Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
decimomal  
#1 Posted : 01 April 2011 09:25:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
decimomal

Which would be correct when quoting the Management of Health and Safety Regulations? Is the latter only relevant in relation to Regulation 22? Ta
SteveL  
#2 Posted : 01 April 2011 09:32:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SteveL

MHSWR 1999,
decimomal  
#3 Posted : 01 April 2011 09:35:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
decimomal

Just as I thought.
RayRapp  
#4 Posted : 01 April 2011 09:36:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

I would write - Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (as amended 2006).
decimomal  
#5 Posted : 01 April 2011 10:08:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
decimomal

RayRapp wrote:
I would write - Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (as amended 2006).
Not 'Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (as amended 2006)'? My query is as the amended 2006 bit only really applies to Reg 22, is this really necessary if the context does not apply. (I appreciate it is probably fairly trivial in the scheme of things).
bilbo  
#6 Posted : 01 April 2011 10:13:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bilbo

Or even " The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (as amended)" this will pick up on all the amendments made since 1999.
SteveL  
#7 Posted : 01 April 2011 10:16:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SteveL

The full title of the amending regulations is the Management of Health and Safety at Work (Amendment) Regulations 2006. And this only contains the amendment to regulation 22. The Management of Health and Safety at Regulations 1999 contain the text and require the 2006 amendment to be considered. There is no regulation other than 22 in the amended So in that respect you would not be able to confer requirements of regulation 3 to the 2006 amendment
SteveL  
#8 Posted : 01 April 2011 10:19:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SteveL

bilbo Missed your reply whilst typing. concur
RayRapp  
#9 Posted : 01 April 2011 10:21:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Decimonal There is probably no right or wrong way. However, I did a MA in H,S&E Law and the prescribed reference for statutory instruments was as I had written. The MHSWR originally was part of the six pack and thus introduced in 1992, updated in 1999 and again in 2006. Therefore the correct protocol I believe is to use the date of the last amendment, regardless of the content or impact of the amendment. Some may disagree.... Ray
SteveL  
#10 Posted : 01 April 2011 10:48:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SteveL

Ray So whilst your referencing to MHSWR was 2006, did you reference Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 or Health and Safety at Work etc Act (Application Outside Great Britain) Order 1995 Whilst compiling my bibliography I used MHSWR 1999 & HSWA 1974 even though the 2003 amendment to MHSWR was available Steve
decimomal  
#11 Posted : 01 April 2011 10:52:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
decimomal

I always seem to manage to open cans of worms !!! (LOL) Decimo.
RayRapp  
#12 Posted : 01 April 2011 10:54:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

stevel I did say, 'statutory instruments' and also there is probably no 'right or wrong way'. It will depend on the institution's preference...
SteveL  
#13 Posted : 01 April 2011 11:00:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SteveL

Ray True you did, but primary legislation would set precedence over secondary would it not. Decimo But its the 1st today
Garfield Esq  
#14 Posted : 01 April 2011 11:12:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Garfield Esq

stevel wrote:
Ray True you did, but primary legislation would set precedence over secondary would it not. Decimo But its the 1st today
Thus hence thence - I agree with RR.
SteveL  
#15 Posted : 01 April 2011 13:21:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SteveL

Ray garfield With your MA in H,S&E law A prosecution under the management regs for failure to produce risk assessment would be for a breach of Reg3 under MHSWR?
RayRapp  
#16 Posted : 01 April 2011 17:41:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

'A prosecution under the management regs for failure to produce risk assessment would be for a breach of Reg3 under MHSWR?' Yes, I believe a failure to produce a suitable and sufficient RA would result in a prosecution pursuant to Reg 3. Not sure what relevance this question has to the original topic? But hey, it's Friday...LOL.
Canopener  
#17 Posted : 01 April 2011 18:28:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

Beam me up scotty. It is Friday tho!
SteveL  
#18 Posted : 04 April 2011 07:53:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SteveL

Ray Relevance is would it be under 1999 or 2006?
RayRapp  
#19 Posted : 04 April 2011 08:49:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

steve According to my research the MHSWR are officially known as - Management of Health and Safety at Work (Amendment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/438). Whether a prosecution would cite the 1999 or 2006 version I'm not sure, but I suspect that latter.
SteveL  
#20 Posted : 04 April 2011 10:08:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SteveL

Northamptonshire Teaching Primary Care Trust Case No. 4204399 Details for Breach 02 Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (No 5) para 1 19-01-2011
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.