Posted By Nicholas Williams
I think that it depends upon whether the context of the director's duties.

Are they the Board champion for Health and Safety within the company in which case they can occupy their time with additional duties? In my company, the board champion is the Personnel Director.

Alternatively they are solely involved with the subject of health and safety at an Board level and bear that executive responsibility.

Other director titles just indicate a position in the management hierarchy.

Posted By andymak
They could always be a non-executive director, where if my understanding is correct they report to the board but do not have decision making authority or voting rights.

Posted By Tony Brunskill
The MD is quite within his rights as the law stands. There is no legal responsibility to appoint a Director, this is best practice. The board as a body and individuals have responsibility. HSE argue that the appointed Director is not to be a scapegoat but I have my doubts. This is likely to be taken out of HSE's hands if it ever becomes law as any lawyer worth his salt is going to ask for Judicial Review if HSE decide not to prosecute (See current CPS case).

To champion H&S at Board level the individual needs to interact with the board in its decision making. This does not require that they are a Board Member although logic suggests they will be.

Non Executive Directors have a role in making sure the Board operates within legal and other frameworks (Corporate Governance/UKSE Listing Rules/SORP etc). I personally believe that this is the best way forward. We offer to fulfil this role for companies provided we can operate from Rio where there are no extradition agreements (Joke).