Mr Dan Mitchell Chairman, HSE
Mr Logan Colbeck Ind. Gas Industry
Mr Tom Fidell LPGA
Mr John Holding BCDTA
Mr Ian McPherson UKPIA
Dr Brian Fullam
Mr Mark Reyland
Mr Neal Stone
Mr Bill Tomkins
Mr Ian Travers
Mr Charles Ransome
Mr Wil Huntley
Mr John Burns
Mr David Rosen - Component Feasibility Study Project Team
Mr David Thompson Component Feasibility Study Project Team
Mr Tom Brandon - HSE
Mr Kelvin McFadyen - HSE
1. Mr Mitchell welcomed members to the fourth meeting of the Review Group, in
particular new members Logan Colbeck (Industrial Gas Industry) and Bill
Tomkins who was taking over Neal Stone's responsibilities in relation to
financial and charging policy. David Rosen and David Thompson were attending
as observers from the Component Feasibility Study Project.
2. Apologies had been received from Clive Musgrave (Transco), Nigel Bryson (GMB), Sylvia Channon (CBI), Roger Hyde (EA) and Brian McCay (Pains Wessex).
3. The Chairman explained that although CCRG's terms of reference provided
for annual rotation of the chairmanship between EA, SEPA and HSE, in
practice all meetings to date had been chaired by HSE. In the circumstances,
it was agreed that HSE should continue to chair CCRG meetings and provide a
permanent secretariat, with the proviso that these arrangements were open to
review at any future meeting.
(Action: Secretary - amend ToR)
4. The minutes were agreed subject to an amendment to minute 2 to clarify
that Logan Colbeck is Safety Director, BOC Gases, and represents the
industrial gas industry. Action: Secretary Matters Arising not covered by
specific agenda items
5. Disputes Procedure: Mr Stone explained that at its meeting on 31 October
2000, ICRG had agreed two amendments to the Queries & Disputes
Procedure: (a) to allow HSE (or the Agency in the case of COMAH) to elevate
a dispute to the next Level when necessary; (b) to provide for an external
member to assist the Chair in deciding whether a dispute should be referred
to the Disputes Panel. In general, members recognised that the procedure
needs to be demonstrably consistent and fair, and believed that it was
working effectively in practice. Nevertheless, CIA had expressed concern
that the procedure was overly complex and it was therefore agreed to keep
the procedure under review and consider it further at the next meeting to
determine whether any recommendations should be put to ICRG.
6. ICRG & HSC: Mr Stone reported that at its meeting on 28 February 2001, HSC had considered the annual report from ICRG together with the proposed fees and charges for 2001/02. HSC noted the proposals for taking forward the evaluation of charging (see minute 16 below) and were content with CRG arrangements, procedures and information provided. HSC had also asked that consideration be given to how the interests of non-CRG members might be taken into account.
7. Paper CCRG 2001/02 set out the COMAH charge out rates which would be
applied by HSE and SEPA in 2001/02. Mr Huntley would provide details of the
EA rate for issue with the minutes of the meeting.
Action: Mr Huntley
It was noted that the HSE rate had yet to receive ministerial approval and was therefore unlikely to be introduced before mid-May.
8. In discussing the breakdown of the rate, members asked that footnotes be
provided to clarify what was included in each element. A suitably annotated
version is enclosed with these minutes.
9. Review of Work Recording - HSE Form HI251: Richard Thomas described the work and outcomes of an HSE project which had examined how data recording in relation to major hazard establishments might be improved and streamlined. A copy of the slides used to illustrate this presentation is enclosed with these minutes for information.
10. The project had sought to ensure sufficient (but not excessive) recording of data and avoidance of duplicate recording, and had taken particular account of the requirements of COMAH and the facilities offered by a new IT system (CIS) which would be fully implemented within HSE's Hazardous Installations Directorate as from 1 April 2001. The project had concluded that the current HI 251 document could be replaced by information stored solely on CIS, with the following key benefits: (a) major hazard inspection information would be recorded on a single database, thereby eliminating any duplication; (b) data recording would be tailored to the COMAH regulatory regime, including safety report assessment; (c) the system would allow Directorate-wide electronic access to major hazard inspection information as a source of intelligence on which to base inspection strategies.
11. The recommendations would be implemented, subject to the outcome of a limited trial over a 6-8 week period covering a range of top-tier and lower-tier establishments. The new data recording arrangements would be less resource intensive than the existing system, and the trial would seek to quantify the efficiency savings. The cost of transferring existing information to the new system would be met by HSE.
12. New time-recording arrangements: the Secretary explained that as from 01/04/2001, the existing arrangements for capturing and reporting details of COMAH chargeable time and activity would be replaced by procedures based on CIS. The new arrangements would: (a) avoid duplicate work recording for HID inspectors who currently have to use separate systems for management and charging purposes; (b) streamline the work of HID's COMAH charging team by providing for batch reporting of data for invoicing purposes, and eliminating the need for collation of reports and timesheets; (c) replace the documentation currently supplied to operators with their invoices (a combination of statements and timesheets from various sources) with single reports in a standard format.
13. Similar improvements would also apply to the processing of charges under the gas transportation and offshore charging regimes. It was intended that subject to successful completion of invoicing runs using the new facilities for each regime, the staff operating these regimes would be integrated into a single co-located team with the reduction of one post.
14. Ian Travers and Charles Ransome presented the final report from the feasibility study (paper CCRG 2001/04). Members noted the details of the outline component scheme which had been developed by the project team, the views expressed by industry at and following the recent seminar, and the work which would be required to develop the proposals into a fully calibrated, legally and financially viable scheme covering all COMAH chargeable work other than reactive activities. Members were particularly concerned that the models must be properly calibrated and refined as necessary in order to be able to generate realistic calculations of effort which reflected the particular circumstances of the varied range of COMAH sites.
15. In summary, CCRG welcomed the report and thanked the project team for its efforts. It was agreed that the proposed scheme represented a feasible alternative to actuals charging, and that the further work needed to fully develop the scheme should be taken forward. It was noted that further progress would be subject to agreement from the CA's management boards to commit the necessary resource. Implementation would be unlikely to be achieved before financial year 2003/04 and would undoubtedly be subject to the outcome of the evaluation of charging (see item 16).
16. Neal Stone outlined the current position on the review and evaluation of the COMAH, gas transportation, offshore and railways charging schemes, as set out in paper CCRG 2001/05. It had not proved possible for the research survey consultants to attend this CCRG meeting as the timetable for awarding the consultancy contract had been extended to allow for discussion with the bidders in order to better inform the selection process. However, members felt that it was not necessary to arrange an additional CCRG meeting. Consultation with the CCRG could be satisfactorily achieved by contact with individual members and a report back to the next CCRG meeting in September.
17. Mark Reyland introduced paper CCRG 2001/06 which was being issued to each of the charging review groups. He explained that it had been difficult to identify a representative sample of organisations - most of those contacted were either not useful as a benchmark or unwilling to provide information. Co-operation had been secured from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), but comparison with HSE's Offshore Charging Regime was difficult in view of differences of salaries and charging arrangements (e.g. MCA charge directly for travelling time rather than including it in the charge out rate.
18. Mr Reyland drew attention to the arrangements for scrutiny and containment of the costs of COMAH charging, in particular the CA's internal audit programmes, external scrutiny by National Audit Office, and reviews to ensure efficiency and consistency of business methods
19. CCRG members were generally disappointed with the outcome of the study. It had been hoped that the study would produce a tabular comparison of the charge out rates (and their components) for around 20 or so bodies in the public and private sectors. Such data might well help allay members' concerns over the CA's charge out rates.
20. It was agreed that the reactions of the other CRGs should be sought and,if
appropriate, a view put to ICRG as to whether further work should be done on
benchmarking. It was also noted that such work might best be taken forward
by the consultants as part of the evaluation of charging, and this should be
conveyed to the tender board.
Action: Mr Tomkins/Mr Travers
It was also agreed to make specific provision for LPGA to be contacted by
Action: Mr Tomkins
21. Members noted details of the anticipated COMAH workload for 2001/02 (attached as Annex 1 to these minutes)
22. Members noted the statistics on chargeable work delivered and invoices
issued/queried in the current year (attached as Annex 2 these minutes). In
response to continuing concerns from LPGA about the ratio of on-site to
off-site time associated with inspection of LPG premises, it was agreed to
provide for the next meeting an analysis of ratios for a range of industry
sectors, and that the industry representatives would propose logical
industry groupings for this purpose.
23. In response to a request for information on COMAH charges and charging
arrangements in other EU countries, it was agreed to: (a) provide members
with the relevant report from the component feasibility study; (b) seek
information from members on charges elsewhere in the EU; (c) investigate the
position in Eire; (d) check if relevant information is available as a result
of work done in relation to the Biocides Directive.
24. The next meeting would be held on Friday 21 September 2001 in London.
Number of full Safety Reports expected to be assessed: 288
Total: 5634 (includes 685 to be delivered by external contractor)
Number of top-tier inspections: 447
Number of lower-tier inspections: 370
Forecast Chargeable Days:
Total Chargeable Days: 7190 (of which 6505 chargeable by HSE)
Estimated Income: £5.2m
Number of COMAH TT Establishments - 457
Number of COMAH LT Establishments - 946
|Safety Report Assessment||3,155||287.5||189||3,631.5|
|Invoice Total £s||1,990,734||48,705||18,404||2,057,843|
Ratio of contact to non contact inspection time: TT 1:1.5; LT 1:1.67Summary of COMAH chargeable work 1st - 3rd quarter 2000/01
Number of COMAH TT Establishments: 451
Number of COMAH LT Establishments: 830
|Safety Report Assessment||10,421||1697||208||12,326|
|Invoice Total £s||£2,119,000||£237,380.0||£73,906.5||£2,430,286.5|
Ratio of contact to non contact inspection time: TT 1:1.5; LT 1:1.48
|Invoicing Information||April-June 2000||July-Sept 2000||Oct-Dec 2000||Jan-Mar 2000||Total|
|Level 1||Level 2||Level 3|
|No. of cases carried forward from the previous financial year||8||6||0|
|No. of cases received during the year (for level 2 cases the number of cases which entered the system at Level 2) since 1.4.00||67||9||3|
|No. of cases resolved during the year||62||4||3|
|Number found in favour of HSE||-||-||1|
|Number found in favour of dutyholder||-||-||2|