Anyone else noticed and had thoughts about the suggestion reported recently :- Secretary of State for Business, and Chair of the Reducing Regulation Committee, Vince Cable has set out a series of new principles that the Government will use when introducing European measures into UK law. These will end so-called ‘gold-plating’ so that British businesses are not put at a disadvantage relative to their European competitors. The key to the new measures will be the principle of copying out the text of European directives directly into UK law. The direct ‘copy out’ principle will mean that British interpretations of European law are not unfairly restricting British companies." I suspect that Mr Cable does not understand the difference between the legal systems in Europe and Britain. I believe the 'direct copy' principle will have the exact opposite effect to that envisaged by Mr Cable - and will unfairly restrict British companies! Direct copying of EU directives will inevitably result in a lot of 'absolute' duties - which British business will then be obliged to follow (or suffer prosecution) - whereas their European competitors will have the same absolute rules, but will only be obliged to follow them proportionately. The legal systems in France (and elsewhere) allow the courts (and enforcers) to 'interpret' regulation - so that application is proportionate to risk and circumstance - whereas UK system requires the 'letter of the law' to be applied without opportunity for argument... Hence the recent case in the European Courts where the concept of 'so far as is reasonably practicable' was successfully defended.... Oh for an informed executive! Steve

Quite correct the principle of so far as is reasonably practicable has been tested in European law and found to be sound, that is why most Eutropean law is passed under the British system and turned into regulations that allow SFARP to apply. Thuis is sound and often goes further than European law so is better in many respects because it allows the flexibility of legal interpretation. British law is always based upon European statutes and adapted to fit into the British system anyway.

"Every employer shall ensure that the exposure of his employees to a substance hazardous to health is either prevented or, where this is not reasonably practicable, adequately controlled. Control of substances hazardous to health regulations (COSHH) - Section 7(1)" Note that "reasonably practicable" only applies to prevention and not to "adequately controlled". I take this to mean that if you cannot adequate control exposure you cannot perform the activity. Of course, this then raises the question of what is meant by "adequate control". Herein lies a problem as for dermal exposure this is nowhere clearly defined! Chris