From the CEO's Desk - September 2020

WHEN I closed my article for the July edition of Health and Safety Matters I did so with the words that I looked forward to updating you next time on Brexit, the UK Conformity Assessment mark (UKCA) and the impacts on our market place and any changes to the regulatory regime. Unfortunately, as I write this piece ahead of the publication deadline I do not have a great deal of detail to share. This may of course change very quickly and as soon as we get clearer detail we will publish it.

BSIF are in constant touch with the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and at our Test and Certification Association meeting on the 28^th of July we had input from senior members of the Brexit Trade and Investment negotiating team. This team are leading negotiations in Brussels on topics including a mutual recognition agreement (MRA) covering product conformity assessment and the domestic implementation of the EU-UK framework under which the UKCA mark and Approved Bodies fall.

The negotiations are ongoing and may be described as “challanging” particularly in areas such as creating level playing fields and governance. On behalf of the UK, the negotiation team has tabled an MRA modelled very closely on the established Canadaian CETA Agreement (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement). The MRA proposed by the UK would cover all sectors which currently exist under the EU’s New Legislative Framework / New Approach, where there is mandatory conformity assessment in at least some cases. PPE Legislation (EU 2016/425) would be included in the scope of the UK proposal.

The proposed MRA covers PPE conformity assessment and the ability of Notified Bodies / Approved Bodies in the EU and the UK to continue to “certify” goods for both markets. Please remember that an existing Notified Body based in the UK will lose that status as we cease to be an EU member state. These Notified Bodies will automatically become UK “Approved Bodies” under the UKCA regime, from 11pm on December 31^st 2020.

BEIS acknowledge that there is not guidance currently available and indeed previously published guidance “in the event of a no deal” has been withdrawn. They are working on guidance and appreciate that the industry needs time to be able to comply. In terms of manufacturing and supply, December 2020 is yesterday, and to accommodate the timing issues there will be a transition period.

What I can confirm via BEIS is that the UKCA mark process will come into existance and while there is no current legislation to support this I believe that this will be enacted very quickly via a statutory instrument.

There is no doubt that there are stretching times ahead as we attempt to apply whatever changes arise. PPE has for a generation been effectively managed through the architecture of 89/686 and latterly 2016/425, we must safeguard what was good in that process into the future.

2020 has already seen derogation from the PPE legislation, with easement brought-in, in an effort to provide desperately needed product to protect workers from COVID 19, and since March we have seen the pollution through inadequate non performing product being placed on the market.

We have all seen the headilines on products that were acquired by central government being deemed not fit for purpose and apparently quarantined, without being released for use. Perhaps the main story concerns the 50 million FFP2 masks acquired in April by the government which will not be used due to safety concerns. 

This mask purchase, was part of a larger PPE contract with Ayanda reported to be worth some £252 million. These are masks which instead of having a head harness are worn with “ear loops”. The reason cited as to why these masks will not be used is that there is doubt as to whether they will fit the wearer and provide the protection that is required. 

Perhaps due to the history of the UK demanding that tight fitting face masks are fit tested to ensure they are suitable for the wearer and capable of providing protection we had no history or experience of this type of mask in occupational safety and health. Personnaly, I was certainly surprised that such products could indeed pass the standard EN149. However, even outside of any Covid 19 related conformity assessment easement some ear loop masks had been certified!

I can tell you that the experience to date in face fitting these products is that more fail than pass a face fit. This is based on feedback from the Fit2Fit Accredited face fitters. It is, at this time not documented empirical evidence, but we are working on compiling the information and presenting it to the HSE. However, If all users of tight fitting masks actually undertook a fit test then perhaps the issue would not be so significant, as when a mask fails to pass a fit test it would not be used. Would that were th case, but we know that fit testing, despite being a legal requirement does not happen 100% of the time.

We must remember that as good as the UK’s record is, on Safety and Health 12,000 people die each year as a result of historic occupational lung disease and having product being used which is either inadequate for the hazard or unsuitable for the wearer could cost lives.

The Covid 19 pandemic has taught us many things but one of the main lessons must be that users should, now more than ever, be more discerning about the product they source and the suppliers that they use.