02.07.2008

Battersea group angry at rejection of crane register

The Battersea Crane Disaster Action Group has reacted angrily to Government claims that a central register of cranes is unnecessary.

The group made a submission to the Work and Pensions Select Committee into the work of the Health & Safety Executive and Health & Safety Commission, demanding a register to ensure that cranes, can be tracked an monitored. It sees the measure as essential to protect the safety of workers and members of the public. The group also put the spotlight on the need for more resources for the Health & Safety Executive.

The Select Committee report, published on 21st April, supported the group’s demand for a central register of cranes. Chaired by Terry Rooney MP, it said: “We are extremely concerned at the number of incidents and fatalities involving tower cranes and other plant on construction sites and call on the HSE to urgently bring forward proposals such as a national register of plant including ownership, age, design type, date of last inspection and other relevant factors.”

The Department of Work and Pensions’ response to the Select Committee’s report failed to recognise this urgent need for a central register. Liliana Alexa, secretary of the Battersea group and mother of Michael Alexa, who died in the Battersea crane collapse said:
“We’re really angry. How can the Government say that there’s no need for a central register? When a crane collapsed in Forest Hill in December 2007, the HSE had to investigate to find out who owned the crane and how old it was! This is completely unacceptable. This information should be immediately available and the public should be able to access it. We’ll be doing everything we can to protest about the Government’s response. We firmly believe that a register of plant is necessary and the Select Committee agrees. Why is the government refusing to take some positive action to save lives?”

Vertikal Comment

This is a tough issue, one can understand where the Battersea group is coming from in trying to push for some legislation that might help tighten up safety rules. However it is hard to see how a central register might work given the single European market and in the absence of any rules governing age limits, and as far as the last inspection tower cranes are made up if components some of which can spend long periods in store rather than in use while a crane is different each time it is erected.

Far better to have the industry agree firm age/rebuild and inspection rules and then apply pressure on contractors to stop being two faced about safety and to start choosing crane suppliers from quality and safety criteria rather than on lowest price we might get somewhere, certainly displaying the age, inspection and ownership details of the cranes on a board on the external perimeter wall of the site might also help.

There have of course been too many accidents with tower cranes over the past year or two, although each of the UK incidents was different and unrelated. We agree that the industry needs to sharpen up its act, something it has been energetically doing over the past three years, however the of introduction of more knee jerk regulations rarely helps.

We do respect though the right and the importance for those affected by the Battersea accident to have their say and to be listened to. They should perhaps join a sensible discussion, perhaps at a CPA meeting in order to encourage a sensible exchange of views?