Butterworths Family and Child Law Library

Welcome to Tolley’s Health and Safety at Work CD which contains the following titles:

This Noticeboard will be updated regularly so please refer to it for details of what is new and what has changed.

Tolley’s Health and Safety at Work

List of Contributors

Ron Akass, TD, MIOSH, RSP, Senior Partner, Lonsdale Safety & Business Consultants

Don Barber, FI Mech E, F Inst Gas E, F Inst E, Principal of Enmat International, Consulting Engineers in Gas & Energy

Malcolm Dewis, LLB (Lond), FIISRM, MIOSH, Independent Health and Safety Consultant

Deborah Lockton, LLB, MPhil, Deputy Head, Department of Law, De Montfort University

Joanne Lunn, BA, MPhil, Solicitor, Senior Law Lecturer, Manchester Metropolitan University

George Pitblado, I Eng, MI Plant E, MIIRSM, MWM Soc, Partner, GMP Support Services Consultants

George Ventris, formerly secretary of the HSC’s Construction Industry Advisory Committee (CONIAC) and a leader of HSE’s Construction National Interest Group

The commentary here for Tolley’s Health and Safety at Work consists of the STOP PRESS from the most recent Issue.

June 1999 – Stop Press Issue 16

The findings of a major research study looking at employers’ awareness of, and responses to, some recent health and safety regulations have been published by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in its Contract Research Report series.

The study was carried out for HSE by the Edinburgh-based Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM). It covered key provisions in six sets of regulations, which became known collectively as ‘the Six-Pack’ because they gave effect to six European Directives on workplace health and safety.

The six regulations are: the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992; the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992; the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992; the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992; the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992; and the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992.

The IOM study looked at: employers’ awareness of the regulations; views of safety representatives; problems encountered by employers; and the costs and benefits of measures taken.

The study found that approximately half of British organisations had heard of the regulations and three-quarters of these thought they applied to them. This proportion was generally higher in large and industrial organisations than small and service organisations.

Awareness of the regulations was very high amongst safety representatives. Around 90% considered that each of the ‘Six-Pack’ regulations applied to their organisations. 65% of safety representatives said their employer had always regularly consulted them or the workforce about health and safety matters, and a further 15% said their employer had begun to do so as a result of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations. 20% reported that there was no consultation by their employer on health and safety matters.

94% of safety representatives reported that their employer had appointed a competent person to deal with health and safety matters. And of these, 93% said this person discussed health and safety with them.

Many organisations did not know the relative costs and benefits of complying with the regulations, but the general feeling was that benefits outweighed the costs. The benefits were particularly reported in terms of increased staff morale.

About 70% of organisations thought that the regulations were needed and fewer than a quarter found them difficult to comply with. However, some problems had been experienced, particularly with interpreting the regulations, and the time and resources required to implement them.

Copies of ‘Evaluation of the Six-Pack Regulations 1992’ (Contract Research Report No 177/98) are available from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS (tel: 01787 881165; fax: 01787 313 995).

How to define a ‘place of work’ in the context of health and safety legislation is a question that, over the years, has proved particularly problematical for both civil and criminal courts.

The phrase, or a variation of it, is one that often occurs in such legislation, for example s 2(1)(d) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. In Sweeney v MacKenzie Construction Ltd 1998 SLT 1385, the Scottish Court of Session was asked to construe its meaning in the context of Reg 6(2) of the Construction (Working Places) Regulations 1966 – now superseded by Reg 5 of the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996.

Mr Sweeney claimed damages from his employers, MacKenzie Construction, after he was injured whilst operating a dumper truck. The truck’s brakes had failed and the vehicle had tipped forward over a low wall. Mr Sweeney had been thrown into the air, landing back into the truck seat.

He alleged that the company were in breach of Reg 6(2) – which was concerned with the safety of working places – of the 1996 Regulations, based on the premise that the truck was Mr Sweeney’s place of work.

The company had argued that the dumper truck was not a ‘place of work’ for the purposes of the 1966 Regulations; it was merely a ‘movable tool’ to enable Mr Sweeney to work at his place of work.

The Court of Session disagreed. It could not be said that the inside of a dumper truck could never be a place of work. The question was one of fact. In so concluding, the Court of Session followed its own decision in Gunion v Roche Products Ltd [1994] The Times, 4 November, in which it was held that, for the purposes of s 29(1) of the Factories Act 1961, a cab of a forklift truck was a ‘place of work’. That decision followed Cox v HB Angus Ltd [1981] ICR 683, where the High Court held that the cab of a fire engine constituted a ‘place of work’ under s 29(1) of the 1961 Act, and disapproved another decision of the Court of Session, McFoulds v Reed Corrugated Cases Ltd 1993 SLT 670, where the court found nothing to support the argument that a vehicle such as a forklift truck operating inside and outside buildings could be a ‘place’ within the meaning of the 1961 Act.

The broad construction of the phrase ‘place of work’ now adopted by the courts effectively means that it covers anywhere which becomes – temporarily or permanently – a place which is made available for someone to work, even if work has not yet started.

The following should be considered at A5010 : Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No 2115) (as amended)

Amendment regulations – the Control of Asbestos at Work (Amendment) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 No 3235) – refocusing and tightening up the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 (CAW) came into force on 1 February 1999. Specific changes to CAW include:

The amendments to CAW contain a requirement for laboratories which carry out asbestos-related analysis work to be accredited to the standard EN 45001. There is a six-month lead-in period for laboratories in respect of this requirement – it comes into force on 1 August 1999.

The following should be considered at A5029 : Working with asbestos insulation or asbestos coating – Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983 No 1649)

The Asbestos (Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 No 3233) came into force on 1 February 1999. They amend the definition in the 1983 Regulations of work with asbestos insulation and asbestos coating so as to cover only the work which consists of the removal, repair or disturbance of asbestos, and work which is ancillary to or supervising such work.

The main change to the 1983 Regulations is that an employer or self-employed person is now prohibited from carrying out work with asbestos insulating board without a licence. The 1998 Regulations require such work to be notified to the enforcing authority, and provide for exemption from such a prohibition and requirement to be granted by the Health and Safety Executive.

The period for notification to the enforcing authority of work with asbestos insulation, asbestos coating or asbestos insulating board is reduced from 28 to 14 days.

With the tightening up of asbestos legislation, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has produced two new Approved Codes of Practice (ACoPs) and published replacements for two widely used guidance publications.

The HSE has published two ACoPs to help employers understand their duties – ‘Work with asbestos insulation, asbestos coating and asbestos insulating board’ (3rd edition) (L28) and ‘The control of asbestos at work’ (3rd edition) (L27) – priced £6.75 each.

In addition two guidance notes, ‘Controlled asbestos stripping techniques for work requiring a licence’ (HSG189/1) and ‘Working with asbestos cement’ (HSG189/2), have been published.

HSG189/1 replaces HSE Guidance Note EH52, ‘Removal techniques and associated waste handling for asbestos insulation, coatings and insulating board’, and provides practical advice on techniques for the safe removal of asbestos-containing materials covered by the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 (as amended).

The guidance is aimed at employers, contractors and self-employed people who require an asbestos licence from HSE’s Asbestos Licensing Unit. The guidance takes into account research into wet and controlled dry stripping of asbestos and into the effectiveness of respiratory protective equipment.

HSG189/2 revises and replaces HSE Guidance Note EH71, ‘Working with asbestos cement and asbestos insulating board’ (1996). The publication describes the properties of asbestos cement – often referred to as AC – and where the material can be found. It also gives practical advice on the necessary precautions to prevent exposure to asbestos fibres, or where this is not reasonably practicable, to reduce exposure to asbestos fibres. There are also examples of possible levels of exposure for typical work activities.

Employers and safety representatives are advised to ensure that out-of-date publications are removed and destroyed. Copies of all publications are available from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS.

The Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 645) came into force on 1 April 1999 and provide, inter alia, that the fee payable in respect of licence applications under the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 has changed from £362 to a new fee of £505.

The following should be considered at A5032 : Actions against the employer for asbestos-related diseases

Ann Macpherson, 57, who lost her husband Derek in 1995 to an asbestos-related lung cancer, mesothelioma, has recently been awarded £110,000 in an out-of-court settlement after developing the disease from washing asbestos dust off her husband’s working clothes over a thirty-year period. She had never realised that, over the years, she too had been exposed to asbestos.

The association between mesothelioma and asbestos was first noted in a 1960 medical journal. The disease is a cancer of the covering of the lungs and the lining of the chest cavity. There is no effective treatment for the condition which, in the majority of cases, will lead to death within a year of diagnosis. The lapse of time between exposure and onset is a wide one. The latency period associated with asbestos-related diseases (including, of course, mesothelioma) can be as little as 12 years, or as much as 40.

Mesothelioma is currently responsible for more than 1,000 people dying in the UK. Annual deaths increased from 154 in 1968 to 1,009 in 1991. Together with the other serious asbestos-related disease, asbestosis, it is estimated that asbestos is currently responsible for about 3,000 deaths annually. The number of mesothelioma deaths is expected to go on rising until the year 2010, and possibly up to 2025.

Although an out-of-court settlement cannot be relied on as a precedent in similar cases, it does show that the decision of the High Court in Gunn v Wallsend Slipway and Engineering Co Ltd, The Times, 23 January 1989, on almost identical facts, should no longer be regarded as good law. In that case, the wife of the plaintiff shipyard worker died as a result of mesothelioma caused by inhalation of dust from the plaintiff’s working clothes, which she had hand-washed on a daily basis between 1948, the date of her marriage, and 1960, when an automatic washing machine had been purchased. The High Court declined to find the defendant company liable, holding that no one in the industrial world had thought about there being a risk of physical injury from domestic exposure to asbestos dust before 1965. In particular, no one had addressed their mind to the risk to another from an asbestos worker’s person or working clothes.

Without doubt, the defendant’s decision to settle out-of-court in the present case, notwithstanding Gunn, was strongly influenced by the High Court decision in Margereson and Hancock v JW Roberts Ltd in 1995, and its subsequent endorsement by the Court of Appeal on 2 April 1996.

In the JW Roberts case, the plaintiffs, who at all material times had lived in the immediate vicinity of the defendant company’s asbestos processing factory in Armley, Leeds, claimed that the mesothelioma from which they were suffering had been caused by asbestos dust which the company had negligently permitted to escape from its premises into the atmosphere surrounding it. The company had, they alleged, failed to take proper steps to prevent the dust entering the atmosphere.

The High Court had concluded that, in the appropriate circumstances, what was effectively the employer’s common law duty to take reasonable care of an employee’s health, safety and welfare extended to persons other than employees outside the workplace including, in this instance, the plaintiffs.

That finding, of course, opened the doors to plaintiffs in Mrs Macpherson’s position, especially as her exposure to asbestos dust took place after 1965 when Alcan could have been expected to have knowledge, actual or constructive, of the risk in question, i.e. that exposure to asbestos could give rise to mesothelioma, and take the necessary precautionary or preventative measures.

Quite clearly, there are likely to be many more such claims embracing not only asbestos-based diseases but also others where exposure, in whatever way, results in harm which becomes apparent only some years afterwards.

The following should be considered at C3009 : Regulating the employment of children

Control of children’s employment is exercised under a combination of primary legislation, i.e. the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, as amended, and local authority by-laws. The underlying ethos of the system is that children (those under the minimum school leaving age) may work, but only to the extent that their health, development and education are not put at risk.

The 1933 Act has now been further amended by the Children (Protection at Work) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 No 276), which came into effect on 4 August 1998 and were passed to ensure compatibility with the minimum standards contained in the 1994 EC Directive on the Protection of Young People at Work (94/33/EC).

Local authority by-laws on the employment of children have also had to be revised to comply with the Directive’s requirements. In order to facilitate this the Department of Health issued a model by-law incorporating the necessary changes.

Minor amendments have been made to the law on children’s involvement in performances. These are contained in the Children (Performances) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 No 1678).

A review of child employment law is currently taking place by a working group from the Departments of Health, Trade and Industry, Education and Employment, the Cabinet Office, and the HSE. Expert practical advice is being provided by the National Child Employment Network. The group is expected to report towards the end of 1998, drawing up proposals to ensure that children’s health, safety, welfare and development is strictly protected and that they are shielded from exploitation. Further, extensive legislation is therefore likely.

A new guidance booklet aimed at preventing deaths, injuries and ill-health to construction workers engaged in excavation work has been published by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

Announcing the new guidance, Sandra Caldwell, HSE’s Chief Inspector of Construction, said: ‘Digging foundations and trenches for drains is one of the first jobs carried out on construction sites. If those managing and supervising such work would stop to consider that the average cubic metre of soil weighs a tonne – and it is quite common for that volume to collapse into unsupported excavations – they might treat it with the respect it deserves.

‘In the five years from 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1996, 938 injuries to workers engaged in groundwork activities were reported to HSE, with an average of seven fatalities each year. This carnage is not acceptable and it is about time that the industry organised itself to put a stop to it.’

Last year, the government-sponsored Construction Task Force chaired by Sir John Egan identified the need to reduce the industry’s unacceptably high injury frequency, and the new guidance is designed in part to help with that process. It gives practical advice on working in the ground without placing anyone at risk and can make an important contribution to combating this entirely preventable source of death and serious injury.

The new booklet is the latest in HSE’s revised guidance series for the construction industry. It is intended for all those who may be involved in excavation works, e.g. clients, designers, planning supervisors, contractors, site managers and foremen. It aims to help identify the main failings which lead to injury and how to take the necessary measures, at the planning stage, to avoid them.

The guidance covers construction work such as pipe and cable laying; manhole construction; foundations; small retaining walls and other structures where earthworks are required. It may also assist employers in other sectors where excavations are undertaken, such as local authority works (e.g. grave digging); agriculture (land drainage and constructing lagoons) and archaeology.

Copies of ‘Health and safety in excavations: Be safe and shore’, price £8.50, are available from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has issued a warning to construction vehicle maintenance workers – and their employers – of the risk of serious injury during work on excavator wheels and tyres.

The warning follows an incident at the construction site of Manchester Airport’s new second runway on 20 February 1999, in which a tyre fitter was killed. The fitter was removing a wheel from an eight-wheeled Case Poclain excavator, prior to mending a puncture on the other wheel of the pair. The tyre exploded and the fitter died from injuries sustained.

HSE inspectors in Glasgow are investigating a similar incident earlier in February, which did not result in a fatality.

The suppliers, Case United Kingdom Ltd, have written to dealers, registered owners and tyre fitters/suppliers reminding them of the correct safety procedures for removing wheels and changing tyres on these vehicles. HSE understands that the wheel assemblies are interchangeable with those on other makes of eight-wheeled excavators.

Nick Ratty, HSE’s Principal Construction Inspector for Greater Manchester, whose group is investigating the latest incident, said: ‘On these excavators, it is vital that both tyres in any pair are deflated prior to removal or any work on either of them, or indeed on the wheel rim. Similarly, inflation must only be carried out when the wheel is firmly bolted on to the machine or is enclosed within a protective tyre cage.’

Guidance on safety precautions during work on commercial vehicles can be found in a number of HSE publications, including HSG 67 ‘Health and safety in motor vehicle repair’ and HSG 136 ‘Workplace transport safety: guidance for employers’.

Information on the proper safety procedures for tyre and wheel work on Case excavators is available from: Case United Kingdom Ltd, Marketing Division, PO Box 121, Wheatley Hall Road, Doncaster DN2 4PN (tel: 01302 366631).

The Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (COMAH) (SI 1999 No 743) came into force on 1 April 1999. They revoke the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 (CIMAH) and implement the ‘Seveso II’ European Directive (96/82/EC). COMAH continues the general principles of CIMAH – to identify, prevent and mitigate major accidents involving dangerous substances – and places increased emphasis on limiting the consequences to people and the environment if such accidents do occur. COMAH regulates establishments which have the potential to cause serious harm to people and/or the environment, through accidents involving certain dangerous substances such as liquefied petroleum gas, chlorine and arsenic pentoxide.

The mechanism for deciding whether COMAH applies is much simpler than in the previous Regulations, and there are fewer references to named substances with preference instead for generic categories (e.g ‘toxic’ or ‘highly flammable’). Basically, an establishment which has any substance that is specified in Schedule 1 to COMAH which exceeds the qualifying quantity is subject to the provisions of COMAH. There are two thresholds – ‘lower-tier’ and ‘top-tier’ – based on the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994 (as amended) (CHIP).

Alan Meale, Environment Minister with special responsibility for health and safety, said: ‘COMAH takes account of lessons learned from chemical accidents in the UK and abroad. It gives effect to a tighter, more focused preventive safety regime through more detailed safety reports and major accident prevention policies.’

The Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 743) are available (mail, telephone and fax order only) from The Stationery Office Ltd, The Publications Centre, PO Box 276, London SW8 5DT (tel: 0171 873 0011; fax: 0171 873 8200; or order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-call 0345 01 34 74), price £5.80.

Copies of ‘A Guide to the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999: Guidance on Regulations’ (ISBN 0 7176 1604 5) are available from early June 1999 from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS (tel: 01787 881 165; fax: 01787 313 995), price £14.00.

Copies of Information Sheet ‘Major accident prevention policies for lower-tier COMAH establishments’ (HSE ref: C153) are available free from HSE Books (address above). This information sheet lists the HSE, EA and SEPA guidance available on COMAH.

HSE’s website (http://www.open.gov.uk/hsehome.htm) contains useful information about COMAH’s requirements and the actions operators need to take.

The following should be considered at D1013 : Classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances for supply - the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No 3247) (CHIP 2)

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has issued an exemption certificate allowing manufacturers and suppliers of chemicals to use an updated European Standard on Tactile Warnings of Danger (TWD).

The exemption certificate has been issued under the Chemicals (Hazard, Information and Packaging) Regulations 1994 - known as CHIP - and will allow industry to use the new tactile standard immediately to aid the visually impaired to recognise packages containing hazardous substances.

Jeanie Cruickshank, Head of HSE's Chemicals Policy Unit, said: 'This exemption has been given at the request of the industry so that they can make full use of the new standard without delay. We are pleased that working in partnership with the industry has resulted in the highest standard of protection to the public at the earliest possible date.'

Tony Newbould of the British Coatings Federation said: 'The importance of the HSE's positive response to industry requests for early use of the improved tactile warning of danger standard cannot be understated. Some two years ahead of official change to the EC Directive, UK suppliers will be in a position to provide enhanced warnings to those in most need.

'Manufacturers will now be able to build the warning triangles permanently into the design and construction of the packaging, such as aerosols and tubes, to the benefit of the public and suppliers alike. The HSE is to be commended for its willingness to listen to UK business and to find ways of introducing measures that result in real improvements to consumer health and safety.'

Mark Blainey, HSE's Chemical Supply Management Unit, 6th Floor South Wing, Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London SE1 9HS, tel: 0171 717 6286.

The following should be considered at D1014 : Classification of substances/preparations dangerous for supply

The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) (Amendment) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 No 3106) – CHIP 98 – came into force on 6 January 1999. They amend the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No 3247) by introducing a fourth edition of the Approved Supply List (which prescribes agreed classification and labelling for many common chemical substances) so as to include mineral wools, refractory ceramic fibres and special purpose fibres in that list. Copies of the Approved Supply List (ISBN 0 7176 1641 X) are available from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS.

The following should also be considered at D1014 : Classification of substances/preparations dangerous for supply

The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) (Amendment) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 197) – CHIP 99 – came into force on 1 March 1999, although suppliers of dangerous chemicals are allowed a transitional period of eight months in which to make the necessary changes to labels and safety data sheets. They must, however, make sure that they are meeting the new requirements on 1 November 1999.

These Regulations amend the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No 3247) by introducing a supplement to the 4th edition of the Approved Supply List (thereby implementing Article 1(1) of Commission Directive 98/73/EC). The Approved Supply List (4th edition) was introduced by CHIP 98 (see above) and sets out classification and labelling information for several thousand chemical substances. The Supplement revises the ASL by amending about 60 substance entries and adding a similar number of new entries.

As part of the CHIP 99 package, the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has adopted a revised set of EC-agreed chemical test methods as an Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) which has effect from 1 March 1999.

Copies of the Approved Supply List (4th edition) (ISBN 0 7176 1641 X) and the Approved Supply List supplement (ISBN 0 7176 1683 5) are available from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS.

The following should be considered at D1024 : Control of substances hazardous to health - Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No 3246) (COSHH)

The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 437) came into force on 25 March 1999 and revoke and replace the following Regulations: the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No 3246), the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (Amendment) Regulations 1996, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (Amendment) Regulations 1997, and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (Amendment) Regulations 1998. The new Regulations re-enact, with minor modifications, the 1994 Regulations as amended.

COSHH provides a comprehensive and systematic approach to the control of hazardous substances at work, where risk to health and the costs of failure are often substantial in both human and economic terms. The Regulations require employers to:

In addition to minor and drafting amendments, the 1999 Regulations make the following changes of substance:

The 1999 Regulations thus see the removal of the schedule listing the substances assigned maximum exposure limits (MELs).

Commenting on the new Regulations, Dr Jeanie Cruickshank, the Health and Safety Executive’s Head of Chemicals Policy, said: ‘The removal of the list of MELs from the Regulations is one of the most important structural changes made to the COSHH Regulations since they came into force more than nine years ago. In the past, much of the impetus for amending COSHH has come from the need to make changes to the list of substances assigned MELs. The list has doubled since 1989 – from 30 to 60 – and continues to increase.

‘MELs will still be legally binding, but the new Regulations will avoid the need to amend COSHH every time a change needs to be made to the list of MELs. A consequential benefit for the further protection of workers, is that these new arrangements will also enable HSC to approve and implement changes to the list more quickly.’

The list of MELs will continue to appear in HSE’s publication EH40 ‘Occupational Exposure Limits’ which is revised annually. Employers’ duties under COSHH are not affected by these revised arrangements and HSC will continue to ensure full consultation on proposals to revise the list of MELs.

HSE’s publication EH40 contains lists of two types of occupational exposure limits: MELs and OESs (Occupational Exposure Standards). Both types are used to define adequate control of exposure by inhalation to hazardous substances as required by the COSHH Regulations. MELs are assigned to substances which may cause the most serious health effects, such as cancer and occupational asthma and for which ‘safe’ levels of exposure cannot be determined, or for substances for which safe levels may exist, but control to those levels is not reasonably practicable. MELs are recommended to HSC for approval by its Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances (ACTS). An OES is set at a level that (based on current scientific knowledge) will not damage the health of workers exposed to it by inhalation day after day. OESs are recommended by the ACTS’ scientific sub-group, the Working Group on the Assessment of Toxic Chemicals, and approved by HSC.

The 1998 COSHH consultation exercise also sought views on proposed changes to the list of MELs. HSC has approved new MELs for aniline, rosin based solder flux fumes and glutaraldehyde, but has decided not to withdraw the MEL for dichloromethane, pending review of recent scientific information. The MELs came into force via publication of EH40 on 25 March 1999. The new edition of EH40 has withdrawn the OESs for hydrogen selenide and naphthalene, and has revised the OESs for carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride and 1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone.

HSC has also approved a phased reduction in the MEL for benzene from a current level of 5 parts per million (ppm), to 3ppm from June 2000, and then to 1 ppm by June 2003, consistent with the requirement of the first amendment to the Carcinogens Directive.

The COSHH General ACoP and the Carcinogens and Biological Agents ACoPs have been amended to reflect the structural changes introduced into COSHH 1999. Revised versions of all three ACoPs, together with the text of COSHH 1999, have been published in a single document (ISBN 0 7176 1670 3), price £8.50, available from HSE Books.

Copies of EH40/99, ‘Occupational Exposure Limits’, price £8.50, are available from HSE Books.

The following should be considered at D1027 : Controlling exposure (Regulation 7)

In the light of growing concern of the health risks associated with diesel engine exhaust emissions (DEEEs) in the workplace, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has issued new authoritative guidance.

‘Control of Diesel Engine Exhaust Emissions in the Workplace’, available at £6.95 from HSE Books, offers practical help to employers and the self-employed on how to control exposure from DEEEs. It will also be useful to other interested parties including managers, supervisors, safety and trade union representatives in premises where diesel fuel is used and emissions may accumulate. These include bus garages, railway repair depots, ferries, fire stations, car parks, warehouses, MOT testing stations and motor vehicle garages.

Employers already have a duty under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 1994 to prevent exposure to DEEEs, or where this is not reasonably practicable, to adequately control it using suitable methods. Potential health risks include irritation to the eyes and upper respiratory tract, coughing and breathlessness, particularly if there is exposure to visible white, blue or black smoke. There is also limited evidence of a small increase in the risk of lung cancer in people who have been exposed to DEEEs at work for periods of over 20 years.

The first half of the guidance deals with how to assess the risk to health from exposure to DEEEs and gives a general approach to control. The second part provides examples of good working practices for controlling exhaust emissions in specific workplace situations.

In addition a free leaflet, ‘Diesel Engine Exhaust Emissions’, has been published by HSE giving advice to employees on safeguarding their own health including the action their employer should be taking.

No occupational exposure limit has been set for DEEEs as a whole. However, several of the major gaseous components of diesel exhaust have occupational exposure standards (OESs). HSE experience indicates that generally these gases are found at levels below their OESs. Furthermore, the particulate matter also has no set OES but there are values for dust which in themselves act as triggers for the application of the COSHH Regulations. There is limited epidemiological evidence which indicates that prolonged occupational exposure to DEEEs may increase the risk of lung cancer.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has warned employers who operate cooling towers that they risk stiff penalties and even individual prosecutions if they fail to ensure the regular cleaning and maintenance of the towers to minimise the risk of Legionnaires' disease.

The HSE has also issued a warning to water treatment companies that they will face similar action if they fail to carry out their role as contractors properly.

The warning follows the successful conclusion of a complex prosecution at Swansea Crown Court in which the employer company, its managing director and two water treatment companies all faced charges brought by the HSE following investigations into several cases of Legionnaires' Disease at two factory sites in West Wales.

GTS (Fabrications) Ltd and its Managing Director, Ceri Davies, both received fines of £25,000. The HSE also successfully prosecuted water treatment companies Diversey Ltd of Northampton and Diversey Water Technologies of Northwich, Cheshire.

The cases of Legionnaires' Disease that prompted the investigations occurred at GTS's sites at Pembrey and Hendy during 1996 and included the death of a manager, Alan Glenn.

Marcia Davies, HSE Head of Operations, said: 'HSE will not hesitate to bring prosecutions in cases where operators of towers and their contractors are found to be failing in their duties.'

The following should be considered at D1053 : the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 (SI 1985 No 1333)

The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has issued a Consultative Document on the draft Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations (REPPIR). REPPIR will implement the emergency preparedness aspects of the Euratom Basic Safety Standards Directive (BSS) which lays down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation.

The application of REPPIR is based on the quantity of radioactive substances on premises or being transported. Employers and local authorities will have to prepare emergency plans to protect the public in the event of releases of these substances.

Employers will have to comply with the revised Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 (IRRrev) which will implement the majority of the Directive, as well as with REPPIR. Some local authorities who have to prepare off-site emergency plans under the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations (COMAH) may also have to prepare off-site emergency plans under REPPIR. It is therefore beneficial to all stakeholders if requirements on related topics in IRRrev, COMAH and REPPIR are consistent.

The REPPIR proposals have been made in conjunction with the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Trade and Industry, and the Scottish Office.

Single copies of ‘Proposals for the Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations implementing Council Directive 96/29/Euratom, Title IX, Section I’ are available free of charge from HSE Books.

The Transport of Dangerous Goods (Safety Advisers) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 257) came into force on 1 March 1999 (except as regards its key requirement, reg 4, for which the date is 31 December 1999). The Regulations implement Council Directive 96/35/EC on the appointment and vocational qualification of safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail and inland waterway. Reg 3 provides that the Regulations are applicable to self-employed people in the same way as they are applicable to employers.

Reg 4(1) provides that, before any employer transports dangerous goods by road, rail or inland waterway, he must have appointed an individual as a safety adviser for the purpose of advising him on health, safety and environmental matters relating to the transportation of those dangerous goods. ‘Dangerous goods’ have the meaning given them by the Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Classification, Packaging and Labelling) and Use of Transportable Pressure Receptacles Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No 2092) (see D3003). Under the Regulations, employers are required to provide adequate information, time and other resources to allow the safety advisers to fulfil their functions. Employers must ensure that a sufficient number of safety advisers have been appointed under reg 4(1) to enable them to carry out their duties effectively. The exact number of advisers to appoint is a matter for each employer to determine – it depends upon what is appropriate, bearing in mind the scale of the operation, the number of sites involved, and how far duties are allocated to advisers themselves or to other staff. Crucially, where a number of employers frequently use the same site, such as a port or marshalling yard, they may co-operate and appoint the same person as their safety adviser.

Schedule 2 to the Regulations lists the functions of safety advisers as including:

If dangerous goods are being transported by the employer, and an accident occurs which affects the health or safety of any person or causes damage to the environment or to property, the safety adviser must ensure that a report on the accident is prepared and provided to the employer, who must keep the report for at least five years.

Reg 7 provides that safety advisers must hold vocational training certificates, obtainable only after training has been completed and an examination passed. The safety adviser’s certificate must be appropriate to the modes of transport used by the employer and to all dangerous goods specified and transported by the employer. Each certificate will be valid for five years: advisers will then need to pass a ‘refresher’ examination.

Prospective safety advisers who wish to become certificated must apply to the Scottish Qualification Authority, Hanover House, 24 Douglas Street, Glasgow G2 7NQ (tel: 0141 242 2142) for details of the syllabus and application forms.

The HSE has published a revised version of the pamphlet, ‘Are you involved in the carriage of dangerous goods by road or rail?’ This takes account of the new Regulations in its summary of the relevant health and safety duties in this area, and is available free from HSE Books.

The Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Amendment) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 No 2885) came into force on 30 December 1998. They amend the Highly Flammable Liquids and Liquefied Petroleum Gases Regulations 1972 (SI 1972 No 917), the Dangerous Substances in Harbour Areas Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No 37), the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No 2089), the Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Classification, Packaging and Labelling) and Use of Transportable Pressure Receptacles Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No 2092) and the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No 2095) to change the date for the application of certain provisions relating to tanks and transportable pressure receptacles from 1 January 1999 to 1 July 2001.

The Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Amendment) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 303) came into force on 5 March 1999. They amend the following Regulations:

The effect of the amendments is to align the above-mentioned Regulations with the latest versions of the ADR and RID agreements, as defined in the Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Classification, Packaging and Labelling) and Use of Transportable Pressure Receptacles Regulations 1996, Reg 2(1).

Amended guidance on the regulations is currently being prepared. In the interim, dutyholders will be able to refer to the recently revised leaflet, ‘Are you involved in the carriage of dangerous goods by road and rail?’. This gives an overview of the carriage regulations and has been amended in the light of the changes to both the carriage regulations and the Approved Requirements, which provide further instruction on compliance in relation to, for example, vehicle construction, classification, packaging and labelling.

Until 1 July 1999, consignors, operators and others involved in the carriage of dangerous goods will have the choice of either working to the new Approved Requirements, or continuing to work to the previous Approved Requirements. However, from 1 July 1999 they will have to work to the new Approved Requirements.

Single copies of ‘Are you involved in the carriage of dangerous goods by road and rail?’, ref INDG234(rev), are available free from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS.

HSE Books have published the following Approved Documents containing the revised Approved Requirements:

In addition, two supplements to Approved Requirements already published by HSE Books are being issued free of charge to individuals/organisations who buy or have already bought copies of the relevant Approved Requirements from HSE Books. These are:

The following should be considered at E3010 : Use of electrical equipment in explosive atmospheres

Further to the information contained in this paragraph, the Equipment and Protective Systems Intended for Use in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No 192) now govern electrical equipment for use in potentially explosive atmospheres (e.g. mines), with the exception of equipment placed on the market before 30 June 2003 complying with existing electrical safety requirements, i.e. the Electrical Equipment for Explosive Atmospheres (Certification) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990 No 13) (as amended by SI 1990 No 2377, SI 1991 No 2826 and SI 1995 No 1186, which are all revoked as from 1 July 2003).

Certain equipment and systems are exempt, e.g. medical devices, equipment for domestic use and personal protective equipment. [5 Sch]. Manufacturers of such electrical equipment and components are under a duty to ensure that it complies with the necessary health and safety requirements (e.g. relating to potential ignition sources/hazards arising from external effects) [3 Sch], and appropriate conformity assessment procedures [Regs 6, 8]. Suppliers of such equipment must also see that it is safe to put into circulation, though not in the case of products put into circulation before 1 March 1996, or previously supplied within the EU. [Reg 7].

Conformity assessment procedures (for which fees are payable) are to be determined by notified bodies, with personnel appointed, if necessary, by the Secretary of State. [Regs 11-13]. Breach of these Regulations is an offence, leading to a maximum period of imprisonment or a fine [Regs 16, 17], but it is a defence that due diligence was taken to avoid the commission of the offence. [Reg 18].

In Devizes Reclamation Company Ltd v Chalk, The Times 2 April, no liability arose where an experienced labourer, acting on his own initiative, injured his back in performing a one-off task requiring the use of common sense and for which no instructions could appropriately have been given.

The Court of Appeal, allowing an appeal by the defendants, Devizes Reclamation Company Ltd, held that the judge had erred in law in concluding that the company was in breach of its common law duty to provide a safe system of work while failing to make any finding on what guidance should have been given and how that would have prevented the accident.

Swinton-Thomas LJ, with Sir Stephen Brown concurring, said that the action had arisen from an accident in 1991 in the scrap metal yard owned by the defendants where the plaintiff was employed as a labourer. A large lump of lead fell off a pallet while being unloaded from a lorry. Because it was necessary to move the lead, the plaintiff – on his own initiative – bent down to slew it round, and suddenly felt a sharp pain in his back.

In his statement of claim, the plaintiff had alleged that the defendants had failed properly or at all to train him how to move heavy objects. The judge below had found that the plaintiff had been given no instructions on how heavy objects should be moved and on that basis the defendants were in breach of the common law duty to provide a safe system of work.

However, the judge had not identified what instructions should have been given, nor had the plaintiff been able to suggest any.

It was common ground that this was not a lifting case – nor was it one which involved a system of work.

On the facts it was impossible to find negligence without ascertaining what the instructions should have been and it was difficult to see what possible instruction would have been relevant in a one-off situation where the plaintiff was doing something on his own initiative and when he should have been using his common sense.

The following should be considered at E11007 : Liability for industrial diseases

An agreement on compensation – reached between the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), which inherited British Coal’s liabilities on 1 January 1998, and solicitors representing many thousands of ex-miners with Vibration White Finger (VWF) – was approved by the High Court on 22 January 1999. It is expected that the total compensation bill to the Government will be about £500 million.

The settlement is based on a comprehensive package which the DTI put on the table at the beginning of December 1998. It involves a programme of medical testing at ten centres in former coalfield areas which will assess the level of injury suffered by claimants. Compensation will be based on each ex-miner’s working history, age and the assessed level of injury caused by their use of certain types of mining machinery – it is expected to range from £500 to £18,000.

The DTI has received approximately 31,000 VWF claims, with several thousand more expected. More than £2 million has already been paid over to more than 2,000 claimants in interim payments.

The background to this settlement can be found in a High Court judgment in September 1997, which found British Coal (and its predecessors in title) negligent for failing to protect a test group of ex-miners from the harmful effects of vibration. The court held that British Coal should have been aware of the risks of VWF by 1 January 1973 and should therefore have put in place a system of preventative measures by 1 January 1975. British Coal were consequently responsible for anyone contracting VWF after that latter date.

In November 1997 British Coal lodged a limited appeal to establish a level of exposure below which they were not liable and to question the relatively high levels of damages awarded. Those questions were resolved by the Court of Appeal in July 1998.

Commenting on the VWF settlement, John Battle, the Energy Minister, said that it would pave the way for a similar conclusion to the Chronic Obstruction Airways Diseases (COAD) litigation, which is the longest running personal injury action in the UK.

In January 1998 the High Court, in a test case, upheld claims by former miners who had worked underground that various lung diseases, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema, had developed as a result of exposure to mixed mine dust and nitrous fumes and were attributable to the negligence and breaches of statutory duty of British Coal and their predecessors in title. As with the VWF claims, liability here transferred to the Government on 1 January 1998.

A breakthrough in the resulting discussions between the DTI and the claimants’ solicitors was initially achieved in December 1998, when agreement on compensation levels and other matters was ratified by the High Court. Under the terms of that agreement, a medical assessment procedure was put in place to establish claimants’ levels of injury and the resulting disability. Compensation levels were to be determined by the results of that assessment and by reference to each claimant’s medical history and employment records. Damages would range from about £4,000 to £50,000. Sums would, however, be reduced in some cases to take into account smoking histories and dust levels underground in accordance with the judgment. In addition, individuals would be able to sustain claims for special damages (i.e. loss of earnings, home care, etc) which would be dealt with on a case by case basis.

The following should also be considered at E11007 : Liability for industrial diseases

A Government scheme to compensate thousands of ex-miners for lung diseases caused by coal dust was approved in the High Court on 26 March 1999. Miners who contracted chronic bronchitis and emphysema as a result of their work underground will be assessed under an agreed medical procedure. Compensation payments could in some cases be as much as £50,000 depending on working history and the effects of smoking and other medical conditions.

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Stephen Byers, said: ‘This is the largest industrial injuries compensation case ever, settled in a record 14 months, thanks to the Government’s determination that the 65,000 ex-miners who have already claimed should get fair compensation. British Coal under the previous Government fought the case, refusing to accept the liability for seven years.

‘We have already paid over £25 million to some 12,500 claimants and widows as interim payments and we intend to process the claims as quickly as possible. The first final offers could be made next month. We have introduced measures to ensure that those who are sickest are paid first and are setting up 30 testing centres around the country to avoid lengthy waits for initial tests.’

Over 30 test centres are being established to offer all claimants lung screening by October 1999.

Turner J, who ruled on the lead cases, complimented the Government and representatives of the claimants for the constructive way they approached the negotiations. During the 14 months since those cases were adjudicated, agreement has been reached on each element of this highly complex case, including compensation tariffs, prioritisation of claims, differing dust levels at different collieries and the effects of smoking.

Company directors could soon be facing charges of corporate manslaughter in cases of fatal accidents found to be due to negligence. The Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, has confirmed that company directors must accept responsibility if public safety is neglected, and the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, has confirmed that he is seriously considering legislation which would render company directors liable to prosecution for major safety failures. According to the Association of Insurance and Risk Managers (AIRMIC), Government plans to create a new offence of 'corporate killing' to prevent disasters will not work and are not necessary.

'While we applaud the spirit behind the proposal it is fundamentally flawed,' said Ina Barker, AIRMIC's Executive Director.

'Frequently a disaster is the result of a number of factors, not just one. Also, one or two people do not make a single decision in a company which then leads to the sort of disasters which have been referred to.

The circumstances would have involved a number of people at different levels in consultations leading to decisions over quite some time. Where do you draw the line?'

AIRMIC says there is also the danger that a corporate killing law might delay compensation claims in civil courts while awaiting the outcome of criminal charges.

'What is being missed here is the real issue: Was the company practising responsible risk management? Was it carrying out proper risk assessments and acting upon them? This is the area the government should be focusing on - making sure companies are risk aware.'

Risk management was at the heart of good corporate governance, said Ms Barker. 'Provided companies practise this in its widest sense there should be no problems. The challenge for the government is to ensure this happens - not to issue threats that are almost certainly going to be impossible to carry out.'

The following should be considered at E11018 : Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 2051)

The Health and Safety Commission has published a Consultative Document containing proposals to amend the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 (the Management Regulations) and revise their accompanying Approved Code of Practice (ACoP).

The proposed Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Modifications) Regulations 1999 would introduce minor changes to the Management Regulations (and others), to clarify the UK’s implementation of the European Framework Directive (89/391/EEC) following enquiries from the European Commission.

The ACoP has been revised to take account of the new regulations and previous amendments to the Management Regulations relating to: new or expectant mothers (the Management of Health and Safety at Work (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No 2865) which implemented the European Pregnant Workers Directive), young people (the Health and Safety (Young Persons) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No 135) which implemented the Young Workers Directive), and fire safety (the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No 1840) which implemented the fire precautions provisions of the Framework Directive). The ACoP also introduces general guidance material into the document in line with HSC’s statement on the role and status of ACoPs and takes account of comments arising from HSC’s earlier consultation exercise on changing patterns of employment.

On completion of the consultation exercise, it is HSC’s intention to consolidate the Regulations, taking account of past amendments, and publish them alongside the revised ACoP.

‘Proposals for the Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Modifications) Regulations 1999 and the amendment of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Approved Code of Practice’ is available free of charge from HSE Books.

The welcome given to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 by disabled rights campaigners was at best qualified. Among the perceived deficiencies of the legislation were the narrowness of the definition of ‘disability’; the extent to which employers could claim that discrimination against disabled people was ‘justified’; and the absence of a Commission with any ‘teeth’.

Significant though those deficiencies may be, the most serious criticisms levelled against the Act was the exemption of small businesses, i.e. those employing fewer than 20 employees, from the Act’s employment provisions. This effectively excluded 96 per cent of employers from the duty not to discriminate against disabled people.

However, on 8 September 1998 Margaret Hodge, the Minister for Disabled People, announced that with effect from 1 December 1998 the employment provisions of the 1996 Act will be extended to employers employing 15 or more people, from the present threshold of 20 or more.

The reduction in the threshold will bring another 45,000 employers, employing three-quarters of a million people, under the Act’s umbrella. The Government stresses that the impact on these small businesses should not be large since the Act ‘only’ requires employers to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to help disabled people obtain or stay in employment. Recent research shows that the additional costs of making such adjustments are generally low – the added value to the business of employing the disabled people is much higher.

— the Disability Discrimination Act Information Line will be enhanced to provide more focused information and help for small businesses and others;

— from 1 October 1998 self-employed disabled people became eligible for 100 per cent contribution from the Access to Work Scheme to the additional cost arising from the disability. The Government will therefore pay 100 per cent of the extra costs of special equipment or other support needed by disabled people to run their business. This is an improvement on the previous arrangement under which self-employed people were required to pay 10 per cent of costs below £10,000;

— the Department will be holding a nationwide series of consultation conferences jointly with the National Disability Council to seek views on the Government’s plans for a Disability Rights Commission. When those views have been considered the Commission will be established when Parliamentary time allows.

The following should be considered at E14009 : Right not to suffer a detriment in health and safety cases

In Shillito v Van Leer (UK) Ltd [1997] IRLR 495, the appellant was employed by the respondents, and was also the senior shop steward of the recognised trade union, and the union-appointed safety representative for the section of the factory known as 'line 8'.

On consecutive days, employees working on line 6 had complained about an odour, and on both occasions the line had been shut down. The line 6 safety representative reported the matter to Mr Shillito. First they sought the advice of a union research officer. But then, rather than following the agreed safety procedures, Mr Shillito went to see the first aider and insisted that the employees concerned should be seen by the company doctor or sent to hospital.

The employers suspended Mr Shillito on pay, and charged him with misconduct, namely that he did not follow the agreed procedures and that his actions were not those expected of a responsible union representative. After a disciplinary hearing, the factory manager found that Mr Shillito had been guilty of misconduct. He was given a written warning and suspended without pay for two weeks. On appeal the finding of misconduct was upheld, and it was decided that the warning would stay on his personal file for six months, but that his basic pay for the two-week period of suspension would be restored.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed Mr Shillito's appeal from the industrial tribunal.

The EAT held that the protection afforded to a safety representative against action short of dismissal, under what is now section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, does not require that the safety representative must act reasonably. The question is whether he was subjected to a detriment by the employer on the ground that he was performing the function of such a representative, acknowledged by the employer. If that was the reason for the employer's action, then the complaint is substantiated even if the representative intended to embarrass the employer in front of external safety authorities or he performed those functions in an unreasonable way. However, on the facts in this case, the reason for the representative having disciplinary action taken against him was not because of the performance of his health and safety functions. He had not been the safety representative for 'line 6', he had acted outside the agreed procedures and he had acted in bad faith. His purpose had not been to pursue a genuine health and safety matter, but to pursue a personal agenda to embarrass the company.

For further details concerning the protection and rights afforded to safety representatives, readers should see joint consultation - safety representatives and safety committees.

The following should also be considered at E14009 : Right not to suffer a detriment in health and safety cases

Workers who blow the whistle on wrongdoing at work will be protected from victimisation and dismissal under a new law which received royal assent on 2 July 1998. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 aims to promote greater openness in the workplace between employers and workers in dealing responsibly with wrongdoing which might arise.

Under the Act, which inserts new sections into the Employment Rights Act 1996, workers will be required to sort these concerns out first and foremost with their employer, but will be protected from victimisation if in the last resort they have to take their concerns to an outside body.

Ian McCartney, DTI Minister of State, said: 'Conscientious and public spirited workers should not be penalised for exposing wrongdoing at work. These measures will give support to workers who are considering what to do about concerns they may have about such malpractice as cooking the books, engaging in fraud or flouting regulations to pollute the environment or harm people's health.

They ensure that individuals can raise these concerns without fear of recrimination. This should encourage employers and workers to sort out concerns together quickly and effectively within the workplace.'

The following should also be considered at E14009 : Right not to suffer a detriment in health and safety cases

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has announced that the monetary limit on compensation for workers who expose health and safety dangers under existing legislation will be removed. Workers will now be compensated in a similar way to whistleblowers under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which will also have no monetary limit.

Measures under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 also mean that a worker who highlights wrongdoing or failures concerning crimes, breaches of legal obligation, miscarriages of justice, health, safety or environmental dangers, including cover-ups about these matters, will be fully compensated by their employer should they be dismissed for doing so.

Mr Byers said: ‘Dismissing someone for acting in the public interest by highlighting health and safety problems and other wrongdoings is clearly unacceptable, and in practice few employers would take such action. But by protecting whistleblowers in this way we will encourage greater openness between workers, including senior managers, and employers in dealing with wrongdoing or failures. This is the partnership approach.

It is significant that a partnership approach is known to be effective in preventing health and safety risks. Research has shown that workplaces with safety representatives have a much better accident record than those with no consultation mechanism – up to 50 per cent less injuries in the workplace. A partnership approach helps prevent problems which are of public concern.

‘People need to be secure that they have full protection if they act responsibly in making disclosures, and that is why we have decided in favour of uncapped compensation. Our decision means that workers at all levels, from the factory floor to senior company executives, can be compensated fully if they are dismissed for blowing the whistle.

‘When we consider the important issues potentially involved here – for example, matters of public concern such as transport safety, company fraud, the abuse of vulnerable people in care – it is clearly right that they should be identified and dealt with quickly before any harm can be done. Uncapped compensation provides the necessary underpinning for this wider public interest dimension.’

The Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 No 494) came into force on 1 April 1998. They revoke and re-enact with amendments the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1989, which determined whether responsibility for enforcement of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the other relevant statutory provisions within the meaning of that Act should rest with local authorities or with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The revised regulations, which follow a similar structure to the 1989 regulations, are designed to minimise the need for dual inspection of premises by the HSE and local authorities.

Thus reg 3(1) provides that local authorities are the enforcing authority for such activities as are listed in Sch 1. These include most situations involving the storage of goods for wholesale or retail distribution - or the sale of goods - and such activities as:

Schedule 2 lists activities in respect of which the Health and Safety Executive is the enforcing authority. These include:

David Eves, Deputy Director General of the HSE, and co-Chair of the HSE/Local Authority Enforcement Liaison Committee (HELA) said, 'There have been considerable changes in the workplace since the Regulations were last updated in 1989. Although some of these changes have resulted in increased safety for workers and a reduction in those risks that are harmful to health, it is important that employers, workers and others clearly understand which authority has responsibility for enforcing health and safety legislation to make the work activities better still.

'The HSE has consulted local authorities, industry and independent health and safety specialists to make sure that there is agreement that these revisions ensure an appropriate and clear allocation of enforcement responsibility between HSE inspectors and local authority inspectors.'

The main changes are the transfer to local authorities of enforcement responsibility for:

The new Regulations will result in an overall increase in the premises enforced by local authorities and a reduction in those enforced by the HSE. This increase can be accommodated within local authorities' planned priority inspection system and confers no cost to business and industry. The Regulations will reduce dual enforcement in many small businesses.

The Health and Safety Commission has announced that the 'notice of intent' procedures applied to enforcing health and safety law have been withdrawn with effect from 1 April 1998, in an attempt to help improve the effectiveness of health and safety inspection at the workplace and to simplify administrative procedures.

Previously, the Health and Safety Executive and local authority inspectors had to issue a notice of intent (NOI) to businesses when they proposed to serve an improvement notice. Such notice of intent would explain what was wrong, what needed to be done to rectify the matter, and the date by which such action must be taken.

From 1 April 1998, when inspectors propose to issue an improvement notice, they must first discuss with the duty holder the breaches of law concerned, and the action that will be needed to comply. The duty holder is given an opportunity to discuss issues with the inspector before formal action is taken and, if possible, to resolve points of difference. When an inspector decides that an improvement notice should be issued, the inspector should tell the duty holder what needs to be done, why and by when. An improvement notice includes such explanation.

There is no change to the existing statutory right of appeal to an industrial tribunal against an improvement notice.

A new leaflet which explains what businesses, including employees, can expect when a health and safety inspector visits a workplace will be handed out by inspectors when they visit.

The following should be considered at E15017 : Proposed solution not practicable

The general duties imposed on employers and others by the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA) ss 2-8 are qualified by the requirement of ‘reasonably practicable’. In a series of cases commencing with Larner v British Steel plc [1993] ICR 551, the Court of Appeal concluded that references to ‘reasonably practicable’ were in the nature only of a defence to otherwise absolute obligations on employers and other duty holders.

Thus, in R v British Steel plc [1994] IRLR 540 the Court of Appeal held that HSWA s 2(1) (and hence each of the other analogous duties) . . . ‘creates an absolute prohibition. And the defence [of reasonable practicability] is a narrow one comparable to the defence under section 29(1) of the Factories Act 1961, which simply comprehends the idea of measures necessary to avert the risks to health and safety’. That view was subsequently, and conclusively, endorsed by the House of Lords in R v Associated Octel Co Ltd [1996] 1 WLR 1543 (another HSWA s 3(1) decision). Of course, that raised a further, fundamental question: what was the scope of the defence of ‘reasonable practicability’? That issue was central to the significant Court of Appeal decision, R v Nelson Group Services (Maintenance) Ltd (judgment 30 July 1998).

The company, Nelson Group Services, had been involved in the installation, servicing and maintenance of gas appliances. One of their employees, a fitter, had, while removing a gas fire from a house, left the gas fittings in a condition exposing the occupier to health and safety risks. The fitter had been properly trained by the company, so enabling him to carry out his work safely and competently.

The company was prosecuted under HSWA s 3(1), which provides that 'It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks in their health and safety’.

The Crown Court convicted the company of failing to discharge its duty under the above provision. The company appealed. In the Crown Court the judge had directed the jury that if they found that the fitter had left the fittings in a condition exposing the occupier to health or safety risks, the defence of ‘reasonable practicability’ was unavailable to the defendants.

That was wrong. In the leading Court of Appeal judgment Roch LJ said that the fact that the employee carrying out the work had done so negligently did not of itself preclude the employer from establishing that everything ‘reasonably practicable’ had been done in accordance with HSWA s 3(1).

It had been, he continued, ‘. . . sufficient for the adequate protection of the public that the employer was required to show that everything "reasonably practicable" had been done to see that a person doing the work had safe systems of work laid down for him, had the appropriate skill and instruction, had been subject to adequate supervision and had been provided with safe plant and equipment for the proper performance of the work, and it had not been necessary that the employer be held criminally liable even for an isolated negligent act by the employee performing the work, such persons themselves being liable to criminal sanctions under the Act and relevant regulations.’

The following should be considered at E15019 : Inspectors' investigation powers

A mere 4 per cent of the most serious workplace injuries reported to the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) are investigated, according to unpublished HSE figures released by the independent think tank, the Institute of Employment Rights.

The report says that the increase in the number of workplace deaths, to an estimated 302 in 1996-1997 from 258 the previous year, 'is proof that the HSE's policy to deter companies from putting workers' lives at risk has totally failed'.

Jenny Bacon, director general of the HSE, conceded that the lack of investigation into the vast majority of reported major injuries, including amputations and loss of sight, meant that 'It may be the case that criminal activity is going undetected and unpunished'.

The HSE's annual report also shows that the number of inspections carried out in 1996-1997 was down to 115,728 from 124,010 the previous year. Moreover, fewer enforcement notices were served - 7,333 (provisional figure) compared with 11,000 the previous year - and prosecutions were down from 1,750 in 1995-1996 to 1,256 (provisional figure) for 1996-1997.

The HSE admitted that, although it was spending more time on enforcement action which was not reflected in the figures due to the greater complexity of cases, there was a relationship between the 15 per cent reduction in its income over the last five years and accident rates.

The following should be considered at E15028 : Penalties for health and safety offences

In R v F Howe & Son (Engineers) Ltd [1999] 2 All ER 249 the Court of Appeal considered an appeal against fines totalling £48,000 and an order for costs of £7,500 imposed in respect of four offences under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and related regulations. The prosecution had been brought as a result of a fatal accident when an employee of the appellant had been electrocuted while operating an electric vacuum machine. The appellant contended that the total fine was excessive.

The Court of Appeal held that this was a bad case and that the Crown Court judge had been right to describe the state of the electrical equipment as appalling – there appeared to have been a flagrant disregard for the safety of the company’s employees. Corners were cut and no real attention had been paid to electrical safety. In determining an appropriate fine for an offence under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and related regulations, aggravating features include: death resulting in consequence of a breach; a failure to heed warnings; and a risk run specifically to save money. Mitigating features include: prompt admission of responsibility and a timely plea of guilty; steps to remedy deficiencies after they are drawn to the defendant’s attention; and a good safety record. Other relevant factors are: the degree of risk and extent of the danger created by the offence; the extent of the breach; and the defendant’s resources and the effect of the fine on its business.

Although it is not possible to set out a tariff or to stipulate that a fine should bear a specific relationship to the turnover or net profit of the defendant, a fine must be large enough to bring home the message, both to managers and to shareholders, that the purpose of prosecutions for health and safety offences in the workplace is to achieve a safe environment for those who work there and for other members of the public who may be affected. Although the penalty should reflect public disquiet at the unnecessary loss of life, the Court of Appeal held that the fine in this case should not be so large as to imperil the earnings of employees or create a risk of bankruptcy.

This was not a case where the offences were so serious that the company ought not to be in business, but it was one which required a substantial penalty. The Court of Appeal held that the order for costs should be left undisturbed, but that, because of the limited resources of the appellant company, the fine imposed upon it should be reduced to £15,000, thereby reducing the total financial burden upon it from £55,500 to £22,500.

In R v Rollco Screw and Rivet Co Ltd and Others, The Times 29 April 1999, the Lord Chief Justice gave unqualified support to the observations of Scott Baker J in R v F Howe & Sons (Engineers) Ltd which amounted to a clear and correct statement of the principles which should guide the court. In Rollco, it was held that where a company and its directors are convicted of offences under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, the court must ensure that the financial penalties imposed are appropriate to mark the gravity of the case. Although in a small company the directors might also be the shareholders, the penalties fixed should make clear that directors have a personal responsibility which cannot be shuffled off to the company. In considering the period over which a financial penalty might be ordered to be payable, the court could properly fix a longer period in the case of a corporate defendant than in the case of an individual defendant. The proper approach is to pose two questions:

On the first question, the court held that the total penalty imposed on the company and directors of £50,000, split as to £40,000 payable by the company and £10,000 by the directors, was, in the circumstances, appropriate recognition of the gravity of the offences committed under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, ss 2(1) and 3(1) in respect of a serious incident of asbestos contamination.

On the second question, the company had submitted that its means were such that together with the costs order, the total sum of £70,000 payable was grossly excessive and not an amount it could meet. The Court of Appeal held that the total period for payment – six years and five months – was excessive and reduced it to five years and seven months, not by reducing the fine but by reducing the sum payable by way of costs from £30,000 to £20,000.

The following should be considered at F5002 : The current position - overview

Measures to address concerns over the United Kingdom’s implementation of the general fire safety provisions of the European Framework Directive have been detailed in a consultation document published by the Government. ‘Proposals for amending the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997: A Consultation Document’ sets out the Government’s plans to amend the regulations.

The proposals follow European Commission concerns about compliance with the Framework Directive, which is about measures to encourage improvements in the health and safety of employees.

The measures will bring larger employers within the scope of the risk assessment regime of the Regulations and address the Commission’s concerns related to:

‘Although the number of deaths from fire in the workplace is small, there is still room for improvement. The Government has therefore decided that it will take the necessary steps to address the Commission’s concerns about meeting the terms of the Framework Directive in full. The proposals represent further steps to help employers ensure that they have appropriate safeguards to protect their workforce against fire. I hope that the Fire Service, business and commerce, and the public sector will tell us what they think.’

Responses to the consultation document are required by mid-November 1998. The amending Regulations are expected to be in place before March 1999.

‘Proposals for amending the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997: A Consultation Document’ is available free of charge from tel no: 0181 867 3434.

The following should also be considered at F5002 : The current position – overview

Home Office Minister George Howarth has announced plans to update and modernise standards of fire cover. Speaking at the Fire '98 conference in Glasgow, he said that proposals to place brigades and fire authorities under a statutory duty to undertake fire prevention work were being prepared, as were plans to introduce ‘pathfinder’ schemes for fire risk assessment.

The statutory duty requirements will include fire authorities drawing up fire safety plans, and the introduction of key indicators to measure performance in reducing the number of fires and casualties.

The proposed risk assessments for emergency cover will, following successful small-scale trials, be taken forward via larger ‘pathfinder’ projects in brigades during 1999. The aim is better targeting of resources on those at risk such as the very young, the very old and those in poor housing, giving increased flexibility of response.

The following should also be considered at F5002 : The current position - overview

The Government has issued proposals to improve the safety from fire of people in and around buildings. Construction Minister, Nick Raynsford, has issued a consultation paper which sets out proposed changes to the Approved Document which is published in support of Part B of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 1991, covering fire safety matters.

The changes reflect experience of significant fires in buildings since the document was last revised in 1991 as well as changes in construction practice. The text also reflects changes made to improve the clarity of the guidance in the light of queries received on it.

Among the changes proposed are a requirement for sprinklers to be installed in large single storey retail premises, and restrictions on the use of certain thermoplastic cored products with good insulation properties used in food processing factories and elsewhere. Both of these proposals have been brought forward with the safety of firefighters in mind as well as building users.

Other changes include restrictions on the use of certain materials in lighting diffusers, and, in respect of dwellings, additional guidance on the siting and installation of smoke alarms, including in loft conversions, and on the provision of suitable escape windows in habitable rooms.

The Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 645) came into force on 1 April 1999. They update and replace the Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No 2505). They fix or determine the fees payable by an applicant to the Health and Safety Executive in respect of an application made, inter alia, for:

The following should be considered at H3007 : Issue and approval of codes of practice

After a review of the use and status of approved codes of practice (ACOPs) in 1995, the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) in February 1996 issued a statement on its use of ACOPs. Readers should refer to 42. introduction.

See revised HSE organisational chart, reproduced from the HSC Annual Report 1994/95.

The Police (Health and Safety) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 860) came into force on 14 April 1999. Following the coming into force of the Police (Health and Safety) Act 1997, these Regulations extend to police officers regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Part I. The Regulations also amend certain health and safety regulations to take account of the position of the police. The Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 are amended to make provision for certain named police staff associations, including the Police Federation of England and Wales, to be treated as recognised trade unions.

Frank Davies, HSC Chairman, commented: ‘I welcome the new Police (Health and Safety) Regulations which finish the important task of bringing an extra 140,000 people fully within the scope of formal health and safety protections. I am sure the police forces will again prove to me that good health and safety regulation, and management have two key impacts – these regulations will benefit the officers by reducing work-related injury and illness, and also benefit the forces by reducing the costs of accidents and absences.’

The Police (Health and Safety) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 860) came into force on 14 April 1999. Following the coming into force of the Police (Health and Safety) Act 1997, these Regulations extend to police officers regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Part I. The Regulations also amend certain health and safety regulations to take account of the position of the police. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 No 2306) are amended so that work equipment used by the police for arrest, restraint, self-defence or as deterrent equipment must be suitable for use in any respect which it is reasonably foreseeable will affect the health or safety of a constable or police cadet.

Readers should ignore the last paragraph, and the references to the Factories Act 1961 and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 as these have been repealed.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published revised guidance to support the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 2793).

In launching the new guidance, Dr Peter Graham, HSE’s Director of Health, said ‘This updated guidance should help employers deal more effectively with the single most common cause of workplace injury. Research suggests that over 600,000 people in Britain consider they have a health problem caused by manual handling at work. Many of these problems are avoidable and involve losses that workers and their families and businesses can ill-afford.’

Most employers found the original guidance – issued when the Regulations were introduced in January 1993 – was easy to follow and useful and so the revision has concentrated on:

The new guidance includes a revised Appendix 1 on the detailed assessment guidelines filter. This is designed to help employers make best use of limited resources by prioritising risk assessment effort and focus attention where it is most needed.

The guidelines will help employers and others, including safety representatives, identify trigger weights for lifting and lowering, pushing and pulling.

Appendix 2 includes an example of an assessment checklist with notes on its completion and a worked example.

Copies of ‘Manual Handling: Guidance on Regulations’ (ref L23), ISBN 0 7176 2415 3, price £8.00, are available from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS.

The following should be considered at M3004 : Specific requirements - the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 2793)

A study published by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) shows that businesses have an improved understanding of the manual handling problem, one of the main causes of ill health at work.

The evaluation study, 'Evaluation of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992', gathered information from 5,000 businesses around Great Britain on awareness and understanding of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, and the actions they had taken to identify and deal with manual handling risks. The Regulations impose duties on employers, self-employed people and employees. Employers must avoid all hazardous manual handling activity where it is reasonably practicable to do so. If it is not, they must assess the risks in relation to the nature of the task, the load, the working environment and the capabilities of the handler, and take appropriate action to reduce the risk to the lowest level reasonably practicable. Employees must follow appropriate work systems introduced by their employer to promote safety during the handling of loads.

Malcolm Darvill, Head of HSE's Ergonomic Policy Unit, said: 'The Regulations are aimed at fitting the job to the individual. They show employers that manual handling problems need not be difficult or expensive to solve. I am particularly pleased to see that the best solutions were found in those businesses that had involved their workers in identifying the hazards and developing risk reduction measures. Good consultation systems invariably produce the best results - the risk reduction strategies adopted are more appropriate, more comprehensive and more effective.'

Mr Darvill added: 'Industry has taken the risk management approach adopted by the Regulations on board and made a solid start to implementing them. There are still a lot of small businesses and self-employed people who have not yet got the message. The lessons learned in this study will help us identify what we need to do to ensure that all workers enjoy the protection offered by the Regulations'.

'Evaluation of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992', price £76.50, is available from HSE Books.

Over 15,000 manual handling accidents in the health services were reported to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) between 1994 and 1997 - and more than 60 per cent of them involved patient handling.

These figures were revealed at the launch of the latest guidance, 'Manual Handling in the Health Services', which has been prepared by the Health and Safety Commission's Health Services Advisory Committee (HSAC).

Medical writer and broadcaster Claire Rayner, herself a former nurse,welcomed the guidance: 'About half of all manual injuries reported to HSE involve damage to the lower back, and people are often off sick for a long time', she said. 'They suffer pain, may be unable to lead an active life, and may even be forced to stop work. I was also deeply concerned that 60 per cent of these accidents were caused by handling patients, so both staff and patients are at risk.

Through my work I have been closely involved with hospitals and I believe people like me have a responsibility to make sure that the message is taken seriously. This guidance should help people make proper and effective decisions at all levels. The guidance is for everybody involved in minimising risks from manual handling. This includes senior and line managers reponsible for the health and safety of staff, but others such as back care advisers and trainers should also find it useful. The guidance is relevant across the healthcare sector: in hospitals, health centres, nursing homes, general practices, ambulance services and in the community.'

Anne Sharpe, Chairman of HSAC, said: 'It demonstrates the benefits of eliminating manual handling where possible, assessing remaining risks and taking steps to reduce them. Manual handling includes many activities. In healthcare this covers not only patient handling, but also a wide range of other jobs such as lifting and carrying equipment.

Some employers have been successful in tackling manual handling problems through effective management policies, but too many have concentrated on training alone which can have a limited effect on the problem'.

The guidance supports the four step approach of HSE's Good Health is Good Business campaign for managing health risks - Step One: Identify the problems; Step Two: Decide what to do in consultation with employees; Step Three: Take action to eliminate or minimise that risk, including allocating responsibilities; Step Four: Evaluate the effectiveness of the measures taken.

The law requires employers to reduce the risks from manual handling. The human costs are heavy, but the financial costs should also encourage managers to take action. For example:

A systematic approach to manual handling can be effective in reducing such costs. One case study in the guidance describes how a NHS Trust's risk assessment identified an urgent need for more equipment and training. Around £100,000 was spent on this during the next year. An analysis following the changes showed an 84% reduction in hours lost because of manual handling accidents, with an estimated saving of £400,000.

'Manual Handling in the Health Services', price £9.75, is available from HSE Books.

The following should be considered at M3010 : Work-related upper limb disorders (WRULDs)

Readers should note that the Mughal v Reuters News Agency case was reported in the Industrial Tribunal Law Reports, IRLR [1993] 571.

The address of RoSPA Training cited in this paragraph has changed to: RoSPA Training, Edgbaston Park, 353 Bristol Road, Birmingham B5 7ST. Telephone: (0121) 248 2000.

The following information should be considered at M3021 : Training of truck operators

Readers should note that the following information relates to accrediting bodies that currently exist for the training of truck drivers, and replaces the information contained in the first paragraph of this section.

Although there are no specific regulations on this area, the HSE ACOP requires, following general principles under HSWA s 2 that employers ensure their employees are sufficiently trained for the job. Competence, of course, can be demonstrated by the employees having completed a training course provided by a training provider accredited by one of the four accrediting bodies. The HSE recognises four accrediting bodies. These are:

(a)	Road Transport Industry Training and Business Services Ltd. (RTITB),
	Unit 2,
	Victoria Court,
	Banks Square,
	Morely,
	Leeds
	LS27 9SE
	Telephone: (0113) 238 3838

(b)	ATB Landbase Ltd,
	National Agricultural Centre,
	Stoneleigh,
	Near Kenilworth,
	Warwickshire
	CV8 2LJ
	Telephone: (01203) 696996

(c)	Association of Industrial Truck Trainers,
	Independent Training Standards Scheme and Register,
	Scammell House,
	High Street,
	Ascot,
	Berkshire
	SL5 7JF
	Telephone: (01344) 874454

(d)	Construction Industry Training Board (CITB),
	Bircham Newton Training Centre,
	Bircham Newton Training Centre,
	Kings Lynn,
	Norfolk
	PE31 6RH
	Telephone: (01553) 776677

The Health and Safety Executive has revised and updated its Noise Guides, the authoritative and detailed guidance on the Noise at Work Regulations 1989. Updated, easier to read, and published in one volume called 'Reducing Noise at Work', the guidance has been launched at the start of the third phase of HSE's 'Good Health is Good Business' campaign.

Noise continues to be a significant occupational disease with an estimated 1.3 million workers exposed to noise levels above 85dB (A). HSE's recently published survey on self-reported work-related illness suggested a prevalence of 170,000 cases of 'deafness, tinnitus and other ear conditions'. Welcoming the revised guidance, the Minister of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Michael Meacher, commented: 'Hearing loss caused by exposure to noise at work continues to be a significant occupational disease. However, it can be prevented and it is important that all those involved in noisy industries are aware of the risks, of their legal duties, and of the best methods of controlling noise.

'This guidance gives detailed advice to employers of their legal duties and on methods of controlling noise, to manufacturers of noisy machines, and to competent persons charged with drawing up risk assessments. It needs to be read by all concerned. There should be no excuse for employers who continue to expose their workers to hazardous noise levels, and health and safety inspectors will continue to enforce the law whenever necessary.'

Now published in one volume, the information replaces guidance published in 1989 and 1990. It includes additional illustrations, worked examples and is organised into six main parts:

'Reducing Noise at Work: Guidance on the Noise at Work Regulations 1989', price £9.75, is available from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS.

The following should also be considered at N3011 : General legal requirements

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published a new information sheet to help managers of press shops understand how noise exposure may be reduced.

As a number of power presses may be used in a press shop at the same time, a cumulative noise exposure may build up for operators and nearby workers. Noise levels as high as 95-115 dB(A) are typical.

The Noise at Work Regulations require noise assessments to be made if noise levels exceed a daily personal noise exposure of 85 dB(A) and noise reduction measures to be taken where they are reasonably practicable. A noise assessment of the environment needs to give clear recommendations on what needs to be done to comply fully with the Noise at Work Regulations. On the basis of the assessment, managers should produce an implementation plan to tackle the problems identified.

The information sheet also gives advice on buying new presses, the various control measures that can be introduced and then goes on to give various case study solutions to noise-induced problems at work.

Copies of Engineering Sheet No 29 ‘Control of noise at power presses’ are available free from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS.

The Health and Safety Executive has published a major new source of detailed information on the extent of work-related ill-health.

The report, 'Self-reported Work-related Illness in 1995 - Results of a Household Survey', provides a useful perspective on the occurrence of work-related illness. It also offers information on illness which is not exclusively caused by work but where work is an important contributing factor.

Results are based on detailed interviews with 1,551 people who reported suffering from an illness caused or made worse by their work in 1995. These individuals were identified by screening a nationally representative sample of 40,000 people in the Labour Force Survey. Carefully interpreted, the report provides valid and relevant information not available from other sources.

'Self-reported Work-related Illness in 1995 - Results of a Household Survey', price £30.00, is available from HSE Books.

A contract research report has been published by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) reviewing the epidemiological evidence for the relationship between prostate cancer and employment.

Prostate cancer and occupation: A literature review was undertaken by Kenneth Muir and Catherine Harriss from the Division of Public Health, Medicine and Epidemiology at Nottingham University.

The research report reviewed over 200 occupational studies together with studies that provide information from non-occupational settings. The report found consistent associations between a number of occupational groups and prostate cancer, although concluded that it was not possible to judge whether any of these show a truly causal relationship.

The authors suggest that further investigation into the relationship between prostate cancer and farmers and rubber workers might be justified.

Copies of Prostate cancer and occupation: A literature review, price £37.50, are available from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS.

Jack Cunningham, Minister for the Cabinet Office, has published a resource pack to help public sector organisations improve the way they manage staff attendance at work. Launching the new pack, Dr Cunningham said:

‘It is a fact that sickness absence rates in the public sector vary quite considerably, not only between departments of single organisations but also between organisations operating in the same fields and with broadly similar workforces.

‘It cannot be that staff in some public sector organisations are healthier than in others! It is more likely that some organisations manage attendance more effectively.

‘Many organisations are already operating effective sickness absence policies and practices. These are identified in the report ‘Working Well Together: Managing attendance in the public sector’ which we published last year.

‘This new resource pack has been developed in consultation with the trade unions. It pulls together these best practice techniques and sets out what managers across the public sector can do to help increase attendance levels.’

Dr Cunningham stressed that the pack is not about chasing staff back to work when they are still ill. Instead, it focuses on practical guidance and recommendations, including:

‘We are all committed to making the very best use of our staff resources and to striving for continuous improvement in the quality and efficiency of the services we deliver to the public.

‘We have set targets to reduce sickness absence in the civil service by 20 per cent by 2001, and 30 per cent by 2003, and I challenge the wider public sector to match these. I am aware, however, that this challenge will require changes in organisational culture, which will take time to implement.

‘In launching this initiative, I am determined to see current good management approaches being adopted widely throughout the whole of the public sector. I hope this resource pack will give managers the necessary tools to ensure that attendance levels are maximised.’

The drive to reduce sickness absence is part of the wider aim to improve the quality and efficiency of the public service delivery. It fits in with Public Service Agreements, launched in December 1998, which include commitments to improve staff attendance as a way of raising public sector productivity.

Both the resource pack and the Cabinet Office Report, ‘Working Well Together: Managing attendance in the public sector’, are available from Ian Slade in the Cabinet Office Efficiency and Effectiveness Group on 0171 270 0633.

The following should be considered at O1006 : Health monitoring surveillance

The High Court has held for the first time that a medical practitioner retained by an employer to carry out pre-employment medical assessments of its prospective employees owes a duty of care to those assessed in carrying out the assessing and in reporting the conclusion to the employer.

In this case, Baker v Kaye [1997] IRLR 219, the company doctor had interpreted abnormal blood test results as indicating that the plaintiff was likely to consume excessive amounts of alcohol in a work-related context. In deciding that he could not recommend the plaintiff to the company for a very demanding and stressful job involving travel and business-related social occasions, the company doctor had not breached the duty of care which he owed to the plaintiff. It was clear from the evidence that a substantial body of reasonable medical opinion would have arrived at the same conclusion when interpreting the results, and therefore the allegation of negligence in the interpretation of the results had to fail. A company doctor who recklessly advised turning down a disabled applicant on health and safety grounds when such a defence could not be substantiated might be liable for prosecution under section 57 Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as well as sued for negligence.

Additional guidance for managers developing a biological monitoring programme for employees dealing with hazardous chemicals has been published by the Health & Safety Executive. Available from HSE Books, price £8.50, 'Biological Monitoring in the Workplace: A Guide to its Practical Application to Chemical Exposure' offers advice to occupational health professionals, occupational hygienists and health and safety managers to help them institute and/or manage a biological monitoring programme in the workplace. It also provides information which will be of value to safety representatives.

Biological monitoring is a tool for assessing how much of a substance an individual has absorbed by inhalation, ingestion and through the skin, and involves the measurement of substances in a person's blood, urine or breath. Monitoring of this nature complements methods used to assess the amount of a substance in the workplace air under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH) 1994.

The importance of protecting the rights of participants in the biological monitoring programme is emphasised. It also makes clear the role of professional groups. In particular, it recommends an occupational physician should be involved in setting up the programme and interpreting results.

Murray Devine, Head of HSE's Chemical Policy Division, said, 'Biological monitoring plays an important role in the assessment of risks to health and in the control of exposure in the workplace. It can help employers meet their legal duties under COSHH by providing additional information on individual uptake.

'This guide provides an easy-to-follow step-by-step approach which employers and others might find useful in assessing the effectiveness of their own biological monitoring or setting up a new scheme. It points out that for any scheme to be effective requires careful planning and the co-operation of all those involved. The role of the occupational physician is particularly important.'

The following should be considered at O1011 : Statutory controls over dangerous substances and processes

The Road Traffic (Carriage of Dangerous Substances in Road Tankers and Tank Containers) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 743) and the Road Traffic (Carriage of Dangerous Substances in Packages, etc.) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 742) have been revoked and replaced by the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No 2095).

The Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No 670) has been revoked and replaced by the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No 2089).

New guidance to prevent Legionnaire's Disease has been published by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The control of legionellosis in hot and cold water systems is a supplement to existing HSE guidance and applies to many buildings including hospitals and hotels where the use of hot and cold water can create a risk of legionellosis in showers, baths and other water outlets.

The new advice combines the results of recent research into alternative technologies such as chlorine dioxide and ionisation and provides practical advice on how they can be used to control legionellosis. Research has shown that these technologies can be effective but, like the temperature control regime, care is needed to ensure that the system delivers and maintains an acceptable level of control. This supplement describes the ways in which the risks can be reduced and discusses the main steps that need to be taken for a successful legionella control regime.

The supplement is aimed primarily at those who have a legal responsibility for the management and control of the risks from legionellosis. Employers must have access to competent advice and decide what to do on the basis of a risk assessment. Their legal duties are under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 1994.

These duties are specified in an Approved Code of Practice (AcoP) which sets down the standards for achieving proper control. The ACoP is also backed up by detailed technical guidance. HSE is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of both the existing ACoP and supporting guidance document, The control of legionellosis including legionnaire's disease HS(G)70. This revision is due to be published in autumn 1999.

Copies of The control of legionellosis in hot and cold water systems are available free from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS. Tel: 01787 881165 or fax: 01787 313995.

The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has published a Consultative Document proposing revisions to the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) on the control of legionella in water systems.

The revision has been prompted by several recent investigations of outbreaks of Legionnaire’s Disease which have shown evidence of poor standards and lack of awareness by some duty holders and contractors. The review also incorporates the latest research into new and alternative control strategies such as ionisation and chlorine dioxide treatments. It explains how these treatments can be safe and effective if used appropriately.

One of the key aims of the changes is to make it easier to understand duties under the ACoP and the supporting guidance, by combining them into one comprehensive document – ‘Legionnaires’ disease: the control of legionella in water systems’.

The HSC is also seeking views on the need for the routine monitoring of legionella in cooling towers. It has been decided to include advice on routine monitoring in the guidance because water treatment contractors have told HSE that many employers expect it to be carried out. The advice will include what action to take if legionella is isolated from routine samples or if no legionella is detected from a single sample (as a false negative reading is possible).

Copies of ‘Proposals for the revision of the Approved Code of Practice "The Prevention and Control of Legionellosis (including Legionnaires’ Disease)" and associated Guidance’ are available free from HSE Books.

The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) has issued revised guidance* on tackling drug misuse at work. It encourages employers to identify and prevent drug problems and to develop policies which encourage people affected to come forward for help and treatment. According to the revised guidance, the misuse of drugs in the workplace should be tackled in a supportive not punitive environment, but within the law.

Welcoming the guidance, Keith Hellawell, the new UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator, said: 'There is no doubt in my mind that the efficiency of British industry is adversely affected by the use and after-effect of drugs. People are less likely to perform to their full potential and may not even turn up for work at all. This is not just due to the use of illegal drugs but includes those prescribed by doctors.

'Drugs in the workplace therefore must be brought within the overall health and welfare programmes which are aimed at helping both the individual and the employer.

'It is sometimes quite difficult for employers to know what to do when faced with drug related problems. This guide aims to help employers to deal with these problems sensitively, sensibly and effectively.

'The guide provides basic information about the signs, effects and risks of drugs misuse and sets out a best practice approach to dealing with the problems caused by drugs.

'There are no simple solutions to the problems caused by drugs but good practical advice and information can be invaluable. I hope that many employers will find the guide useful. My role as UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator is to look at how best we can tackle these problems. I will be presenting a report in the Spring.'

The revised guidance incorporates the relevant provisions of the Transport and Works Act 1992 which places special responsibility on those people involved in driving or other safety critical jobs. But all owners and managers, particularly in small and medium-sized enterprises, who may encounter drug-related problems at work can benefit from the guidance.

The best practice complements HSE's 'Good Health is Good Business' campaign which offers a straightforward, four-step approach:

Head of HSE's Health Directorate, Dr Peter Graham, added: 'Senior managers who are unaware of drugs issues may simply consider testing and sacking anyone who proves positive. In most circumstances this will not be appropriate and there are costs associated with that course of action - recruitment, re-training and making sure the tests are irrefutable if the case is taken to industrial tribunal. By following HSE's guidance, employers can sit down with their employees to develop a fair and equitable policy with the necessary safeguards'.

The guidance carries the support of other Government departments and agencies working on combating drug problems, including the Department of Health, the Home Office, and the Central Drugs Co-ordination Unit.

* 'Drug Misuse at Work: A Guide for Employers' is available free from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS. Tel: (01787) 881165. Fax: (01787) 313995.

The following should be considered at O1031 : Common occupational conditions - lung and skin disorders

'Control the risks to health in textile dyeing' is the message being given in an information sheet, 'Reactive Dyes: Safe Handling in Textile Finishing', published by the Health & Safety Executive. The different types of sensitisation - skin and respiratory - which can occur from work with reactive dyes are explained within the information.

If a person sensitised to a reactive dye continues to be exposed to it, their symptoms are likely to worsen. Asthma may develop, and asthma attacks may then be triggered by things other than the reactive dye. Some people with occupational asthma become so disabled that they cannot work again – not only with dyestuffs but in any occupation.

Practical advice is given to help employers ensure that employees do not become sensitised. Information on the type of health surveillance that will be necessary in virtually all parts of the textile finishing industry where reactive dyes are handled is also included.

Cindy Cartwell, from HSE's Textiles National Interest Group based at Leeds, said of the new information sheet: 'This gives straightforward advice which will be valuable in reminding both employers and employees of the risk of sensitisation from working with reactive dyes and the need to guard against it by following suitable precautions. Following the guidance should reduce the risk of anyone becoming sensitised, and if someone does become sensitised it should ensure quick recognition, so that steps can be taken to prevent symptoms from becoming worse.'

'Reactive Dyes: Safe Handling in Textile Finishing' is available free from HSE Books.

The following should also be considered at O1031 : Common occupational conditions - lung and skin disorders

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published two updated Medical Guidance Notes which are aimed at health care professionals seeking solutions in dealing with occupational asthma and skin disease.

'Medical aspects of occupational asthma', price £6, highlights the specific problems which arise through the use of asthmagens in the workplace and gives guidance on the nature and frequency of appropriate health surveillance. The employer's responsibilities under the COSHH Regulations 1994 are outlined emphasising the importance of reducing the risk from exposure to substances, and the early recognition of individual cases, in preventing the disease and reducing its long-term consequences.

'Medical aspects of occupational skin disease', price £5.50, looks at substances (irritants and sensitisers) which can cause skin problems. It outlines risk assessment and precautions to be taken in the workplace and gives advice on health surveillance.

The recently released 'Survey of self-reported work-related ill-health in 1995' showed that 138,000 people are affected by work-related asthma. The survey also found that 56,000 cases of skin disease are believed to be job-related and another 41,000 cases made worse by work.

Copies of the two Medical Guidance Notes can be ordered from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS. Tel: 01787 881165.

The following should also be considered at O1031 : Common occupational conditions – lung and skin disorders

A Trades Union Congress (TUC) report ‘Out of breath and out of work’, published on 8 July 1998, shows that one in three sufferers from work-related asthma have to give up their employment because of their condition. The report also reveals that:

The TUC report argues that legal provision for work-related asthma should be strengthened. Although there have already been instances where employees have relied successfully on the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to protect their jobs or gain compensation where they have been excluded from employment or otherwise suffered a detriment because of their condition, the TUC and the National Asthma Campaign want additional legal protection and comprehensive guidance. In particular, they call for an Approved Code of Practice on the measures necessary to minimise and/or prevent risks of work-related asthma.

Occupational asthma is a condition caused by sensitisation to dust and fumes and has only recently been added to the list of prescribed occupational diseases. It is therefore compensatable through the DSS and its diagnosis can also precipitate a civil action for damages against the employer.

Unfortunately, the condition is not always recognised until it is too late for the sufferer who may by then have suffered irreversible lung damage. Where occupational asthma is suspected, good practice dictates that the employee should only be allowed to continue work at the offending process under strict medical supervision, until the matter is thoroughly investigated.

Allowing a worker to become sensitised in this way can lead to substantial awards of damages. A woman employee recently won £500,000 in compensation for the asthma she developed from solder fumes after working for three years on an electronics component line.

‘Out of breath and out of work’. 1998. TUC (publications), Congress House, Great Russell St, London WC1.

The following should also be considered at O1031 : Common occupational conditions – lung and skin disorders

Solvents are used by around two million workers across a range of sectors including paints, degreasing operations, printing, chemicals, adhesives, pesticides, toiletries and dry cleaning. Around seven million employees work in industries where some exposure to solvents could occur.

Breathing in excessive amounts of vapours or mists from solvents can cause serious ill health effects. Even at lower levels of exposure many solvents can be irritating to the respiratory system.

New HSE guidance – ‘Health risks management: A guide to working with solvents’ – is intended to help employers and others tackle health risk management of solvents in the same way as they would tackle other parts of their business. It shows the steps needed to assess and control exposure and demonstrates through case studies and simple principles that the answer is often straightforward once a fresh look has been taken at the process.

HSE is currently highlighting solvents as a cause of occupational ill health through the third phase of its ‘Good health is good business’ campaign. The first phase focused on musculoskeletal disorders, respiratory sensitisers and noise. The second, on dermatitis and occupational cancers. The present phase, which runs until the Autumn of 1999, adds industrial solvents and hand/arm vibration to the portfolio of risks covered by the campaign.

Copies of ‘Health risks management: A guide to working with solvents’, are available from HSE Books, price £5.75.

Advice on tackling occupational dermatitis, one of the most widespread causes of ill health in the catering and food industries, is given in a new information sheet* published by the Health & Safety Executive's Food National Interest Group.

The condition affects an estimated 84,000 workers generally, resulting in 132,000 lost working days each year with the food and catering industries accounting for about 10 per cent of these figures.

Those most at risk in these industries include chefs, cooks, kitchen and catering assistants and counter hands. Also affected are waiting and bar staff, cleaners, bakers, and people who handle food generally. Symptoms of occupational dermatitis include redness, itching, scaling and blistering of the skin, particularly on the hands and forearms. It can be extremely painful and may force people to stay off work or even change jobs.

In catering and food occupations, prolonged contact with water, soaps and detergents causes 55 per cent of cases. Another 40 per cent are caused by contact with foods and the remainder by contact with coins, rubber gloves, chemicals and cleaners.

The leaflet includes case studies and gives details of the simple precautions needed to prevent dermatitis.

* 'Occupational dermatitis in the catering and food industries' is available free from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published two contract research reports on the diagnosis and management of a group of diseases called Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS), of which the most widely known disease is vibration white finger.

HSE estimates that around a million workers may be exposed to hazardous levels of vibration from hand-held tools and equipment and that around 36,000 people could have an advanced stage of HAVS. Vibration white finger is a prescribed disease under the Department of Social Security Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit Scheme. Numbers of VWF cases newly assessed by the DSS in recent years were: 1995/96: 3,016; 1996/97: 3,288.

The disease is a chronic disorder which worsens with continuing exposure to vibration. It can be limited by early assessment but without objective measures it is difficult to be sure how far it has progressed. Both reports, by Professor Mike Griffin and Christopher Lindsell from the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research at the University of Southampton, describe tests to assess the extent and progression of the effects of HAVS.

‘Standardised diagnostic methods for assessing components of the hand-arm vibration syndrome’, CRR197/98, examines tests which are sensitive to vascular changes (rewarming times, finger systolic blood pressures) and tests to diagnose neurological components of HAVS (thermal thresholds, vibrotactile thresholds). The report calls for tests to be standardised across UK testing centres so that data from different individuals can be compared.

‘Cold provocation tests for the diagnosis of vibration-induced white finger: standardisation and repeatability’, CRR173/98, looks in detail at the methodology for assessment of the vascular component of HAVS. The findings of studies investigating certain experimental variables which may influence measurement of finger systolic blood pressures and finger rewarming times are also reported.

Dr Ron McCaig of HSE’s Health Directorate commented, ‘HAVS is a serious and potentially disabling condition which workers who are exposed to hand transmitted vibration may suffer. Health surveillance will often be needed for such workers based on reports of symptoms, often by questionnaire and physical examinations. Sometimes more detailed assessment will also be needed and objective test methods can help clinicians establish the severity of disease in individuals. The results of such test can help in managing further exposure to limit any further changes.’

Recent compensation awards for VWF have been: an award in April 1998 of £200,000 to a tree surgeon employed by Liverpool City Council; awards in April 1998 ranging from £15,000 to £143,000 to six gas fitters employed by British Gas (total awards for all six fitters: £430,000); awards in September 1997 ranging from £5,000 to £41,000 to seven miners employed by British Coal (total awards for all seven miners: £124,000) – 25,000 further claims have been made by miners.

Copies of ‘Standardised diagnostic methods for assessing the components of the hand-arm vibration syndrome’ (ref CRR197/98), price £25.00, and ‘Cold provocation tests for the diagnosis of vibration-induced white finger: standardisation and repeatability’, (ref CRR173/98), price £15.00, are available from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS.

Free guidance to help the foundry industry assess the risk of hand-arm vibration injury from using powered hand-tools has been published by the Health and Safety Executive. The information sheet, ‘Hazards associated with foundry processes: hand-arm vibration – assessing the need for action’, is one in a series produced by HSE in consultation with the Foundries Industry Advisory Committee (FIAC) on the risks from vibration in foundry processes.

Hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS), which includes the complaint known as Vibration White Finger, is a widespread industrial disease affecting tens of thousands of workers who use vibrating tools. Attacks are painful and can result in the permanent loss of the ability to handle and grip items properly.

Studies of the foundry industry indicate that the problem of HAVS is substantial with around 45 per cent of workers who use powered hand tools in the industry showing some symptoms. Common activities likely to cause HAVS include cleaning castings (fettling) and furnace reclining.

In welcoming this publication, Ed Friend, FIAC Chairman and Head of HSE’s Metals and Minerals sector, said: ‘This leaflet will contribute significantly to the safety of people working with powered hand tools in the foundry industry. The leaflet highlights those tools and tasks that are most likely to cause harm and helps decide what further action is needed to reduce the exposure of workers to vibration.

‘HSE inspectors are currently visiting foundries and stressing the need for rigorous controls wherever hand tools are likely to cause HAVS.’

Where Vibration White Finger is contracted by workers involved in specific work activities, the condition is reportable under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 (RIDDOR) and is a prescribed disease where industrial injuries benefit may be payable.

This leaflet, which is specifically targeted at the foundry industry, supplements existing guidance given in HS(G)88 ‘Hand Arm Vibration’ and a range of other publications produced by HSE.

HSE Foundries Information Sheet No 10, ‘Hazards associated with foundry processes: hand-arm vibration – assessing the need for action’ is available free of charge from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS (tel: 01787 881165).

The following should be considered at para (f) of O1036 : (C) Chemical causes

The Health & Safety Executive has issued important health information for vehicle repairers using spray paints containing isocyanates. This type of paint, more generally referred to as '2 pack', is one of the main causes of occupational asthma in the UK.

An information sheet, 'Isocyanates: Health Surveillance in Motor Vehicle Repair', has been published to make vehicle repairers using '2 pack' spray paints more aware of the health risks and of the health checks which can identify problems at an early stage and help prevent permanent ill health.

Dr Nerys Williams, Senior Medical Inspector with HSE, said: 'Vapours, spray mists, dusts and deposits containing isocyanates are highly irritant to the eyes and respiratory tract and can result in sore eyes, runny noses, sore throats, coughing, wheezing and breathlessness. Ultimately, they can also cause asthma.

'It has been estimated that over 500 cases of occupational asthma due to isocyanates have occurred within a recent three-year period in the UK. Asthmatic attacks may occur immediately or be delayed for up to twelve hours after exposure - hence symptoms may occur when the sprayer is away from work. Continued exposure can lead to permanent lung damage and significantly affect quality of life. Disabling occupational asthma is preventable providing that action is taken to recognise symptoms early and prevent further exposure.

'I urge all vehicle repairers using this type of paint to obtain a copy of the information sheet and satisfy themselves that they have adequate arrangements for monitoring the health of those exposed to the vapour and spray.'

'Isocyanates: Health Surveillance in Motor Vehicle Repair' is available free of charge from HSE Books.

The following should be considered at O1038 : Work related upper limb disorders (WRULDs)

Musculoskeletal disorders are by far the most commonly reported work-related illness. HSE estimates 1.2 million people are affected annually. Risks for supermarket cashiers are associated with the design of some checkouts and the way they are operated.

HSE decided to carry out research into checkout work after supermarket staff and enforcement officers expressed concern about the demands made by some checkout systems. There was speculation that certain postures and awkward movements could give rise to injury or chronic pain affecting the back or upper limbs.

HSE has published three documents to help small and medium-sized retailers, as well as those working in national supermarket chains, cut the risk of staff developing problems.

HSE's Dr Colin Mackay, said: 'This package aims to ensure that those in a position to control risks are provided with the information and tools to do so. Complaints of aches or discomfort in the muscles and joints are common in supermarket cashiers - just as they are in many occupational groups. The severity of the symptoms and the body area affected vary according to the type of checkout being used. In the UK many types of checkout are in use, some are better than others.

'Evidence suggests that the cashier's age, body-build and job satisfaction also affect symptom reporting, so employers should take a thoughtful and wide-ranging approach when they set out to control risks.'

The first of the three documents is a free booklet, 'Checkouts and Musculoskeletal Disorders', which is designed to give advice to those who work in a store, especially cashiers. It highlights aspects of work most likely to cause problems and provides guidance on the use of checkouts. It suggests how managers, supervisors, safety representatives and cashiers can work together to cut risks and ease the impact of existing disorders. Premises such as cash and carry warehouses and DIY stores will also find it useful.

The second document is a research report entitled 'Musculoskeletal Disorders in Supermarket Cashiers'. It reviews current thinking on relevant research and continues with HSE's survey of almost 2,000 cashiers at more than 50 British supermarkets. An ergonomic investigation of those workplaces and a separate laboratory-based study to discover how checkout designs affect people's movement were also carried out. The report contains recommendations for good practice, a checklist to help control risk and a survey which can be used to carry out assessments at individual workplaces. The third document, 'Supermarket Checkouts and Musculoskeletal Disorders', has been sent to Local Authority Environmental Health Departments to help their staff enforce health and safety legislation in supermarkets and other retail premises.

Tesco's Trading Law Manager, Roland Overvoorde, said: 'We support this package as it provides clear and objective research for everyone to follow. The recommendations will help supermarkets and other retailers provide the best working environment for their staff.'

Health and Safety Officer at the shopworkers' union Usdaw, Doug Russell, said: 'People often mistakenly assume that checkout work is "light" work with little or no risk. But like any other job which involves handling high volumes of goods it can cause considerable physical strain. Usdaw welcomes HSE's research because it not only shows that this work can cause pain, it also identifies the key factors which have to be controlled to reduce the risk of injury.'

The following should also be considered at O1038 : Work related upper limb disorders (WRULDs)

The Trades Union Congress has issued a report, ‘The Hidden Workplace Epidemics’, based on an extensive survey of over 500 union-appointed safety representatives, and conducted with financial support from the Commission of the European Communities. It concludes that employers are ignoring the ‘massive’ cost to their businesses of musculo-skeletal disorders – mostly back strain and repetitive strain injury (RSI).

HSE statistics show that over one-third of a million sufferers from such disorders take more than ten million days off from work a year at a cost of over £2 billion to society as a whole.

These findings indicated failure to comply with the risk assessment and other requirements, i.e. monitoring etc. of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992.

This is borne out, to some extent, by the revelation that one in ten workplaces had been served with an improvement notice for failing to carry out ‘suitable and sufficient’ risk assessments under the 1992 Regulations.

The report is available from TUC (publications), Congress House, Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3LS, Tel: 0171 636 4030, on receipt of a large (A4) SAE. TUC reports are also available on the TUC website at www.tuc.org.uk

The following should be considered at O1039 : Repetitive strain injury (RSI)

Several new cases throw more light on the legal position of employers with regard to repetitive strain injury (RSI). The case of Mitchell v Atco, 5 July 1995 (Current Law, October 1995) established that, if an employer has knowledge that repetitive work would foreseeably give rise to RSI, he should offer advice as to how to approach the work, the action to take in the event of pain, as well as advise on the consequences of failure to act. Here, the court found the employer liable for failing in his duty to warn a plaintiff who suffered RSI as a consequence of testing 130 motors per week, each weighing in excess of 6 lb. A second case, Ladds v Coloroll (in Liquidation), 14 August 1995 (Current Law, October 1995), concerned a plaintiff who was employed in the use of overlock and panel stitch sewing machines. She developed tenosynovitis and later carpal tunnel syndrome. The carpal tunnel syndrome was not caused by work, nor had tenosynovitis led to carpal tunnel syndrome. In fact, the employee had suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome from the outset, and the work had merely highlighted this. The employer was not held liable for the worsened condition.

The following should also be considered at O1039 : Repetitive strain injury (RSI)

In cases concerning what may be loosely called 'repetitive strain injury', the question has often arisen whether pain by itself is a passport to recovery of compensation, even though there is no recognisable clinical condition, i.e. can there be pain without pathology?

That and a number of other important questions were considered by the House of Lords in Pickford v Imperial Chemical Industries plc [1998] 3 AER 462.

Mrs Pickford had been employed by ICI as a full-time secretary. Her duties had included typing and other general secretarial work such as filing. In 1989 she complained of pain in her hands and sought medical opinion. None of the doctors she consulted could find any physical abnormality. By June 1990 she could no longer continue with her work. ICI terminated her employment in September 1990.

In November 1991 Mrs Pickford commenced proceedings against ICI claiming damages, alleging that by their negligence they had caused her to sustain a prescribed occupational disease PDA4, namely cramp of the hands due to repetitive movements. This, they said, had been caused by typing at speed for long periods without rest breaks. They further maintained that the condition was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of her work and that ICI had been negligent in failing to warn her of the risks and of the need to take rest breaks, as had indeed been done in the case of typists working in the defendant's accounts department.

ICI's defence was that the plaintiff's condition was not caused by an organic disorder as she claimed, but was psychogenic, i.e. that it was 'all in the mind'.

The High Court was unable, on the medical evidence, to decide what was the cause of Mrs Pickford's condition. However, the court did hold that she had failed to satisfy it that the condition was organic in origin and that it was caused by typing as opposed to merely being associated with typing. The High Court also held that ICI were under no legal duty to instruct a secretary in the plaintiff's position to take rest pauses from typing work, because a secretary's work by its very nature lent itself to rotation between typing and other duties. The High Court therefore dismissed Mrs Pickford's claim.

The House of Lords allowed ICI's appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision. It concluded that:

Over one million people are employed in British schools and there are around 10 million school students. There are about 32,000 schools and 30,000 school governors and members of school boards. Not surprisingly, the HSE, trade unions and other interested organisations have devoted a great deal of attention to the health, safety and welfare of those who work in, and attend, such institutions.

HSE has recently added another publication to its already comprehensive list in this area. This, ‘Managing work-related stress; a guide for managers and teachers in schools’, provides updated guidance for teachers and school managers on how to avoid and reduce the health risks associated with work-related stress. It emphasises the need to tackle the root causes of the condition rather than just helping people cope. It gives advice on health and safety law relating to stress, its causes and effects, and how to tackle it.

Work-related stress affects teachers more than any other group of employees, according to research. Ill health resulting from stress is the second most commonly reported work-related illness, after musculoskeletal conditions such as back conditions. The 1995 household survey of self-reported work-related illness commissioned by the HSE and published in 1998 suggested that about 37,000 teachers or former teachers suffered from stress, anxiety or depression caused by their work. A further estimated 26,000 suffered from some physical illness they believed to be due to stress at work. Taken together these cases represent about 4 per cent of current and recently working teachers in Great Britain at the time of the survey.

As the guidance emphasises, stress is the reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demands placed upon them. It is not an illness but may lead to physical or mental ill health if it is severe or goes on for a long time.

Although there is no specific legislation on dealing with stress, an employer has a duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that their workplaces are safe and healthy. And the common law places the employer under a duty to take reasonable care of the safety, health and welfare of his or her employees. Crucially, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No 2051) require an employer to assess the nature and scale of risks to health in their workplace and ensure that there are proper control measures in place. This applies to risks of stress just as it does to other workplace hazards.

‘Managing work-related stress: a guide for managers and teachers in schools’. HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk C010 6FS. £6.95.

‘Self-reported Work-related Illness in 1995 – Results of a Household Survey’. HSE Books. £30.00.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published free guidance to help small firms tackle work-related stress. It follows the results of an HSE survey, Self-reported Work-related Illness in 1995, which found that half a million people suffer from stress-related ill-health which they believe is caused, or made worse, by work. This makes it the second most commonly reported work-related condition after musculoskeletal disorders.

HSE involved employers' organisations, the TUC and leading academics in producing Help on work-related stress – a short guide. There is demand from small firms (and others) for clearly set out and easily accessible advice. The booklet has a user-friendly question and answer format and has won a Clear English Standard award from the Plain Language Commission.

Launching the booklet, Environment Minister Alan Meale said: 'The Government is rightly concerned about the level of work-related stress and is determined to do something about it. But we also recognise that it is a complex issue and that there are no "quick-fix" solutions. This booklet is a valuable contribution to tackling the problem. We will continue to encourage employers to see that the way work is organised and management attitudes can cause stress, and that there are measures they can take to deal with the problem.'

The booklet lists the main factors that can contribute to work-related stress and emphasises that plain good management is the best way to deal with the issue. It outlines employers' legal duties but also offers practical advice and explains how to conduct a risk assessment.

Single copies of Help on work-related stress – a short guide are available free and packs of 10, costing £5.00, are available from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS. Tel: 01787 313995.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published research recommending how employers can help staff cope after traumatic incidents such as assaults and accidents at work.

HSE commissioned the Institute of Employment Studies (IES) to explore what can be done to stop the symptoms that can result from traumatic incidents developing into a more serious illness. ‘From accidents to assaults – How organisational responses to traumatic incidents can prevent post traumatic stress disorder in the workplace’ was launched by Alan Meale, the Minister with responsibility for health and safety, who said:

‘Traumatic incidents such as assaults and accidents at work should be prevented wherever possible. However, when the worst happens and incidents do occur, people at work deserve to be protected from developing any mental ill health as a result. This report will help us understand the best ways of achieving this.’

The report looks at the effectiveness of counselling in preventing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The most common form of counselling is debriefing. Despite its widespread use, the report says it is not clear that it benefits trauma victims, and that in some instances it might cause more harm by re-traumatising individuals. The report recommends that debriefing should not be mandatory and that organisations who wish to use it should put in place proper evaluation procedures to ensure that it meets its objectives.

Workers who could be affected include victims of robberies in petrol stations, emergency service workers attending a car crash and staff being a victim of, or witnessing, an accident at work. The report provides an overview of what is currently known about good practice based on research in 17 organisations. HSE will study the results of the research and will consult on the need for guidance early in 1999.

Dr Jo Rick, from IES, said: ‘Traumatic incidents and the shock that results can affect many employees. This is quite normal, but when the shock does not go away after a few days, people can be at risk of suffering symptoms which can prevent them from working effectively. If the symptoms last for longer than four weeks, they may be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. They may then need to take time off work and they may not even be able to go back to work.’

Elizabeth Gyngell, from HSE’s Health Directorate, said: ‘Some employers safeguard their workers’ mental health before incidents occur, through measures such as making sure applicants have a clear idea of the demands of the job they are applying for, and training and preparing them on how to respond to traumatic incidents before they happen. We welcome this approach. However, this report shows that they also need to assess the risk of traumatic incidents happening, and respond appropriately after any event. Finally, the impact of debriefing needs to be monitored if we are to gain a clear understanding of its effectiveness.’

Copies of ‘From accidents to assaults: How organisational responses to traumatic incidents can prevent post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the workplace’, ref CRR 195/98, price £32.50, are available from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS. Tel: 01787 881165; fax: 01787 313995.

A TUC report, based on a survey of workplace safety representatives, reveals that excessive workloads are creating unprecedented levels of stress for two-thirds of workers, whilst violence at work is causing anxiety in more than one-third.

However, and encouragingly, the survey shows that almost one-third of employers are already acting to make their workplaces stress-free zones.

The most significant factors leading to occupational stress are, according to the survey:

When it came to tackling stressed-out employees, over one-third of employers opted for counselling services, as opposed to reducing working hours, increasing staffing levels or carrying out stress audits. The study points out that policies to reduce stress are much more common in local government and the health services, than in education and manufacturing, where less than 20 per cent of employers had established procedures to cope with this significant problem.

Another TUC report, ‘Violent Times’, by Julia Gallagher with assistance from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, reflects the fact that violence at work is a serious problem for all people whose occupations bring them into contact with members of the public.

As well as the immediate physical effects, it can lead to stress and depression, and it may well undermine the cohesion and effectiveness of the workplace.

The report suggests that one in five workers are likely to be attacked or verbally abused this year. It reveals that one in three nurses have been violently attacked or abused at work, closely followed by security workers (one in four), employees in care homes (one in five), and education and welfare employees (one in seven).

The report also shows that younger women are most likely to be assaulted in the workplace – 11 per cent of women aged 25-34 had suffered a physical attack compared to 6 per cent of men in the same age group.

The TUC is satisfied that the law on violence at work is adequate, but is concerned that some employers seem to adopt the attitude that violence is unpredictable and cannot therefore be prevented. Employers must accept that it is their legal responsibility to prevent violence at work (in all of its forms) in exactly the same way as they would address any other threat to health and safety.

The reports, ‘Work stress: a suitable case for a code’ and ‘Violent Times’, are available from TUC (publications), Congress House, Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3LS, Tel: 0171 636 4030, on receipt of a large (A4) SAE. TUC reports are also available on the TUC website at www.tuc.org.uk

The following should be considered at O5013 : Display screens and the working environment

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is to fund a one-year study to examine possible health risks from using portable and handheld computers.

Researchers at the ergonomics consultancy, System Concepts Limited, will follow a user-centred research programme to evaluate risk factors associated with portable computer use, examining differences between users, tasks, and contexts of use – not simply the physical components of a range of laptops, notebooks and handheld computers.

Tom Stewart, Managing Director of System Concepts, said: ‘Display screen technology evolves rapidly, and over the past few years the use of portable computers has become widespread. At present, although there is plenty of research and guidance on the use of full-sized display screen equipment there is little specific information on which to base guidance on the safe and effective use of portable computers.

‘We are aware from our contacts amongst users and client organisations that the number of concerns associated with the use of portable computers appears to be increasing, although, of course, this may be due to more widespread usage. This research is the first step towards understanding how real those concerns are and if more specialist guidance is needed.’

Employers need to consider prolonged users of portable computers under the requirements of the Display Screen Equipment Regulations 1992, and the potential musculoskeletal and other risks should be assessed and minimised by employers in the same manner as for desktop equipment.

However, as Senior Consultant Tanya Heasman explains, the potential risks associated with portable computer use are not limited to those normally associated with full size computers. ‘There may be manual handling risks due to the weight of the computers and the extra weight of cables and transformers, stress from extended working hours and of course carrying a valuable computer could put people at risk of personal attack and theft’, she advised.

This is one of a number of studies of the health effects of computer work to receive funding from the HSE which will help HSE to keep its guidance on VDU work up to date.

Tom Stewart and Tanya Heasman at System Concepts Limited can be contacted on tel: 0171 240 3388.

The following should be considered at P3002 : The Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 2966)

The Police (Health and Safety) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 860) came into force on 14 April 1999. Following the coming into force of the Police (Health and Safety) Act 1997, these Regulations extend to police officers regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Part I. The Regulations also amend certain health and safety regulations to take account of the position of the police. The Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 2966) are amended so that where there is an inevitable conflict between the exercise of police powers and an employer’s duty to ensure that suitable personal protective equipment is provided to employees, the duty shall be complied with so far as is reasonably practicable.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published a free leaflet which explains to employers the law on head protection at work, and in particular how this applies to Sikh workers who wear turbans in accordance with their religion.

Where there is a significant risk of head injury in workplaces, the law sets out a hierarchy of control measures to protect all employees, including Sikhs. First and foremost, the risk of head injury should be removed wherever reasonably practicable and effectively controlled in all other circumstances. The provision of head protection should always be regarded as the 'last resort'.

For employers at workplaces where head protection is being worn (e.g. at a foundry, petrochemical plant, dockyard, factory with overhead cranes), publication of the guidance provides a good opportunity to re-examine the risk assessments they are required to undertake under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992.

In the special case of Sikhs at work on a construction site while wearing their turbans, they continue to be exempt from the requirement to wear head protection. In such cases they should not be required to wear 'hard hats'.

'Head protection for Sikhs wearing turbans: Guidance for employers' is available free from the British Sikh Federation, 1 Kemerton Road, Cheltenham GL50 2QB.

The following should be considered at R3005 : Summary of official guidance on Regulation 3

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has built on the success of its recently revised 5 steps to Risk Assessment leaflet by publishing supporting guidance in the form of a series of risk assessment case studies. (The five steps are (i) look for the hazards; (ii) decide who might be harmed and how; (iii) evaluate the risks and decide whether existing precautions are adequate or more should be done; (iv) record your findings; (v) review your assessment and revise if necessary.)

The guidance describes risk assessments carried out in a number of typical small firms, and shows what following the five steps meant in practice for the firms' management and workforce, i.e. how the firms went about their assessments , how and why they reached the decisions they made, and what resources were required to carry out the assessment.

Though the case studies each dealt with very different activities, a common procedure did emerge involving three stages: 'preparation' – gathering information about the hazards that are likely to be found; 'touring the workplace' – finding out what is actually there on the shop floor and what controls are in place; and 'completion' – comparing existing controls with established good practice to decide if more needs to be done.

The case studies were carried out in individual firms undertaking particular activities, namely motor vehicle repair in a workshop, materials packaging in a warehouse, contract bricklaying, landscape gardening and office work.

5 Steps to Risk Assessment – Case Studies, ref HS(G)183, price £6.75, is available from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS.

The following should be considered at W7006 : Pregnant workers, new and breastfeeding mothers

In Day v T Pickles Farms Ltd [1999] IRLR 217, the facts concerned Ms Day whose employment as a counter assistant in a sandwich shop commenced in January 1996. In October or November 1996, she informed the shop manager that she was pregnant. She suffered severe morning sickness, and also felt nauseous at work as a result of preparing food – also, the smell of food cooking added to her feeling of nausea. Her doctor supplied her with a sick note. She left work on 29 November 1996, and continued to send sick notes to her employer, but she never returned to her work.

In July 1997 she complained to an employment tribunal of unlawful sex discrimination, claiming that the company had subjected her to a detriment by failing to carry out a risk assessment as required by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 (the Management Regulations) and as a result of that failure had failed to suspend her from work on maternity grounds for the duration of her pregnancy.

Under the Management Regulations, reg 3, employers are under a duty to make a ‘suitable and sufficient’ assessment of the risks to the health and safety of their employees to which they are exposed while they are at work, so that they can identify the measures which must be taken. Reg 13A(1) provides that where ‘(a) the persons working in an undertaking include women of child-bearing age; and (b) the work is of a kind which could involve risk, by reason of her condition, to the health and safety of a new or expectant mother, or to that of her baby, from any processes or working conditions’, the assessment required by reg 3 must include an assessment of such risk.

The EAT held that the company should have carried out an assessment under reg 3(1) coupled with reg 13A(1) no later than the day when Ms Day commenced her job in January 1996, and certainly before she fell pregnant. Such failure could mean that the company might have subjected her to a ‘detriment’ within the meaning of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

According to the company, such assessment need not be acted on until there is a pregnancy. However, the EAT was doubtful about that as a general principle, adding that ‘ ... it is in the nature of pregnancy that quite often it is experienced without being known of for a while and if, the moment there is a pregnancy, the assessment has to be acted upon and yet the start of the pregnancy is unknown, the only way in which the necessary steps could be taken in order to begin as the pregnancy begins is to have anticipated the matter by acting on the risk assessment earlier’.

The company had argued that Ms Day was not prevented from working by anything that a risk assessment would have disclosed. It was the smell and the handling of food that had induced the nausea and prevented her from working in the shop. The EAT, however, maintained that this is a matter which needs to be considered in the light of the facts of the case – if, for example, a risk assessment had revealed that too much heat was emitted by the shop’s oven, and that better ventilation might cure the problem, then the smell of food cooking might have been reduced and the risk of nausea might also have lessened.

The EAT held that the company might also have subjected Ms Day to a ‘detriment’ within the meaning of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 by failing to alter her working conditions or to suspend her from work after she became pregnant, assuming that a series of sick notes which she supplied to the company amounted to a written notification that she was pregnant.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is conducting a campaign over the next two years with a view to reducing falls through fragile rooflights in new and refurbished industrial buildings.

Announcing the initiative, HSE Chief Construction Inspector Sandra Caldwell said: 'Every year, accidents occur when workers fall through rooflights whilst engaged in roof maintenance. Many of these prove fatal - provisional figures for 1996/97 show at least six people died - or cause major injury.

'Industrial buildings, such as warehouses, are often fitted with rooflights to improve overall lighting conditions', said Mrs Caldwell. 'These can be made from a variety of plastics, some of which have little intrinsic strength and become even more fragile over time, due to the effect of ultra-violet light.

'Rooflights which follow the contour of a roof (so-called "in-plane") are particularly dangerous as often they cannot be seen clearly by anyone working on it. Older buildings may have glass rooflights, which are also very fragile, unless of the laminated type.'

HSE's campaign is directed primarily at those specifying rooflight materials. The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 place duties on designers and specifiers to give proper consideration to eliminating or reducing risk at the design stage.

'HSE's Construction Inspectors will be checking that the risk from footlights has been properly assessed, when they are notified of such work or visit sites, and will take enforcement action where appropriate', Mrs Caldwell said.

In addition to safety, there may be other sound reasons for avoiding the use of unprotected fragile rooflights. Questions to consider include:

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published an important new guidance booklet on safety in roof work. The booklet, the latest in HSE's revised guidance series for the construction industry, replaces an earlier version first published in 1987.

Falls are the biggest killer in the construction industry, accounting for around one in five of all deaths. Falls from and through roofs, particularly fragile materials and skylights, are the single biggest cause of these deaths – between 1986 and 1992, 148 people were killed in falls from or through roofs.

Irrespective of how little time is actually spent on a roof, roof work is always potentially dangerous. The sad epitaph of many fatalities is ‘he should only have been up there for a couple of minutes’.

The new guidance is relevant not only to contractors and others who actually carry out work on roofs, but also to those who have an influence on workers’ health and safety, such as planning supervisors, clients, designers and manufacturers.

It carries forward existing, well-known messages on basic safety precautions, such as the fundamental need for edge protection. Effective fall arrest equipment is essential during industrial roofing projects, HSE’s preferred method being properly installed and maintained safety netting. The guidance also contains important new material on:

‘Health and safety in roof work’ (ref HSG33), price £8.50, is available from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6FS.

Readers should note the error which appears in this section at the end of the last paragraph on page W110/2. The Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No 341) require that existing fire safety signs, i.e. ones in use before the regulations came into effect on 1 April 1996, have until 24 December 1998 to comply with the regulations, not 1988 as stated in the text.

The following should be considered at W11003 : Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 3004) - Definition of 'workplace'

It is proposed that shortly workplaces on board means of transport (i.e. air, road, rail and water) will have to meet similar minimal requirements as other workplaces. In particular, such employers will have to:

Health and Safety at Work Legislation

STATUTES

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Transport of Dangerous Goods (Safety Advisers) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 257)

Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) (Amendment) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 197)

Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (Application to Environmentally Hazardous Substances) (Amendment) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 40)

Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 No 2573)

Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (Application to Environmentally Hazardous Substances) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No 2075)