Changes to the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (PPER)

HSE is consulting on changes to the PPER 1992. We encourage you to draw the attention of your stakeholders and other interested parties to this consultation launching on Monday 19 July 2021 and running for 4 weeks.

The consultation can be accessed via HSE Consultation Hub from this date.

The aim of the consultation is to understand the impact on stakeholders and businesses of extending the scope of the employers’ duties under the PPER to workers and not only employees.

Why is the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) making changes to the regulations?

In November 2020, a judgment was handed down in the judicial review action in the High Court brought by the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB) against the Secretaries of State for Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the Department for Work and Pension (DWP), which decided that the government had failed to properly transpose Article 8(4) and 8(5) of EU Directive 89/391/EEC  (“the Framework Directive”) and Article 3 of EU Directive 89/656/EEC  of 30 November 1989 (“the Personal Protective Equipment Directive”) into UK law.

The Framework Directive sets out the minimum standards for health and safety through a series of general principles, and the Personal Protective Equipment Directive (“PPE Directive”) sets out the minimum health and safety requirements for the use of personal protective equipment in the workplace for workers.

The UK implemented the PPE Directive through the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992  (“PPER”) which places duties on employers to their ‘employees’ in regard to PPE. The High Court found that the PPE Directive required these duties to be extended to ‘limb (b) workers’ and not only ‘employees’. Therefore, HSE is making amendments to the PPER in order to align with the court’s judgment.

What does this mean?

Employers will have a duty to provide limb (b) workers with the same health and safety protections in respect of PPE as they do currently for employees.

Options on how to achieve the extension of the provisions to workers in the legislation will not be presented during the consultation as the key legislative changes are being made to align with the court decision.

For any enquiries, please contact ppeconsultation2021@hse.gov.uk

 

 

Recall of Co-codamol 30/500 Effervescent Tablets,

National Patient Safety Alert: Class 1 Medicines Recall Notification:
Recall of Co-codamol 30/500 Effervescent Tablets, Batch 1K10121, Zentiva Pharma UK Ltd, due to precautionary risk of causing overdose, NatPSA/2021/004/MHRA .

Zentiva Pharma UK Limited is recalling the above batch of Co-codamol 30/500 Effervescent Tablets as a precautionary measure due to an issue with the homogeneity of the batch. This issue means that there is the potential for some tablets to have too little active ingredients (codeine phosphate and paracetamol) in them and some tablets to contain too much active ingredients.

Details

 

Imposter care worker who stole £250k from 93-year-old with dementia fails to repay money.

A fraudster care worker who was previously convicted and jailed in 2017 for conning a blind 93-year-old war veteran diagnosed with dementia out of nearly £250,000, is back in jail after failing to repay the money she stole.

Last week, Veronica Robinson was sent to jail for another 426 days by Birmingham Magistrates Court for failing to comply with the order to repay £70,000 + with accrued interest.

Councillor Nicolas Barlow, cabinet member responsible for trading standards, said: “Veronica Robinson did the unthinkable, cheating an elderly and vulnerable resident out of his life savings and our trading standards team has been determined to see this case through and ensure she repays the money. …

Read Details

Nottinghamshire care home fined over attack on resident.

The owners of a care home have been fined £140,000 for failing to protect a resident from an attack.
Nottingham Magistrates’ Court heard the victim suffered a serious head injury in 2017, at Bowbridge Court in Newark, Nottinghamshire, when attacked by another resident who had Alzheimer’s.
The CQC, prosecuting, said concerns prior to the attack had not been addressed.
Owners Ideal Care homes were fined and ordered to pay £14,361 costs.

Read More BBC

Covid: Carer who flouted coronavirus rules struck off.

A care worker who hugged an elderly couple at the height of the coronavirus pandemic has been struck off.
A fitness to praise hearing was told Heidi Dunt, 31, went to the home of the vulnerable adults in May last year.
However, she was not working at the time & Covid restrictions meant she should not have been at the property.
A month later, Anglesey care worker received a suspended sentence for dangerous driving & failed to tell officials about the impending case.

The Social Care Wales panel was told that Dunt had been working at Ysbyty Gwynedd, in Bangor, where there were  several Covid cases at the time of the care visit incident. Read More BBC

 

Fire and Rescue Service prosecutes UK Fire Consulting Ltd over insufficient fire risk assessment.

Following a hearing conducted at Southampton CC 1 June, the company providing the fire risk assessment for Cranleigh House – namely UK Fire Consulting Ltd (of which Morgan is a director) – was fined £20,000 & to pay costs of £19,952 for the same offence.
Denfords Property Management, the managing agent for the premises, had pleaded guilty at an earlier Magistrates’ Court hearing in relation to its failure to comply with an Enforcement Notice to provide a suitable fire risk assessment. The business was fined £10,000 in addition to £6,000 costs.
The individual manager specifically responsible for the premises was given  conditional discharge &  to pay £1,800 in costs.

In addition to a £2,750 fine and a 3 month prison sentence   suspended for 18 months, Morgan was ordered to pay costs of £19,952.    

Total fines/costs = £80,451.00

Read

 

Senior judge declines to order Covid vaccination of 86-year-old woman.

The Court of Protection has ruled that an 86-year-old woman with dementia should not be either forcibly given a Covid vaccine or deceived into accepting a jab.
Justice Hayden J was told “kung fu experts” would be required were SS to be vaccinated against her will such was the
likelihood of resistance.
Proceedings were brought under section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
SS lives in a care home, but imagines herself to be living with her parents in the immediate post-war era and has no family other than occasional visits from a cousin.

More Here