Dr Neil Johnson Chair, HSE
Mr C Musgrave BG Transco
Mr J Taylor UNISON
Mr Paul Clark AIPGT
Mr Neal Stone Finance Unit
Mr Mark Reyland Finance Unit
Mr Frank Perkins HID
Mrs Jean Pownall HID
Apologies were received from:
Mr D Childerhouse AIPGT
1.1 The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced Mr John Taylor from UNISON.
2.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 18 January were accepted as a true record.
3.1 Item 2.2 re the review of safety case handling procedures.
Action was completed by 31 March 2000. One point to come from the
review is what is done with exemplars - this will be discussed at
the next PGT. It is hoped to have the Gas Safety Case Assessment
Manual on the Internet by Christmas.
Action: Mr Perkins
3.2 Items 3.1 to 3.3: terms of reference were amended. Revised
copies to be issued with minutes.
Action: Mrs Pownall
3.3 Item 4.3: Actioned.
3.4 Item 5.1: this should be kept as a future action.
3.5 Item 5.2 was discharged.
3.6 Item 6.4 and 6.5 will be discussed under item 10 of the agenda, and item 6.6 under item 9.
3.7 Items 8.2 and 8.3 were discharged.
3.8 Items 9.4 and 9.5 will be taken under agenda item 8.
3.9 Item 10.1 was discharged.
4.1 The report was similar to other CRGs and included that operators wanted better forward planning, more information on invoices and industry don't want 'blank cheques' .
4.2 It was also noted that this group had agreed terms of reference.
4.3 The group reported industry thought that to have no-one external to HSE on the disputes panel was inappropriate.
5.1 The Chair gave an overview of the system to update Mr Taylor. Mr Reyland gave the invoicing information for Gas Transportation and updated the COMAH information.
5.2 Mr Clarke asked about the time taken between submission of the safety case and acceptance, Mr Perkins said he would refer it to the PG review group.
5.3 Mr Musgrave asked for the principles behind the upheld COMAH appeal. The Chair explained that whilst the work carried out by HSE was chargeable, HSE had not properly followed its own procedures. Although HSE is not legally required to notify operators that the work they are doing is chargeable, HSE's internal guidance states that it will. On this occasion the operator was not made aware that the work being carried out was chargeable.
Included with item 4.
7.1 In the IWCRG minutes it states that the evaluation would include canvassing the views of inspectors. FINU will be running the evaluation. This group agreed the issues to address and sent these to the IWCRG. The IWCRG will discuss on how to take it forward at its October meeting. Project specification is drafted and is going to the October IWCRG. Evaluation likely to begin in April next year. The quantitative aspects are not difficult but the qualitative is e.g. how impacts on goals and what we do If safety bill introduces different charging options.
8.1 Mr Reyland issued Mr Travers' CCRG presentation notes.
Mr Clarke suggested that component scheme was off-putting for small
PGTs. Mr Musgrave suggested that for the feasibility study
discussion, updated data would be needed. The Chair agreed and
thought if gas transportation was done at the end of the queue we
will have more data on which to base a study. When we look at it we
will check recent data.
9.1 The working group had received three nominations which were
Mr D Childerhouse and Mr Paul Clarke from AIPGT and one from BG
Transco. They wished to discuss re degree of independence and come
back to JP by midday 28 September. Mrs Pownall will produce a
Action: Mr Childerhouse, Mr Clark, Mr Musgrave, Mrs Pownall
10.1 Mr Reyland issued the 99/00 MTA. Under recovery of costs was discussed and it was noted that any under recovery of costs would not be recovered the following year.
The MTA is tied into taking proposals for rates 01/02, to be discussed at the October IWCRG, and the differences in rates then explained to the Commission in December.
10.2 Having reviewed assessment criteria, HSE has recognised the need to improve the management of exemplar safety cases.
10.3 Mr Reyland gave a progress report on bench marking. He had identified 6/7 other public sector areas that have charging regimes. He had received replies from 3/4 (DVLA, MAFF, Metroplitan Police) and had also asked CBI. He will report back to the next round of review groups.
11.1 Information on the invoices is proving to be satisfactory as there are no longer any queries.
11.2 Component charging: GTCRG note what is happening elsewhere and would like to see what component charging regime looks like for GSMR. Some members are in favour of a tax regime.
The next meeting will be held April 11, 2001.