(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
On 6 April last year, my constituent Jason Knight was cleaning the last window of the home of a regular customer in Westbury when he was electrocuted by 33,000 V from an overhead cable. He was blown 7 feet across the garden, waking up on a patch of scorched grass with catastrophic injuries. Found by his customer, he was airlifted to hospital in Bristol in 12 minutes and placed in a coma. He woke up surrounded by his distraught family. He was very lucky to survive.
Jason was left with life-changing injuries. He has lost his left arm below the elbow, several toes, and a great deal of leg musculature. He has undergone over 20 sets of surgical intervention, suffered severe burns all over his body, and can walk or stand only with the utmost difficulty. Now he is losing his sight as a delayed effect of the electrocution. He is just 34 years old with three small children. He had started his own business that was growing and he was providing for his young family. He is a real doer, but his injuries are such that it is going to be extremely difficult for him to work again.
What happened was this: 33,000 V leapt, without physical contact, about 2 metres from an overhead power cable to Jason’s telescopic water-fed cleaning pole. The Health and Safety Executive made inquiries, of course, but concluded there was no breach of regulations that warranted investigation. Indeed, an HSE spokesperson told the BBC that the overhead powerlines involved in this incident met national safety standards. In the UK, we tolerate high tension power cables that are slung surprisingly close to commercial and residential buildings.
However, it was not the overhead powerlines that failed Jason; it was the cleaning pole. As Jason said to his father, John, shortly before he was taken to theatre to have his forearm amputated, “I don’t understand, Dad—I bought an insulated pole.” It should not have mattered that he was close to a power line, because the pole should have been fully insulated, but it was not. Jason was using a telescopic pole that could extend and retract. The handle section at the bottom was insulated, but the extended section was not. He was electrocuted when he reached up to retract the extended section.
I have to say that before Jason came to see me, I knew very little about window cleaning. As he and John recounted the story, I assumed that it was the water from the water-fed pole that was the culprit, since tap water, being impure, conducts electricity perfectly well. Jason and his dad put me right: window cleaners, including Jason that day, use pure water, or what is often called “zero water.” This kind of water has been filtered to remove all or nearly all dissolved solids, so that it leaves no watermarks on windows after cleaning. Ordinary tap water does not have that property. At that moment, I realised why my own attempts at window cleaning at home invariably left the glass looking worse. The crucial point is this: pure water is non-conductive, so the water in Jason’s pole was not the culprit. What caused this accident was inadequate insulation in a tool designed to be used at height, even in proximity to overhead power lines.
This is not a new, unforeseeable risk. The first water-fed poles, developed in the United States in the 1950s, were made entirely of aluminium. When window cleaners started to be electrocuted, the manufacturers simply slapped on some warning labels. At that time, the greatest hazard to window cleaners in Britain was falling off ladders, but when pole technology crossed the pond in the 1990s, its safety issues came with it. One British manufacturer, Craig Mawlam, head of Ionic Systems in Swindon—whose expertise I have drawn on extensively—recognised that danger early. He sought out non-conductive materials, developing composite glass-fibre and carbon-fibre poles. He prioritised insulation in the handle, and worked with the Health and Safety Executive to introduce training and guidance as the industry moved away from ladders and towards working from terra firma. Critically, however, this was voluntary, not required. There was, and remains, no mandatory British standard governing the electrical insulation of telescopic cleaning poles.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for raising this subject. I was sitting here and thinking to myself that years ago I lived on a farm, and years ago farmers were not aware of the dangers of telescopic hydraulic lifts touching cables, just as they were not aware of the dangers of falling off roofs. A campaign was started to ensure that farmers took greater care of themselves by following health and safety regulations. My sympathies, concerns and thoughts are with his constituent as he deals with the challenges of the life he is now leading. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that a campaign might now be necessary to protect those who could be affected by workplace safety issues—such as those who use water-fed poles in the window cleaning industry—like the campaign to protect the farmers many years ago? Today, farms are very safety-conscious.
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite right. Occupations that are not predictable are particularly dangerous. Agriculture is clearly one, as is construction, and window cleaning is plainly another. The window cleaning industry, as its association will say, is a particular issue, because many in the industry are essentially start-ups. They are often one-man bands—they are usually men—and they do not necessarily undergo training. They are probably not aware of the need for it. That is why it is so important to make the changes that I am suggesting we make, and to engineer out the problem so that people are not exposed to the hazards that I have mentioned and to which, sadly, Jason has fallen victim.
The omission of any recognition of the issue in British standards matters now more than ever, because the poles that I have described are no longer specialist equipment; they are used everywhere. They are used on residential streets beneath overhead cables; they are used near rail infrastructure; they are used in airports, hospitals, schools and industrial sites. They are used not just for window cleaning but, increasingly, for solar panel cleaning, gutter clearing, roof treatment, camera inspections, and building maintenance. They are available online relatively inexpensively, and they are available for use by amateurs and DIY-ers. Moreover, they are increasingly imported cheaply from overseas, especially from China, meeting no enforceable UK electrical safety standards at all.
In 2011, a British standard was published that could have changed everything: BS 8020. This standard governs insulating hand tools used near live electrical conductors up to 1,000 V. It requires rigorous construction standards. It requires batch testing at 10,000 V, providing a 10:1 safety margin. It mandates clear marking and verification. As an example, it covers narrow bladed shovels that might be used close to where underground cables could be—they are the ones sold at builders’ merchants or DIY shops, typically with a yellow or orange plastic section in the shaft or handle. Some pole manufacturers chose to apply BS 8020 to the handle section of their poles. Since 2017, at least one UK supplier has done so as a matter of course: Ionic Systems in Swindon, Wiltshire. But here lies the problem: BS 8020 is not mandatory for cleaning poles, and it does not require insulation of the section immediately above the handle. That is why Jason Knight was injured.
The UK remained free of fatal water-fed pole electrocutions until 2022. In that single year, two window cleaners were killed while working at residential properties. In 2024, Jason was very lucky to survive. Window cleaners now account for a significant proportion of overhead powerline electrocutions, yet unlike in agriculture, construction or scaffolding, there is no targeted awareness campaign, no mandatory training requirement and no enforced equipment standards for this trade. That is why I have brought this matter to the House.
The Federation of Window Cleaners, the Health and Safety Executive, the British Standards Institute and representatives of the energy networks have begun discussions on what to do. Some suppliers have engaged constructively, but others have refused entirely. The manufacturer of the pole that Jason was using when he was electrocuted claims that its products are “tested to 5,000 V”, without reference to any recognised standard. That figure is arbitrary; it is meaningless without methodology, certification, or context. A pole tested informally to 5,000 V may be vastly less safe than one certified to British standard 8020 to 1,000 V but good for 10,000 V with a 10:1 safety margin, yet the higher number sounds more reassuring to a sole trader or DIY-er choosing equipment online. That is exactly why British standards exist, and why we need one for telescopic water-fed poles.
This debate is not about banning water-fed poles. They have made the industry safer, because they have reduced the need to use ladders and to work at height. Nor is it about blaming workers, many of whom are sole traders operating on tight margins, without access to formal training or industry bodies. This debate is about designing danger out of tools in the first place, not just warning people to be careful while continuing to sell sub-optimal equipment.
The remedy is simple, proportionate, cheap and immediately available. First, British standard 8020 should be amended or extended to cover telescopic cleaning poles explicitly, and to require that both the handle and the first telescopic section above it meet the insulation standard and are marked accordingly. That single change would ensure that an operator’s hands remain on verifiably insulated material throughout normal raising, lowering and operation of the pole. It would create a safe clearance of 3 metres to 4 metres in most real-world situations.
Secondly, compliance with the standard should be mandatory, whether through regulation, conditions attached to limited liability insurance, or the procurement requirements imposed by major building occupiers. It is worth admitting that products would become about 70 grams heavier and slightly less rigid, but that is completely tolerable. On the flip side, glass-fibre insulation is cheaper than the carbon fibre it would replace.
I am pleased to say that the British Standards Institution, after a bit of encouragement, has seen the merit of the case. Its director general, Scott Steedman, kindly wrote to me earlier this month to say that he is working up proposals that will determine if there will be an amendment to the relevant British standards, drawing from the guidance published by the British Window Cleaning Academy. However, I remain concerned that the right British standard is amended. BS 8020 is an equipment-based British standard. It appears to me to be the more appropriate target, rather than the BSI’s current suggestion, which is BS 8213, a British standard which deals largely with safe systems of work. It could be that both standards need to be amended. Nevertheless, Mr Steedman’s news is most welcome, as is his assurance that a draft of the proposed changes will be published for public consultation in accordance with the BSI’s normal practice.
Britain has led the world in industrial safety by setting clear, enforceable standards. Given British manufacturers’ global exports, a UK standard in this could well become an international benchmark, saving lives, limbs and livelihoods across the world. Jason Knight, his father John and Craig Mawlam are not campaigners by choice. They have become campaigners because they do not want what happened to Jason to happen to others, and I pay tribute to them today. We cannot accept a system in which warning labels are seen as a substitute for a simple engineering solution that removes risk at source. I feel sure that the Minister will agree with all this, and I hope he will use his good offices to encourage the BSI and the HSE to bring forward the changes I have outlined as quickly as possible.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for securing this debate on this important subject, and for his very thoughtful speech. The Government place a great deal of importance on workplace safety, and I want to seek to reassure him and the House that we have an effective regulatory framework in place to secure the health, safety and wellbeing of those who work in window cleaning. Let me also offer my sympathies to his constituent, who suffered those life-changing injuries that he described while cleaning windows at a regular customer’s home last year. I do hope he is receiving the support that he needs.
Health and safety in window cleaning is covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and a number of regulations, such as the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, the Work at Height Regulations 2005, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. Section 6 of the 1974 Act places duties on the manufacturers of articles for use at work, including ensuring the equipment is designed and constructed so that it is, so far as reasonably practicable, safe when being set up and used; doing adequate research and testing to prove the safety of the equipment; and providing users with adequate information so that they can use the equipment safely.
Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and the associated regulations, all employers undertaking window cleaning are required to identify risks to their workers and to the public from those activities, and to take action to manage those risks. Those who are self-employed, which, as the right hon. Member said, is most of the industry, are subject to these duties only where their activities place others at risk. Where self-employed window cleaners are not subject to the regulations, they nevertheless should obviously look after their own health and safety. They should check work locations for hazards such as overhead power lines and/or use safe equipment. One way of doing that is to carry out a fit-for-purpose assessment of the risks. The areas of focus in the legislation are those that self-employed people should give particular attention to when considering how to work safely.
The Work at Height Regulations 2005 cover one of the most significant risks to people cleaning windows, because the vast majority of window cleaning obviously takes place above ground level. Working at height is always high risk. Whenever somebody leaves the ground to carry out an activity—up a ladder, on a platform, in a cradle—there is the potential for harm, most likely from a fall. The HSE’s recently published health and safety at work statistics reported that falls from a height continue to be the biggest type of fatal workplace accident, accounting for over a quarter of fatal injuries to people at work in 2024-25. Over the last five years, falls from a height have caused 28% of all deaths at work, while contact with electricity or electrical discharge accounts for 5%—a significant proportion, but a good deal smaller.
The HSE records for the last five years include eight incidents involving falls from height in which window cleaning was the main activity, and five of those resulted in fatal injuries, so the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the use of poles has made this activity safer. Employers and self-employed people can eliminate the risk of a fall by removing the need to work at height, and here is the advantage of water-fed poles for cleaning windows.
Poles can be designed to reach up to 25 metres in height and can be made from a variety of lightweight materials—the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of them. Depending on the material and weight of the pole, they can cause back and shoulder injuries through continued use. There is often a balance to be struck between weight, reach and cost. Prices start at around £100 for a very basic, budget, short-reach pole but can be over £700 for high-reach ones, while mid-range poles cost around £200.
I cannot comment on the efficacy of these poles for cleaning, but there obviously are safety benefits from using poles from the stable footing of a ground-level position, and certainly the view of the HSE is that they are safer than ladders. However, there are risks, and using a pole to carry out an activity at elevation in the presence of overhead power lines does carry the risk of electric shock, as the tragic experience that we have heard about underlines. If there are overhead power lines close to a property, the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 would require a risk assessment to be carried out. If there is a danger of electrocution, the HSE advice is not to carry out the work on that part of the building or to find another method that reduces the risk, particularly one that does not involve water-fed poles.
Other risks associated with water-fed poles, and window cleaning in general, include musculoskeletal injury from the handling of the pole, slips or trips, injury from falling poles, and the spread of Legionella from water systems. It is a legal duty under health and safety law for employers to identify and manage all those risks and, in doing so, to protect their workers and the public from harm. As I have said, the self-employed are subject to those duties only where their activities place others at risk, but it is nevertheless a good idea to observe them.
I understand that in the tragic accident we have heard about, as the right hon. Member has said, the power line was compliant with statutory clearance distances and those set out in industry guidance but the pole manufacturer’s guidance was to avoid touching overhead power lines, including by having a warning marked on the pole itself. From the account the right hon. Gentleman has given, my understanding is that the pole did not in this instance touch the overhead cable but got quite close to it without touching it.
Enforcement of the duties in law is carried out by the HSE and by local authorities, which have powers to inspect workplaces, to investigate accidents and to take action to address non-compliance up to and including prosecution. To help employers comply with these duties, the HSE produces general guidance on a range of topics relevant to window cleaning, such as manual handling, control of hazardous substances, and slips and trips. In addition, guidance specific to working safely when cleaning windows is available from the window cleaning industry itself. That includes two pieces of guidance on the safe use of water-fed poles, produced in collaboration with the HSE, and guidance on the use of window cleaning equipment near overhead power lines, produced in collaboration with the Energy Networks Association. The latter is called “Safe use of window cleaning equipment near overhead power lines” and it is jointly branded by the Energy Networks Association and the Federation of Window Cleaners.
I just want to read part of what it says. I appreciate that this is no comfort to the right hon. Member’s constituent, but it may be helpful to others to quote from it:
“Be aware of the dangers of working near or underneath Overhead Power Lines (OHPLs). Always assume they are live and beware that electricity can jump gaps. Plan ahead and note the location of OHPLs. Consider your position at ground and the extent of your equipment (i.e. Telescopic devices) and ensure that when extended it will not encroach or breach the exclusion zone as a minimum. Generally remain 5 metres away to be safe. If you are in any doubt about whether the lines in question are power or telephone (this is a very common mistake) always assume that they are power lines and are live.”
It goes on:
“It is not normally practical for electricity companies to shroud high voltage conductors and even when low voltage conductors are shrouded, the shrouding is not designed to protect against contact by Tools or Equipment—again, Keep your Distance! If unsure, always contact your local electricity network operators”.
That is available on the website of the Federation of Window Cleaners. In the specific case of a 33 kV line, which the right hon. Member told us was the case here, the Energy Networks Association advises a clearance distance of 3 metres to be maintained. I should perhaps also point out that the federation provides a training course on “Using water-fed poles and portable ladders”, which is approved by the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health. It is a one-day course, and it costs £175 plus VAT per person for members.
The right hon. Member referred to the product introduced by Ionic Systems of Swindon. I know that Ionic Systems, in pursuing the case the right hon. Member set out this evening, met the relevant British Standards Institution committee, PEL/78, on 22 July this year to discuss including water-fed poles in standard BS8020 on tools for live working. The idea was to include fully insulated water-fed poles to avoid an incident like that which befell Jason Knight. As the right hon. Member said, the system uses de-ionised water, which will not conduct electricity.
The committee concluded that the standard on tools for live working is just not suitable for water-fed cleaning, because it is intended to cover tools used by people who have been trained in working on, or near, live electrical conductors in the electrical industry. Industry training is generally three to four years to become competent to work on live conductors. The committee’s view was that a water-fed pole is not a tool for live working, and that window cleaners should not be encouraged to carry out live working near a live electrical cable. On that basis, the industry experts on the committee and the BSI rejected the application.
I note from the what the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the BSI may be looking at making a change to another standard. The BSI is independent of Government and makes its own decisions, so I will certainly follow with interest the outcome of the work he has referred to.
I should also make the point that British standards are not routinely made mandatory. If they are followed, they can be used to demonstrate compliance with the law; however, as they are set independently, legislating for them to be mandatory would introduce the risk of falling behind technical advancements. I think there are consumer uses where there is some mandation, but in an instance such as the one we have been talking about this evening, BSI standards are not generally made mandatory. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to correspond with me on that.
To conclude, the Government continue to take the health and safety of people cleaning windows very seriously. We have heard this evening of serious accidents—in some cases fatal—that can befall people engaged in this work. I hope I have been able to reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we have a regulatory regime and framework in place that are sufficiently robust to protect the health and safety of those workers, as we must. I will certainly follow with great interest the developments he has indicated to the House, and the thinking that is under way at the moment, and see where that gets us in the coming months.
Question put and agreed to.