News
What has
happened to the Regulations?
The previous set of Regulations (the 1999 Regulations) has been replaced and this is a brief resume of the content of the latest set of Regulations.
Is there any
more guidance to help us?
The Approved Code of Practice, L5, has also been updated to provide that all-important detailed guidance that we all need, and if formal action is being contemplated then ensure that the ACOP is used in your deliberations.
When did the
Regulations come into force?
They came into force on 21st November 2002.
OK then –
the boring question - what do the new Regulations require?
Essentially they require all the things that the old Regulations required, with some extra bits added on.
Assume that I know nothing about the old Regulations, or if I did know, I have forgotten it, what do the Regulations require?
The only way to answer this is to go through each Regulation one at a time. The best time to read the next part is one night when you are having difficulty getting to sleep. I guarantee you will be asleep in no time!
Regulation 1 – Just has the implementation date set out above.
Regulation 2 – This has the definitions in it. There have been some new ones added including the definition of control measures (things done to reduce exposure) and risk (likelihood of harm being caused by exposure to the substance in question). Hazard is defined (intrinsic property of a substance that may cause harm) and PPE (equipment used to protect persons against risks to health). There is a wide definition of workplace (any place used in connection with work – presumably my dining room where I am currently preparing this resume).
The list of substances to which the Regulations apply has not changed – these are
a) Substances that are very toxic, toxic, harmful, corrosive or irritant under the CHIP Regulations,
b) Substances that have OEL’s
c) Biological agents
d) Dust above certain limits and
e) Anything else that creates a risk to health because of the way it is used.
The interesting thing is that the extent of the definitions list has increased considerably and this leads to the assumption that there were too many ‘holes’ in the previous Regulations.
Regulation 3 – The Regulations apply to the self-employed in the same way as employers (except for Regulations 10 and11) and an employer is under an obligation to ensure that they apply the requirements of the Regulations to any persons who are affected by their work activities in the same way that they apply them to employees (with the exception of Regulations 10,11, 12 and 13). Sea going ships are exempt - as is often the case.
Regulations 4 – Certain substances are banned from import from other than specified countries and in Schedule 2 there is a list of substances that are prohibited from use in specified circumstances. We are unlikely to come across either circumstance in our health and safety work.
Regulation 5 – This one says that the rest of the Regulations are to protect persons against a risk to their health, whether immediate or delayed, from exposure to substances hazardous to health. There are exemptions for medical treatments.
Regulation 6 – This is the one that requires an assessment to be done if a substance that is hazardous to health is being used. The Regulation has been substantially expanded over the 1999 one and includes the issues that the assessment must consider. These are,
a) The hazard,
b) Information provided in the data sheets or from the supplier,
c) Type of exposure,
d) Circumstances of the work activity,
e) Any activities where there is possible high exposure – e.g. maintenance,
f) Any OEL’s
g) The effect of control measures.
h) The results of health surveillance and monitoring,
i) The effects of exposure to more than one substance, if applicable (the combined risk)
j) Any other information needed to do the assessment.
There is the usual need for review when it is no longer valid, there have been significant changes in work or monitoring suggests the need for change.
There is now a requirement to document the assessment, but only where there are 5 or more employees. This was not in the 1999 Regulations.
Regulation 7 – This Regulation requires the employer to prevent exposure to substances hazardous to health or if this is not reasonably practicable then exposure must be controlled.
The Regulations have a hierarchy of control as follows,
a) Substitution then,
b) Work, system or engineering controls then,
c) Control at source by ventilation then
d) As last resort - the provision of PPE.
The Regulations go on to discuss dealing with waste, maintenance procedures, number of employees exposed, ventilation and washing facilities. There are extra precautions required for handling carcinogens and a whole new subsection on the precautions required for premises handing biological agents, including signage, decontamination procedures, confinement, hygiene standards and provision of vaccines. Again it is unlikely that we will encounter the latter two situations in our routine work.
Regulation 8 – If you are still awake at this point then you are doing very well. This regulation states that the employer must ensure that any control measure provided is properly used. The employees’ part of the bargain is that they must use it correctly, return it after use and report any defect.
Regulation 9 – Control measures have to be maintained in working order, repair and clean. If ventilation is used as a control it has to be examined at a defined frequency for certain substances (schedule 4) or for other cases at suitable intervals. PPE also has to be checked and examined and records kept of examination for 5 years. PPE must be stored in a defined place, checked at regular intervals and replaced when defective. Any contaminated PPE must be kept apart from clean PPE, and decontaminated or destroyed.
Regulation 10 – If the risk assessment identified the need for monitoring then this Regulation states that it must be undertaken – which seems like a sensible requirement to me. It must be done at regular intervals, but for some substances there are specified frequencies (Schedule 5). Personal records have to be kept for 40 years – others for 5 years.
Interestingly if a business ceases to trade then all personal monitoring records have to be forwarded to the HSE for safe keeping.
Regulation 11 – You are nearly there now – stay with it a little longer. Surveillance is required where it is ‘appropriate for the protection of health’. This is defined as situations where substances in Schedule 6 are used, or where an identified health effect or disease is related to exposure to a substance, or there is a reasonable likelihood of the disease or effect occurring. There must be techniques for detecting the disease or effect though (i.e. the impossible is not being asked for).
Personal records have to be kept for 40 years and the rule about if a business ceases to trade and all personal monitoring records having to be forwarded to the HSE is replicated.
There are some additional requirements that relate to the substances in Schedule 6. Surveillance for these must include surveillance by a doctor. This may have to be continued after employment has ceased and the doctor can stop an employee working or set conditions for continued work. There are rules that must be followed if a disease is contracted as a result of such exposure and a right of appeal is available to any employee aggrieved by the decision of a doctor.
Regulation 12 – This states that employers who use substances hazardous to health must provide information, training and instruction to employees. This must include the names of the substances in question, any safety levels (OEL’s), access to data sheets, the risk assessment, and the results of any health surveillance or monitoring.
Regulation 13 – The last one – the employer must ensure that there are procedures to deal with incidents involving dangerous substances. The procedures must include information on the specific hazards that will be faced, warning and communication systems, and be made available to emergency services when needed. There are also requirements on steps and precautions to be taken to mitigate the effects of the event and restoring situation back to normal.
That’s it really. Of course you remembered much of this from the previous 1999 Regulations did you not. But it is always useful to have another look at them and see the important changes that have come in the 2002 Regulations. There is no real substitute for looking at the Regulations themselves and you can find them on the HMSO website at www.hmso.gov.uk. You will need to know that the Regulations are numbered 2677 (this makes it easier to find them).
Still awake? Perhaps you need sleeping tablets!
Jeff Lawrence – Health and Safety – Bradford MDC.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why
have these Regulations changed?
There
has been an ongoing debate for some years now about the increase in the number
of deaths caused by asbestos. There
are regular changes to the legislation that each time incrementally increases
standards of control. The latest
regulations are aimed principally at preventing accidental exposure to asbestos.
The opportunity has also been taken to make a few other alterations.
What
has changed then?
Well
your knowledge of Asbestos Regulations is usually at one end of the spectrum or
the other. You either know them inside out because you deal with asbestos
regularly or have had a recent crisis, or you know of them but would fail to get
any question correct if you were a contestant on ‘Who wants to be a
Millionaire’.
Assume
that I know everything – what has changed?
There
is a new Regulation 4 that requires asbestos in buildings to be managed.
The risk from it has to be assessed in all none domestic premises.
It is not a duty to carry out a survey (although it is difficult to see
how risk can be assessed if location and type of asbestos is unknown), nor a
requirement to remove asbestos in good condition.
However this does not come into force until 21 May 2004.
Regulation
14 is also new and requires the provision of emergency procedures for case of
incidents involving dangers from release of asbestos fibres.
They are not required, however, if because the amount of asbestos is
minor, the health risk to the health of employees is slight, and there control
measures in force.
The
standard for air monitoring has changed and from 21 November 2004, asbestos laboratories will have to be accredited
to ISO 17025.
Regulation
27 amends the Enforcing Authority Regulations.
Any type of asbestos removal is now enforced by the enforcing authority
for the premises where the removal is taking place. Under previous legislation only lagging from pipes and
boilers was enforced by Local Authorities. Local Authorities are now responsible
for the removal of asbestos boarding as well.
The
ACOP’ s L27 and L28 have been updated and there is a new one L127 on managing
asbestos in non-domestic premises. There
is also a new HSG 227 on a similar theme.
I don’t think I knew as much as I thought. Can you talk me through the Regulations one at a time?
Persons
who know about the Regulations in detail can stop reading here – if not, you
might find mistakes in my interpretation of the law and my credibility, already
low in some eyes, will disintegrate completely!!
Regulation 1 – They came into force on 21st November 2002.
Regulation
2 – This
is where the definitions are found. The
action and control levels are the
same. There is now a definition of control
measure (things done to prevent or reduce exposure to asbestos) and ISO
17025 (re testing and calibration of laboratories).
Regulation
3 – The
Regulations apply to the self-employed in the same way as employers and an
employer is under an obligation to ensure that they apply the requirements of
the Regulations to any persons who are affected by their work activities in the
same way that they apply them to employees (with the exception of Regulations 9
and 21)
Regulation 4 – There is
a definition of duty-holders in this part.
They are essentially any person who has an obligation in relation to
maintenance or repair of non-domestic premises.
This is important as duty-holders have an obligation to carry out an
assessment as to whether asbestos is, or is liable to be, present in a premises.
The Regulations state that in making the
assessment, reasonable steps must be taken, the condition of asbestos shall be
considered, account is taken of plans and building age, and readily accessible
parts are inspected.
If asbestos is, or is liable to be, present
then,
a) A determination of risk must be made,
b)
A plan identifying location is needed and
c)
Measures for managing the risk written into the
plan/assessment.
The
latter measures must include the provision for monitoring the condition of the
asbestos, ensuring that it is properly maintained or removed and that details of
its location is provided to any person liable to disturb it.
The
plan has to be reviewed if there have been significant changes to it.
This
section does not come into force until 21
May 2004.
Regulation
5 – Work
cannot be carried out on asbestos unless its type has been identified or an
assumption made that it is chrysotile.
Regulation
6 – An employer cannot carry out work on asbestos unless the risk of
exposure has been assessed and documented.
The
assessment must include type of asbestos, degree of exposure, any control
measures in place, any monitoring results and it must set out the steps to be
taken to reduce exposure to the lowest reasonably practicable level.
The
risk assessment has to be changed if it is no longer valid or there is a
significant change to the work being undertaken.
Regulation
7 – There
must be a written plan detailing how the work will be done.
The Regulation specifies what must be in the plan.
Regulation
8
– Work that exceeds the action level must be notified to the enforcing
authority in writing, giving at least 14 days notice. Schedule 1 specifies what
must be in the notice.
Regulation
9
– Every employer must ensure adequate information, instruction and training to
all employees. They must know about
the risk assessment, the risks to their health, precautions to be observed and
the control and action levels.
This
must be given at regular intervals.
Regulation
10
– There is a general duty to prevent exposure to asbestos as far as is
reasonably practicable. If exposure
cannot be prevented than measures other than PPE must be used and the number of
employees exposed maintained as low as practicable.
There
is the usual hierarchy of control as follows,
a)
Substitution then,
b)
Work, system or engineering controls then,
c)
Control at source by ventilation.
If
the above do not reduce exposure to below control limits, then respiratory PPE
must be provided.
Regulation
11
– This
regulation states that the employer must ensure that any control measure that is
provided is properly used. The
employees’ part of the bargain is that they must use it correctly, return it
after use and report any defect.
Regulation
12
- Control measures have to be maintained in working order, repair and clean.
Ventilation or respiratory PPE has to be examined by a competent person
at suitable intervals. Records must be kept of examination for 5 years.
Regulation
13
– This regulation specifies the precautions for protective clothing used when
employees are exposed to asbestos. It
specifies disposal practices, cleaning systems where reusable, and packaging
during transit from contaminated sites.
Regulation
14
- the employer must ensure that there are procedures to deal with incidents
involving asbestos. The procedures must include information on the specific
hazards that will be faced, warning and communication systems, and be made
available to emergency services when needed. There are also requirements on
steps and precautions to be taken to mitigate the effects of the event and
restoring situation back to normal. There are some exemptions from parts of the
Regulation if, because the amount of asbestos is minor, the health risk to the
health of employees is slight, and there control measures in force.
Regulation
15
– Every employer shall prevent the spread of asbestos from any place of work
under their control. If spread
cannot be prevented then reduction to lowest level reasonably practicable will
suffice.
Regulation
16
- This requires areas and plant where asbestos is handled to be kept clean, and
when work is completed thoroughly cleaned.
Regulation
17
– Any area where asbestos exposure would be in excess of the action level must
be designated an asbestos area, and if control limits are exceeded, designated a
respirator zone. Notices must
identify these. Only employees who need to enter must be allowed to enter the
zones and eating, smoking etc is not permitted in these areas.
Regulation
18
– Air monitoring is necessary to check exposure to asbestos.
It must be done at regular intervals, but is not necessary if exposure
does not exceed the action level. Personal monitoring records have to be kept
for 40 years – others for 5 years.
If
a business ceases to trade then all personal monitoring records have to be
forwarded to the HSE for safe keeping.
Regulation
19
– Any person doing air testing must meet ISO 17025
Regulation
21
– If an employees’ exposure exceeds the action level then health records
must be made and kept for 40 years. A
doctor must carry out a medical examination within 2 years of exposure and then
repeated at 2 yearly intervals. Certificates have to be provided by the doctor
and employers must keep these for 40 years.
If
surveillance identifies a disease then the employee must be given information
and advice and further surveillance.
The
employer must consider stopping an employee working and changing to a role
where there will be no further exposure, review the risk assessment and check
all other staff that may have been similarly exposed.
Regulation
22
- Washing and changing facilities must be provided, as must storage for
respiratory protective equipment and protective clothing. Storage facilities
must be separate for different types of PPE.
Regulation
23
– These are the rules for storage and transit of asbestos and asbestos waste.
Regulation
27 – This
has amended the Enforcing Authority Regulations 1998. Asbestos removal enforcement is now quite simple, it is
enforced by the enforcing authority for the premises in question irrespective of
the type of asbestos being removed.
That’s
it really. Well done for reading this far – lets be honest, legislation is
boring. Also bear in mind that this is my interpretation of the Regulations and
I’m no High Court Judge. There is no real substitute for looking at the
Regulations themselves and if you want to find them on the HMSO website then go
to www.hmso.gov.uk.
You will need to know that the Regulations are numbered 2675 (this makes
it easier to find them).
When
the new supporting documentation (HSG’s and L series) arrives, we will assess
this to see what practical changes are required. The traditional 3-stage air lock may now have to be a 4 -
stage one. Excited? Then watch this
space.
Jeff
Lawrence – Health and Safety – Bradford MDC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The returns from the specific events were as follows:
Forum Seminar: 71 returns.
Forster Square Railway Station exercise: 22 returns.
Caravan in Bradford, Keighley and Shipley: 49 returns.
These have been inputted onto an Access database and analysed.
The completed questionnaires represented a mixed population in terms of:
Size of Company,
Hours worked,
Satisfaction with the job.
Approx half the questionnaires were completed by Senior or Line Managers.
Britain has been told by the European Union to limit workers to a 48 hour week or face legal action.
The European Commission has upheld a complaint by Amicus, Britain’s largest private sector union, finding the government has failed to implement fully the Working Time Directive. Infringement procedures initiated by the EU at the end of April gave the Government two months to comply with the European-wide rules.
The CBI urged the government ‘to mount a robust defence’ of the current law.
British workers currently work the longest hours in Europe.
---------------------------------------------------------
In April 2002, Brian Dean, former owner of Brian Dean Demolition and Civil Engineers, was convicted of the manslaughter of two of his employees, Michael Redgate (46) and his son Carl (18) who died in July 2000 when a kiln collapsed on top of them. Stoke on Trent Crown Court heard that the two men were sent to demolish the disused kiln without proper instruction and with no previous experience of kiln demolition. In addition Brian Dean had told the two men to cut vital steel supports. Brian Dean received an 18 months prison sentence.
For many years health and safety campaign groups have been campaigning for greater use of manslaughter charges in prosecutions relating to work related death and for the introduction of ‘Corporate Manslaughter’. Mick Williams representing the National Hazards Campaign presented a ‘Corporate Manslaughter’ Seminar to the Bradford Forum in September 1996. Mick, now the Forum Secretary, gives a brief update on the current state of affairs with reference to work related deaths.
Research by the Centre for Corporate Accountability
(CCA) shows that the number of company directors and business owners prosecuted
for manslaughter concerning a work-related death has significantly increased in
recent years. It indicates that new investigation and prosecution procedures,
which were adopted in April 1998 by the Police, the Health and Safety Executive
(HSE) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), have had a significant impact
upon the way the criminal justice systems deal with work related deaths.
The CCA’s research compared the number of manslaughter prosecutions concerning deaths occurring before and after April 1998. In the fifty years period prior to 1998, only nine manslaughter prosecutions involving directors or business owners – three of them involving disasters- have been identified. However, in the last four years, there have been at least eleven completed prosecutions as well as five ongoing cases that will come to trial this year. These figures represent a significant increase in the prosecution rate.
The research however also shows that most cases
result in acquittals. Only three of the 11 completed cases since April 1998 have
resulted in convictions.
In total, the research shows that six company directors, two farm owners and one sole trader have been convicted of manslaughter. In addition, three companies have been convicted. All the convictions so far concern people who ran relatively small companies or businesses.
The TUC believes that all workplace fatalities should
be treated as possible manslaughter cases but stresses that enforcers should
follow risk management principles and look for failings in the safety system
rather than seeking scapegoats. The TUC has called for better training for the
Police, CPS and HSE in how to handle work-related deaths, and for the
establishment of a specialist panel of counsel with the appropriate knowledge,
skill and training to advise the three agencies and then to take forward any
resulting prosecution.
In the longer term, and when corporate killing is introduced, The TUC also believes that special investigation units will be needed, bringing together the expertise of each of the three agencies, appropriately resourced.
Despite a new law of ‘Corporate Killing’ being a manifesto commitment of the Labour Party in 2001campaigners still wait for the Government to bring forward its proposal to enact a new offence of ‘corporate killing’.
The new law would allow a company, or any other ‘employing’ organisation, to be prosecuted without the need to prosecute an individual director or senior manager. An organisation would commit the offence of ‘corporate killing’ if it could be shown that:
An organisation has a management failure if ‘the
way in which its activities are managed or organised fails to ensure the health
and safety of persons employed in or affected by those activities’.
The Government is proposing not to apply the new offence to ‘crown bodies’ or to British companies that commit the offence abroad.
The Centre for Corporate Accountability produces a newsletter on law enforcement and corporate accountability issues. Each edition of the update is available through the CCA website at www.corporateaccountability.org/newsletter The latest newsletter is a special issue on Corporate Manslaughter and outlines the HSE’s New Enforcement Guidance; the offence of manslaughter; the proposed offence of corporate killing; manslaughter prosecutions against company directors and business owners including current cases, successful convictions and acquittals.
The CCA receives core funding for its advice and research activities from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.
Consultation Documents
Today the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) launched the Small Firms Assistance Scheme (SFAS), a pilot grant scheme designed to help small firms improve their health and safety performance.
The scheme will run until May 2003 and will be operated on behalf of HSE by the Small Business Service and Business Links. It will operate in three regions – West Yorkshire, Essex, and Devon and Cornwall, which together represent the full range of industrial and rural small firms in Britain. The scheme will operate on a matched-funding basis.
Health and safety law requires employers to have a health and safety policy, conduct a risk assessment, take all reasonable measures to control the risks associated with their work activities, and have access to competent health and safety advice. For firms with more than five employees, the safety policy and risk assessment must be documented.
Research commissioned by HSE has shown that generally small firms struggle with applying health and safety law effectively, but are reluctant to approach HSE directly for advice. The pilot scheme aims to plug this gap by providing the kind of help they need through intermediary organisations.
Judith Donovan, CBE, Health and Safety Commissioner for small firms said:
"All employers in Britain have legal responsibilities under health and safety law – and there is no reason why compliance should be expensive, time-consuming, or complicated. But for many small firms, health and safety is seen as a black hole. They know it's important, but they are unsure where to start.
"This scheme is designed to take the mystery out of health and safety by improving small firms' awareness and understanding of the issues. It is intended to generate sustained benefits by providing mentoring and training to encourage good practice and compliance with the law."
NOTES TO EDITORS
1. What the scheme offers
Eligible small firms will have access of up to 50 per cent funding (to a
maximum of £1000), with the remainder of the cost being met by the firms
themselves. The funding can be used to undertake health and safety training
and/or access mentoring as follows:
·
mentoring (advice and practical assistance with getting started
on health and safety from a small business adviser) delivered on site to start
ups;
·
a choice of mentoring and/or training to micro firms that have
been established for longer than a year.
2.
Who qualifies for the scheme
The scheme is open to those thinking of starting up a business, new
business start-ups and micro firms in the participating BL regions providing
they have:
·
either an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 7m (£4, 499,004)
or
·
an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 5m (£3,213,574)
and
·
not more than 25% of the capital or voting rights owned by an
enterprise which is not itself a Small Medium Enterprise (SME).
3. More information about applications
For further information about the scheme and to apply for funding
applicants should contact their local Business Link taking part in the pilot;
·
Essex 01245 241400
·
Devon and Cornwall 0845 600 9966
HSE
hopes that the scheme will assist as many small businesses as possible and will
help to improve their awareness of, and understanding in dealing with, health
and safety risks in small businesses.
4. The small firms pilot is intended to help meet the improvement targets
set out in the HSC's and Government's Revitalising Health and Safety (RHS)
initiative. HSC Chair Bill Callaghan and the Deputy Prime Minister launched RHS
on 7 June 2000. It includes a 44-point action plan which aims to achieve, by the
year 2010, the following targets: reduce the incidence of working days lost from
work-related injury and ill-health by 30 per cent; reduce the incidence of
people suffering from work related ill health by 20 per cent; reduce the rate of
fatal and major injury accidents by 10 per cent. There is an additional target
of achieving half of each improvement by the year 2004.
5. Research referred to is Gadd, R., O'Hara, R., Dickety, N. & Weyman,
A. (2000) Good Practice by SMEs in Assessing Workplace Risks. HSL Report
no RAS/00/12
Press Enquiries regarding this Press Release: Journalists only: 020 7717
6179
PUBLIC ENQUIRIES:
Call HSE's InfoLine, tel: 08701-545500
or write to: HSE Information Services, Caerphilly Park, Caerphilly CF83 3GG.
Published on the HSE web site on 30 July 2002
Back to Press Release Index Page
Bradford Council enforces health and safety laws in many different kinds of businesses. Their enforcement policy is currently being re-written and they would like your views. .
Do you think that they prosecute too much or not enough ? This is your chance to air youropinion and influence future policy.
The policy will soon be available on the Councils Internet site at www.bradford.gov.uk
Just click on council services and follow links to Environmental Protection and Waste Managemnt - health and safety .
If you would rather have a paper copy , that can be supplied . Phone 01274 753928
PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Fire Precautions(Workplace) Regulations 1997
It is proposed to change the regulations to allow employees to claim damages from their employer where they have suffered injury or illness as a result of their employer breaching the Regulations. The Health and Safety Commission have published a Consultative Document, available on www.hse.gov.uk/condocs/cd177.htm The consultation exercise will close on 14 March.
Managing Work-related Violence:
The Employment NTO is working with the HSE and the Institute of Conflict Management to develop National Occupational Standards in managing work-related violence. Employment NTO are anxious that the standards they are developing are clear and understandable , reflect best practice and cover all aspects of the roles described.
Consultation meetings will take place in Newcastle 18th Feb., Bristol 21st Feb., London 28th Feb., or you can comment on line or in writing.
To take part in the consultation access the web site www.empnto.co.uk or write to Employment NTO, Kimberley House, 47 Vaughan House, Leicester LE1 4SG.
The HSE has produced a document entitled Advice Regarding Call Centre Practices. The document was produced for Local Authority Enforcement Officers but would be useful for health and safety representatives and employers in Call Centres. It identifies potential Physical and Psychological health risks and highlights examples of good and poor working practice.
The document is available to print of from the HSE web site; www.hse.gov.uk, you can find it listed in the moving banner at the top of the page.
Or write to :
HSE Local Authority Unit, Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London SE1 9HS
Updated List of Hazardous Substance Occupational Exposure Limits.
BAOHSF has received a regional award for its activities during European Week for Safety and Health -2001
FIRE SAFETY SEMINAR, Tuesday 25 March 2003
Belle Vue Barracks, Manningham, Bradford
9:30 am - noon