Topics

Industry

Latest Comments

Management Regs ACoP up for withdrawal in streamlining proposals

The HSE has embarked on a huge consultation exercise aimed at revising, consolidating, or withdrawing 15 Approved Codes of Practice (ACoPs) by the end of next year.

A further 15 ACoPs have been earmarked for minor revisions, or to be left untouched, for delivery in 2014.

The Executive proposes to withdraw the ACoP for the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and replace it with a set of more specific, updated guidance. Two ACoPs – ‘L117 Rider-operated lift trucks: Operator training’ and ‘L130 The compilation of safety data sheets’ – have been identified for revision, or withdrawal without consultation.

The consultation exercise meets a recommendation outlined by Professor Löfstedt, in his review of health and safety legislation, ‘Reclaiming health and safety for all’, for the HSE to review its 52 ACoPs by June this year. With 32 ACoPs considered in the initial consultation phase, the remaining 20 have not yet been reviewed, as they are subject to ongoing sector-specific consolidation exercises, or other regulatory amendments.

ACoPs provide practical guidance on complying with the general duties of the HSWA 1974, or the requirements of certain regulations. Although not law, they do have a special legal status, and duty-holders can be confident that if the advice contained in the documents is followed in relevant circumstances, then they will be legally compliant.

Reform of the Management Regulations ACoP – one of the most significant proposals – was suggested by both Professor Löfstedt and Lord Young, in his 2010 report, ‘Common sense, common safety’.

This ACoP currently provides explanation of the Regulations, and gives definitions and principles to be applied in complying with them. In most cases, there is no one recommended method to be used to achieve compliance and, consequently, the ACoP does not describe methods of compliance with sufficient precision for duty-holders to be certain they have complied with their legal obligations.

It is proposed that the ACoP should be replaced by structured guidance, including:

  • Health and safety made simple;
  • Revised guidance previously branded as ‘Essentials’;
  • Revised ‘Five steps to risk assessment’; and
  • Managing for health and safety (HSG65).

It is expected that this approach will provide comprehensive advice for businesses, particularly SMEs, and safety representatives on how to comply with the law in a way that is much more specific than the current ACoP.

In a further move aimed at improving simplification and understanding, the overall consultation process includes a proposal to limit all ACoP documents to a maximum length of 32 pages, other than in exceptional circumstances.

To view all the relevant documentation, visit http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd241.htm The deadline for comments is 14 September.

If guidance becomes prescriptive, does this not discourage adoption of best practice, as best practice evolves constantly and is driven by the "interpretation" conflict that currently exists? All innovative solutions generally started in industry as a result of continual improvement. The requirement for suitable and sufficient RA is often poorly performed as is noted in numerous HSE convictions. To simplyfy this requirement would potentially reduce the RA control element significantly?
bob
a complete waste of time and money. If it ain't broke don't fix it!
michael
It's appropriate in this centenary year of the Titanic disaster that we should rearrange the deckchairs, once again. None of the previous attempts to reduce the so-called burden of regulation or simplify guidance have improved on the status quo. This is yet another political diversion from the basic task of ensuring that workplaces are safe and healthy, and using the existing law to punish those who fall short of standards, which ensure that they treat their workers with dignity and respect
prpr@btinternet
The review of the guidance is for the good guys who want to do the right thing. The criminals who operate ungaurded machinery for 12 years will not even bother.
kenpatrick@ntlworld
After HSWA the most significant piece of legislation are the Management Regs, leave the ACOP alone and don’t simplify it like you did with RIDDOR; requiring employers to keep additional records 3-7 days and report over 7 injuries!!!
alanthurgood1087@hotmail
Before we right off the proposal, consider what real benefits these Regs bring. Yes it contains details relating to management, risk assessment, training and competence etc but where is this not included in other specific regulations such as PUWER etc? The only people who benefit from these Regs are the claims farmers and ambulance chasers who use them to bolster the allegations when bringing a civil claim. Why have a set of Regs that merely duplicates the contents of others?
john
Using that arguement, why have any regulations at all? Employers and the self employed have a duty of care under HSW Act 1974 As do employees to similar extent. That`s why seldom are regulations used for prosecutions?
bob
Any review should make sure that an ACOP is included for Reg 5 of the management regs. H&S is simple, get reg 5 right and everything else should fall into place, make it a easy to read ACOP and everyone knows what is expected of them
Willgrett@gmail
So, we're going to replace the ACoPs with 'Structured guidance' eh? •Health and safety made simple; •Revised guidance previously branded as ‘Essentials’; •Revised ‘Five steps to risk assessment’; and •Managing for health and safety (HSG65). This should mean that, as the requirements of the regulation/s are more clearly explained, non-compliance to regulation would become a premeditated breech of the law of the land (HaSaWA) - ergo higher penalties - reinforcing not removing backside covering
alkexhoward_121@msn
Any "simplification" must necessitate for better observation by the Duty Holder, as he/she can no longer blame misinterpretation? Could it not also be argued, that they need not go beyound the requirement stated therein, which itself is not in keping with "best practice" requirement which promotes continual improvement? The adoption of any presciptive requirement is not in keeping with the ethos of RA requirement, e.g. where practicable , suitable and sufficent - technical innovation etc
bob

Management Regs ACoP up for withdrawal in streamlining proposals

The HSE has embarked on a huge consultation exercise aimed at revising, consolidating, or withdrawing 15 Approved Codes of Practice (ACoPs) by the end of next year.

A further 15 ACoPs have been earmarked for minor revisions, or to be left untouched, for delivery in 2014.

The Executive proposes to withdraw the ACoP for the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and replace it with a set of more specific, updated guidance. Two ACoPs – ‘L117 Rider-operated lift trucks: Operator training’ and ‘L130 The compilation of safety data sheets’ – have been identified for revision, or withdrawal without consultation.

The consultation exercise meets a recommendation outlined by Professor Löfstedt, in his review of health and safety legislation, ‘Reclaiming health and safety for all’, for the HSE to review its 52 ACoPs by June this year. With 32 ACoPs considered in the initial consultation phase, the remaining 20 have not yet been reviewed, as they are subject to ongoing sector-specific consolidation exercises, or other regulatory amendments.

ACoPs provide practical guidance on complying with the general duties of the HSWA 1974, or the requirements of certain regulations. Although not law, they do have a special legal status, and duty-holders can be confident that if the advice contained in the documents is followed in relevant circumstances, then they will be legally compliant.

Reform of the Management Regulations ACoP – one of the most significant proposals – was suggested by both Professor Löfstedt and Lord Young, in his 2010 report, ‘Common sense, common safety’.

This ACoP currently provides explanation of the Regulations, and gives definitions and principles to be applied in complying with them. In most cases, there is no one recommended method to be used to achieve compliance and, consequently, the ACoP does not describe methods of compliance with sufficient precision for duty-holders to be certain they have complied with their legal obligations.

It is proposed that the ACoP should be replaced by structured guidance, including:

  • Health and safety made simple;
  • Revised guidance previously branded as ‘Essentials’;
  • Revised ‘Five steps to risk assessment’; and
  • Managing for health and safety (HSG65).

It is expected that this approach will provide comprehensive advice for businesses, particularly SMEs, and safety representatives on how to comply with the law in a way that is much more specific than the current ACoP.

In a further move aimed at improving simplification and understanding, the overall consultation process includes a proposal to limit all ACoP documents to a maximum length of 32 pages, other than in exceptional circumstances.

To view all the relevant documentation, visit http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd241.htm The deadline for comments is 14 September.
If guidance becomes prescriptive, does this not discourage adoption of best practice, as best practice evolves constantly and is driven by the "interpretation" conflict that currently exists? All innovative solutions generally started in industry as a result of continual improvement. The requirement for suitable and sufficient RA is often poorly performed as is noted in numerous HSE convictions. To simplyfy this requirement would potentially reduce the RA control element significantly?
bob
a complete waste of time and money. If it ain't broke don't fix it!
michael
It's appropriate in this centenary year of the Titanic disaster that we should rearrange the deckchairs, once again. None of the previous attempts to reduce the so-called burden of regulation or simplify guidance have improved on the status quo. This is yet another political diversion from the basic task of ensuring that workplaces are safe and healthy, and using the existing law to punish those who fall short of standards, which ensure that they treat their workers with dignity and respect
prpr@btinternet
The review of the guidance is for the good guys who want to do the right thing. The criminals who operate ungaurded machinery for 12 years will not even bother.
kenpatrick@ntlworld
After HSWA the most significant piece of legislation are the Management Regs, leave the ACOP alone and don’t simplify it like you did with RIDDOR; requiring employers to keep additional records 3-7 days and report over 7 injuries!!!
alanthurgood1087@hotmail
Before we right off the proposal, consider what real benefits these Regs bring. Yes it contains details relating to management, risk assessment, training and competence etc but where is this not included in other specific regulations such as PUWER etc? The only people who benefit from these Regs are the claims farmers and ambulance chasers who use them to bolster the allegations when bringing a civil claim. Why have a set of Regs that merely duplicates the contents of others?
john
Using that arguement, why have any regulations at all? Employers and the self employed have a duty of care under HSW Act 1974 As do employees to similar extent. That`s why seldom are regulations used for prosecutions?
bob
Any review should make sure that an ACOP is included for Reg 5 of the management regs. H&S is simple, get reg 5 right and everything else should fall into place, make it a easy to read ACOP and everyone knows what is expected of them
Willgrett@gmail
So, we're going to replace the ACoPs with 'Structured guidance' eh? •Health and safety made simple; •Revised guidance previously branded as ‘Essentials’; •Revised ‘Five steps to risk assessment’; and •Managing for health and safety (HSG65). This should mean that, as the requirements of the regulation/s are more clearly explained, non-compliance to regulation would become a premeditated breech of the law of the land (HaSaWA) - ergo higher penalties - reinforcing not removing backside covering
alkexhoward_121@msn
Any "simplification" must necessitate for better observation by the Duty Holder, as he/she can no longer blame misinterpretation? Could it not also be argued, that they need not go beyound the requirement stated therein, which itself is not in keping with "best practice" requirement which promotes continual improvement? The adoption of any presciptive requirement is not in keeping with the ethos of RA requirement, e.g. where practicable , suitable and sufficent - technical innovation etc
bob
Council boss refused to wear hard hat on site visit - UPDATED
Prime minister vows to “kill off the health and safety culture for good”
Deuce! Tennis chief returns HSE’s backhand
Health and safety partly to blame for the riots, says Cameron
Cameron bemoans health and safety for “holding people back”

Join SHP Online

  • ✔ Download free reports and research
  • ✔ Access free Digital magazine
  • ✔ Email newsletter briefings
Council boss refused to wear hard hat on site visit - UPDATED
Prime minister vows to “kill off the health and safety culture for good”
Deuce! Tennis chief returns HSE’s backhand
Health and safety partly to blame for the riots, says Cameron
Cameron bemoans health and safety for “holding people back”