Posted By Paul Leadbetter James The 1974 Act, like all other legislation, is the law; there are penalties for non-compliance, if you are caught. Paul

Posted By martinw Look at the number of presecutions listed on the HSE website under various sections of the HASAWA 74. Really is legally binding in itself.

Posted By claret65 James, The 1974 Act is the primary source of health and safety law in the UK. It received 'royal assent' after completing the parliamentary process as a 'bill'. The HASAWA 1974 is therefore criminal law and must be complied with or criminal prosecution could follow. The judicial process could lead to fines or inprisonment or both. The majority of sections found within the 1974 Act places a qualifying duty on the employer to ensure the H & S of their employees 'as is reasonably practicable'(assessment of cost benefit against removal or reduction of risk). This enabled the initiators' of the Act, the Robens' Committee in 1972, to implement 'self-regulation' and to move away from earlier prescriptive legislation. They concluded this old type 'tick-list' legislation promoted apathy. Interestingly, the forward-thinking 1972 Committee realised the need to ensure the 1974 Act was 'enabling' in nature, and this provided the mechanism to make statutory instruments (Regulations) under it. The 'semi-quasi' Approved Codes of Practice (ACOP) and HSG guidance complement the Regulations.The ACOP is not strictly legally-binding, but will be used as evidence that a breach of statutory duty has occurred, unless the Defendant can demonstrate that their methodology has equalled or is better than the provisions found in a Regulation. Importantly, today the enabling mechanism found in the HASAWA 74 provides the UK with a means to implement the majority of H & S legislation now made from the EC in the form of 'Directives'. Unfortunately, one of the primary aims of the Robens' Committee was to reduce the amount of legislation produced, but as history has demonstrated, the 1974 Act has not realised that ambition.

Posted By claret65 Bob, Please expand on your comment?

Posted By James Denman The reason for my query is that for sometime now I have been very disappointed with some of the replies that some of the users give on this forum to people who obviously just need help and advice but instead get put down. I noticed a thread yesterday from a moderator who suggested that some people don't post because of the attitude of some, and I'm afraid I agree. But, I must say that I was pleasently supprised by the responses I got and I think that is a credit to those that gave them. It was a shame that Bob had to prove the initial point. The forum is a great place for dicussion and learning and I hope that those with a positive approach over shadow those who just want to mock people. Apologies to those that took the time to give a helpful answer, but you showed the worth of site.

Posted By James Denman Yes. I feel a little guilty about it, but it showed that the forum can work as it's meant to.

Posted By James Denman No, it doesn't prove anything, but it might give some confidence to some people.

Posted By Swis "I noticed a thread yesterday from a moderator who suggested that some people don't post because of the attitude of some, and I'm afraid I agree" ??? James - are you a chartered memebr (cMIOSH)?

Posted By Safety officer Everyone noticed the mistake in the title and that's why they have corrected it in their posts, which was very kind of them not to point out the mistake as they obviously did not want to embarrass the poster who seemed to need help. James do you wonder why some people are cynical when you have silly people playing tricks? You could use your time better I think. This forum is full of generous and helpful people.

Posted By Edward Shyer hi James just to clarify it is the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and not the Health and Safety at Work Act 1975. regards Ted