Rank: New forum user 
|
Would it be possible to deregulate H&S and replace it with a 'Strict Duty to Manage' associated risks?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I cannot see exactly how a 'Strict Duty to Manage' would deregulate H&S unless you are advocating an insurance system based on a 'no fault' concept. In criminal law 'strict liability' is as close as it gets to a strict duty, with the odd exception of an 'absolute duty' in some regulations.
Can you expand your thinking a little?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
I was reviewing some posts here and noted comments about various regulations being outdated and some questioning if the regulation in question was actually needed. It prompted me to wonder whether it were possible to remove a swathe of individual regulations and instead manage and enforce on the duty to identify and manage risks which we all are doing anyway.
It was just a idea that I thought would make an interesting discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I think this was the idea of the Lofstedt Report 2013.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As I see it the concept of a strict duty would impose in effect an absolute duty on all h&s matters. If there were no regulations there would also be nothing to benchmark against in terms of good or bad practice. The notion that employers will implement h&s initiatives out of the goodness of their heart can be discounted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
In construction the cry tends to be "there's too much regulations don't tell us what to do".
But......
In practice the industry relies heavily on the HSE to explain how to apply regulations through ACoPs and guidance and this is for realtively comprehensive legislation, what do you think is going to happen if regulation becomes less specific?
The demand will be for more and more specific guidance from the HSE and other enforcement bodies which may or may not be forth coming.
To summarise is an industry that relies so much on external guidance ready for less specific legislation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Interesting points, Lofstedt did result in the removal of some outdated regs. If we look at the 'Six Pack' regs, could we manage these types of hazards without specific regulations? or maybe combine them into a more coherent single piece of legislation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think it is a great idea in a world where everyone is competent and everyone believed wholeheartedly in health and safety as being a mandatory and worthwhile function. Meanwhile, back here on planet Earth, the legislation gives us teeth to get the job done.
Without this, we would merely suck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I believe that it is high time we did have tougher, rather than deregulated standards- ie using this government's business friendly strategies [not forgetting the previous two governments which were much the same.
It could be achieved by removing the word reasonably from the famous/infamous? reasonably practicable phrase leaving us with the requirement for an obligation to do what is practicable-technically feasible to prevent/limit risks ie more or less strict liability.
As was mentioned above at Sidestep's post that all industries require regulations and ACoPS as they would otherwise not have a clue [or motivation]about how to manage their risks.
Even in the early Victorian era the better companies supported regulations [which obviously need to be effective] to ensure a level playing field and no free riders or worse.
I'm still in favour of a no-fault scheme for compensation to work with this tougher regime.
Yeah, right!
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.