Posted By Nick Higginson Lee, Big discussion point at the minute. DId you see the article on it in this months practitioner? It draws comparisons between Revitalsiing and the current nummer one "a little less conversation, a little more action". Interesting to read that the key speaker at a recent conference starting talking about the virtues of HSWA, and how it had stood the test of time. DOes this point towards the fact that the proposed new safety bill is not coming? I am sure the debate will go on and on. Regards, Nick

Posted By Allan St.John Holt Lee, I'd like to see your evidence for the statement that the Government has watered down directives. In my experience they have on the whole been 'gold-plated' - exactly the opposite. In my opinion the fact is that the Government knows pefectly well what it has to do to improve the situation. We need appropriate enforcement of what we already have before we can take more standards on board. It also knows what to do to improve the construction record, but the solution is relatively costly and politically not a vote winner. Most things in life involve compromise. As in this case. When you compare the relative spend on road safety, for example, compared to occupational safety, it is clear that you get more lives saved per pound spent with road safety. Allan

Posted By Lee Allan, I remember reading there was a European Court of Justice Ruling, accusing the Working Time Regulations being inconsistent with the Working Time Directive, and therefore an update had to be made October 2001. I've read elsewhere that the goverment has been requested to change other areas of regulations: First Aid Regs 1981 DSE Regs 1992 Manual Handling Operations Regs 1992 PPE Regs 1992 Workplace Regs 1992 etc, etc. It is appreciated that a safety professional of your standing agrees that the government is putting votes and cost before safety. Very much like the hundreds of employers out there who put costs and profits before safety. WHERE'S THE DIFFERENCE?

Posted By Jay Joshi Allan has a useful point. I do not have a political axe to grind on this forum, but the text of the EC directives and what ultimately is in our statutory instruments is ann important point. In the past (read conservative), there was a tendency to exclude some aspects of the text of the directive from the regulations and include it in ACoP material etc. This led to infraction proceedings from the European Commission. For health & safety, the framework directive is EC's equivalent of "Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974", but much more detailed & prescrptive. We have a civil liability exclusion, similar to the general duties civil liability exclusion in HASAWA. However, the framework directive has no such civil liability exclusion. Also, the reason which most of us are not aware is that it was our Fire Brigades Union that took this "discrepancy" to the EC! Many HSC minutes and papers are available on the HSE website under freedom of information. From one of such documents, I understand, our use of "so far as is reasonably practicable" in the Management and possibly other regulations that implement EC directives may also be a subject of scrutiny from EC when the directives do not have such terminology! As safety practitioners, we know the status of ACoP etc, but as it has been discussed elsewhere in this forum, there are some employers who pay no heed to ACoP/Guidance, despite advice from their appointed competent persons. It takes time for the EC infraction aspects to come into play, but it is my understanding that the current Labour Government has decided to implement directives so that there will be no or negigible scope for infraction and to influence the process more constructively when the proposals are going thro the EC proccess. I also understand that once there is "infraction" from the EC, the HSE has to devote significant resources to respond to it. That is why we are having "fine tuning" of some of the regulations that implement EC directives. Regarding a "home for health & safety" within a government department, DTLR in a way was ideal as it also dealt with related issues such as Construction/Building Regulations, Fire Safety was also moved from Home Office to DTLR and it had road safety.transport safety.DTLR was huge and had to be split. So there is an issue in the context which is the ideal government department. On one hand we are going to have an increased number of EC directives to implement into Uk regulations. On the other hand, where primary legislation is concerned--major issues such as proposals for "involuntary manslaughter" and the safety bill appear to be on the backburner for the time being. Even Revitalising HS appears to have slowed down!

Posted By George Wedgwood Health and Safety is, and will remain, a big influence sector in government. The Departmental reshuffles are all to the good in that they re-focus people's attention and more particularly, the civil servants attention, from time to time! It is influential advisers but more succesfully, influential leaders, who make the difference in performance - they don't need to be driven continually by legislation, except for better advice and methods. Are we seeking better standards for ourselves as practitioners? Do we want the power and feel we are not getting it? I think we need to be serious and more focused here and really think about what our motivators are. We surely don't need legislation to beat our employers with - do we? Prepare for proposed legislation and see how you would advise your employers - then weave the ideals into your policy and practice and 'sell' it to your managers - only then will you be ready to gauge its worth if it comes in but then by then you won't need to worry, will you! If we are to raise the level of this debate, we ned to win a possible 'champion' MP round to our way of thinking and use that influence to ensure government really takes notice - but first of all we need a case! Perhaps we should really work on MORR as a test example and see who is first to reach zero occupational road accidents! Maybe then we can say we are getting someplace! For interest, the Department of Transport is actually the Department For Transport and these is their responsibilities at present; The Prime Minister has decided to create a new Department for Transport to focus solely on transport issues. This will have new leadership under Alistair Darling, with Rachel Lomax taking over as Permanent Secretary. This is an experienced team with a proven track record of delivery. Most of the other responsibilities of the former Department of Transport Local Government and the Regions (DTLR)will be brought into the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and put together with his existing related responsibilities for social exclusion and the regions (including the Government Offices in the Regions). This means that regional and local government and the Government's cross-cutting agenda for neighbourhood renewal and social inclusion will be handled by a single department under the Deputy Prime Minister who will also assume responsibility for implementing the Regional Government and Local Government White Papers. The Deputy Prime Minister will continue to act as the Prime Minister's deputy across the full range of domestic and international business, chairing a range of key Cabinet Committees. The newly-enlarged Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be separated off from the Cabinet Office which will be refocused, under Lord Macdonald, on its core functions - supporting the Cabinet, and driving forward public service delivery and reform. The Women and Equality Unit will be transferred to the DTI. DTLR's former responsibility for the Electoral Commission and for policy on electoral law, referendums and party funding will transfer to the Lord Chancellor's Department. There will be a review of the appropriate institutional structure and departmental responsibilities for transport safety and other health and safety at work issues. In the meantime, these will remain with the new Department for Transport. This from the DFT's Web Site today. Regards, George

Posted By Lee In agreement with Allan, this thread has thrown up some quite interesting points of view. Having read a number of other threads that are active at the moment, I tend to think that we have a lot of disgruntled Health and Safety Professionals in the community. It would be pleasing to see this acknowledged by the government and relevant bodies and work as a true partnership in promoting Health and Safety. Maybe it is too much to expect that as an employee, you can expect to clock off at the end of a working day to go home and not feel your safety has been compromised by a profit first culture. Do I expect too much from the government, I helped elect to look after mine and the nations interests? Lee

Posted By Richard No, Mark. The word is realistic!! Richard

Posted By Iain Macfarlane The Prime Minister has announced that responsibility for the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has transferred to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Link to: http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2002/c02035.htm