Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Neil Pearson An HSE colleague notified me yesterday that a Consultative Doc has finally come out for the Work at Height Regulations. http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd192.htmThey are quite detailed, and I wondered what people think. Does this indicate an end to the principle of goal-oriented legislation, and less prescriptive requirements? The idea that the Management Regs ought to be able to achieve everything?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By peter gotch
Neil,
Ironically some commentators are mourning the death of the 2m rule in the proposals.
This reflects recent research findings flagging up the proportion of reportables (including major injuries) which result from falls of less than 2m.
Of course this research only confirms what was highlighted in eg Construction Sector reports published by HSC in 1980.
Nevertheless not only industry but HSE have given little attention to "low falls" (as opposed to slips and trips) in the past.Better late than never.
Recent prosecution, HSE in their R v Friskies commentary muddled the issues. Not surprising since HSE's own stats sometimes go for all falls from height and sometimes for those of 2m or more. Oh and case successfully defended!
Regards, Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Nagle
Neil.
I though the guidance notes in the CD were quite good, and could even have been written more a 'a guide to' rather than 'guidance on' a set of regulations.
I am sure they have got it about right, as work at height is an area that is often not carried out as safely as it could be. One only has to read of the volume of falls from height and through roofs etc to realise this.
I saw the document as giving direction and information rather than being too presciptive, but as regulations they would need to state what is required, and I think this has been aptly achieved in the most part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Sandler
I agree with Peter, on most things he has commented on but I personally feel that the combinding of all WAH regulations has been due for some time.
This has to be seen as a positive way forward, The 2 metre rule only comes into effect within CHSaW Regs 96 but HSaW Regs 92 has never put a height under 13.2, neither does this one.
What this proposed regs still fails is to define competence, Regs 5 & 6 WaH Regs 04, we must leave this up to the MD's of this world.
Lets see what happens mid 04 when this reg is due to come into force.
Regards.
Jonathan Sandler
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Neil Pearson
I agree with you all in that I can't see anything in the Regs to disagree with. I just wonder why the Regs are necessary, when they just regurgitate accepted good practice.
Why are the Management Regs combined with accepted practice not enough? It was a great theory, that we would move away from detailed law and concentrate on the management issues, but somehow it doesn't work in practice, and so we keep getting more specific Regs like these.
When I said "prescriptive" in my initial post, I really meant "specific". I don't think they try to be too prescriptive, I just don't understand why we still need such detailed law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
Isn't this something to do with the different approach to health and safety legislation in 'Europe' compared with the UK?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi
The regs are to transpose the Temporary Work at Height Directive (2001/45/EC).
Specifically, it is Directive 2001/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 amending Council Directive 89/655/EEC concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC)
The HSE/HSE had a choice of implementing it by:-
Changes to existing regulations, i.e. The Construction (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1996 and the Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992 and PUWER 98 or go for a stand alone set of regulations that deals with working at heights. Due to the number of fatalities and injuries caused by working at heights, they opted for the latter.
Those who comply with existing law will not have to do much!
Our membership of the EC has means that we have to transpose EC directives into our legislation, but it also gives us an opportunity to review our legislation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.