Rank: Forum user
|
Well, no way out but what is our general feeling about the future now for our profession?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I'm guessing that we will control our own laws and regulations, Some if not all of the bureaucratic red tape may be destined to the waste bin. but to be honest its not as if the UK are stupid about the way we've been dealing with Health & Safety over the Years.
We'll Manage as we've always done, only this time with out foreign involvement by unelected members.
we've got 2 years to get this show on the road, i'm looking forward to the challenge.
to even think that we would simply give our country away to be governed by the EU is unthinkable, but however we all voted its now time to work together and show the world just how we do it!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Considering that the HSE has been emasculated by Gov't and turned in to a revenue generator thus losing the respect many of us previously had for their leadership, allied to the Out vote, I foresee a tough time for us. This Gov't is unlikely to enact any new H&S laws (although we don't need them anyway) and will further lose interest in enforcement.
However, our primary aim has always been to keep people safe and healthy at work and this will not change. Our arguments for change must still be based on what is right for the safety and health of those for whom we protect.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
gerrysharpe wrote:I'm guessing that we will control our own laws and regulations,
No WE won't. The Government will. And who knows whether this will be better or worse.
This link is pretty good for a realistic balanced view of life outside: http://www.bbc.co.uk/new...eaves-the-european-union
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The good, caring employer will continue as before. They were not particularly focussed on regulatory compliance but more on what made sense to them commercially and from an ethical viewpoint. The other type of employer will doubtless seek to do what they already do, either ignore their regulatory duties or hope that these will become less important or less well enforced.
Possibly the more important consequence of the referendum will be the financial implications for many companies. If there is less money in the coffers then one thing that they might be tempted to skimp on is health and safety.
So we can now make our own decisions. This is rather like me going into the supermarket. In theory I have autonomy. I can load my trolley with all the expensive foods and wines - except that I then have to pay for them. Same with the economy. We can make our own decisions, providing that we can then meet the cost. So it all boils down to what happens to the economy. Anyone know what that will be?
Chris
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I'm concerned that this government has previously demonstrated a preference to eliminate safety regulation, regardless of its benefit. Look at the Lostedt terms of reference - he was not tasked to report on whether our H&S regulatory regime was fit for purpose, his remit was to "look into the scope for reducing the burden of health and safety regulation on business". Government had already decided (without any independent expert review) that H&S was a burden and must be reduced.
There have been worrying comments occasionally that our H&S regime should be more closely patterned on the American model - a jurisdiction where the workplace safety record is many, many times worse than ours (USA OSHA 2014 figures 3.4 fatalities per 100,000 fte in 2014, UK HSE 2014/15 figures 0.46 fatalities per 100,000).
So while it may be the case that now our national MPs can control our laws and regulations, I have very little faith in their ability to choose wisely. Let's get specific and consider the latest headline corporate manslaughter case - the runaway crane. Our national government has been opposing the notion that such vehicles should have road-worthiness testing. They are exempt from MOT testing (or any equivalent). It was the EU lawmakers that were forcing periodic road-worthiness checks. I guess that will be some red-tape to scrap - the ridiculous idea that massive roadgoing vehicles on eth public highway should be checked for road-worthiness. Oh those crazy EU bureaucrats.
However, as chris.packham says, the good employer is not driven by regulatory compliance. Maybe it will be OK
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi, in my view nothing will change.
The UK has a proud history of worker protection - from the introduction of the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act in 1802, through to the HASAW 74 - long before EU "interference".
Had we have followed the EU directives to the letter, we would have weaker laws than we have now. In many cases we have gold plated the EU directives - above and beyond what was required.
I cant see any government of the UK making wholesale changes to UK H&S laws, and feel sure that we will continue to lead the way in our proactive and positive influence on the rest of the world.
All the best, Jonathan
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I am concerned about the rights of workers. I hope somebody sees sense not to tamper with it too much. The way the odds are stacked at the moment its creeping against the worker. We will all become ill at work. This will increase the burden on the NHS. It's all over with now so lets get on with it. Lets take it easy and think carefully of consequences
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Some basic items implemented to comply with EU Directives I suspect will remain (relatively) as is - Manual Handling Regs, PUWER, etc.
Not so sure about the Management Regs, and I may even put money on CDM being a prompt target of review. Even just the removal of duties placed on domestic clients is an easy win for whichever party claims it first.
Removal of CE marking requirements for entities not trading with the EU would be pretty swift, I'd imagine.
I'm concerned, though, that as a society we're beginning to lose the social commitment to looking after each other that underpinned a lot of the development of H&S law from the 60's onwards.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I agree. We are focusing too much on money. I reckon most of the people who voted leave are retired of close to retirement
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
The UK has an extremely good safety record which is the envy of many other countries. This in turn encourages foreign trade. Why then, would the government choose to do away with the laws and regulations which have given us this record?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
DawnHall wrote:The UK has an extremely good safety record which is the envy of many other countries. This in turn encourages foreign trade. Why then, would the government choose to do away with the laws and regulations which have given us this record?
Because they believe that they are a burden on business. They've said so, repeatedly.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
DawnHall wrote:The UK has an extremely good safety record which is the envy of many other countries. This in turn encourages foreign trade. Why then, would the government choose to do away with the laws and regulations which have given us this record?
I would think because the government think that the laws and regulations are onerous and "red tape"
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Perhaps the question is whether the Government will repeal h&s legislation enforced via EU directives and regulations - I doubt it. The incumbent Government have shown they would like to reduce the burden on employers, which in part they have done largely by reducing the resources of the HSE. We may see some more of this unless there is a change of Government.
Do other countries applaud or purchase goods from the UK because of our good safety record. Never seen any evidence this is the case. We have historically been at the forefront of h&s and many of the regulations we have in place would have happened regardless of the EU.
I suspect the Government will be too busy looking at economic issues to worry about h&s for the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Oh dear. As other international political leaders remark this morning 'beware the power of the populist vote.'
As for our profession, it exists predominantly as a result of Article 7 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC - enacted in the UK via Regulation 7 of the Management Regulations.
A populist vote suggests a similar government at the next general election, which is surely imminent.
Who's to say that populist government won't decide to sweep away all subordinate health and safety legislation (yes all of it) and leave just the HASAWA?
In my working lifetime, many organisations had no competent person, no access to one, or if they did it was usually the burden of a middle manager nearing retirement and with no knowledge or expertise in the field. Who says we won't go back to that?
If you're young and your chosen profession is occupational health and safety (or environmental management for that matter) I suggest you start looking further afield or consider a career change.
Good luck everyone.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Well good topic, but feel maybe looking into this too deep. Let's face fact EU Directive has not been the driver in the continual raising of the HSE Standard in the UK. Which is seen as a World Leader in the HSE Industry. To consider the Legislation & Regulations will be swept out by the Government is absurd, sorry to be blunt. Take a look at the EU States and standard of HSE, it does not match our standards. We have driven it and will continue...
Yes, companies see it as a burden and harp on about cost from time to time etc. However, majority of these companies are the cause of the burden themselves. HSE is based on simplicity and common sense approach, but majority of times these elements are over complicated by incompetent individuals. Majority of the companies just go overboard with Excessive Paper Exercise thinking this is the best approach, instead of controlling the work at the work-face. They either introduce new or adopt procedures from other organisations and add their own stance on it.
Remember the Act (Bill) was brought to Parliament in 1970, finally passed in 1974 as The Health & Safety at Work Act. Yes it had to comply with EU Directive 1972 and it can be stated that it was a driving force at the time. However over many years since, it has evolved enabling the creation of specific requirements through regulations enacted as Statutory Instruments or through a code of practice. This has been driven by the UK Enforcement Sector, trying to simplify the Management Systems and paper exercise undertaken by many companies in the UK
Things are not going to dramatically change for our profession, too many skeptics out there in our industry. With regards Competence, well it is unfortunate that we have people working in our profession either with no experience / knowledge or they are just ticking boxes (taking salary) not really undertaking the role / responsibilities as Health & Safety Professional. This has been increasing overtime, disagree a lot of these people are near retiring age or middle management. Just fact, our profession is seen as High Salary Bracket and attracts people to the profession for the Salary.
Time will tell, vote has been done and everyone needs to stop worrying, just continue to do your job....
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ah, and who am I to shatter your illusions, spenhse? A high salary bracket profession? Really?
No idea what 1972 Directive you're referring to, but I suspect you might mean the 1972 European Comunities Act, which gives (gave) precedence and superiority to EU law?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Accession of the UK to the European Union (EU) in 1972, health and safety regulation has needed to comply with the law of the European Union and Statutory Instruments under the Act have been enacted in order to implement EU directives. The Act is the principal means of complying with Health and Safety Framework Directive 89/391/EEC on health and safety at work. Other changes were made by the Consumer Protection Act 1987 in order to implement the Product Liability Directive 85/374/EEC.
So yes, EU Directives established our systems, which are by far one of the best in the World that have been established by some of the finest in the industry.
With regards wages, a HSE Professional depending on experience / knowledge wage are in a high salary bracket compare to the average UK Wage, so yes really. Have no illusions, just the facts are the UK Voted out, they have and now we must ride the wind of change. Before HSE is put on the agenda, the economy stabilization is priority. We just need to continue with our jobs and stop worrying at the moment. As it affected you yet, no. Will it affect the way HSE is done over night NO
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
BS EN 1090 to allow us to CE Mark as per the Construction Products RegulationS will disapear along with CE MARKING if only suppying into the uk and the need for CE marking management system standards will not be required.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I should stop patting your backs...accidents are lower because we have exported them to other countries, along with manufacturing.
A look at construction, as an industry we have not yet exported, and the picture is not so rosy.
We just kill people in other countries now.
Along with most of our CO2 emissions being abroad.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I really don't think we are going to see a change for some considerable time, if at all. We have a record that is enviable and we need to continue to enforce this. If the Government tries to remove worker's rights, people will strike and we will be back to the early 70s. This is not what they want at a time of economic instability. I wouldn't honestly think anyone will give a damn about changing any legislation for at least a decade if then.
CE Marking? I remember when that came in and Britain was concerned that the European Standards were not as high as our own BS Kite Marked standard and that this would, potentially, make products LESS safe.
We've always had a good culture of laws to protect people and their working lives. The world has changed, people demand more and will object vociferously if they feel they are being hard done by. Look at the Brexit vote as an example. No one thought it would happen but the people stood up and said "no".
Let's have a bit of faith in Britain - at the moment it's all we can do. Frankly I have been surprised that the sun has continued to rise and set every day since the vote - wonders never cease to amaze me!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As someone who is also in charge of the CE compliance for the company i'm working for, i gladly await for the day that we can completely be rid of the CE crap and perhaps have a conversion to a British Standard Quality control like BS ISO 9001.
Therefore still having some aspect of Quality control and all the audit criteria, its a shame to be rid of it and not have some quality compliance in its place. The bonus of do this in place of CE marking would be..
Creates a more efficient, effective operation,
Increases customer satisfaction and retention,
Reduces audits,
Enhances marketing,
Improves employee motivation, awareness, and morale,
Promotes international trade, (Which is now a VERY good thing!)
Increases profit,
Reduces waste and increases productivity,
Common tool for standardisation Set out by the British Standards,
Enables to meet the requirements of an internationally uniform quality system,
Motivates the employees and develops pride in them for achieving excellence.
Some companies like the one i'm working for have spent thousands over the year implementing this CE Marking and Training staff to maintain its system, With a Conversion to BS EN 9001, the Company would have a harmonised standard of quality, maintain good work ethics and reverting back to the British Standard which at one time (And i still think it is) was the envy of the world.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
BS ISO 9001? Sorry the Quality ASSURANCE standard is BS EN ISO 9001 in the UK and defines the requirements for management systems to control the process.
The CE Crap you refer to is the Quality CONTROL - the harmonised standard defines essential requirements for a product to satisfy for trade along with the methodology for testing that the product meets those requirements.
In reality the narrow span of the Construction Products Regulations is currently supported by some 428 harmonised standards - at the outset of CPR it was envisaged some 600 hEN's would be required, in addition there are still European Assessment Documents for those who wish to self declare CE in the absence of a hEN as well as European Technical Assessments (with the authority of EAD's).
Then look wider - Pressure Vessels, Electro Magnetic Compatibility, Low Voltage, Batteries and Accumulators, PPE....this is a hell of a lot of documentation to give up or replace in a very short time frame. Some of these directives have only just been revised and will become applicable during our Article 50 withdrawal from the EU as they are in their transition period.
We will still want to export to the EU where buyers will want to see products that satisfy these requirements so for business it would not be practicable or sensible to have a distinct stand alone UK only system unless you want to enter the tit for tat trade war the common market eliminated.
Consider chemicals someone asked if we would be getting rid of CLP and going back to CHiP because that was British - my answer how? CHiP was adoption of two EU directives and CLP/REACH in their replacement are the EU enactment of the United Nations Globally Harmonised System which is designed to aid international trade. Would we really sit down and write our own version of this rule book?
The skill for H&S professionals in the coming decade (yes decade) will be to keep abreast of what is changing and what will come in replacement - nothing major will happen in the short term.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
BS ISO 9001? Sorry the Quality ASSURANCE standard is BS EN ISO 9001 in the UK and defines the requirements for management systems to control the process.
The CE Crap you refer to is the Quality CONTROL - the harmonised standard defines essential requirements for a product to satisfy for trade along with the methodology for testing that the product meets those requirements.
In reality the narrow span of the Construction Products Regulations is currently supported by some 428 harmonised standards - at the outset of CPR it was envisaged some 600 hEN's would be required, in addition there are still European Assessment Documents for those who wish to self declare CE in the absence of a hEN as well as European Technical Assessments (with the authority of EAD's).
Then look wider - Pressure Vessels, Electro Magnetic Compatibility, Low Voltage, Batteries and Accumulators, PPE....this is a hell of a lot of documentation to give up or replace in a very short time frame. Some of these directives have only just been revised and will become applicable during our Article 50 withdrawal from the EU as they are in their transition period.
We will still want to export to the EU where buyers will want to see products that satisfy these requirements so for business it would not be practicable or sensible to have a distinct stand alone UK only system unless you want to enter the tit for tat trade war the common market eliminated.
Consider chemicals someone asked if we would be getting rid of CLP and going back to CHiP because that was British - my answer how? CHiP was adoption of two EU directives and CLP/REACH in their replacement are the EU enactment of the United Nations Globally Harmonised System which is designed to aid international trade. Would we really sit down and write our own version of this rule book?
The skill for H&S professionals in the coming decade (yes decade) will be to keep abreast of what is changing and what will come in replacement - nothing major will happen in the short term.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Roundtuit wrote:BS ISO 9001? Sorry the Quality ASSURANCE standard is BS EN ISO 9001 in the UK and defines the requirements for management systems to control the process.
The CE Crap you refer to is the Quality CONTROL - the harmonised standard defines essential requirements for a product to satisfy for trade along with the methodology for testing that the product meets those requirements.
In reality the narrow span of the Construction Products Regulations is currently supported by some 428 harmonised standards - at the outset of CPR it was envisaged some 600 hEN's would be required, in addition there are still European Assessment Documents for those who wish to self declare CE in the absence of a hEN as well as European Technical Assessments (with the authority of EAD's).
Then look wider - Pressure Vessels, Electro Magnetic Compatibility, Low Voltage, Batteries and Accumulators, PPE....this is a hell of a lot of documentation to give up or replace in a very short time frame. Some of these directives have only just been revised and will become applicable during our Article 50 withdrawal from the EU as they are in their transition period.
We will still want to export to the EU where buyers will want to see products that satisfy these requirements so for business it would not be practicable or sensible to have a distinct stand alone UK only system unless you want to enter the tit for tat trade war the common market eliminated.
Consider chemicals someone asked if we would be getting rid of CLP and going back to CHiP because that was British - my answer how? CHiP was adoption of two EU directives and CLP/REACH in their replacement are the EU enactment of the United Nations Globally Harmonised System which is designed to aid international trade. Would we really sit down and write our own version of this rule book?
The skill for H&S professionals in the coming decade (yes decade) will be to keep abreast of what is changing and what will come in replacement - nothing major will happen in the short term.
What he said......
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
At least Infarction processes will come to an end!!!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
At the rate Boris is back-pedalling it looks as though 'leaving the EU' will mean adopting the Euro and doubling our contributions.
If we stay in the EEA (which seems to be the most likely outcome) we won't see very much at all in the way of change, I reckon,
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
hilary wrote: Frankly I have been surprised that the sun has continued to rise and set every day since the vote - wonders never cease to amaze me!
A little patronizing. I don't think anyone was under the illusion that we would stop the Earth rotating around the sun.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
What do you mean?
Everyone knows the earth is flat.
Prof Brian Cox said so, or maybe I didn'tunderstand?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Our main problem will be adapting to how we can influence EU rules that will affect our businesses trading in the EU and receiving goods and services from EU nations even if they are trading with the UK only.
If Scotland fulfil their ambition to become independent of the UK and retain EU membership, this will provide a range of challenges that will affect businesses currently trading only within the UK at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
jwk: UK can't "stay" in the EEA - we aren't in it.
Scotland can't "retain" EU membership - it isn't a Member State.
Scotland's best chance post independence might be to seek to become part of the Irish Republic from the (dis)UK - part of a new expanded Nation.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I, for one, welcome our new fascist overlords. ;)
I'm waiting for the EEA offer with full schengen zone forced upon us as a new member of that bloc. It doesn't bother me in the least ... but will demonstrate how flawed the entire premise of offering a 'leave' vote was without in any way being able to define what was actually being voted for. Flawed from an intellectual perspective anyhow - politically it seems to be working out fine for a few.
I rather suspect that those who voted leave have some minimum expectations of what Britain outside the EU was going to look like and a significant proportion are likely to end up disappointed. I certainly can't see any 'red tape' disappearing anytime soon...its just a bigger version of the flawed Red Tape Challenge wherein we removed a whole host of regulations that everyone had forgotten existed anyway.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Why is it that people seem to think that we require leading by the nose as a petulant child?
Democracy is about the majority with the ability to remove the government if you don’t agree with how they performed. Not a bureaucratic dictatorship.
Briton can and will again be great. Keep telling people you’re incapable and they start to believe it. Start telling people how good they can be and work towards it and they will be. We had the best in the world and we can again. Lead by example. As for our profession, sensible and proportionate SFARP.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ron Hunter wrote:jwk: UK can't "stay" in the EEA - we aren't in it.
Scotland can't "retain" EU membership - it isn't a Member State.
Scotland's best chance post independence might be to seek to become part of the Irish Republic from the (dis)UK - part of a new expanded Nation.
In my real world, the EEA includes ALL present EU member states. INCLUDING the UK.
https://www.gov.uk/eu-eea
"The European Economic Area (EEA) unites the **EU Member States** and the three EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) into an Internal Market governed by the same basic rules. These rules aim to enable goods, services, capital, and persons to move freely about the EEA in an open and competitive environment, a concept referred to as the four freedoms.
"
When/If we depart the EU, we will also be departing the EEA. To get BACK in, we join the EFTA. Maybe. There is no guarantee we would be wanted. There is no guarantee we would apply, since freedom of movement is an attachment. Also, at the moment we are not in the Schengen arrangement, which is a necessity to signing.
This has not been though through. AND we have another constitutional crisis approaching: The prime minister (ex) is insisting that he can alone invoke art50. Constitutional experts point-out that parliament passed the laws, so only parliament can revoke them by debate and vote.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
SteveL wrote:Why is it that people seem to think that we require leading by the nose as a petulant child?
Democracy is about the majority with the ability to remove the government if you don’t agree with how they performed. Not a bureaucratic dictatorship.
Briton can and will again be great. Keep telling people you’re incapable and they start to believe it. Start telling people how good they can be and work towards it and they will be. We had the best in the world and we can again. Lead by example. As for our profession, sensible and proportionate SFARP.
As a Scot who voted to stay, I completely agree with you in principle. The problem isn't with all people being incapable, it's the select few that run the country. At the moment the 2 main parties in Westminster look like a group of children playing at politics with no one really wanting to take responsibility for any fall out from this vote.
I also agree that if a government doesn't perform it should be held accountable but honestly, who are you kidding? 1 politician in a blue tie lies on the BBC news, 1 politician in a red tie lies on the ITV news and joe public doesn't know who to believe so just goes back to watching the X Factor and videos of cats on Youtube. No one's ousting any under performing government, just putting up with the status quo as it gradually gets worse and worse.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Returning to the original question of how it will affect us, what happens to our chemical industry whe we leave?
With certain exceptions, in order to market most chemicals within the EU these need to be registered with the ECHA. Registration must be by an organisation resident within the EU. After Germany the U.K. chemical industry holds the largest number of such registrations. Obviously being within the EU these are held by organisations based within the U.K.
What happens when (or if) we do actually leave? Technically these registrations could become invalid. If we could not negotiate with the EU that they can be transferred to a new only representative based within the EU it would appear that U.K. manufacturers and importers might be unable to sell into the EU until they had appointed an only representative and reregistered their chemicals, a mammoth task that would take several years.
This could also affect those manufacturers who incorporate chemicals into their products, e.g. paint manufacturers.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As you say chris.packham, after Germany the UK holds the largest number of such registrations. Ergo, if we are not allowed to continue we could put half of the EU out of business - somehow I think this will not come to pass and that even if we are not part of the EEA, measures will be taken to allow these products to be used in Europe even if it is only an interim measure until we get something more formal in place.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Well seeing as every single H&S regulation in the last 150 years started its life in the UK I don't think leaving the EU will make a jot of difference to that side of things. What will differ in time is that whilst the UK continues to develop and implement a high standard of H&S which will carry an inevitable cost, the rest of the Eurozone (and by then probably including Norway, Switzerland and Austria who will no doubt sign up to the EU now that we have quit) will implement their own (lower) standard and be at a cost advantage as a result. This will then translate to a backlash against H&S in this country and we'll all probably be hung, drawn & quartered at dawn for treason ...
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Do have to wonder if certain elected representatives by way of their post Brexit comments and travel are not already guilty of "petit treason" (High Treason reserved for acts against the sovereign, their spouse and heir) - unfortunately the punishment of hanging, drawing and quartering was removed from statute books
Captcha = gbp1q "GB pick"
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Do have to wonder if certain elected representatives by way of their post Brexit comments and travel are not already guilty of "petit treason" (High Treason reserved for acts against the sovereign, their spouse and heir) - unfortunately the punishment of hanging, drawing and quartering was removed from statute books
Captcha = gbp1q "GB pick"
|
|
|
|
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.