MHSWR 1999 or MHSWR as Amended 2006? Options  Watch this topic  Print this topic » Normal Threaded

Previous Topic Next Topic

decimomal		#1 Posted : 01 April 2011 09:25:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Which would be correct when quoting the Management of Health and Safety Regulations? Is the latter only relevant in relation to Regulation 22? Ta
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

SteveL		#2 Posted : 01 April 2011 09:32:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		MHSWR 1999,
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

decimomal		#3 Posted : 01 April 2011 09:35:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Just as I thought.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

RayRapp		#4 Posted : 01 April 2011 09:36:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		I would write - Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (as amended 2006).
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

decimomal		#5 Posted : 01 April 2011 10:08:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		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).
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

bilbo		#6 Posted : 01 April 2011 10:13:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		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.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

SteveL		#7 Posted : 01 April 2011 10:16:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		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
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

SteveL		#8 Posted : 01 April 2011 10:19:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		bilbo Missed your reply whilst typing. concur
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

RayRapp		#9 Posted : 01 April 2011 10:21:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		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
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

SteveL		#10 Posted : 01 April 2011 10:48:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		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
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

decimomal		#11 Posted : 01 April 2011 10:52:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		I always seem to manage to open cans of worms !!! (LOL) Decimo.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

RayRapp		#12 Posted : 01 April 2011 10:54:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		stevel I did say, 'statutory instruments' and also there is probably no 'right or wrong way'. It will depend on the institution's preference...
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

SteveL		#13 Posted : 01 April 2011 11:00:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Ray True you did, but primary legislation would set precedence over secondary would it not. Decimo But its the 1st today
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Garfield Esq		#14 Posted : 01 April 2011 11:12:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		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.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

SteveL		#15 Posted : 01 April 2011 13:21:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		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?
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

RayRapp		#16 Posted : 01 April 2011 17:41:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		'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.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Canopener		#17 Posted : 01 April 2011 18:28:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Beam me up scotty. It is Friday tho!
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

SteveL		#18 Posted : 04 April 2011 07:53:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Ray Relevance is would it be under 1999 or 2006?
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

RayRapp		#19 Posted : 04 April 2011 08:49:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		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.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

SteveL		#20 Posted : 04 April 2011 10:08:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		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
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Users browsing this topic

Guest (4)