Health and Safety at Work (Lifts) (Jersey) Regulations, 1990: Exemption Certificates

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made 18 September 2013:

Decision Reference: MD – S – 2013- 0091
Decision Summary Title :	Health and Safety at Work (Lifts) (Jersey) Regulations, 1990.		Date of Decision Summary:	11 September 2013
Decision Summary Author:	Tammy Fage Senior Health and Safety Inspector		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	n/a
Written Report Title :	Health and Safety at Work (Lifts) (Jersey) Regulations, 1990.		Date of Written Report:	11 September 2013
Written Report Author:	Senior Health and Safety Inspector		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Application for certificates of exemption for lifts installed at the Mountview Hotel, St Helier and the Sarum Hotel, St Helier.
Decision(s): In accordance with Regulation 9 of the Health and Safety at Work (Lifts) (Jersey) Regulations, 1990, the Minister granted an exemption from the requirements of Regulation 8(d) of the Health and Safety at Work (Lifts) (Jersey) Regulations, 1990, in respect of the fitting of an overspeed governor to the existing lift installations at the Mountview Hotel, St John’s Road, St Saviour and the Sarum Hotel, St John’s Road, St Helier. These exemptions are to be reviewed in 5 years.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Minister is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for the lifts to comply with the requirements of Regulation 8(d). The exemption is granted subject to a condition that the lift installations are subjected to any supplementary examinations as may be deemed necessary by the competent person carrying out a thorough examination of the lift installations, required under Regulation 4(1).
Resource Implications: There are no implications for the financial or manpower resources of the States.
Action required: Channel Hotels and Leisure Limited and Sarum Hotel Limited are to be advised of the granting of the exemption in respect of the Mountview Hotel and the Sarum Hotel respectively.
Signature:		Position:
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Health and Safety at Work (Lifts) (Jersey) Regulations, 1990: Exemption Certificates - Mountview and Sarum Hotels

Health and Safety at Work (Lifts) (Jersey) Regulations 1990

Application for certificates of exemption for passenger lifts installed at the Mountview Hotel and the Sarum Hotel

Summary

The Health and Safety at Work (Lifts) (Jersey) Regulations, 1990, (the Lift Regulations) were introduced by the States in 1990 to establish minimum standards of safety at lift installations in workplaces. In certain circumstances, the Minister is able to grant an exemption from the requirements of the Lift Regulations.

The Inspectorate has been notified of two lift installations, at the Mountview Hotel and the Sarum Hotel, where the retrofitting of a safety device known as an overspeed governor, which is required in order to comply with the Lift Regulations, is not considered to be ‘reasonably practicable.’

It is therefore recommended that, subject to a condition, the Minister grants an exemption from the requirement in the Lift Regulations for the fitting of an overspeed governor to each of the installations.

Background

Lifts are provided with several safety systems which help to prevent the lift car falling down the lift shaft in the event of a failure of the lift mechanism. For example, in the case of lifts which are supported by ropes, there will be additional ropes provided to that simply required to support the lift car so that, in the event of failure of a rope, the lift car will remain supported.

Another safety feature is safety gear which, in the event of a failure of the suspension ropes supporting the lift car, clamps the lift car to the guide rails within which the lift car travels.

Improvements to the standards which set out the safety of lift installations have also resulted in the introduction of a device termed an overspeed governor which stops the lift car if it operates above the lift installation’s designed speed.

The requirement for such safety systems for passenger lifts is set out in Regulation 8 of the Lift Regulations.

The Health and Safety at Work (Lifts) (Jersey) Regulations, 1990

The Lift Regulations set out detailed requirements for the construction, maintenance, thorough examination and use of non-domestic lift installations.

Regulation 4(1) requires every lift to be thoroughly examined by a competent person every 6 months, with Regulation 4(6) requiring any defect which could affect the safety of the installation to be notified to a Health and Safety Inspector. This thorough examination is generally carried out by an Engineer Surveyor employed by an Engineering Inspection Body.

Additional requirements for passenger lift installations are set out in Regulation 8, with Regulation 8 (d) stating:

d) there shall be provided and maintained efficient devices which will support the lift car together with its safe working load in the event of failure or breakage of the ropes, chains, hydraulic or other lifting devices.

This requirement sets out the legal basis for the fitting of safety gear and other safety devices, such as an overspeed governor, to lift installations.

At the time that the Lift Regulations were introduced it was considered that there may be a number of historic lift installations which would not meet the standard of a new lift installation. Provision was therefore made, under Regulation 9, allowing the Minister to grant an exemption from all or any of the requirements of the Regulations, where the Minister was satisfied that the requirements were not necessary for the protection of employees or were not ‘reasonably practicable’.

Regulation 9 states:

The Minister may (subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified therein) by certificate in writing (which may at the Minister’s discretion be revoked at any time) exempt from all or any of the requirements of these Regulations –

(a) any particular plant or equipment or any class or description of plant or equipment;

(b) any particular work or class of work,

if the Minister is satisfied that the requirements in respect of which the exemption is granted are not necessary for the protection of persons employed or are not reasonably practicable.

The application for an exemption must therefore demonstrate that there is either no reduction in the safety of persons using the lift or it is not ‘reasonably practicable’ to comply with the Lift Regulations. The standard required for an exemption to be granted is therefore very demanding.

In the case where an exemption is granted on the basis that complying with the legal requirement is not ‘reasonably practicable’ the legal interpretation of the term “reasonably practicable” must be met. This phrase has been interpreted by the Courts as a need to balance the sacrifice, either in money, time or trouble, on the one hand, against the nature of the risk involved on the other hand. Where the sacrifice is grossly disproportionate to the risks involved, it is not considered to be ‘reasonably practicable’.

Background to the request for exemption from Regulation 8(d)

In accordance with the requirement under Regulation 4(6) of the Lift Regulations the Health and Safety Inspectorate has been notified of two installations where the requirements of Regulation 8(d) are not being met:

Mountview Hotel, St John’s Road, St Helier, JE2 3LD and

Sarum Hotel, 19-21 St John’s Road, St Helier, JE2 3LD

In the case of these installations, which were both installed prior to the introduction of the Lift Regulations, the competent person has identified that the lift installation is not fitted with an overspeed governor device.

Although normally in such circumstances an overspeed governor would be required to be fitted, confirmation has been received that, in each case, it is not possible to fit such a device to the existing installations. However, the competent person who carries out the thorough examination under Regulation 4(1) has advised that additional supplementary examinations of parts of the lift installations, which could be at risk of failure, will be carried out within specified time periods. Nevertheless, this will still result in the requirements of Regulation 8(d) not being fully met.

It is therefore only possible for the requirements of Regulation 8(d) to be fully complied with if, in each case, the existing lift installation is replaced by a new modern installation. As a result, an application for an exemption from Regulation 8(d) has been received in respect of each installation.

Comment

There is no doubt that the fitting of an overspeed governor improves the safety of passengers travelling in a lift and is recognised in European Standards for lift installations [1] as being a high priority to be retrofitted to existing passenger lifts. However, the standard does also recognise that these requirements may not be able to be applied to all installations due to the constraints of building design etc.

Whilst, ultimately, it is for the Courts to decide on the interpretation of whether a particular circumstance is deemed to be not ‘reasonably practicable’, it is considered that, on the basis of the confirmation provided to the Inspectorate, it is not possible to install an overhead governor device to either of the installations. It would therefore not be considered ‘reasonably practicable’ to apply Regulation 8(d) to the fitting of such a device, as this would result in the lift installation having to be taken out of use.

In granting an exemption, the Minister is able to place such conditions as he considers appropriate to be applied to the exemption. It is therefore advised that, should the Minister agree to the granting of an exemption, a condition is placed on each of the exemptions requiring the installation to be subjected to such supplementary examination as may be deemed necessary by the competent person carrying out the thorough examination required by Regulation 4(1).

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Minister grants an exemption from the requirements of Regulation 8(d) in respect of the requirement to fit an overspeed governor to the following lifts installations:

Channel Hotels and Leisure Limited

Pickering Passenger/ Goods Lift, Serial Number 74/1500-90/1590R

Mountview Hotel, St John’s Road, St Helier

Sarum Hotel Limited

Pickering Econolift Passenger/Goods lift, Serial number 78-1427

Sarum Hotel, St John’s Road, St Helier.

In addition, it is also recommended that the issue of an exemption be subject to the following condition:

The installation be subjected to such supplementary examination as may be deemed necessary by the competent person carrying out the thorough examination required by Regulation 4(1).

Tammy Fage (Mrs)

Senior Health and Safety Inspector

Social Security 11-09-13

File No. 3/7/10

Tammy Fage

[1] British Standard BS EN 81-80:2003 Safety rules for the construction and installation of lifts – Existing lifts Part 80: Rules for the improvement of safety of existing passenger and goods passenger lifts