Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 18 January 2001 17:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Neil Budworth Has anyone else pulled this off the HSE web site yet. I'd love to hear what people think about it al 13 pages (including questionnaire, covers and appendices) Best Regards Neil
Admin  
#2 Posted : 18 January 2001 18:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mark Preston It's going to be a struggle - I'm under strict instruction never to send our directors anything that runs to more than a side of A4 - 12pt, double spaced and wide margins - I think this may tax my powers of precis :)
Admin  
#3 Posted : 18 January 2001 18:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bill Fisher Neil Saw it last night and have read it a few times! Is it just me or do you (and others) think this is a waste of paper and time - I didn't see anything new or taxing that would challenge Directors to tackle Revitalising. Perhaps a good starting point for new SMEs? I am prepared to change my mind if someone can draw me to the positive. Regards Bill
Admin  
#4 Posted : 19 January 2001 09:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Steve Conway I suppose how you view the Code depends how advanced your H&S systems and culture are. My organisation already satisfies some of the Points. Yesterday I sent a copy of the Points and assocaited commentary to by boss, who happens to be the Lead Director for HSE, and will discuss with him how we could use the Code to move H&S forward. I expect/hope he will view the Code as another useful tool to influence the other Directors. Bill, out of interest what would be new and taxing? Steve
Admin  
#5 Posted : 19 January 2001 12:08:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Allan St.John Holt In my opinion this is a complete and shallow climb-down. Not an ACoP, Neil, just 'guidance', and not even new at that. Unless this is put into a stronger format such as an ACoP it is predictable that 'business as usual' will continue. Experience shows that to achieve any meaningful culture change, a business has to get its key values set down and translated into actions. These might well be some of the actions. I am very disapppointed, but not too surprised to find this appearing so close to a general election. No corporate brownie points (or corporate donations?) to be gained by clobbering business, as this is probably seen as being too much like 'Old Labour'. Politics intrudes, methinks. Allan
Admin  
#6 Posted : 19 January 2001 12:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Neil Budworth I agree with just about everything that has been said about this document, it doesn't appear to add anything to the debate. It is not specific enough encourage directors to do anything and if it is retained in its present form I agree with Allan that the impact will be somewhere between negligible and zero. Regards Neil
Admin  
#7 Posted : 19 January 2001 16:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Phil Roberts Neil, Having read the document and coming to the same conclusion as most of you, do you know if IOSH be making a formal response to the Consultative Document? Regards Phil
Admin  
#8 Posted : 19 January 2001 16:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Phil Roberts Oops! In my haste I seem to have omitted 'will' from between IOSH and be. Regards Phil
Admin  
#9 Posted : 19 January 2001 19:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ian Waldram Yes we will, in fact HSE kindly gave Leicester early sight of the document, so some people there saw it a few days ago (not me, I was alerted by Neil's posting!). As for other CD's, Richard Jones, Head of Technical Affairs, is responsible for collating the IOSH response, and I'm sure would be pleased to have your views by e-mail (use 'Contact Us' above). That should not of course preclude members from making an individual response, or supporting those from other bodies.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 21 January 2001 08:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Adrian Watson Dear All, I'm in total agreement with John, this is a total stepdown. Furthermore if the Code of Practice on Directors Responsibilities is not to be an ACOP, this information should be incorporated into HSG 65 as part of the general advice and guidance on safety management systems.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 21 January 2001 17:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith I totally agree with the points that have been made both by Allan St.John Holt and Neil Budworth and I believe that this document has no real added value to the spirit of Revitalising Health and Safety. I am very disappointed with this much awaited document. As an observation I checked back on the wording of the Action point 11 in the Revitalising Strategy Statement and it states the following: The Health and Safety Commission will develop a code of practice on Directors responsibilities for health and safety, in conjunction with stakeholders. It is intended that the code of practice will in particular stipulate that organisations should appoint an individual Director for health and safety, or responsible person of similar status (for example in an organisation where there is no board of Directors). The Health and Safety Commission will also advise Ministers on how the law would need to be changed to make these responsibilities statutory so that Directors and responsible persons of similar status are clear about what is expected of them in their management of health and safety. It is the intention of Ministers when Parliamentary time allows, to introduce legislation on these responsibilities. I believe that on this occasion, that the HSC have had their hands tied by the Scope of this action point, particularly with the words of the first paragraph. I like many, naively believed that this proposed code of practice, would eventually become a HSC Approved Code of Practice rather than a HSC Guidance Code document as it now appears in the consultative document. It will be interesting to see how the HSC will undertake the tasks laid out in the second part of this action point, especially when advising Ministers about making these responsibilities Statutory. I shall be responding to this Consultative Document by the 9th March and pressing for an ACOP.
Admin  
#12 Posted : 22 January 2001 09:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Richard Jones Dear All, I'm pleased to see the level of enthusiasm to respond to this document. Could I urge everyone to actually send in a response to the HSE. It would also be very helpful if a copies of all responses were then forwarded to The Grange, so that we can take as wide a consensus of opinion as possible prior to making the formal IOSH response. As Ian stated (thanks for the 'plug' Ian) you can send responses to me or prefereably to Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk - please ensure all questions are answered! Thanks in anticipation of your support! Richard.
Admin  
#13 Posted : 22 January 2001 12:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi The general view of responses on the forum is the need for an ACoP as guidance will be too much of a "soft" option.I fully agree. However, I feel that perhaps the HSC had no option in the short term. In order to have an enforceable ACoP, there has got to be relevant legislation in the form of regulations - For the Directors Responsibilities, there doesnt appear to be any relevant explicit regulations for an ACoP unless new/amending regulations are made. Perhaps that is why there is a hint in the action plan-i.e."The Health and Safety Commission will also advise Ministers on how the law would need to be changed to make these responsibilities statutory so that Directors and similar responsible persons are clear about what is expected of them in their management of health and safety. It is the intention of Ministers to introduce legislation on these responsibilities." We on our part must put credible responses to HSC on the need for an ACoP that supports regulations--even if new/amending ones have to be enacted!!
Users browsing this topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.