IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Too much regulation, overly complicated or badly interpreted?
Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Further to comments made on the 'May contain nuts - so what do you think? thread, do we have too much regulation, is it overly complicated, or as I suspect is it badly interpreted.
For example, the WAH regs has been criticised in the aforementioned thread. I have very little problem with the regulations other than I would have preferred them written as a ACOP. However, I have seen many examples of misinterpretation. Companies, some of them household names, banning the use of ladders and step ladders is just one example.
Interested to hear your views as always - Ray.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi It is not too much regulation, but the stakeholders who make up the "GB Health and Safety System" that appears to be the main problem. Although the directives from Europe have increased the number of regulations, opportunity has been taken to repeal/revoke a whole lot of prescriptive "old regulations". # But yes, the new regulations tend to apply to all workplaces. I very much doubt that we "Gold-Plate" EU Directives. Instead, it is our lack our understanding of the difference between Regulation, ACoP & Guidance that appears to be the biggest stumbling block. For example, the Federation of Small Business and other trade bodies representing specific industry sectors are involved at the consultative stages, and the Old HSC and the new HSE Board are very much involved in considering impact on small business when proposing new regulations! Some contributors have given the example of Republic of Ireland's simple transposition of EU directives. For example, in the Republic of Ireland, The Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 2007 contains 8 Parts and 10 Schedules implementing a whole lot of EU directives, but I very much doubt that it keeps it simple because you still end up with 8 separate parts ( with some parts sub-divided into chapters) instead of 8 separate sets of regulations we have! http://www.hsa.ie/eng/FA...Application_Regulations/Yes, an ACoP has a quasi-legal status, but an employer can use an alternative means in many instances to reach a compliance outcome. I could give some real case studies and examples where it is obvious that it is not the regulations, but our excessive obsession to comply with non regulatory standards such as some British, European and International Standards that is the problem, Yes, compliance to these in some instances may be best practice, but in best practice, we should also factor in cost. Now what about for going for "safe" practice that need not be best practice( as stated in the standards) at all times in some of the low/medium risk activities?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By paulw71
Probably a mixture of all these along with a lack of consistancy on the part of enforcing authorities.
Companies are aware that they can follow the afarp principle and risk assess every process and still end up being sued after an incident.
The ladders and steps thing is a symptom of this.
If someone was to fall and injure themselves while working from these (even short duration work) the vagueries of the regs would make it easy for the company to be held culpable. Easier for the company just to ban use and avoid the chance of this happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Anthony Edwards
badly interpreted in IMHO. Many individuals interpretation of reasonably practicable could differ considerably.
Regards
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Paul
I agree the lack of consistency by the regulators and also the judiciary is of some real concern. However, the regulators only normally prosecute when there is a flagrant breach, as opposed to a misinterpretation, which also results in a serious injury or fatality.
Individuals taking civil action for an accident at work is not really an issue because any compensation is normally paid by the ELI by the insurers - that is what it was designed for.
Jay, an ACOP is preferable because it goes into more practical detail how the dutyholder should comply. As you quite rightly point out an ACOP still retains quasi-legal status, by definition those who are being prosecuted will find it difficult to argue they implemented an alternative and safer method.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Yossarian
I actually think it's a problem with the English (rather than British or UK) psyche. There seems to be a need to have rules which must be followed irrespective of outcomes.
The situation was summed up admirably by the Worksop councillor interviewed by Mr Letts, who, when asked about all the staked gravestones, said: "We didn't have the luxury of adopting a commonsense way of doing it."
...So put me down as a "badly interpreted", although I think the underlying problem goes deeper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Too much regulation, overly complicated or badly interpreted?
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.