Safety Legislation Update Issue 67 April 2013
advertisement
Safety Legislation Update Issue 67 April 2013 Author: Suzanne Taberneso Operational Feedback Advisor RSSB Block 2, Angel Square 1 Torrens Street London EC1V 1NY 020 3142 5492 suzanne.taberneso@rssb.co.uk Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 1 Forward This Safety Legislation Update has been compiled by RSSB following consideration by the Railway Safety Legislation Committee. Its aim is to identify emerging health and safety legislation, which may affect the members of the railway industry. The Update is not a definitive list of legislation and only represents the knowledge available at the time of going to print. The Update is revised quarterly. No representations are made as to the accuracy and completeness of the information provided. How to use this update Entries in the Update are deleted once they become law. Significant changes to entries since the previous issue are in bold. Each entry is dated with the month that the entry was last updated. The Legislation implementation and update status table provides details on the proposed implementation dates of the updated/new legislation contained in this update together with a column showing whether the entry has been updated or is new to this issue. Railway Safety Legislation Committee – Terms of Reference The purposes of the Railway Safety Legislation Committee (RSLC) are to: Alert RSSB members to actual and potential changes to safety related legislation likely to impact on their operations or business; and Seek to influence and respond in such a way as to ensure that RSSB member interests are recognised, promoted and protected. The RSLC will: Disseminate early indications and subsequent information regarding legislative proposals concerning operational or occupational safety or the management/ reporting thereof. This includes European, UK national and rail industry specific legislation. Identify and consider the implications of such proposals for the UK rail industry Inform and/or review RSSB activity in promoting/protecting its members’ interests in seeking to influence and/or responding to such proposals.1 This may include preparing and making available to members template responses to formal consultations. Where appropriate set up working parties or authorise the engagement of specialists to assist in meeting the above objectives. Approve the text of the quarterly Safety Legislation Update. 1. The position adopted by RSSB will be in the interests of overall safety in the industry but should not be seen as necessarily representing the views of all individual members Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 2 Contents Forward 2 How to use this update 2 Railway Safety Legislation Committee – Terms of Reference 2 Contents 3 Abbreviations and acronyms 4 Related websites 5 Legislation Implementation and update status 6 Section 1 - European Legislation (General) 7 Electro-Magnetic Fields Directive (2004/40/EC amended by 2008/46/EC) 8 Musculoskeletal Disorders 9 Section 2 - EU Legislation (Railways) 11 Safety Performance Working Group – Common Safety Indicators & Common Safety Targets 12 European Regulation on the Common Safety Methods – Risk Evaluation & Assessment 14 European Regulation on the Common Safety Methods – Conformity Assessment 18 European Regulation on the Common Safety Methods – Monitoring & Supervision 20 The Fourth Railway Package - NEW 22 Section 3 - UK Legislation (General) 25 CD243 – Proposals to simplify and clarify Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) reporting requirements. 26 CD248 – Proposal to remove the requirement for the HSE to approve first aid training and qualifications under The Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 (as amended) 29 CD241 – Proposals to review HSE’s Approved Codes of Practice (ACoPs) 31 CD242 – Proposals to exempt from health and safety law those self-employed whose work activities pose no potential risk of harm to others 34 Enforcement procedures against drink drivers and other offences 36 CD251 – Proposal to revise the guidance for duty holders to decide the appropriate arrangements for the provision of first-aid under The Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 (As Amended) - NEW 37 Section 4 - UK Legislation (Railways) Level crossing legislation 38 39 Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 41 Section 5 - Other railway related consultations 43 ORR’s Approach to Transparency 44 Consultation on the rules, regulations, coroner areas and statutory guidance - NEW 46 Section 6 - News 48 News 49 Court Cases 49 Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 3 Abbreviations and acronyms ACoP Approved Code of Practice ACSH Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work ATOC Association of Train Operating Companies CER Community of European Railways CSI Common Safety Indicator CSM Common Safety Method CST Common Safety Target DfT Department for Transport ECM Entity in Charge of Maintenance EMF Electro-Magnetic Fields ERA European Railway Agency HSE Health and Safety Executive HSWA Health & Safety at Work Act IAB Impact Assessment Board ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection IM Infrastructure Manager NSA National Safety Authority NRV National Reference Value NTR National Technical Rule ORR Office of Rail Regulation RE&A Risk Evaluation and Assessment RIDDOR Reporting of injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrences Regulations 1995 RISC Railway Interoperability & Safety Committee ROGS Railways & Other Guided Transport Systems RSD Railway Safety Directive RSSB Rail Safety and Standards Board RU Railway Undertaking SPG Safety Policy Group SPWG Safety Performance Working Group TSI Technical Specification for Interoperability Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 4 Related websites ATOC www.atoc.org BIS www.bis.gov.uk DCLG www.communities.gov.uk DEFRA https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/depart ment-for-environment-food-rural-affairs DfT https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/depart ment-for-transport European Commission http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm ERA www.era.europa.eu/Pages/Home.aspx Government News Network http://www.knowledgeview.co.uk/node/10 HSE www.hse.gov.uk Law Commission http://www.justice.gov.uk/lawcommission/index.htm Network Rail www.networkrail.co.uk ORR www.rail-reg.gov.uk RAIB www.raib.gov.uk RSSB www.rssb.co.uk Scottish Law Commission http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk UIC www.uic.org/ Ministry of Justice https://consult.justice.gov.uk/ Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 5 Legislation Implementation and update status Legislation Implementation date (where known) Updated in this issue? Electro-Magnetic Fields Directive October 2013 - Musculoskeletal Disorders By end of 2013 EUROPEAN LEGISLATION (GENERAL) EUROPEAN LEGISLATION (RAILWAYS) Safety Performance Working Group – Common Safety Indicators & 2nd set of CST’s Common Safety Targets introduced Apr 2011 European Regulation on the – Risk Assessment & Evaluation Common Safety Methods July 2012 European Regulation on – Conformity Assessment the Common Safety Methods January 2011 - European Regulation on – Monitoring & Supervision the Common Safety Methods June 2013 - The Fourth Railway Package January 2013 NEW UK LEGISLATION (GENERAL) CD243 – Proposals to simplify and clarify the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR). CD248 – Proposal to revise the approval of first aid training and October 2013 qualification under the Health & Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981– CD241 – Proposals to review HSE’s Approved Codes of Practice By end of 2013 CD242 – Proposals to exempt from H&S law, the self-employed whose work activities pose no potential risk of harm to others Enforcement procedures against drink drivers and other offences - CD251 – Proposal to revise guidance on the provision of first-aid October 2013 equipment under the Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 NEW UK LEGISLATION (RAILWAYS) Level crossing legislation May 2013 Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Miscellaneous Spring 2013 Amendments) Regulations and Guidance OTHER RAILWAY RELATED CONSULTATIONS ORR’s Approach to Transparency N/A Consultation on the rules, regulations, coroner areas and statutory Summer 2013 guidance Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 NEW 6 Section 1 European Legislation (General) Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 7 Electro-Magnetic Fields Directive (2004/40/EC amended by 2008/46/EC) BACKGROUND This is the third directive of the suite of physical agents’ directives. Directive 2004/40/EC was published in 2004, but was never fully transposed by member states on the advice of the Commission. MAIN PROVISIONS Provisions cover risk assessments; control of exposure (with laid down action values and limit values); health surveillance and information, instruction and training. CURRENT STATUS Although the Directive was published in April 2004, it was postponed to April 2012, and subsequently the Employment and Social Affairs committee further extended this to 31 October 2013, to provide time for a sensible new proposal to be developed and agreed. A revised draft document (with a corrigendum) has now been developed and passed to the European Parliament for negotiation. The HSE, state that this does not signify political agreement, but is a very important stepping-stone. The European Parliament is now looking at both the original Commission proposal, and the proposal that has emerged from Council, and working towards a first reading relatively soon. The draft documents are available at; http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st14/st14020.en12.pdf The corrigendum containing corrections to the text here: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st14/st14020-co01.en12.pdf The draft directive is now based upon The International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) recommendations and offers more flexibility than the original published directive. It is intended that there will be a supporting Commission Practical Guide that may simplify the compliance process by provision of information on the application of the directive in practical situations. The HSE continue to actively encourage the European Commission to develop a Directive that is proportionate to the risks and does not put unnecessary burdens on UK businesses. Once the text of the Directive is finalised, the HSE will update the impact assessment and prepare for transposing the regulations into UK law. Guidance is also planned. RAILWAY INDUSTRY POSITION RSSB and LUL representatives will continue to monitor progress and attend industry meetings to press the railway’s position that the legislation should be proportionate to the risk. We will continue to brief interested stakeholders, the industry working group and maintain contact with the HSE. RSSB welcomes industry comment on the drafts and will collate any comments on behalf of the UK rail industry for forwarding to the HSE. Please email david.knights@rssb.co.uk. OTHER INFORMATION An RSSB report into the implications of the original directive is available at: http://www.rssb.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/reports/research/T515_rpt_final.pdf DATE UPDATED: November 2012 Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 8 Musculoskeletal Disorders BACKGROUND Following consultation exercises in 2004 and 2007 into the best way to provide increased protection against musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), the European Commission (EC) proposed a new Directive which would merge the existing Manual Handling and Display Screen Equipment directives. In November 2008 the EC’s Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (ACSH) established a working party including UK employers’ representatives to prepare an opinion on the development of further legislative initiatives on MSDs. In 2011 the Commission decided that a new Directive combining and extending the Manual Handling Directive and an updated Display Screen Equipment Directive should be developed. Publication of the draft Directive had been expected in April 2012 following scrutiny of the Impact Assessment by the Commission’s Impact Assessment Board (IAB) on 28th March 2012. However, the IAB rejected the proposal/assessment, because of concerns over the impact of the proposal on small and medium enterprises. The IAB requested that DG Employment Health & Safety Unit (DG Employment) resubmit a revised Impact Assessment (IA). Late in 2012 the European Commission announced that it was considering options to progress work on this dossier. It appears that the EC is actively considering producing a council recommendation rather than a new directive. The HSE expects the EC to consult on this proposal in spring 2013. The EC hopes that the finalised text will be adopted by the European Council before the end of 2013. MAIN PROVISIONS The proposal requires all tasks with a physical component to be assessed using four risk factors: repetitive motion, awkward postures, force and contact stress – although these are likely to be added to. Vibration is not included, however, as this is covered by the Physical Agents’ Directive. More workplaces are likely to be covered than hitherto (e.g. train driving cabs). CURRENT STATUS The ergonomics/musculoskeletal disorders dossier is currently being blocked in the EC. An inter-service steering group (comprising representatives of different Commission DGs) discussed this dossier on 4th September 2012. There was dissatisfaction expressed with the current impact assessment (IA), in particular the Commission Secretariat General highlighted that the IA did not provide enough evidence to support the choice made to come forward with a new directive in this area. Following a meeting at the end of September 2012 between DG Employment Director General and the Andor cabinet, it was decided that they needed to reflect and potentially adapt the different options they were considering. The EC now favour a Council Recommendation on Ergonomics (including MSDs) rather than a Directive. They want to deliver this recommendation before the end of 2013. The ACSH Working Party met on the 19th February 2013 and the 13th March to discuss the dossier. Terry Woolmer, from EEF is the UK business representative on the Working Party. Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 9 UK POSITION It is not yet known what impact a recommendation might have on the UK. While it will not be legally binding on Member States (MS), there is an expectation that MS will take note of or act upon its contents. Although HSE welcomes the news that the Commission is considering alternatives to a Directive, have not seen the draft text and is unable to provide any comments at this time RAILWAY INDUSTRY POSITION The potential impact on train driving cabs could be significant to the industry, particularly with older rolling stock. RSSB’s research called ‘T940 - Identifying, quantifying and managing the risk of musculoskeletal injuries and illness among train drivers’ was published on 17th April 2012. The report can be viewed at: http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/pdf/reports/research/T940_rb_final.pdf The launch of the MAT Tool (Musculoskeletal Disorder Risk Assessment for Train Drivers) took place in March 2012, and was held at RSSB’s offices in Angel. The event was targeted at individuals who are involved in assessing and managing health risks in train drivers. The tools are available to RSSB member companies who employ train drivers. OTHER INFORMATION The HSE and the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) produced a downloadable tool called The Assessment of Repetitive Tasks (ART) tool. This tool helps organisations reduce the likelihood of their employees suffering from MSDs of the upper limbs associated with repetitive tasks. http://www.hse.gov.uk/msd/uld/art/. For more information see: http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/europe/euronews/dossiers/msd.htm DATE UPDATED March 2013 Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 10 Section 2 EU Legislation (Railways) Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 11 Safety Performance Working Group – Common Safety Indicators & Common Safety Targets BACKGROUND The Railway Safety Directive (2004/49/EC) requires that a series of Common Safety Targets (CSTs) are set by the ERA on each member state. Member states are required to provide Common Safety Indicators data (as per Annex 1 of the Safety Directive) to the ERA annually. MAIN PROVISIONS The Safety Directive requires CSTs to be implemented for: Individual risks relating to passengers, staff including the staff of contractors, level crossing users and others, and, without prejudice to existing national and international liability rules, individual risks relating to unauthorised persons on railway premises; Societal risks. The first set of targets (known as the National Reference Values (NRVs)) was introduced in April 2009 and the second set in April 2011. CURRENT STATUS Common Safety Targets: First assessment of the second set of CSTs/NRVs (other two were against the first set). Even though the second set of CSTs/NRVs have not yet been formally adopted they have been used by the ERA in the assessment of the 2010 performance. The ERA Safety Performance Annual Report for 2012 can be viewed on the ERA website. The only member state to fail one of the NRVs was Sweden for NRV 5 relating to unauthorised persons. The ERA has asked the Swedish NSA to investigate this increase further. This highlights a problem with the NRV assessment process - although Sweden has one of the lowest Fatality and Weighted Serious Injury (FWSI) rates of all the member states for NRV 5 it is being asked to investigate the increase in risk further, when some of the other member states, that have FWSI rates an order of magnitude higher, have achieved their NRVs and no further action is required. This was discussed with the Safety Performance working group and logged as an issue to be discussed when the CSM for the CSTs are reviewed next year. A task force has been set up for the revision of the methodology for calculating CSTs. Marcus Dacre (of RSSB) is a member of this task force. They met for the first time in March 2013 and their work will be discussed within the Safety Performance Working Group (SPWG), before a recommendation is made to the EC by the 30 th June 2015. Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 12 Common Safety Indicators guidance A small number of additional changes to the CSI guidance document have been agreed and a revised version of the document is now available on the ERA website. Further proposals to revise Annex 1 have been developed and were agreed by the SPWG in February 2013. The main changes are to the classifications of level crossings, resulting in the number of level crossing types being reduced from 8 to 5. Potential changes to the collection and calculation of economic indicators will be discussed by the SPWG in due course following recommendation of the EC to omit this from the data collection process. Potential future proposals for the further revision of Annex 1 are being developed but no timescales are yet agreed for this revision. Please pass any suggestions you have for required changes to Annex 1 to George Bearfield at RSSB so they can be logged with ERA for consideration by the SPWG in due course. RAILWAY INDUSTRY POSITION The railway industry, via RSSB, is responsible for providing the CSI data to the ORR by the end of June each year and the ORR has to submit the data to the ERA by the end of September. ORR sent its 2011 annual report to ERA at the end of September 2012. The report is compiled using RSSB-collected CSI data and provides an overview of ORR’s activities during the previous calendar year. The ERA uses a predefined methodology to assess progress against the NRVs. Should performance fail to meet the NRVs, the responsibility for initiating corrective actions rests with the member state (DfT and ORR) although this will inevitably cascade down to the industry. TRL and RSSB presented their joint work on precursors at an ERA workshop in February 2013. The collection of precursors varies across member states and the inclusion of additional precursors in the CSI data collection will be discussed through the SPWG in due course. OTHER INFORMATION The revised NRVs were published in the 2011/12 Annual Safety Performance Report (ASPR), which is available on the RSSB website. For further information please email george.bearfield@rssb.co.uk DATE UPDATED April 2013 Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 13 European Regulation on the Common Safety Methods – Risk Evaluation & Assessment BACKGROUND The Railway Safety Directive (2004/49/EC) requires that a series of Common Safety Methods (CSMs) are developed by the ERA to describe how safety levels, achievement of safety targets and compliance with other safety requirements are assessed in the different member states. The ‘CSM on Risk Evaluation & Assessment’ has been developed according to Article 6(3)(a) of Directive 2004/49/EC (Safety Directive). Following the work of the CSM on Risk Evaluation & Assessment working group and its task forces, in January 2013, a revised version of the CSM on Risk Evaluation & Assessment was adopted by the Railway Interoperability & Safety Committee (RISC). The revised regulation will be available when it is published in the Official Journal of the EU. MAIN PROVISIONS The Safety Directive required that a first set of CSMs covering risk evaluation and assessment methods be adopted by the Commission by July 2012. The CSM on Risk Evaluation and Assessment (the CSM) has been developed by the ERA based on an examination of existing methods in the Member States. The methods developed by the ERA (with the support of the CSM Working Group) are predictive methods to be applied in order to assess the safety of any significant changes brought to the railway system. The CSM applies to the whole rail system and covers the assessment of the following changes: Construction of new lines or significant changes of existing lines. Introduction of new and substantially modified technical systems/sub-systems/ equipment. Operational changes (such as new or substantially modified operational rules and maintenance procedures). Significant changes within RU/IM organisations. The overall process for the CSM relies on hazard identification followed by an assessment of acceptability via a demonstration that the identified hazards are controlled by, either: The application of codes of practice (TSIs, NTRs, recognised standards, etc), Comparison with similar reference systems or The application of explicit risk assessment and comparison with risk-acceptance criteria. CURRENT STATUS The first phase of the Regulation, implemented on 19 July 2010, applied to significant technical changes affecting vehicles and all significant changes concerning structural subsystems. Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 14 The regulation became applicable in full from 1 July 2012. A guidance document has been issued by the ERA to accompany the Regulation. The CSM Risk Assessment Working Group is expected to periodically review and update the ERA guidance to ensure it remains fit for purpose, and to monitor the output from the CSM task forces. The ORR updated their guidance in December 2012. This can be viewed on the ORR website. Several task forces were established to work on the various elements of the CSM on Risk Evaluation & Assessment, these were – Significant Change Roles and Responsibilities of Independent Assessment Bodies (RRIAB) Risk Acceptance Criteria (RAC) The RRIAB task force and the RAC task force have now concluded their work, and the outputs of these two task forces were considered by the task force set up to develop the text of the recommendations on the revised CSM Regulation Significant Change Task Force A key element of the regulation is that a duty holder must use a consistent approach when assessing and introducing a ‘significant’ change. The regulation contains guidelines on how to assess the significance of the change, but it is left to the duty holder to determine whether a change is ‘significant’ and therefore when the processes will apply. Roles and Responsibilities of Independent Assessment Bodies Task Force The regulations currently require that for projects intended for the international market, the use of an accredited body should be mandatory. However, the ORR is proposing the development of less rigorous requirements for purely domestic projects, which would allow the use of internal assessment bodies. The ORR has approached UK sector representatives in order to determine whether to continue to pursue this approach for domestic projects. Risk Acceptance Criteria Task Force In terms of explicit risk estimation, the regulation currently defines one specific example of risk assessment criteria, for the case of failures of technical systems: For technical systems where a functional failure has credible direct potential for a catastrophic consequence, the associated risk does not have to be reduced further if the rate of failure is less than or equal to 10-9 per operating hour. Risk acceptance criteria are to be defined so that they are sufficient, but not necessary. The main advantage of this approach is that equipment manufacturers will know what the minimum risk criteria is to which a system must be built for it to be accepted in all member states. Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 15 RAC for risks related to human actions The ERA established a task force to make further progress on the topic of RAC for risks related to human actions. In relation to this, ERA launched a dedicated study. The tender procedure ended with the selection of the Swedish company MTO Safety. Part of the terms of reference for the TF is to follow the work of the study, in order to enable its outcome to be used as a basis for the development of a proposal for further harmonised RAC in the framework of the CSM Regulation. The final report of the Task Force was published on the ERA website in February 2013. Drafting task force to revise the CSM regulation The aim of this drafting task force was to develop the text of the recommendations on the revised CSM Regulation, taking into account the work done by the first three task forces. One of the key aims of the task force was to expand the current criterion, as defined in the Regulation, to cover functional failures of technical systems with direct potential for non-catastrophic outcomes. The task force met for the final time on 13 October 2011, and ERA subsequently submitted a report to Commission at the end of December 2011. This report summarised the experience collected on the use of the current CSM Regulation and included as annex the draft text of the revised regulation (excluding modifications to paragraph 2.5.4 on Risk Assessment Criteria, which were to be delivered at a later date). The proposed text for criteria of paragraph 2.5.4 was, at the request of ERA, subject to a validation exercise by CER; a CER-agreed position paper was delivered to ERA, containing the proposed modifications to paragraph 2.5.4. These modifications were considered by the CSM WG on 21 February 2012, but the WG did not feel in a position to accept the proposed revisions at that time. This position remained at the ERA WG meeting on 31st May 2012, and the text of 2.5.4 in the revised regulation therefore remains unchanged compared with the existing Regulation. RISC agreed the text of a revised CSM for risk assessment at their meeting held on 23rd and 24th January 2013. The main changes from the current regulation concern the need for accreditation/recognition of assessment bodies used within the risk management process. The regulation will come into force when it’s published in the Official Journal and will apply two years after that date. CURRENT STATUS In January 2013, ERA issued an information note outlining its plan for the way forward with the development of harmonised Risk Acceptance Criteria for Technical Systems (RAC-TS) as a part of future revision(s) of the CSM for Risk Assessment (ie after the version that will come into force during 2015). The note was been sent to the members of the NSA Network and to the Network of Representative Bodies today. This document sets out a proposal for RAC, which ERA states needs to be validated by the European railway sector. Sector bodies have been invited to start a process of response. An initial meeting of CER/EIM representatives met in March 2013 to consider a way forward. RSSB attended on behalf of ATOC. The meeting identified a list of questions/issues where the group felt there was disagreement or lack of common understanding among sector representatives. The clarification of these issues is to form the first part of a staged process towards responding to the ERA proposal. Getting agreement across the sector, and with ERA, regarding both the positions on the outstanding issues and the associated implications for how the validation process should be carried out will be crucial. A series of meetings involving a task force of sector representatives is to be scheduled. Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 16 RAILWAY INDUSTRY POSITION As risk assessment is a familiar concept in the UK, it is not expected that the application of the CSM will require any major changes in approach. The ORR is required to report on the implementation of the CSM Regulation in its annual safety report to ERA. RSSB has developed a guidance note on how to apply the CSM to organisational change. It is available on the RSSB website. The guidance is included as an Annex to the revised ORR guidance which was published in December 2012. ORR Guidance. OTHER INFORMATION Further information can be sourced from RSSB’s website: ‘Management of Engineering Change’. DATE UPDATED April 2013 Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 17 European Regulation on the Common Safety Methods – Conformity Assessment BACKGROUND The Railway Safety Directive (2004/49/EC) requires that a series of Common Safety Methods (CSMs) are developed by the ERA to describe how safety levels, achievement of safety targets and compliance with other safety requirements are assessed in the different member states. The “CSM on Conformity Assessment” is being developed according to Article 6(3)(b) of Directive 2004/49/EC (Safety Directive). MAIN PROVISIONS The CSM on conformity assessment sets out the criteria that National Safety Authorities will use to assess railway undertakings and infrastructure managers safety management systems (SMS) and network specific requirements. In order to be granted access to the infrastructure, a railway undertaking and infrastructure manager must hold a safety certificate or authorisation respectively. The package will contain the following elements – Safety Certification Part A – SMS Assessment Criteria and Procedures; – Safety Certification Part B – Harmonised Requirements, Assessment Criteria and Procedures; – This is a standard European Certificate – designed to be transferable between member states. This is a network-specific certificate to be issued to cover the particular requirements of a member state’s network. Safety Authorisation – SMS Assessment Criteria and Procedures, network specific Harmonised Requirements, Assessment Criteria and Procedures; – This is guidance and criteria for the assessment of safety authorisations for infrastructure managers. CURRENT STATUS The CSM for Conformity Assessment was published in December 2010 and came into force across Europe on 3 January 2011. The new European assessment criteria can be found on the ORR website (http://www.railreg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1520), and the revised ORR guidance document was published on 13th April 2011, which can be viewed at: http://www.railreg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/cert_auth_criteria_mainline.pdf It is not foreseen that the new assessment criteria will mean many changes to existing safety management systems, although there will be some changes to the information that needs to be provided in support of an application for a safety certificate / authorisation. Further amendments to the CSM are possible due to the difficulty some NSAs are experiencing with the award of safety certificates under (2004/49/EC). A peer review on authorisations for placing into service began last year. The UK review took place in early 2011. A final report was produced in November 2011. Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 18 Migration Strategy As required by the Railway Safety Directive, the ERA has been planning a migration strategy to a single safety certificate, valid across the EU. The ORR responded to the ERA’s consultation on the migration strategy during May 2011. There was a workshop held by the ERA on 29th June 2011 which discussed the results of the consultation exercise and the Agency’s proposal for the migration to a single European safety certificate. The Commission asked ERA to set out in a recommendation what changes to the Safety Directive will be required, and if any new regulations will be needed. This is now in the current draft of the revised safety directive, under consultation as part of the 4th Railway Package. ERA has also committed to produce a progress report on the implementation of the migration strategy, and intends to set up a programme board to bring together input from work streams such as risk assessment and operational rules. The CSM also requires the National Safety Authorities (NSA’s) to supervise Infrastructure Managers and Railway Undertaking in a consistent manner across Europe. This is facilitated through Commission Regulation No 1077/2012 (CSM for Monitoring & Supervision, see page 19), which comes into force on 07 June 2013 setting out the NSAs obligations. RAILWAY INDUSTRY POSITION The general position expressed by the sector at the workshop was largely positive in that the concept of a move towards a single safety certification could indeed be a step forward in the longer term. However there was a degree of caution expressed by certain sector bodies (including CER) that it may be too soon to make such a significant change given that the current system has not yet been fully implemented in all Member States and that there is still a wide degree of variation in both experience and understanding in implementing the requirements of the RSD. There is not currently a high degree of technical standardisation across Europe, which implies some on-going need for Part B assessment. These concerns were mitigated in part by the ERA stating that the timescales for introducing a single safety certificate would be 2020 and that there would be a robust development and transition strategy in place accordingly. OTHER INFORMATION ERA SMS Task Force has created SMS guidance to assist duty holders: http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Pages/application-guide-for-SMS.aspx New SMS web pages from the SMS Task Force are on the ERA Website: http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Pages/Welcome-to-the-European-RailwayAgency-Safety-Management-Systems-Wheel.aspx The final meeting of the ERA SMS Task Force took place on 22nd November 2012, when it discussed the development of Safety Culture and Human Factors Guidance in relation to SMS. This is expected to be published in early 2013. DATE UPDATED January 2013 Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 19 European Regulation on the Common Safety Methods – Monitoring & Supervision BACKGROUND The Railway Safety Directive requires that a series of Common Safety Methods (CSMs) are developed by the ERA to describe how safety levels, achievement of safety targets and compliance with other safety requirements are assessed in the different member states. CSMs on Monitoring and Supervision are being developed according to Article 6(3)(c) of Directive 2004/49/EC (Safety Directive). The “CSM on Monitoring and Supervision” working group agreed the main concept of the CSM in June 2010. MAIN PROVISIONS As part of the CSM monitoring, rules will be created, focussing on railway undertakings’ and infrastructure managers’ self-supervision and audit to ensure ongoing compliance with safety management systems after the award of a safety certificate. As this necessarily affected the approach National Safety Authorities (NSA) should take to monitoring the SMS, the working group also considered the NSAs’ role. This included developing harmonised principles for post award supervision by NSAs in the CSM on Supervision. CURRENT STATUS Monitoring The industry sector taskforce agreed that the CSM on Monitoring shall be applied by RUs, IMs and ECMs who will also ensure that the risk control measures implemented by their sub-contractors are also monitored in compliance with the CSM. RUs, IMs and ECMs who already have methods or tools in place for monitoring may continue to apply them so long as they are compatible with the provisions of the Regulation and described in the SMS of the RU/IM or described in the system of maintenance of the ECM. The main requirements of the Regulations are that Transport Operators will need to write Strategies and Plans for Monitoring, to be included in their SMSs or be referenced within the SMS. These should coordinate the various monitoring activities such as audits, measuring SPIs, inspections and recommendations from accident investigations. The monitoring should prioritise resources on the basis of risk and should lead to action plans to do the following where relevant: – correctly implement controls – improve existing controls – add new controls RSSB has published guidance for industry on the CSM for monitoring: RSSB Guidance. Supervision The separate task force drafting the Regulation on Supervision by NSAs agreed that all NSAs undertake some sort of planning in order to carry out inspections and audits, and that they are, or should be, risk-based. The NSA task force issued a draft regulation for task force members to review. ERA proposed that the CSM contains a general Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 20 requirement for NSAs to produce a strategy on how to supervise RUs and IMs and this links to their supervision plan; however NSAs will be given freedom on how the supervision plan is drawn up and executed, and on how they manage the competence of their staff in order that they are appropriate to the NSA and the IM / RUs. Under the regulation, an NSA will be required to: – – – – – – Have a strategy and plan(s) for supervising IMs and RUs; Have clear techniques for how to conduct their supervisory activities; Have clear links between the assessment for safety certificates / authorisations and supervision activity; Operate a competence management system for those conducting supervision activities; Utilise decision making criteria when evaluating IM and RU activities; Where necessary (such as cross border railway operation activity) that two or more NSAs cooperate and coordinate their supervisory activity. A Task Force made up of representatives across the NSA’s has met regularly, to develop guidance on how the supervision will be conducted. The International Liaison Group of Government Railway Inspectorates (ILGGRI) has currently held three supervision task force meetings. ERA has also held a task force and has produced guidance on how an NSA can use the CSM to implement a supervision system. ERA Guidance. Regulation 1078/2012 the CSM on Monitoring and Regulation 1077/2012 – the CSM on Supervision (covering IMs, RUs & ECMs) came into force on 07 December 2012 and applies from 07 June 2013. The Regulations were published in the official journal on 17th November 2012 and can be viewed in the links below. Regulation 1078/2012 – CSM on monitoring Regulation 1077/2012 – CSM on supervision RAILWAY INDUSTRY POSITION The CSM is seen as high level and fits well with the current practices of the ORR and duty holders, including ORR’s Risk Management Maturity Model (RM3). OTHER INFORMATION RSSB are developing industry guidance on ‘Safety Assurance’ in May 2013. assist transport operators with the CSM for monitoring requirements. DATE UPDATED This will April 2013 Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 21 The Fourth Railway Package - NEW BACKGROUND The ERA published proposals for the 'Fourth Railway Package' on 31 January. The package is a complex series of proposals, summarised at: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kallas/headlines/news/2013/01/fourth-railwaypackage_en.htm There are three main components to the technical pillar of the package, where new proposals for safety legislation are put forward: • Interoperability Directive: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0030:FIN:EN:PDF • Safety Directive: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0031:FIN:EN:PDF • Agency Regulation: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0027:FIN:EN:PDF MAIN PROVISIONS The proposals in the Fourth Railway Package focus on four key areas, summarised by the Vice-President of the European Commission in charge of transport as: Standards and approvals that work: The Commission wants to cut the administrative costs of rail companies and facilitate the entrance of new operators into the market. Under the new proposals, the European Rail Agency will become a "one stop shop." issuing EU wide vehicle authorisations for placing on the market as well as EU wide safety certificates for operators. Currently rail authorisations and safety certificates are issued by each Member State. The stated expectation is that these proposed measures would allow a 20% reduction in the time to market for new railway undertakings and a 20% reduction in the cost and duration of the authorisation of rolling stock, leading overall, to a saving for companies of €500 million by 2025. Better quality and more choice through allowing new players to run rail services: To encourage innovation, efficiency and better value for money, the Commission is proposing that domestic passenger railways should be opened up to new entrants and services from December 2019. Companies will be able to offer domestic rail passenger services across the EU: either by offering competing commercial services or through bidding for public service rail contracts, which account for a majority (over 90%) of EU rail journeys and will become subject to mandatory tendering. The stated expectation is that these proposals would bring clear benefits to passengers in terms of improved services, increasing choice that, combined with structural reforms, could by 2035 produce more than €40 billion of financial benefits for citizens and companies involved and would allow provision of up to an estimated 16 billion additional passenger-km. A structure that delivers: To ensure that the network is developed in the interests of all players, and to maximise operational efficiencies, the Commission is proposing to strengthen infrastructure managers so that they control all the functions at the heart of the rail network – including infrastructure investment planning, day-to-day operations and maintenance, as well as timetabling. Faced with numerous complaints from users, the Commission considers that the infrastructure managers must have operational and financial independence from any transport operator running the trains. This is essential to remove potential conflicts of interest and give all companies access to tracks in a non- Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 22 discriminatory way. It is stated that, as a general rule, the proposal confirms institutional separation as the simplest and most transparent way to achieve this. Rail undertakings independent of infrastructure managers will have immediate access to the internal passenger market in 2019. However, the Commission can accept that a vertically integrated or "holding structure" may also deliver the necessary independence, with strict "Chinese walls" to ensure the necessary, legal, financial and operational separation (see MEMO for details). Compliance Verification Clause: To safeguard this independence, in view of full passenger market opening in 2019, rail undertakings forming part of a vertically integrated structure could be prevented from operating in other Member States if they have not first satisfied the Commission that all safeguards are in place to ensure a level playing field in practice, and a fair competition is possible in their home market. A skilled workforce: A vibrant rail sector depends on a skilled and motivated workforce. Over the next 10 years, rail will face the combined challenges of attracting new staff to replace the third of its workforce which will retire, while responding to a new and more competitive environment. Experience in Member States which have opened their markets shows this should lead to new and better jobs. Under the EU regulatory framework, Member States will have the possibility to protect workers by requiring new contractors to take them on when public service contracts are transferred, going beyond the general EU requirements on transfers of undertakings. CURRENT STATUS The Commission's proposals must be approved by the European Parliament and Member State Governments, before being adopted. Discussions were brought to the Ministerial level for the first time on March 11th, 2013 in the occasion of the Transport Council. During the debate, ministers broadly acknowledged the need to increase the efficiency of the authorisation process. However, misgivings were expressed about the transfer of competences from national authorities to the European Rail Agency as proposed by the Commission. More specifically, several member states pointed out that responsibility for the authorisation of vehicles used only on the national territory or on local or regional networks should remain with national authorities, so that the specific situations in the different countries can be properly taken into account. Some delegations argued that the harmonisation of railway infrastructure was not yet advanced enough to justify a centralised authorisation procedure and suggested that the role of the ERA should be enhanced gradually. Several delegations were of the opinion that the ERA should be given a stronger supervisory role, but not responsibility for authorisations. The issue of liability in the event of accidents was also raised. Discussion of the proposal will continue in the Council's preparatory bodies in the light of the comments made by the ministers. European Commission’s website: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_20102014/kallas/headlines/news/2013/01/fourth-railway-package_en.htm RAILWAY INDUSTRY POSITION In February 2013, the Commons Transport Select Committee launched a short inquiry into the European Commission’s 4th railway package. The Committee focussed on what impact the package will have on rail in the UK. Evidence received from a number of parties, including TfL, Network Rail and freight organisations, is published at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmtran/writev/ec/contents.htm. Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 23 The CER ERA Steering Unit is currently working on a position paper on proposed amendments for the Interoperability Directive, Safety Directive, and ERA Regulation. Finalisation foreseen mid April 2013. ATOC are inputting via this process. The DfT have invited input though their 'Interoperability Newsflash' service, and are holding industry workshops to consider the proposals under the technical pillar of the package. RSSB has responded directly to this invitation where appropriate (particularly in relation to the proposals relating to ‘national rules’). OTHER INFORMATION DATE UPDATED April 2013 Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 24 Section 3 UK Legislation (General) Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 25 CD243 – Proposals to simplify and clarify Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) reporting requirements. BACKGROUND HSE are leading a review of RIDDOR, following the Lofstedt Review, which made recommendations that HSE should review all its regulations to see if there was scope for clarification, simplification and removing burdens on industry. Although the regulation recently changed the requirement for reportable injuries for workforce from +3 days to +7 days lost, HSE have prioritised another review, and they have consulted on proposals for further changes to the RIDDOR Regulations. MAIN PROVISIONS The aim of the HSE’s proposal to revise what is reported under RIDDOR 95. It is in response to the Lofstedt review and aims to clarify and simplify RIDDOR, as well as to provide a reporting mechanism which is appropriate for HSE’s current and anticipated needs. Under the current proposals, the HSE intended to remove five reporting requirements: Cases of occupational disease, other than those resulting from a work-related exposure to a biological agent Non-fatal accidents to people not at work Dangerous occurrences outside of higher risk sectors or activities The reporting by self-employed persons of injuries or illnesses to themselves. Suicides on the relevant transport system. The current requirement if there is a major injury to a worker is to notify the enforcing authority by the ‘quickest practicable means’ and follow this up with a written report within 10 days. However, the HSE selects RIDDOR incidents for investigations against published selection criteria (http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/incidselcrits.pdf) The HSE propose to simplify the list of reportable major injuries to align with the incident selection criteria (apart from item 10 below) as follows: 1. Any fracture other than to fingers, thumbs or toes 2. Any amputation 3. Crush injuries leading to internal organ damage 4. Head injuries that result in a loss of consciousness (guidance to be issued explaining that fainting, seizures etc that lead to head injuries would not be included in the major injury category) 5. Burns or scalds covering more than 10% of the body 6. Permanent blinding in one or both eyes 7. Any degree of scalping 8. Any asphyxiation from whatever cause 9. Any injury arising from working in a confined space resulting in hypothermia, heatinduced illness, requiring resuscitation or admittance to hospital for more than 24 hours Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 26 10. Any diagnosed illness requiring medical treatment, which is reliably attributed to a workrelated exposure to a biological agent or its toxins or infected material (this enacts a specific requirements of an EU Directive). CURRENT STATUS The HSE invited consultation on their proposals to simplify and clarify how businesses comply with the requirements under the RIDDOR 95. The responses can be viewed at http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd243-responses.pdf The outcome of the consultation can be viewed at: www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/hseboard/2013/300113/pjanb1304.pdf The HSE has dropped its proposal that employers and other dutyholders should no longer have to report occupational diseases, as agreed at a closed meeting on 30 January 2013. The HSE board agreed to retain the duty to report non-fatal work-related accidents to members of the public. The reforms to major injuries, dangerous occurrences and selfemployed workers will go ahead. Duties to report fatal injuries to workers and the public, and over-seven-day injuries to workers, remain unchanged. The HSE board will advise the minister to accept the modified package; subject to approval, the revisions are scheduled to come into force on 1 October 2013. The HSE had proposed removing the requirement to report occupational diseases except where they result from exposure to biological agents. Following concerns raised at consultation, it has now decided employers will have to report occupational cancers, diseases attributable to biological agents and six short-latency diseases (hand-arm vibration syndrome, dermatitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, severe cramp of the arm, tendonitis and occupational asthma). The HSE had also proposed removing the requirement to report work-related non-fatal injuries to members of the public who are taken to hospital for treatment. In light of this the HSE will retain this requirement although it will make the reporting stipulations and threshold clearer through improved guidance. The other reforms proposed in the consultative document will go ahead: The list of major injuries will be simplified and reduced to 10 types, so that it is more closed aligned with the HSE’s incident selection criteria; The list of 25 dangerous occurrences will be simplified and reduced to 20 so that they focus on higher-risk sectors and activities; and Self-employed workers will no longer have to report injuries to themselves. RAILWAY INDUSTRY POSITION RSSB has concerns about the implications and costs of changing the Safety Management Information System (SMIS), and how the changes in definitions may affect historic data. Industry has concerns over the alignment of the revised RIDDOR 95 and the Railway Reporting guidance. Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 27 OTHER INFORMATION The ORR responded to the consultation. They agreed with the HSE’s proposals for the removal of reporting suicides and occupational diseases from RIDDOR. They disagreed with the proposal to remove non-fatal injuries to people not at work from being reported under RIDDOR in relation to railways due to the high passenger/public interface with railway operations. Click here to view their response. DATE UPDATED April 2013 Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 28 CD248 – Proposal to remove the requirement for the HSE to approve first aid training and qualifications under The Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 (as amended) BACKGROUND Following the recommendation made from the Lofstedt review of Health & Safety Regulations in November 2011 the HSE are revising the Health & Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981. Although the regulations do not state a particular number of first-aid personnel are required, it does currently stipulate that the training and qualifications for the appointed first-aid person must be approved by HSE. The Lofstedt report says that this appears to both go beyond the requirements of the Directive and have little justification. So long as organisations meet a certain standard, allowing businesses to choose training providers should allow them greater flexibility to choose what is right for their workplace, and possibly reduce costs. The review also found that a number of organisations felt the requirement under the regulations to have a qualified first-aid person appointed in the workplace was an unnecessary requirement for low-risk workplaces. Lofstedt also suggested that there should be a revision of guidance clarifying what is suitable for different environments to help businesses adopt measures that are suitable for their workplace, and that explains clearly what the regulations actually require. It was therefore recommended that HSE amends the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981 to remove the requirement for HSE to approve the training and qualifications of appointed first-aid personnel. MAIN PROVISIONS The policy objectives for the revision of the regulations are: Removal of HSE approval of First Aid Training providers, to reduce the burden on business; To ensure that businesses can identify first aid courses that are appropriate for their workplaces and select suitable training providers To implement the recommendation there is a requirement to change legislation in order to amend the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981. CURRENT STATUS Following public consultation, HSE is working towards implementing the necessary changes, subject to HSE Board and Parliamentary approval. The anticipated changes to the Regulations are expected in October 2013. The HSE has published the following 2 new pieces of draft guidance The first guidance document will help businesses to make an assessment of the first aid requirements within their specific workplace and to put the necessary provisions and competent personnel in place The second guidance document will help businesses select an appropriate first aid training provider to deliver their training requirements within the new system. View: Draft guidance / Second edition / Third edition Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 29 RAILWAY INDUSTRY POSITION The industry welcomes this revision and the possible cost reductions that could result. OTHER INFORMATION DATE UPDATED March 2013 Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 30 CD241 – Proposals to review HSE’s Approved Codes of Practice (ACoPs) BACKGROUND On 28 November 2011 Professor Ragnar Löfstedt published his independent review of health and safety legislation ‘Reclaiming health and safety for all’. The review reported that overall a wide range of stakeholders supported the principles of ACoPs; however, it was felt by many that there was room for improvement. In his report Professor Löfstedt made the following recommendation: “HSE should review all its Approved Codes of Practice (ACoPs)”. The initial phase of the review should be completed by June 2012 so businesses have certainty about what is planned and when changes can be anticipated. The Government accepted this recommendation and asked HSE to review its 52 ACoPs. MAIN PROVISIONS ACoPs are not law but do hold a special legal status (quasi-legal). By adhering to the advice in ACoP material in relevant circumstances duty holders can be confident they are complying with the law. HSE is currently reviewing its guidance and presenting it to users in increasing levels of detail and specificity. These levels of guidance are arranged as follows: Level 1 – Health and Safety Made Simple and the revised Essentials of Health and Safety Level 2 – The ‘brief guide to…’ hazard based leaflets which explain risks in more detail and provide information on effective control Level 3 – Guidance which goes into more detail and often includes case studies. This includes: a) Industry Guidance (INDGs) which are industry or topic based guidance leaflets aimed at employers and workers. b) Health and Safety Guidance (HSGs) which provide more comprehensive, detailed advice often including case studies and can be either topic or sector based. Level 4 – Legal series guidance which present regulations, ACoP advice and guidance The review of HSE guidance aims to make sure that HSE’s portfolio of guidance is useful and balanced; making it easier for employers to understand and therefore meet their legal responsibilities. CURRENT STATUS The HSE completed the initial review of 32 out of its 52 ACoPs. There are 20 other ACoPs that have not been reviewed at this time, due to their association with on-going sector specific consolidations or other regulatory amendments, and therefore will be reviewed during the delivery of these processes. Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 31 The Management of the Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 ACoP was considered by the HSE Board at their January 2013 meeting where they agreed the ACoP could be taken forward for withdrawal. In its place will be a full suite of core guidance that makes it easier for businesses to understand what is required and how they can comply with the Regulations. The decision follows the Board's review of proposals for the revised 'Managing for health and safety' publication (HSG65) an over-arching guide on the essential principles and practice of health and safety management. The Management Regulations themselves will remain unchanged and the ACoP will not be withdrawn until the revised HSG65 is published. Final timescales are still to be agreed. (Management of health and safety (ACOP L21). The HSE proposed a revision, consolidation or withdrawal of 15 ACoPs by the end of 2013. The following was agreed: The removal of the ACoPs on Agriculture (ACOP L116) and Pipelines (ACOP L81) was valid; however, the HSE will put forward two separate papers to the board in early 2013. The revision of Workplaces (ACOP L24) and Hazardous substances (ACOP L5) the Dangerous substances and explosive atmospheres (ACOPs L134 - 138) Asbestos (ACOPs L127, L143), and Gas safety (ACOPs L56, COP20), which all have more than one ACoP associated with them, will be consolidated The ACoP on Legionella (ACOP L8) will be split into a code and guidance From the responses received to the consultation, there was strong support to make minor revisions to all the following 14 ACoPs by the end of 2014. Diving (ACOPs L103 - 107) Work equipment (ACOPs L22, L112, L114) Lifting equipment (ACOP L113) Confined spaces (ACOP L101) Pressure systems (ACOP L122) Hazardous substances - pottery production (ACOP L60) Hazardous substances - lead (ACOP L132) Quarries (ACOP L118) The HSE stated it would make no changes to the ACoP on Worker involvement (ACOP L146) The Board agreed to drop the proposal to limit all ACoP documents to a maximum of 32 pages. The full consultation document, which ended on 14th September 2012, can be viewed at: http://consultations.hse.gov.uk/gf2.ti/f/16674/438181.1/PDF/-/CD241%20Complete.pdf In January 2013 HSE published the consultation responses, they can be viewed at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd241-analysis.pdf RAILWAY INDUSTRY POSITION The review of ACoPs was supported by the industry and companies were encouraged to respond to the subsequent consultations on specific ACoPs. Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 32 OTHER INFORMATION For proposed consolidations or revisions of ACoPs there will be further opportunities to comment on the detail of changes when HSE consults on the text of the revised ACoPs. The Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) is supporting the e-petition against the proposed withdrawal of the ACOP for the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (L21) http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/46262. DATE UPDATED April 2013 Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 33 CD242 – Proposals to exempt from health and safety law those self-employed whose work activities pose no potential risk of harm to others BACKGROUND In response to a recommendation in the Lofstedt Report, the Government asked the HSE to take urgent action to draw up proposals for changing the law to remove health and safety burdens from the self-employed in low-risk occupations, whose activities represent no risk to other people. The HSWA (section 53) gives a broad definition of a self-employed person. It states a “selfemployed person means an individual who works for gain or reward otherwise than under a contract of employment, whether or not he himself employs others”. MAIN PROVISIONS Lofstedt’s recommendation centres on exempting those self-employed whose work activities pose no potential risk of harm to others and thus it is appropriate to remove the unnecessary application of health and safety law. There are three options proposed to implement Lofstedt’s recommendation, and these have been drawn as flow charts to explain the approach for each option. The three options ensure the self-employed person constantly assesses the risk they pose to others and consequently adjusting their behaviour. It is therefore proposed to exempt only those who would not be expected to put others at risk at any point in the normal course of their work, and all three options described are based on this premise. Option 1 – Exempting from health and safety law, the self-employed who pose no potential risk of harm to others This would have the effect that a self-employed person who met the following preconditions would be exempt from health and safety law: They are self-employed; They do not employ anyone; and When carrying out their work activities/conducting their undertaking or by the products and services created by the work activities, they must pose no potential risk of harm to others. Option 2 – Exempting from health and safety law, the self-employed who pose no potential risk of harm to others (points 1 – 3 as above in option 1), and who do not work in a high risk sector as prescribed by the Secretary of State. The ‘prescribed sectors’ who are out of scope of this exemption are Agricultural activities Mining; Construction Diving; Quarries; COMAH and sub-COMAH sites; Offshire activities; Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 34 Option 3 – Exempting from health and safety law, the self-employed who undertake officetype activities and pose no potential risk of harm to others. This is similar to option 1, with an additional requirement to take into account work solely consisting of office-type activities. In order to be exempt from health and safety, the following preconditions must be met: They are self-employed; They do not employ others; Their work solely consists of office-type activities; and When carrying out their work activities/conducting their undertaking or by the products and services created by the work activities they must pose no potential risk of harm to others. Option 4 - to make no changes to the legislation at all. CURRENT STATUS In March 2013 HSE published the consultation responses, they can be viewed at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd242-responses.pdf The HSE Board has agreed proposals for self-employed people whose work activities pose no risk of harm to others to be exempted from health and safety law. Self-employed workers in a defined list of high hazard industries or those carrying out high risk activities where there is the potential to cause significant injury to others will remain in the scope of the law. The change is expected to take 800,000 self-employed people out of the scope of health and safety regulations. ORR has asked for railways to be included in the list of sectors that will not be covered by the proposed exemption. Ministers will now consider the proposals and make the decision whether to change the law. RAILWAY INDUSTRY POSITION Industry feels that this proposal will have a limited impact as if contactors are exempt from this proposal, they will still fall under individual Transport Operator’s Contractor Management policies. OTHER INFORMATION DATE UPDATED March 2013 Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 35 Enforcement procedures against drink drivers and other offences BACKGROUND In June 2010 Sir Peter North wrote a report on the review of drink and drug driving law, and in November 2010 the Transport Select Committee wrote a report on Drink and Drug Driving Law. The Government responded to both reports in March 2011 proposing legislative changes on drink and drug driving. MAIN PROVISIONS The legislative changes proposed in this consultation relate to Great Britain. The proposals are consistent with the devolution of the drink drive limit in Scotland, through the Scotland Act 2012. The Government is seeking views on the following proposed changes – The withdrawal of the ‘statutory option’; The statutory option gives people the right to replace their breath alcohol specimens with either a specimen of blood or specimens of urine in cases where the lower of the two breath readings provided does not exceed 50 microgrammes (mcg) of alcohol per 100 millilitres (ml) of breath. The consultation seeks to withdraw this right. Changes as to when preliminary breath tests are needed; The consultation seeks to remove the requirement for preliminary testing to be done where two evidential tests have been undertaken away from a police station. Changes to the testing procedures in hospital; The consultation seeks views to allow a wider range of registered healthcare professionals to take evidential blood specimens, and not just hospitals. Changes to who can assess if someone is under the influence of drugs; Under the Road Traffic Act (1988) only a doctor can determine if a driver is under the influence of drugs. The DfT are speaking to stakeholders on whether other healthcare professionals can form this opinion. Amendments to the regimes for aviation, rail and shipping which mirror the road regime. The legislative changes would apply to the Road Traffic Act 1988. This Act or other parallel legislative provisions, apply similar measures to the drink drive offence to railways, shipping and aviation. The consultation seeks views about whether any changes here should also apply to these other transport sectors. CURRENT STATUS The consultation closed for comments on 2nd January 2013 and the DfT are currently analysing the responses. The consultation paper is available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/enforcement-procedures-against-drinkdrivers-and-other-offenders RAILWAY INDUSTRY POSITION OTHER INFORMATION DATE UPDATED January 2013 Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 36 CD251 – Proposal to revise the guidance for duty holders to decide the appropriate arrangements for the provision of first-aid under The Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 (As Amended) - NEW BACKGROUND The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) consulted late last year on proposals to amend the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981 (the 1981 Regulations). This was in response to Professor Ragnor Lofstedt’s recommendation in his review of health and safety legislation Reclaiming health and safety for all: an independent review of health and safety legislation to remove the requirement for HSE to approve first aid training and qualifications. MAIN PROVISIONS This consultation seeks views on the content of revised guidance to help duty holders decide on appropriate arrangements for the provision of first aid at the business. CURRENT STATUS HSE consulted on Professor Lofstedt’s recommendation late last year and the responses have been collated and analysed. This analysis was presented to the HSE Board at its 3 meeting on 27 February 2013 . The HSE Board approved the proposal to proceed with the amendment to the 1981 Regulations to remove HSE approval of training and qualifications. Subject to Parliamentary approval, the intention is for this amendment to be commenced 6 October 2013. In addition to consulting on the amendment to the 1981 Regulations, HSE also sought views on some principles for the content of the revised guidance (L74) to assist duty holders in making arrangements for first aid provision in their workplace as well as the status of the current Approved Code of Practice (ACoP). The consultation started in March 2013 and is due to finish on the 3rd May, details can be found here http://consultations.hse.gov.uk/gf2.ti/f/18178/467877.1/PDF/-/CD251.pdf RAILWAY INDUSTRY POSITION Industry considers that this proposal will not require any changes to those operators who have currently taken into account passenger first aid provisions at stations. For those operators who haven’t taken passenger first aid provisions into account they should consider this proposal and make a conscious decision as to whether it applies to their operation. OTHER INFORMATION DATE UPDATED March 2013 Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 37 Section 4 UK Legislation (Railways) Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 38 Level crossing legislation BACKGROUND Following a joint submission by the ORR and the DfT. The Law Commission, together with the Scottish Law Commission, agreed to carry out a review of the law relating to level crossings as part of the Law Commission’s Tenth Programme of Law Reform. The project covers level crossings in Scotland, England and Wales. The Law Commission is a statutory independent body whose role is to keep the law under review and recommend reform where needed. MAIN PROVISIONS The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission are carrying out a project which examines the legal framework relating to level crossings, with a view to simplify and modernise. The legislation governing level crossings is complex and antiquated, much of it dating back to the nineteenth century. At present, the provisions relating to level crossings are scattered amongst legislation relating to different areas of law. With the legislation currently contained in public Acts, private special Acts, bye-laws or subordinate legislation, there is a requirement to attempt to consolidate the law in this area. This consultation proposes a complete overhaul of existing level crossings legislation, and particularly looks at: The creation of level crossings Current regulation of level crossings Level crossing closures Rights of way and access issues Criminal offences Signs and highway code CURRENT STATUS Following a review of the current level crossing legislation, the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission published a joint consultation paper. Consultation took place between July and Nov 2010, including meetings with a rail, road and other interest groups and meetings with members of the Commissions’ advisory group. The Commissions also carried out site visits to Network Rail, heritage railway and tramway systems. The Commissions published a paper in July 2010, starting a consultation period which ran from July to November 2010. 114 written submissions were received. The Commissions attended a large number of consultation events with interested groups, including RSSB, train operating companies, the ORR, the DfT, NR, heritage railways, tramway operators, BTP, dock and industrial site owners, highway authorities, passenger groups, disability groups, and representatives of level crossing users. Visits were undertaken to level crossings on the mainline railway, a heritage railway and a tramway system. After the close of the consultation period, the Law Commissions analysed all the responses and developed a joint policy paper, setting out their provisional recommendations for consideration by the Commissioners. The Law Commissions held a meeting with their advisory group at RSSB in April 2011 to update the group on these provisional conclusions. Commissioners at the Law Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 39 Commission and Scottish Law Commission then approved provisional proposals, including the following: Safety and convenience at level crossings should be regulated under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA 1974), along with regulations and approved codes of practice made under it; HSWA 1974 regulations should provide for the issuing of level crossing plans to be agreed, which would provide site-specific information and directions for individual level crossings while the generic safety measures would be set out in regulations; The Secretary of State may direct the terms of a level crossing plan or even direct maximum downtimes for level crossing barriers where necessary; The draft bill should impose a duty on rail and highway/roads authorities to co-operate, a duty to consult stakeholders when changes to level crossing arrangements are proposed, and a duty on the body proposing changes to publish their proposals; The draft Bill should provide for a new system for closing private and public level crossings by means of level crossing closure orders; ORR should retain primary responsibility for enforcing safety regulation at level crossings; No new criminal offences specific to level crossings should be created; and A power should be created enabling the Secretary of State to make a single set of regulations in relation to signs at level crossings. The teams have been working with Parliamentary counsel to prepare a draft Bill and regulations. These were shared with the Advisory Group on 17 July 2012. The provisional proposals put forward in the consultation paper represented the Commissions’ initial view about how the law should be reformed. They have now reviewed these proposals on the basis of the responses to the consultation paper, and the proposed policy has been approved by the Commissioners of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. A draft of the Level Crossings Bill, accompanying regulations and the final report are expected to be published in early May 2013, together with an analysis of the responses and a draft Bill. The full consultation document can be viewed on the Law Commission website. There is also a summary of the consultation paper available on the Law Commission website. RAILWAY INDUSTRY POSITION RSSB, Network Rail and ATOC responded to this consultation. OTHER INFORMATION The ORR is currently in correspondence with Network Rail concerning AOCLs, and it will also press the Sentencing Guidelines Council to increase the suggested penalties for level crossing misuse by motorists. DATE UPDATED January 2013 Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 40 Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations BACKGROUND The European Commission (EC) adopted Regulation 445/2011 on a system of certification of Entities in Charge of Maintenance (ECM’s) for freight wagons on 10th May 2011. The revised Railway Safety Directive, which amends the Railway Safety Directive (2004/49/EC), requires that an ECM for freight wagons obtains a certificate from a certification body to show that it has a satisfactory system of maintenance. The ORR will initially be a certification body for ECMs. Since the publication of the ECM Regulation in May 2011, the UK created a two-stage implementation plan to transpose the requirements of the revised Railway Safety Directive and give effect to the ECM. The first implementing instrument, the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2011, came into force in Great Britain on 26th August 2011 http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1511 MAIN PROVISIONS The ROGS Miscellaneous Amendments set out the amendments required for introducing the certification regime for ECM of freight wagons required under European Directive 2008/110/EC (‘the revised Railway Safety Directive’) in Great Britain, and is the second stage of the implementation of the two European Directives into ROGS. The Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 The proposed changes to ROGS include: Removing the current requirement for mainline operators to carry out safety verification, which takes into account the introduction of the common safety method on risk evaluation and assessment. This will avoid duplication by removing the need for mainline duty holders to carry out the existing safety verification requirements in ROGS as well as applying the CSM on risk evaluation and assessment. Amending the definition of ‘mainline railway’ in ROGs to explain what systems are within scope and ensure that operators of heritage and light rail systems can be excluded from the requirements applicable to mainline operators where appropriate. An Approved List of Exclusions will be available on the ORR website. Removing the requirement for non-mainline operators to send annual safety reports to ORR, this will reduce administrative burdens. Clarifying that controllers of safety-critical work must have suitable and sufficient monitoring arrangements in place. Ensuring that the 28-day ‘affected parties’ consultation period runs concurrently with ORR’s 4-month processing time for applications for safety certificates and safety authorisations. This will reduce the time it takes for applicants to receive a safety certification or authorisation. Clarifying the meanings of ‘national safety rules’ and ‘placed in service’. Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 41 Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010 The draft regulations also contain proposals to amend the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010 to clarify the meaning of ‘in code form’ in relation to medical restrictions in train driving licences and reflect the changes made to the definition of ‘mainline railway’ in ROGS. Changes to Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority for Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 2006 The ORR is proposing to extend the powers of ORR inspectors to give them jurisdiction to enter, and undertake enforcement in certain premises that are currently excluded from their remit, i.e. warehouses and factories. This amendment will ensure that ORR inspectors have the necessary powers to inspect and enforce, on railway operational matters only, in premises where an ECM may have maintenance facilities. CURRENT STATUS The consultation document was published on 30th July 2012, and can be viewed on the ORR website. The closing date for responses was 23rd October 2012. The ROGS Miscellaneous Amendments are expected to come into force in spring 2013. The ORR’s response to consultation comments will be published shortly before the amendments come into force. The ROGS Miscellaneous Amendments have been laid before Parliament and are currently due to be published by the end of April 2013. The guidance to ROGS will be amended to reflect the changes. RAILWAY INDUSTRY POSITION RSSB’s response was endorsed by SPG. Miscellaneous Amendments. The railway industry supports the ROGS OTHER INFORMATION DATE UPDATED April 2013 Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 42 Section 5 Other railway related consultations Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 43 ORR’s Approach to Transparency BACKGROUND Openness and Transparency are both crucial elements in delivering the Governments’ objectives for strengthened public accountability; public service improvement; and encouraging wider economic growth through the development of products and services based on public sector information. Transparency is also a key factor in the Governments’ strategy, which was laid out in its document ‘Better Choices: Better Deals’. In support of this strategy, the DfT published a Command Paper in March 2012 called ‘Reforming our Railways: Putting the Customer First’ (http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/reforming-ourrailways/), which details how this kind of approach could be used within the rail industry. The ORR has supported this view of transparency in the railways and ‘believes it has a vital role to play in driving the behavioural changes necessary for industry reform, delivering better value for money and delivering a customer focussed industry’. In May 2011 the ORR launched the National Rail Trends (NRT) Portal, which provides the public access to a wide variety of rail statistics. The NRT has a report wizard which enables users to query detailed data and see key data via tables and charts. MAIN PROVISIONS The ORR has published a consultation document to gain views on the ORR’s approach to transparency. They believe transparency is important in driving the behavioural changes necessary for industry reform, delivering better value for money and a more customer focussed industry. The ORRs vision for the development of more transparency in the rail industry is: Hold the sector to account by reputation in absolute terms and by comparison; Hold ORR to account in how they discharge their statutory responsibilities, in the substance of their decisions and what they spend; Exposure where the industry spends the money it receives and on what, to enable passengers, funders and taxpayers to consider whether they are getting value for money and to support informed choices about future spends including at local level; Enable passengers and freight customers to exercise choice where available and to match the service or product to their needs; and Stimulate the design and introduction of new consumer led services and products by third party developers with potential downstream commercial applications. CURRENT STATUS The ORR has published a consultation document which describes why they believe transparency is so important, and outlines the current focus and activities of ORR and the industry. They are seeking views on how they should go about assessing the risks and benefits of more transparency and what factors they should take into account, including how we should measure whether their objectives are being achieved. The consultation document and the responses received can be viewed on the ORRs website. The closing date for responses was 19th October 2012. Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 44 ORR held a stakeholder workshop on 10th December 2012, which was attended by Colin Dennis of RSSB and other industry stakeholders. This conference discussed what transparency means in the context of the railways and how they can work together to deliver the benefits that transparency can bring to passengers, taxpayers and the industry. RAILWAY INDUSTRY POSITION RSSB responded to the consultation. This can be viewed here. OTHER INFORMATION This year the ORR is establishing a way in which to evaluate their effectiveness. Results of this evaluation will be published in Spring 2013. The ORR published two reports on 23rd November 2012. The first report compares the expenditure of the 19 franchised Train Operating Companies (TOC’s). The second report provides an analysis comparing TOCs in Great Britain to those in other European countries. These are available on the ORR’s website. DATE UPDATED January 2013 Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 45 Consultation on the rules, regulations, coroner areas and statutory guidance - NEW BACKGROUND The current legislation governing the role of the coroner and the conduct of inquests is primarily the Coroners Act 1988 and the Coroners Rules 1984. Successive reviews of the coroner system – most recently those conducted by Tom Luce and Dame Janet Smith in 2003 – identified much that is good in the current system, but also some fundamental problems. These included a lack of consistency between coroner districts and an absence of national supervision or leadership. Most importantly the reviews highlighted a lack of clear participation rights for bereaved people, and a lack of standards for the treatment and support of all those who come into contact with coroners. The consultation paper sets out the proposals for implementing the coroner reforms in Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. It seeks views on proposed coroner investigation regulations, inquest rules, fee and allowance regulations, coroner areas, and statutory guidance for bereaved people. This consultation is aimed at coroners, coroners' officers and other staff, bereaved people, voluntary organisations who help bereaved people, local authorities, and all those who have an interest in coroner services. MAIN PROVISIONS Coroners and Justice Act 2009 These reviews – and the issues they identified – led to Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (‘the 2009 Act’). The objectives of the 2009 Act are: – To put the needs of bereaved people at the heart of the coroner system – For coroner services to continue to be locally delivered but within a new national framework, with national leadership, and – To enable a more efficient system of investigations and inquests. The 2009 Act provides for a number of structural changes to the coroner system. It creates the new national head of the coroner system, the office of Chief Coroner. It introduces the new concept of ‘investigations’ into deaths as well as inquests, as well as making new provisions relating to coroner areas, creating new titles for coroners, and removing barriers to where investigations can be held. The majority of the provisions in Part 1 of the Act have not yet been implemented. They will be commenced when the new rules, regulations and orders on coroner areas come into force. The Ministry of Justice intends to implement the majority of the provisions in Part 1 of the 2009 Act for which it is responsible. The main exceptions to this are the three sections of the Act that have either been repealed or will shortly be repealed – the Chief Coroner’s appeal function (section 40), inspection of the coroner system (section 39), and public funding for advocacy (section 51). Implementing the coroner reforms in Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 Consultation Paper. Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 46 2010 policy consultation on implementing the 2009 Act In spring 2010 the Ministry of Justice consulted on aspects of policy to inform the drafting of secondary legislation to underpin the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The consultation sought views on issues such as: – Transferring cases from one coroner to another – Post-mortem examinations – Disclosure of relevant information by coroners – Conduct of inquests – The training of coroners, their officers and other support staff. Where appropriate the responses to the 2010 consultation have fed into the draft rules and regulations which are now being consulted on. Public Bodies Act 2011 Following a review of public bodies in 2010, the Ministry of Justice set out alternative proposals for delivering coroner reform, including transferring the Chief Coroner’s statutory functions to other office holders. However, following debates during the parliamentary passage of the Public Bodies Act 2011, Parliament agreed that the post of Chief Coroner should be preserved, but with a more focused remit than originally intended. The 2011 Act therefore repealed the system of appeals to the Chief Coroner set out in section 40 of the 2009 Act. The Ministry of Justice intends to give the Chief Coroner all of the remaining statutory powers in the 2009 Act. CURRENT STATUS The consultation ran from the 1st March 2013 to the 12th April 2013. Details cn be found here https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/coroner-reforms The Ministry of Justice is currently analysing the responses to the consultation and plan to publish a consultation response document in spring 2013 and aim to implement the 2009 Act’s coroner provisions in summer 2013. RAILWAY INDUSTRY POSITION OTHER INFORMATION DATE UPDATED April 2013 Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 47 Section 6 - News Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 48 News - Court Cases Network Rail and one of its signalmen have been fined when a train hit a car at a level crossing Network Rail and one of its signallers have been fined for failing to ensure the safety of a woman killed when a train hit a car at a level crossing. On 16 January 2010, a collision occurred between a passenger train and two cars at the level crossing at Moreton-on-Lugg, near Hereford. The front-seat passenger in one of the cars was fatally injured. The driver was seriously injured and detained in hospital. The two occupants of the other car attended hospital as a precaution. There were no casualties on the train, which did not derail. The level crossing is controlled from the adjacent signal box. The cause of the accident was that the signaller raised the barriers in error when the train was approaching and too close to be able to stop before reaching the level crossing. He had just been involved in an absorbing telephone call that had interrupted his normal task of monitoring the passage of the train. As a result he believed that the train had already passed over the crossing. The signaller was fined £1,750 and ordered to complete 275 hours of unpaid work, while Network Rail was given a £450,000 fine. Both were found guilty of health and safety regulations following a two-week trial in February 2013. The RAIB report can be view here http://raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/110228_R042011v2_Moreton_on_Lugg.pdf Balfour Beatty fined after worker suffers severe injuries On 12 May 2009 Keith Hawley, was manoeuvring a large piece of rail track into a press at Balfour Beatty Rail Track Systems Ltd in Osmaston Street, Sandiacre, when his right hand became trapped between the rail and a conveyor roller. He suffered flesh wounds and a broken finger on that occasion, but on 29 March 2010 the other hand was seriously injured when Mr Hawley became trapped for a second time while carrying out the same work. The little finger on his left hand was severely crushed and his ring finger had to be partially amputated. Balfour Beatty Rail Track Systems Ltd, was found guilty of breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for failing to provide a safe system of work. The firm was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay costs of £41,438. Network Rail fined £100,000 for causing serious injury of track worker in Cheshunt, Hertfordshire On 30 March 2010 at 11:44 hours, a passenger service running from Stansted Airport to London Liverpool Street, travelling at about 30 mph (48 km/h), struck a member of railway Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 49 staff at Cheshunt Junction in Hertfordshire. The person who was struck was one of a team of eight people carrying out maintenance work on the track, and he was seriously injured. There was no damage to the train or infrastructure. The investigation has identified that the track worker who was struck did not move to a position of safety and remained in the path of the train as it passed through the junction. The track worker had not expected the train to follow the route which took it onto the line on which he was working. Network Rail was fined £100,000 and ordered to pay costs of £25,000 following a prosecution for breaches of health and safety law which resulted in the serious injury of a Network Rail track maintenance worker in March 2010. The RAIB report can be view here http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/110323_R062011_Cheshunt.pdf Network Rail driver jailed over death after texting at the wheel A female driver, 29, was sentenced at Teesside Crown Court for causing the death by dangerous driving to another driver - a man aged 25, in December 2011. The Skoda car in which he was travelling was stationary because of a puncture at the time of the crash the man was standing behind it while the wheel was being changed, he suffered traumatic injuries and was pronounced dead at the scene on the northbound carriageway of the A19 near Northallerton. The driver did not see the stricken car until it was too late to avoid a crash. “Other motorists were able to pull out as they approached the Skoda”, said the prosecutor, who added: "The defendant had her head in her phone." The defendant was employed as a delivery driver for Network Rail, Was driving a fiesta van and had been texting on her mobile phone and had driven 500 to 600 miles that day in the works van, deleted the message before dialing 999 to summon emergency services to the scene near Mount Grace Priory in North Yorkshire. He told the court: "The evidence shows in the 30 minutes before the collision, the defendant was using her Blackberry to send and read texts." She sent two & read three, and was reading the final text rather than looking at the road before the collision. They were not urgent matters, and amounted to little more than idle banter. "She had been reading and composing text messages over a lengthy period of time prior to impact while driving at motorway speeds on a winter's night." As well as receiving three years' imprisonment, the driver was also disqualified from driving for six years and will have to take an extended driving test. The story in full story can be viewed here. Safety Legislation Update; April 2013 50
