulations will bring a step change improvement in the health and safety performance of what is still considered to be a dangerous industry. Leading industry figures involved in drafting the new regulations spoke at an event held at the Newcastle Marriott Hotel on 23 May 2007 offering guidance and advice from an industry perspective. The event was chaired by Paul Elwell, Chairman of the North East CDM Support Group and John Neilson, of the Association for Project Safety, and included separate sessions on the duties of clients, CDM Co-ordinators, principal contractors, contractors and designers. HSE Inspector Michael Brown, one of the organisers of the seminar, said: "In spite of improvements in recent years, construction remains one of the most dangerous areas of work. In the North East in 2005/06 there were four fatal accidents, more than 160 major injuries and more than 400 accidents as a result of which people had to take more than three days off work. The CDM 2007 Regulations offer the whole industry, which includes both construction and demolition, an opportunity to change its approach to safety for the better, with the emphasis on greater co-ordination and co-operation between all those involved in a project. The Regulations are in force now and it is HSE's priority to ensure that they make the difference intended.” He continued: “all those who have a part to play in the lifetime of a construction project should learn how they are affected and what their responsibilities are. That includes clients and those who procure construction work - architects and other designers, principal and other contractors, demolition companies and workers. There is also a new post of CDM Co-ordinator, replacing and enhancing the former Planning Supervisor.“ The new Regulations incorporate the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 and the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 and are supported by an Approved Code of Practice and industry-approved Guidance. They are designed to discourage unnecessary bureaucracy, focus on effective planning and management of risk and ensuring that the right information is given to the right people at the right time. The strength of the regulations is supposed to be that everyone involved in a project have clearly defined roles and be aware of the extent of their responsibilities. The regulations are believed to be sufficiently flexible to take account of the wide range of contractual arrangements within the industry."
HSE & HSC TO MERGE?
The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has announced its decision to move to the next stage of its consultation process on the merger of HSC and the HSE. The proposed merger is designed to give the combined body—almost certainly to be called the HSE—governance arrangements in line with best practice. The HSE press release talks of “strengthening the links between strategy and delivery to allow the level of accountability expected of a public body in the 21st century.” Commenting on HSC's decision, Bill Callaghan, HSC Chair said, "Merging the Commission and Executive into a single body will give us a more robust governance framework, improve our working practices and create a stronger voice for health and safety in Great Britain. Results from our recent extensive consultation show 80% support for our proposals and clearly point us in this direction. Over the last few years, we have made great progress in reducing work-related ill-health, and in tackling injuries and incidents at work. But there is clearly more to do. The Commission is convinced that the new governance structure we are proposing will help us to deliver the "revitalising" targets we set, as well as better place Great Britain to meet the challenges of a 21st Century workplace. In doing this we are committed to building on our independence, good relationships with stakeholders and strong sense of partnership. This is particularly true of our relationship with local authorities which is critical to better health and safety, and we are keen to build on the undoubted improvements there have been over recent years." The Commission agreed that the new corporate HSE will build on the values of HSC and HSE, being: * Independent in its advice, and the way it takes decisions * Open and inclusive in its approach and working methods * Professional, proportionate, consistent and accountable in all it does. Bill Callaghan has invited Lord McKenzie of Luton, Minister for Health and Safety, to undertake consultation on detailed proposals as required by the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. The Ministerial consultation, in particular with organisations representative of those likely to be affected by the proposals, will take place before a draft Legislative Reform Order is presented to the relevant Commons and Lords committees for scrutiny. In its consultation document HSC detailed how it intended the new governing body to be built on the principles of independence, openness, professionalism and accountability, and that the new corporate HSE would be expected to deliver: * Clarity in the roles and working relationships between the governing body, its executive arm and Ministers * Improvement in public accountability of the governing body for strategic direction, performance and prioritisation of resources * Improvement in the effectiveness of decision-making by drawing on a wide range of experience on all issues relevant to policy and delivery. * The provision for better focus on organisational purpose and outcomes * A stronger voice for health and safety by removing confusion over the different roles of HSC and HSE resulting in the greater impact of key messages * Consideration of key stakeholders * Transparent decision-making and risk management The HSC has overall responsibility for occupational health and safety regulations in Great Britain. The Commission consists of a chairman and 9 members. It is sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions. Key results of the consultation were: * 80% of respondents agreed that the HSC and HSE should merge to form one unitary body. * 80% of respondents agreed with the overarching principles for a new merged health and safety authority. * 69 % of respondents agreed that the governing body should consist entirely of non-executive directors. * 83% of respondents agreed that the Governing Body should have the scope to increase in size to 11 Non-Executive members. * 96% of respondents agreed that individual prosecution and enforcement decisions should continue to be taken by officials. * 82% of respondents agreed that the merged body should be known as the Health and Safety Executive.
BUS STATION DEATHS LEAD TO AN IMPROVEMENT NOTICE
The HSE has served an Improvement Notice on Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) following two incidents resulting in three fatalities and a third incident resulting in serious injury at local bus stations. David Sowerby Head of Operations for the HSE in the north west commented: "Each of the incidents has occurred in the past ten months while pedestrians were using designated crossing points and each is being investigated by HSE inspectors," Following these fatalities and the other incident in 2007 we have now taken a wider look at the issue of pedestrian safety and are working with GMPTE to do so.” The Improvement Notice requires GMPTE to assess all bus station premises and interchanges it operates and to make a systematic assessment of the risks to the safety of its employees and anybody else who may be affected by the conduct of its undertaking when using the designated pedestrian crossing points. The assessment requires a systematic examination of the design, location and use of the designated pedestrian crossing points which have been provided by GMPTE at its 22 bus stations. David Sowerby continued "GMPTE is co-operating fully with the HSE during our investigations and is now undertaking the assessment and development of an action plan, as required by the Improvement Notice. This plan will contain a timetable for implementing the necessary measures identified in the assessment and it will be discussed with HSE. We both hope that the ultimate outcome will be premises that are safer to use both for GMPTE staff, as well as passengers and local pedestrians." The three incidents that prompted the Improvement Notice occurred in Bury, Oldham and most recently in Ashton under Lyne. Jack and Elsie Steel (aged 92 and 93 respectively) were killed when hit by a bus whilst using a designated pedestrian crossing point bus at Bury Interchange on 10 July 2006. HSE is investigating and Greater Manchester Police have charged the bus driver with two counts of death by dangerous driving. The case is due to be heard in July. The third fatality occurred on 23 January 2007 at Cheapside bus station in Oldham when the deceased Ann Kerridge (aged 55) was hit by a bus whilst using a designated crossing point. HSE is investigating and a GMP file is with the Crown Prosecution Service. A third accident involves 77-year-old Ivy Kershaw who was hit by a bus at Ashton Under Lyne bus station on 2 February 2007, also on a designated pedestrian crossing point. Mrs Kershaw is still in hospital with a broken shoulder and serious head injuries. Ed— as has been commented on elsewhere in this edition why is it that it takes a fatality to make a state agency do what it should have been doing in any event? The improvement notice requires GMPTE to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the safety of its employees and anybody else who may be affected by the conduct of its undertaking when using the designated pedestrian crossing points. The assessment should be a systematic examination of the design, location and use of the designated pedestrian crossing points which have been provided by GMPTE at the bus stations and interchanges etc operated by them. The significant findings should be recorded. This is what the law requires—so why aren’t they complying in any event?
BETTER REGULATION TO TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE?
The Government has published its response to the Better Regulation Commission's (BRC's) appraisal of the regulatory implications of the Stern Review. The BRC report, Regulating to mitigate climate change, summarised the key arguments found in the Sir Nicholas Stern's Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change. It provided an additional six recommendations along with seven tests the BRC feel are required to ensure policy makers meet "the complex challenges of climate change". Ed– this government announcement is worth noting in its original text... In entirety ... So brace yourselves! Biodiversity Minister Barry Gardiner said: "I'm pleased to say that the Government has accepted the recommendations and tests set out by the Better Regulation Commission - a clear sign of our commitment to pursuing further simplification measures when formulating policy in the future. " "The seven tests outlined by the Commission will be valuable in helping to tackle climate change, while at the same time assisting the Government in our desire to achieve a low-carbon economy with minimum regulatory requirements." The Stern Review, which was published by the Treasury on 30 October 2006, puts forward strong evidence and scientific-based arguments which make an overwhelming case for the existence of climate change. The review looks at the potential economic impact and the costs and opportunities associated with moving to a low carbon economy. Summary of the Government's Response: Recommendation 1 The Government should publish their understanding of the pros and cons of the alternative ways of ensuring carbon emissions are priced to reflect the damage they cause identified in the Stern Review by September 2007. In response to recommendation 1 the Government agrees that it will set out its strategic approach to selecting appropriate instruments to tackle emissions in different sectors and points in the supply chain by the first quarter of 2008, taking into account EU policy. Government will also identify overlaps, inconsistencies and conflicts between existing regulatory regimes and suggest how these can be resolved. Recommendation 2 That by September 2007 the UK government should publish an updated view of the appropriate future path of the price of carbon for use in the UK, given the likely path for total global emissions over time based on a broadly acceptable view for the overall stabilisation target. In response to recommendation 2 the Government agrees that work should be carried out to provide UK businesses with greater certainty about the future carbon pricing framework whilst working towards an international framework for reducing emissions post 2012. The Government is also working closely with European partners to find ways of giving longer term certainty on the price of carbon in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. There is however a need to distinguish between the social cost of carbon and carbon pricing and the government is currently considering how to update its estimate of the social cost of carbon, with the aim of agreeing and publishing any changes to methodology by summer 2007. Recommendation 3 That by September 2007 the UK Government should put in place measures to ensure policies to tackle climate change have an agreed methodology to estimate the costs and benefits relating to the damage caused by carbon emissions across the globe today and in the future. The Government has already fulfilled this recommendation and in the response provides a link to the Greenhouse Gas Policy Evaluation and Appraisal in Government Departments guidance that was agreed by government and published by Defra. The guidance describes the Government's methodology for measuring climate change costs and benefits for use in the evaluation and appraisal of climate change policies. However, as set out in the response to recommendation 2 the Government is currently considering how to update its estimate of the social cost of carbon, with the aim of agreeing and publishing any changes to methodology by summer 2007. Recommendation 4 That by end-2007 all UK Government departments and other public sector concerns should have developed and implemented a plan for investing appropriately (that is, to the extent implied by the estimated future path of the price of carbon) in public sector energy conservation. This will set an example to the wider community. The Government agrees that government departments and the wider public sector should play a leadership role in reducing emissions. It has already put plans in place to reduce emissions from the public sector estate and for arrangements to report on progress. The Government will publish guidance on criteria for energy efficiency and energy savings to be used in competitive tendering for public contracts by Spring 2008. Recommendation 5 That by the end-2007 all relevant UK Government departments and public sector concerns should cooperate in publishing an assessment of the existing regulatory framework relating to energy efficiency issues and should set in place appropriate regulation and standard-setting given the likely future path for the social cost of carbon. The Government has already undertaken a fundamental strategic review of all carbon and energy efficiency instruments through its work to review the UK Climate Change Programme and in the preparation of the 2007 Energy White Paper. However, the Government agrees that there is a need for a simplification review of the main climate change instruments aimed at industry and business. This is underway and will look strategically at the scope for reducing overlaps and minimising burdens. Recommendation 6 That by end-2007 the UK Government publish an assessment of the role it might take in identifying and dealing with market imperfections relating to the three stages of the innovation process (research/invention, development and diffusion) in the light of the likely future path of the price of carbon, with a view to bringing forward a portfolio of low carbon technology. The Government accepts this recommendation. The Government has published strategies for the low carbon energy technologies it supports through the investment chain, and a strategy for biomass energy is due for publication shortly. These set out the business case for financial support, together with the policies and actions that are proposed to overcome market failure. The Government will publish an overarching assessment of its role in supporting the low carbon energy innovation process that brings together these aspects. The seven tests for better climate change regulation In BRC's report they set out seven test which set the basic standards that they believe policy makers should use when considering climate change regulation. These tests are: 1. Ensure climate policy is consistent with a healthy UK economy 2. Government must develop and act consistently with a climate change strategy; avoiding piecemeal announcements 3. Test policy against a carbon price benchmark 4. Carbon policy choices must be efficient; don't do things twice 5. Keep administrative costs to a minimum 6. Do not use climate change as a justification for other policy goals 7. If it isn't working, change it The Government agrees with all of these tests and the response is positive on how, if it is not already happening, the government will take each test forward. However the government is only able to agree in principle to test four ('Carbon Policy choices must be efficient; don't do things twice') because it may sometimes be necessary for several instruments to operate within one particular sector. However, they need to be proportionate, and inter-linkages should not over-burden any one sector. For example, there may be benefits in having energy efficiency policies in order to encourage a prompt response to carbon price signals, and so as to secure climate change and security of supply objectives together. Public enquiries 08459 335577 Defra's aim is sustainable development” Ed—so now that you have read this are you clear what the civil service and the government has planned for us? Do you think regulatory changes will hold back the tide?
BOARDS CAN DO MORE—HSC
Bill Callaghan, Chair of the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) Called on leaders in the chemical and major hazard industries to reinforce partnership working practices with the HSE and the Competent Authority. At the 12th International Symposium on Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion in Edinburgh, Mr Callaghan emphasized on the need and significance of board-level leadership and director responsibility on health and safety to achieve a cultural change towards safety and to control major hazard risks. Challenging the industry to support and own HSC/E's aim to benchmark Great Britain as a world leader in the control of major hazards Mr Callaghan said, "I call upon the best of your leaders to come forward to work with the HSE and the Competent Authority to ensure that their values, their approach and achievements inspire and encourage others in the industry. There are many lessons learnt from a series of high profile incidents such as Buncefield, BP Grangemouth, Conoco Philips in Humberside, Terra Nitrogen in Teesside and the THORP facility. The challenge is to show greater and stronger leadership and play a greater role in major incident control by engaging with your workforce to solve health and safety problems. The industry has a clear responsibility to ensure that risks are properly controlled to reduce the chances of incidents of this nature happening again." Currently HSE together with its Competent Authority partners - such as the Environment Agency—is engaging with industry stakeholders with the aim of setting up an onshore Major Hazards Group to promote leadership and to take on board the lessons learnt from the recent high profile incidents. Efforts to encourage industry to embrace high standards of health and safety are at the core HSC/E's Chemical Industries Division's objectives: * To reduce the probability of a major hazard accident through interventions under the Control of Major Hazard Regulations, * To work with industry and stakeholders to ensure that people leave work at the end of the day in at least as good a state of health as when they started, * To provide advice on Land Use Planning issues on the basis of risks to people offsite from on-site operations. In conclusion, Mr Callaghan said, "Later this year we will be inviting major hazard stakeholders to a conference to address safety in your industry. This event will bring together all of the important players drawn from business, the trade unions, regulators and Government with the aim of showing how to achieve world class leadership in the control of major hazard risks. We need to make sure that our goal of becoming a world leader in the control of major hazards is achieved, not only in business terms, but also for the health and safety of those who work in the industry and for society."
REACH COMES INTO FORCE 1 JUNE 2007
The REACH regulations on the management and control of chemicals comes into force on 1 June. REACH, which stands for Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals, is aimed at ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment, as well as improving industry competitiveness and innovation. Jeff Rooker, Minister of Sustainable Farming and Food said: "REACH is an important step forward. It is good news for the environment and health, and it should also assist industry. But industry needs to make sure that it is gearing up so it can make full use of the pre-registration opportunity next year. We will be working with our partners, especially in the UK Competent Authority, part of the Health and Safety Executive, to do all that we can we can to make sure that industry hears the message about REACH, and particularly about pre-registration. REACH sets in place measures for industry to provide evidence of any chemical risks and will make sure everyone in the supply chain knows how to use them safely. It will encourage innovation as it removes the significantly greater administrative burdens that newly-developed substances have faced in the past. The law also contains robust drivers to substitute the most hazardous substances, so that where there is a suitable safer alternative, REACH will make sure that industry uses it.” Although REACH comes into effect on 1 June 2007, the first major milestone for business is 1 July 2008 - the beginning of a six month window when chemical manufacturers can pre-register their products—supposedly a simple process. But if they miss the window they will have to go through the much more involved registration process straightaway. A helpline has been set up by the UK Competent Authority for REACH. Businesses can obtain advice on how it will affect them and what they need to do to comply. The helpdesk can be contacted on 0845 4089575 or UKREACHCA@hse.gsi.gov.uk. The UK Government REACH website is at http://www.hse.gov.uk/reach Ed- The main elements of REACH are: * Registration requires industry to obtain relevant information on chemical substances produced or supplied above 1 tonne a year and to use that data to manage the chemicals safely. The need to register comes into force on 1 June 2008. However, if a producer pre-registers before 1 December 2008 registration is spread over the 11 years to 2019, depending on the tonnage produced. * Evaluation provides the opportunity for regulators to assess whether the information provided by industry is sufficient and that they have applied the right risk management measures. * Authorisation controls the use of substances of highest concern. Here a substance with the most hazardous properties, such as those that cause cancer would be subject to a ban unless industry can demonstrate that the risks are properly controlled or that there are socio-economic benefits outweighing the risks. Authorisation contains strong drivers to substitute hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives. Under REACH, manufacturers, importers, distributors and professional users who market or use chemicals must ensure that they are registered with the new European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki, which will oversee the operation of the Regulation throughout the EU. This will require information about the characteristics and hazards, if any, associated with a chemical. Those chemicals that pose a serious hazard may be banned (i.e. restricted), or may be used only following the grant of a specific 'authorisation'. Around 100,000 different substances are on the EU's list of existing chemicals, of which around 30,000 are thought to be manufactured or imported in quantities above 1 tonne. Adequate information on their environmental and health effects is available for only a small proportion of these chemicals. The EU chemicals industry employs around 1.7m people directly plus another 3m indirectly. It generates around £238bn per year, resulting in a trade surplus of around £25bn. In the UK, it is worth £49bn per year with a trade surplus of £4.3bn. The current regulatory system for dealing with existing substances, in place since 1994, has been too slow to produce results. In its first 10 years of operation it has identified 141 chemicals of high concern; however, risk assessments have only been completed on around 71.
MYTH OF THE MONTH CARTOONS
The HSE has launched a Cartoon-based campaign aimed at 'busting' some of the myths associated with risk assessment. This initiative falls under HSE's overall 'Sensible Risks' campaign umbrella and entails the posting of a new myth-busting cartoon on the HSE website every month, with a caption setting the record straight. HSE Head of Operations for the South West, Max Walker, emphasises the serious message behind the campaign: "The campaign aims to get the focus on practical steps to protect people from real harm and suffering and away from allegations of bureaucratic back-covering. We want to help local businesses avoid wasting time and effort on trivia and unnecessary bureaucracy - but, at the same time, helps them focus on the risks that really matter to their business and their workers. Each myth includes a link to practical guidance on how businesses can, with the minimum of fuss, protect people and comply with the law. Risk assessment is, after all, just good planning - it needs to be fit for purpose and effectively acted upon. Anyone managing health and safety should use our principles as a reality check and make sure they are armed with the facts - not folklore." Guidance on how to make 'sensible' risk assessments and an opportunity to view the latest myth-busting cartoon are available on the HSE website: http://www.hse.gov.uk. Sensible risk management is about: * Ensuring that workers and the public are properly protected * Providing overall benefit to society by balancing benefits and risks, with a focus on reducing real risks - both those which arise more often and those with serious consequences. * Enabling innovation and learning, not stifling them. * Ensuring that those who create risks manage them responsibly and understand that failure to manage real risks responsibly is likely to lead to robust action. * Enabling individuals to understand that as well as the right to protection, they also have to exercise responsibility. Ed-we are delighted to assist the HSE in publicising their excellent campaign. It is heartening to see the HSE respond in a sophisticated way to the widespread misunderstandings of health and safety law and practise—that said their over-zealous response to John Prescott’s rallying cry in 2001 caused many of the problems they are now tackling.