- Created: 30 April 2012
Issued By: Department for Communities and Local Government
Iosh Response
Response Document: Response letter Buildings Regs.pdfSummary
This publication relates to the 2012 Building Regulations Consultation Section one proposals on Parts A, B, C, K, M and N, Access Statements, security, Changing Places toilet and Regulation 7.
- Created: 01 February 2012
Issued By: The Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
Iosh Response
Response Document: CD238 Proposals to revoke seven Statutory Instruments.pdfSummary
About this consultation
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is proposing to revoke seven Statutory Instruments (Sis) – six regulations and one Order – that they have identified as being redundant or that have been superseded by more up to date Regulations. This consultation seeks views on this proposal.
Have your say
It is proposed that the following legislative instruments are revoked;
1. Anthrax Prevention Order 1971 etc (Revocation) Regulations 2005
2. Employment Medical Advisory Service (Factories Act Orders etc Amendment) Order 1973
3. Health and Safety (Foundries etc) (Metrication) Regulations 1981
4. Non-ferrous Metals (Melting and Founding) Regulations 1950
5. Pottery (Health and Welfare) Special Regulations 1950
6. Pottery (Health etc) (Metrication) Regulations 1982
7. Regulations for use of locomotives and wagons on lines and sidings in or used in connection with premises under the Factory Workshop Act 1901 (1906) (1906 No.679)
Tell us what you think by answering these questions
Question 1 Do you agree with the proposal to revoke the seven Statutory Instruments?
If ‘NO’, what are your objections?
Question 2 To the best of your knowledge, are any of these Regulations used in practice in the relevant sector/industry?
If ‘YES’ then:
(a) what costs do you estimate they impose, eg in terms of time spent by business?
(b) what benefits do you believe they bring, eg in terms of improved health and safety?
Question 3 Are there any further comments you would like to make on the issues raised on the consultation document?
Question 4 Is there anything you particularly liked or disliked about this consultation?
The consultation document, which outlines each set of Regulations and the Order that the HSE propose to revoke can be found in the link below, together with an explanation of why they are no longer required.
Your comments will help form our IOSH response to this consultation.
- Created: 19 January 2012
Issued By: Chief Fire Officers Association (Scotland) and the Care Inspectorate
Iosh Response
Response Document: The definition of 'relevant premises' Fire Scotland - JW.pdfSummary
About this consultation
The Chief Fire Officers Association (Scotland) and the Care Inspectorate have requested clarity on the application of fire safety legislation to certain types of care premises, in particular premises used for childminding.
Have your say
Stakeholder views are sought on changes to remove ambiguity for such premises. It is not suggested that any duties under the act should change; merely that ambiguity might be removed. It is also recognised that, in relation to fire hazards, childminding is a low risk activity typically carried out in domestic premises, so no additional routine inspections are proposed – however each childminder would have to confirm they have a suitable self assessment at the time of registration.
Having raised this issue in relation to childminding, the Scottish Government recognises that some other social care activities typically take place in ‘domestic premises’, and so are exempt from the provisions of the 2005 Act, whilst others are specifically included in the list of ‘relevant premises’ to which the Act does apply.
Your views are sought about:
• Whether there are other resulting ambiguities or anomalies.
• If the 2005 Act does apply, should such duty holders be specifically exempted from some record-keeping requirements because of the low risks, as is already the case for many small businesses?
• Finally the consultation seeks views on what is the right balance between ‘enforcement’ and ‘engagement’ for duty holders with such small scale (and thus low risk) premises, so as optimise public safety.
The consultation seeks answers to the following questions:
1 Do you agree that the legislation requires to be clarified to confirm that registered childminders are ‘relevant premises’ within the meaning of the 2005 Act?
2a For each category of regulated care services do you agree with the view provided as to whether the care premise/service are relevant premises? Please highlight any ambiguities.
2b Are there any other care premises where it is unclear whether the Part 3 fire safety duties apply?
3a Are there any other areas where there is a lack of understanding of the definition of ‘relevant premises’ which should be clarified?
3b If yes, is it your view that they should be defined as ‘relevant premises’?
4a If premises used for childminding are confirmed as ‘relevant premises’, should the obligations to record information (regulations 8 and 10(2)) be disapplied?
4b Are there any other provisions of fire safety legislation that should be disapplied or modified in their application to these premises? Give reasons.
5 If any other care or non-care premises are included as ‘relevant premises’ where formerly it was unclear whether they were defined as ‘relevant premises’, are there any fire safety provisions that should be modified or disapplied due to the nature or risk of the premises? Give reasons.
6 For premises which are ‘relevant premises’ and which are small scale and domestic in nature, how should regulatory bodies and/or Government best enable the duty holders to achieve appropriate fire safety standards? Eg guidance, advice, education.
Relevant submissions will form an important input to the drafting of the IOSH response to the consultation on the definition of ‘relevant premises’ contained within the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005.
Public Consultation - Review of Part B (Fire Safety) - Building Regulations 1997-2006
Created: 06 January 2012
Issued By: Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Mr Phil Hogan, T.D.
Iosh Response
Response Document: IOSH Ireland response to Dept Env, Communities and Local Govt consultation Feb'12 RJ.pdfSummary
About this consultation
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Mr Phil Hogan, T.D. has announced the commencement of a comprehensive review of Part B (Fire Safety) of the Building Regulations and the 2006 edition of the related Technical Guidance Document B.
Have your say
As part of the review there will be an initial public consultation process and as part of that process the Minister has invited submissions from interested parties:
1. Identifying those elements in Part B (Fire Safety) of the Building Regulations and Technical
Guidance Document (TGD) B which require amendment/revision; and
2. Specific proposals for changes in the elements identified at (1) above.
Relevant submissions will form an important input to the drafting of proposals for amendment of Part B of the Building Regulations and revision of TGD B to be published, for public / industry comment, in 2012.
The IOSH Ireland Fire Risk Management Section is going to collate submissions from IOSH members and these will be forwarded to Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government Mr Phil Hogan T.D. on behalf of the membership.
The IOSH Ireland Fire Risk Management Section would appreciate where possible that members would use the official comment form for their observations and return it to the Chairperson,
Ciaran Delaney.
These are the links to the documents required:
Template for comments
Building Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 2006
Building Regulations 2006 - Technical Guidance Document B
Comments should be forwarded, not later than 12 noon, on Friday 20 January 2012.
Impact of the whole regulatory spectrum on farming and other rural businesses
Created: 09 December 2011
Issued By: Welsh government
Iosh Response
Response Document: IOSH response to Welsh Gov on H&S regulation in agriculture Dec11.pdfSummary
1. Typically and tragically, 45-50 people are killed on British farms each year. The agriculture sector has a poor fatal injury and occupational ill health record and also has under-reporting of serious injuries.
2. Agriculture presents challenges for regulators, including the growth in self-employed (relative to employed) and the many SMEs and micro-businesses it contains. Fatalities continue to be mainly in the hard-to-reach family and small farm sector and to involve farmers over 45 years old.
3. The ageing workforce and the use of agency, temporary and migrant workers are all risk factors, as too are the presence of children and members of the public on farms.
4. IOSH believes that education and training, together with good advice and simplified practical guidance, are the keys to improving compliance, all underpinned by adequate regulation. SHADs, practical demonstrations and personal contact are all important and valuable communication tools.
5. We support streamlining of requirements, but no erosion of standards. We believe there must be improved levels of health and safety compliance and management in agriculture, to help reverse the terrible human toll. There is absolutely no scope to cut regulation or regulatory activity in this sector.
6. We think it would be helpful if more businesses understood the benefits and appreciated the economic case for good health and safety – please see www.iosh.co.uk/lifesavings for case studies and free tools.
- Created: 12 September 2011
Issued By: The Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: IOSH response to HSE proposals on revised Control of Asbestos Regulations.pdfSummary
Proposals on revised Control of Asbestos Regulations
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: Friday 14 October 2011
About this consultation
This consultation aims to correct the under implementation in the UK of the Asbestos Worker Protection Directive and to bring about the necessary legislative changes needed to comply with the directive by April 2012.
In order to do this, the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 (CAR06) will be revoked and replaced by an entirely new set of regulations. The HSE will seek to minimise business impact caused by the changes through guidance on the new requirements.
Key changes
There will effectively be three categories of work with asbestos:
a) licensed, to which all requirements apply, and for which there is no change;
b) non-licensed, which is exempt, as now, from the requirements to: notify work with asbestos to the relevant enforcing authority; carry out medical examinations; maintain registers of work (health records); hold a licence; have arrangements to deal with accidents, incidents and emergencies; and designate asbestos areas;
c) a new category of non-licensed work, which will be exempt from the requirements to:
hold a licence; have arrangements to deal with accidents, incidents and emergencies; and designate asbestos areas.
But for which employers will be required to: notify work with asbestos to the relevant enforcing authority; carry out medical examinations; and maintain registers of work (health records).
For clarity, this new category of work will be referred to as ‘
Notifiable Non-Licensed Work’ (NNLW).
Have your say
The questions asked in this consultation cover three areas:
1. The legal changes
2. What kind of guidance is needed?
3. The impact on business
We’d like you views on any or all of these areas so please send any comments you may have to
Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk by
14 October 2011
Consultation questions
Q1.1 Do you agree with the proposed definition of work for which a licence will be required? If you disagree please explain why.
Q1.2 Do you agree the definitions proposed for the following terms: i) asbestos coating ii) textured decorative coatings iii) asbestos insulating board iv) asbestos insulation v) asbestos cement vi) short duration work. If you disagree please explain why.
Q1.3 Do you support the proposal to have a 3 year transition period before the requirement for workers to have a medical examination prior to carrying out NNLW with asbestos comes into force? If not please suggest alternatives.
Q1.4 Do you agree that for NNLW the requirement to have medical examinations carried out by an appointed doctor or an employment medical advisor should be extended to include other registered medical practitioners? If you disagree please explain why.
Q2 To help inform the development of guidance, views are invited on the types of asbestos-containing materials and work activities that should normally be categorised as Notifiable Non-Licensed Work (NNLW).
Q3 Q3.1 Has HSE identified the occupations affected by the changes correctly? See Annex 2, Table 2 of the Impact Assessment for details. Please provide details of any occupations you think are missing from the list.
Q3.2 Do you believe the estimates of the percentage of workers affected in each occupation in the above table from the Impact Assessment are realistic?
Q3.3 Is the estimated cost of a typical medical examination per worker reasonable? (between £85 and £120 per worker).
Q3.4 Do you think the time required for a typical medical examination (2 hours on average, including travel time) to be realistic? If not please provide your estimate with justification.
Q3.5 HSE has assumed that between 20% and 40% of workers will have medical examinations (30% compliance is our best estimate). Do you consider this a realistic estimate?
Q3.6 Is HSE’s estimate of the time taken to notify per job reasonable? (5 to 10 minutes per job for a format similar to but shorter than the ASB5 used by licensed contractors)
https://www.hse.gov.uk/forms/notification/fodasb5.pdf
Q3.7 How many notifications for NNLW do you estimate you would need to make in a typical year?
Q3.8 If you are an employer:
(a) How many of your employees in total are likely to be involved in NNLW?
b) How many jobs that fall within the NNLW category do you expect each of your employees to undertake per year?
Q3.9 HSE has assumed that between 30% and 50% of employers (includes the self employed) will notify. 40% is our best estimate. How realistic is our assumption?
Q3.10 HSE has assumed that record keeping will take 5 minutes per job on average and that 40% of duty holders will comply. Are these assumptions a reasonable estimate?
Q3.11 We have assumed that the cost of retrieving asbestos records would be negligible because we believe they are rarely requested e.g. by employees. Do you agree/disagree?
Q3.12 Do you believe the assumption that approximately 30% of workers will familiarise themselves with the new guidance to be realistic?
Q3.13 Is HSE’s estimate of the time taken for a worker to familiarise themselves with the guidance and their duties reasonable? (30 minutes per worker on average)
Q3.14 What is the likelihood that business will pass any increased costs incurred as a result of changes to CAR06 onto clients in the form of higher prices?
Q3.15 Do you think that the new requirements will result in a smaller pool of people who will carry out work in the NNLW category? Explain what impact the change is likely to have in your view.
- Created: 30 June 2011
Issued By: The Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: IOSH response to the Adventure Activities Licencing Authority consultation.pdfSummary
CD236 - Proposed replacement for the licensing regime for adventure activities established under the Activity Centres (Young Persons’ Safety) Act 1995 in England
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: Friday 19 August 2011
About this consultation
The Activity Centres (Young Persons’ Safety) Act 1995 imposes requirements relating to safety, presently set out in the Adventure Activities Licensing Regulations 2004 (AALR), which requires that paid provision of four defined adventure activities for young persons less than 18 years old be licensed. The Government has decided to abolish this licensing requirement and replace it with a code of practice.
It is estimated that this will produce a net cost saving of £1.7 million pounds over a 10-year period in England.
This consultation looks at what the proposed code should look like, how it will provide reassurance to users of adventure activities and the monitoring and oversight of the code.
Have your say
We would like you to tell us what you think about these proposals. The key consultation questions are set out below. Please send any comments you may have to
Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk by 19 August 2011
Consultation questions
Q1 Should the code be:
a) a statement of high level principles of good risk management applicable to all activities available now or in the future and if so, why?
b) more specific guidance on particular activities and, if so, which ones, and why?
Q2 Without Tourism Quality Services (TQS) there will be no formal inspectorate. However, there are a number of voluntary schemes which involve an element of inspection and auditing. Given this:
a) How should the code support these voluntary schemes?
Q3 For activities where alternative assurance schemes do not exist, or which are not currently licensed, how should providers demonstrate good safety standards, and how should the code of practice support this?
Q4 What should be in the code of practice to reassure users that they may expect good standards from a provider who operates in accordance with the code?
Q5 How should the industry sector and other bodies monitor compliance with the code? What are your reasons for your opinion?
Q6 What could the industry sector do to develop and share good practice as an integral part of reassurance and compliance?
Q7 In a post-AALA environment how can providers, users and the wider public be reassured that standards remain high?
Q8 Do you have any comments on the initial impact assessment of the costs and benefits of the change? Are there other factors that need to be taken into account?
Q9 How important is it that there are the same arrangements across Great Britain? In particular, would different arrangements affect competition in the sector? If so, how?
Q10 Are there any further comments you would like to make on the issues raised in this consultation document?
- Created: 01 August 2011
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: IOSH response to HSE proposal for extending cost recovery Oct'11.pdfSummary
CD235 – HSE proposal for extending cost recovery
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: Friday 16 September 2011
About this consultation
This consultation set out proposals for a scheme to enable the HSE to recover costs where duty holders are found to be in material breach of health and safety law. This policy has been agreed by Government and is not in question in the consultation. Instead it focuses on the systems that could be used to implement the policy.
It is proposed that if a duty holder breaches health and safety law and a requirement to rectify the breach is formally made in writing by way of improvement and prohibition notices, electronic mail or letter, HSE would recover all of the costs of that intervention. Compliant duty holders would pay nothing nor would duty holders in technical (non-material) breach of the law.
Costs would be recovered from the start of the intervention during which the material breach was identified, up to and including the point where intervention in relation to the breach had been concluded. An averaged hourly fee for intervention rate, currently estimated at £133,would be used for all HSE staff involved in the intervention.
Have your say
We would like you to tell us what you think about these proposals. The key consultation questions are set out below. Please send any comments you may have to
Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk by 16 September 2011
Consultation questions
Q1. If you do not agree with the proposals outlined in this consultation document for implementing the Government and HSE Board policy of cost recovery please offer reasons for your disagreement and suggest an alternative proposal for delivering cost recovery.
Q2. Were you clear about how the cost recovery proposals would operate? If No please explain the reason for your answer.
Q3. Do you agree with the extent of the regulatory activity for which HSE would recover its costs? If No what regulatory activities should HSE recover costs?
Q4. Do you agree with the proposals for when these costs would be incurred? If No please explain the reason for your answer.
Q5. Do you agree with the model used for setting the hourly rates for cost recoverable work? If No please explain the reason for your answer.
Q6.HSE will not use cost recovery to drive intervention approaches. Other than clearly stating this policy and the continued application of HSE’s Enforcement Management Model and Enforcement Policy Statement, how else do you think that HSE can reassure duty holders it will not use cost recovery to drive it’s intervention approaches?
Q7. Do you agree with the two level dispute process outlined in this consultation document? If No – What alternative system would you propose to ensure a practical, fair and transparent dispute process?
Q8. Do you agree that Containment Level 3 and Containment level 4 containment laboratories should be exempt from fee for intervention for a short interim period until the SRF is implemented? If No can you explain why you believe they should not be exempt?
- Created: 24 June 2011
Issued By: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Iosh Response
Response Document: Transforming regulatory enforcement.pdfSummary
Transforming regulatory enforcement: freeing up business growth
Published online by: The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Closing date for comments: Wednesday 10 August 2011
About this consultation
This consultation sets out the basic principles of the government approach to regulatory reform and enforcement which will form the basis of a White Paper to be published in autumn 2011. The reform programme is to be based around 3 key areas: greater accountability, recognising and promoting good practice and greater transparency.
To achieve these aims, enforcement will be reviewed from a business perspective and areas where regulators are underperforming will be sought. The review will also examine if specific regulators should continue; check that regulators adhere to the Regulators’ Compliance Code and have adopted co-regulatory approaches. Enforcers will also have to consider ‘earned recognition’ and co-designed approaches such as professional standards to improve compliance and for new regulators there will be a sunset clause.
Have your say
We would like you to tell us what you think about the proposals set out in this consultative document. The key consultation questions are set out below. Please send any comments you may have to
Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk by 10 August 2011
Consultation questions
Q1 Are these the right principles to underpin the front line delivery of regulation?
Q2 Are there other principles you would like to see included?
Q3 What aspects of regulatory enforcement are most problematic for you?
Q4 Do you have examples of when you feel you have been treated unreasonably?
Q5 How frequently have these problems occurred?
Q6 Do you feel there are effective mechanisms in place for you to appeal or complain about the way regulations are enforced?
Q7 What aspects of regulatory enforcement work best for you?
Q8 What are the best examples of when you’ve been dealt with well?
Q9 How would you want to be involved in this sort of sector based review of enforcement and the regulatory landscape?
Q10 How can reviews be used to strike a better balance between ‘self-managed compliance’ and intervention by state regulators?
Q11What are the key things you would like to see reviews cover?
Q12 How can such reviews be made effective at delivering improvements in the way that regulation is enforced?
Q13 What are the key issues faced by business in the day-to-day experience of locally managed enforcement services?
Q14 What role do you think Local Enterprise Partnerships could play in driving improvements?
Q15 What else could help deliver improvements in locally managed regulatory services?
Q16 Do you have compliance measures in place that you feel are being over-looked?
Q17 How could we ensure that existing compliance measures are given proper consideration?
Q18 Are there areas where you think co-regulation could be applied to enable more formal sharing of regulatory responsibility, including delegating functions to business or third party providers?
Q19 What specific functions do you think could be delegated from particular public regulators?
Q20 Are there existing frameworks of professional standards that you feel could be given greater consideration in managing regulatory compliance?
Q21 Are there areas where you feel new professional standards schemes could be usefully developed?
Q22 What barriers do you think might stop this approach from being used more widely?
Q23 Would you welcome assured guidance?
Q24 What would be required to make it work?
Q25 How best could this be achieved?
Q26 Are there particular areas of skills and expertise that you feel could be helpfully developed for enforcement officers?
Q27 What are your worst experiences of interactions with regulators, and how could these be improved through professional development?
Q28 Have you ever referred to the Regulators’ Compliance Code when seeking to address an issue with a regulator?
Q29 Are there ways in which you think the Regulators’ Compliance Code could be enhanced to help improve regulatory services?
- Created: 24 June 2011
Issued By: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Iosh Response
Response Document: The future of the LBRO and extending the benefits of the Primary Authority scheme.pdfSummary
The future of the Local Better Regulation Office and extending the Primary Authority scheme
Published online by: The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Closing date for comments: Wednesday 10 August 2011
About this consultation
This consultation proposes a new strategy for important elements of front line regulation. The aim of the strategy is to create consistent and targeted enforcement while reducing burdens for businesses and regulators.
The consultation outlines the following changes to the Local Better Regulation Office (LBRO) and to the Primary Authority scheme that it operates.
LBRO:
Abolish the LBRO as a public body
Cease the LBRO’s function of direct service improvement in local authorities
Continue with the LBRO’s other two functions of administering the Primary Authority scheme and simplifying the national framework for regulatory enforcement
Constitute a ‘new LBRO’, within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to carry out the two continuing functions
Further task the new LBRO with providing advice to central government on its work on regulatory delivery and providing a forum for business engagement at the heart of the regulatory system.
Primary Authority:
Strengthen the role of inspection plans to deliver earned recognition for business
Broaden the eligibility criteria to enable more organisations to participate in the scheme
Extend the scheme to include specific policy areas which are currently out of scope.
Have your say
We would like you to tell us what you think about these proposals. The key consultation questions are set out below. Please send any comments you may have to
Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk by 10 August 2011
Consultation questions
Q1 Are the functions identified for the new organisation (Primary Authority and system improvement) consistent with the aspirations identified by the government and does the name of the new organisation, Better Regulation Delivery Organisation, accurately reflect its scope and function?
Q2 Will the proposed governance arrangements for the BRDO, including the creation of the Representative Steering Group and the draft Memorandum of Understanding with BIS provide the necessary levels of independent decision making and accountability to stakeholders?
Q3 Do the arrangements for the Representative Steering Group and the draft Memorandum of Understanding with BIS provide sufficient assurance for businesses and local authorities in Primary Authority partnerships that the BRDO will be sufficiently independent?
Q4 Is the proposed membership of the Representative Steering Group appropriate?
Q5 Are the terms of reference and areas of responsibility for the Representative Steering Group appropriate?
Q6 Do you agree that the BRDO should continue to support LBRO’s existing stakeholder reference groups (World Class Coalition, Business Reference Panel and the Local Authority Reference Panel) and that these groups should work with the Representative Steering Group?
Q7 Are the arrangements for working with the Devolved Administrations appropriate?
Q8 Do you agree that eligibility for the Primary Authority scheme should be broadened by removing the requirement for:
a primary authority to itself regulate the business in all areas covered by the partnership?
businesses whose regulated activities do not
coincide in a single local authority area?
Q9 Do you agree that eligibility for the Primary Authority scheme should be broadened so that the ‘assured advice’ benefits of the Scheme become available to different business models such as:
Company Group structures
Franchises
Trade Associations?
Q10 Do you agree that:
The current duty to ‘have regard to’ inspection plans should be amended so that local authorities are obliged to follow inspection plans drawn up by a Primary Authority
The current duty for local authorities to ‘give notice’ to Primary Authorities when deviating from inspection plans should be amended so that local authorities are obliged to obtain consent in advance from the Primary Authority
Local authorities should be obliged to provide feedback on inspections to the Primary Authority so that inspection plans can be updated to accommodate current compliance activity by business and to ensure that local issues can be addressed
Local authorities that object to any element of an inspection plan should be able to request that the BRDO (which consents to all plans before they are implemented) review the appropriateness of the plan
The current exemptions for inspectors which cover enforcement action should be extended to cover deviations from inspection plans?
Q11 Do you agree that that the following Acts should be included within scope of the Primary Authority scheme so those covered by the regulatory regimes may benefit from the Primary Authority Scheme?
Part 1 of The Housing Act 2004
Criminal Justice Act 1988: parts related to age restricted products
Offensive Weapons Act 1996: parts related to age restricted products
Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005
Licensing Act 2003: only those parts related to age restricted products. Do you agree or disagree that these should be included?
Alternatively, do you think that licensing authorities should ‘have regard to’ (rather than ‘comply with’) Primary Authority advice on those parts of the Licensing Act 2003 related to age restricted products?
Gambling Act 2005: parts related to age restricted products
Gambling Act 2005: do you think there may be a role for Primary Authority advice on other parts of the Act
Is there any other legislation, particularly on age restricted products, which you feel should be included within the scope of the Primary Authority scheme?
Q12 Are there any other ways in which you feel that the Primary Authority benefits may be extended?
- Created: 05 October 2011
Issued By: The Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: HSG65 parts 1,2 and 3 _lite_.pdfSummary
Draft - HSG65 (Refreshed) – Managing for health and safety
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: Tuesday 06 September 2011
About this consultation
The revised guidance aims to be more accessible for small businesses, managers and owners. It’s much shorter than the original and links to the new section of the HSE website, which provides an 'information hub' on managing health and safety. It seeks to take a more 'people and outcome-centred' approach than a 'systems and process-centred' one and is more closely aligned to the 'Plan, Do, Check, Act' model.
Part 3 of the consultation provides information on the actions involved in delivering effective health and safety arrangements. The aim of the section is to help the user address any specific areas that require attention as a result of following the Plan, Do, Check, Act process as described in part 2 of the revised guidance.
Part 3 covers the following areas:
• Policy and planning
• Risk profiling and organising (including a section on consultants and ‘specialist’ help)
• Measuring performance
• Investigating incidents
• Reviewing performance
• Learning lessons
Have your say
We would like you to tell us what you think about these proposals and are keen to hear what IOSH members think about the changes to this influential document. In commenting on this section please could you also consider:
i) Whether there are additional areas, for example emergency planning, that could usefully be included
(ii) Whether the ‘4C’ (Control; Co-operation; Communication; Competence) model is still relevant, particularly in light of the introduction of the HSE Strategy themes of Worker Involvement and Competence in Part 2 of this guidance.
Please send any comments you may have to
Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk by 06 September 2011
- Created: 24 May 2011
Issued By: Department for Work and Pensions
Iosh Response
Response Document: IOSH submission to Lofstedt review July'11.pdfSummary
Löfstedt Review: An Independent review of health and safety legislation – call for evidence
Published by: Department for Work and Pensions
Closing date for comments: 24 June 2011
About this consultation
Professor Löfstedt has been requested to chair an independent review of health and safety legislation. He is being supported in this work by an advisory panel of cross-party politicians, employer representatives and employee representatives.
The review will consider the opportunities for reducing the burden of health and safety legislation on UK businesses while maintaining the progress made in improving health and safety outcomes.
In particular it will consider the scope for combining, simplifying or reducing approximately 200 statutory instruments owned by HSE and primarily enforced by HSE and Local Authorities, and the associated Approved Codes of Practice (ACoP) which provide advice, with special legal status, on compliance with health and safety law.
A list of the health and safety regulations and ACoPs is provided at Annex A of this consultation document and full terms of reference for the review are also attached for information at Annex B.
Have your say
We welcome your views on any of the issues that the review will be considering. Please refer to the consultation questions below and describe any examples (cases about which you have direct knowledge) or include any evidence you have to support your answers. Please send your comments and opinions to Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk by 24 June 2011.
Consultation questions
Question 1: Are there any particular health and safety regulations (or ACoPs) that have significantly improved health and safety and should not be changed?
Question 2: Are there any particular health and safety regulations (or ACoPs) which need to be simplified?
Question 3: Are there any particular health and safety regulations (or ACoPs) which it would be helpful to merge together and why?
Question 4: Are there any particular health and safety regulations (or ACoPs) that could be abolished without any negative effect on the health and safety of individuals?
Question 5: Are there any particular health and safety regulations that have created significant additional burdens on business but that have had limited impact on health or safety?
Question 6: To what extent does the concept of ‘reasonably practicable’ help manage the burden of health and safety regulation?
Question 7: Are there any examples where health and safety regulations have led to unreasonable outcomes, or to inappropriate litigation and compensation?
Question 8: Are there any lessons that can be learned from the way other EU countries have approached the regulation of health and safety, in terms of
(a) their overall approach and
(b) regulating for particular risks or hazards?
Question 9: Can you provide evidence that the requirements of EU Directives have or have not been unnecessarily enhanced (‘gold-plated’) when incorporated into UK health and safety regulation?
Question 10: Does health and safety law suitably place responsibility in an appropriate way on those that create risk? If not what changes would be required?
- Created: 15 June 2011
Issued By: The Institute of Risk Management
Iosh Response
Response Document: IOSH response to the IRM consultation on Risk Appetite.pdfSummary
Risk appetite and risk tolerance
Published online by: The Institute of Risk Management (IRM)
Closing date for comments: Tuesday 14 June 2011
About this consultation
This consultation aims to develop guidance to organisations on the subject of risk appetite. It is the IRM view that ‘risk appetite’, correctly defined, approached and implemented could be a fundamental business concept that could make a substantial difference to how businesses and organisations are run.
The consultation argues that effective enterprise risk management is not just about putting risk management processes into place across an organisation but is driven by the board of directors who must maintain a clear view of the risks facing their business, matched against its capacity for taking and controlling those risks.
Have your say
We welcome comments on the issues raised in this consultation. Please send any comments you may have to Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk by 14 June 2011
- Created: 21 April 2011
Issued By: Royal College of General Practitioners
Iosh Response
Response Document: IOSH response to RCGP commission on Generalism.pdfSummary
Royal College of General Practitioners commission on generalism (RCGP)
Published online by: The Royal College of General Practitioners
Closing date for comments: Friday 27 May 2011
About this consultation
The RCGP and the Health Foundation have launched a Commission on Generalism to examine the contribution of medical generalism and the role of the generalist in today’s healthcare system.
With the NHS reforms and all the changes taking place within the political and clinical contexts, this review is very timely.
IOSH has been invited to contribute to early thinking around generalism, to comment on the Commission’s analysis after each phase of the project and disseminate report findings to members.
Have your say
We welcome comments on the issues raised in this review. Please send any comments you may have to Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk by 27 May 2011
Consultation questions
1. What do you understand by the term medical generalism? Where you can, please give examples of where you see it:
(a) In general practice
(b) In other settings
2. What are the core values of medical generalism?
3. How do the values you describe fit with what you recognise as generalism in practice (as you outlined in your response to question one)?
4. Where do the boundaries of medical generalism lie? What are the challenges at the interface of medical generalism with other areas of practice?
5. Are there elements considered to be part of medical generalism that ought to be modified or abandoned? Does medical generalism need to adapt, and if so, how?
6. What threats and challenges do you think medical generalism faces today? What threats and challenges do you foresee in the next 10 to 15 years?
7. What can be done to strengthen medical generalism – particularly those aspects that you care about? How would you propose to go about doing this?
8. What recommendations would you make about the future development of medical generalism; are there particular aspects of this that relate solely to general practice?
- Created: 17 January 2011
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: IOSH response to RIDDOR consultation.pdfSummary
Proposed amendment to the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR)
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 11 April 2011
About this consultation
This consultation proposes an amendment to the RIDDOR Regulations and signals the start of the Government’s commitment to implement the changes recommended by Lord Young in his report ‘Common Sense, Common Safety'.
The consultation proposes to extend the period for reporting injuries that lead to a worker being incapacitated for work from three days, as required by Regulation 3(2) of RIDDOR, to seven days. The aim of the proposed change is to improve the effectiveness of workplace accident reporting while reducing burdens on businesses.
This means that the duty to report to the relevant reporting authority would now apply where a worker has been unable to work as a result of the injury for more than seven consecutive days.
If this proposal goes ahead it would also be necessary to change regulation 7 to ensure that injuries lasting longer than three days continue to be recorded through the requirement for employers to use accident books.
Have your say
We welcome comments on any aspect of the issues raised in this document. Please consider the consultation questions below and send any comments you may have to Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk by 11 April 2011
Consultation questions
1. Do you agree with the proposal to extend the time before an occupational accident needs to be reported, from over three days to over seven days?
2. Will the proposal simplify the reporting process under RIDDOR?
3. Will the proposal cause you any specific problems?
4. How well does the impact assessment provide sufficient information (including information on the appraisal of costs) help you understand the proposed change to RIDDOR?
5. Are there any further comments you would like to make on the issues raised in the consultation document?
- Created: 20 December 2010
Issued By: Office for National Statistics
Iosh Response
Response Document: Measuring national well being.pdfSummary
Measuring national well-being
Published by: Office for National Statistics (ONS)
Closing date for comments: 18 March 2011
About this consultation
ONS is developing new measures of national well-being that aim to cover the quality of life of people in the UK, environmental and sustainability issues, and the economic performance of the country.
To develop better measures of the nation’s well-being ONS are consulting with people, organisations and business across the UK as well as central and local government to ask what matters most in people’s lives and what is important for measuring national well-being.
Have your say
We welcome comments on any aspect of the issues raised in this document. Please consider the consultation questions below and send any comments you may have to Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk by 18 March 2011
Consultation questions
1. What things in life matter to you?
Income and wealth
Job satisfaction and economic security
Ability to have a say on local and national issues
Having good connections with friends and relatives
Present and future conditions of the environment
Crime
Health
Education and training
Personal and cultural activities, including caring and volunteering
Other – please specify
Of the above options, which are the three most important?
2. Of the things that matter to you, which should be reflected in measures of national well-being?
Same as my response to question 1, OR
Income and wealth
Job satisfaction and economic security
Ability to have a say on local and national issues
Having good connections with friends and relatives
Present and future conditions of the environment
Crime
Health
Education and training
Personal and cultural activities, including caring and volunteering
Other – please specify
Of the above options, which are the three most important (if different from Q1)?
3. Which of the following sets of information do you think help measure national well-being and how life in the UK is changing over time?
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
employment/unemployment rates
life expectancy
life satisfaction
crime figures
education levels
income distributions
social capital measures
health statistics
environmental statistics
other – please specify
Of the above options, which are the three most important?
4. Which of the following ways would be best, to give a picture of national well-being?
economic measures only
single measure of overall life satisfaction/happiness
small selection of indicators
large set of indicators
single index of national well-being (lot of information combined into a single number)
other – please specify
5. How would you use measures of national well-being?
to generally assess how the UK is doing
to assess the performance of government and public services
to see how the UK is doing compared with other countries
to see how different parts of the UK are doing
to compare how different groups of people are doing
to help understand the longer term implications of our current activities
other – please specify
6. We welcome any other comments you have regarding the measurement of national well-being.
- Created: 20 December 2010
Issued By: Department of Health (DoH)
Iosh Response
Response Document: Healthy lives, healthy people - IOSH response to White Paper Mar'11.pdfSummary
Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Our strategy for public health in England
Published by: Department of Health
Closing date for comments: 07 February 2011
About this consultation
This White Paper presents the government’s approach to tackling ‘lifestyle-driven’ ill health and health inequalities. It proposes an end to central control and places the onus on local government for responsibility and funding for improving public health.
The paper also announces changes in the way public health protection is delivered and presents the idea of a dedicated service to be called Public Health England that will aim to protect the population from serious health threats.
These proposals will be followed in 2011 by a series of documents covering specific areas such as mental health, tobacco control, obesity, pandemic flu and the wider determinants of health.
Have your say
We welcome comments on any aspect of the issues raised in this document. Please consider the consultation questions below and send any comments you may have to Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk by 07 February 2011
Consultation questions
1. Are there additional ways in which we can ensure that GPs and GP practices will continues to play a key role in areas for which Public Health England will take responsibility?
2. What are the best opportunities to develop and enhance the availability, accessibility and utility of public health information and intelligence?
3. How can Public Health England address current gaps such as using the insights of behavioural science, tackling wider determinants of health, achieving cost effectiveness and tackling inequalities?
4. What can national partners nationally and locally contribute to improving the use of evidence in public health?
5. We would welcome views on Dr Gabriel Scally’s report. If we were to pursue voluntary registration, which organisation would be best suited to provide a system of voluntary regulation for public health specialists?
- Created: 06 December 2010
Issued By: The Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: Classroom risk assessment consultation.pdfSummary
Classroom risk assessment
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 17 January 2011
About this consultation
HSE has worked in collaboration with DfE and the devolved administrations to develop this online tool. It enables the user to produce a tailored assessment by selecting the relevant hazards and thinking about how to control them. HSE seeks views on the functionality and usability of the tool and opinions on how it compares to other DfE/HSE guidance on risk assessment.
Have your say
We welcome comments on any aspect of the issues raised by this document. Please send any comments you may have to Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk by 17 January 2011
- Created: 16 November 2010
Issued By: The Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: Office Risk Assessment consultation.pdfSummary
Office risk assessment
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 16 December 2010
About this consultation
HSE has developed an online risk assessment tool for use by employers working in low-risk office-based environments. The tool allows those working in this type of workplace to do their risk assessment quickly and easily. HSE are interested to hear from employers who have used the tool to do their risk assessment. This consultation seeks views on the functionality and usability of the tool and views as to how it compares to HSE's other guidance on risk assessment.
Have your say
We welcome comments on any aspect of the issues raised by this document. Please send any comments you may have to Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk by 16 December 2010
- Created: 12 August 2010
Issued By: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)
Iosh Response
Response Document: Narrative reporting.pdfSummary
The future of narrative reporting – a consultation
Published by: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Closing date for comments: 17 September 2010
About this consultation
Narrative reporting is the non-financial information that is included in company reports in order to provide a broad and meaningful picture of a company’s business, its market position, strategy, performance and future prospects.
This consultation focuses on the business review provisions of the narrative reporting framework, and reiterates the Coalition commitment to reinstate the Operating and Financial Review (OFR) in order to:
• drive up quality of narrative reporting to the standard of the best including on social and environmental issues
• empower shareholders
• achieve coherence without increasing the regulatory burden on business
It is likely that further public consultation will take place after the results of this consultation are published later this year.
Have your say
We would welcome comments on any aspect of the issues raised in this document. Please send any comments you may have to Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk by 17 September 2010
Consultation questions
Some questions may be more applicable to some respondents than others; where a question is not applicable to you, please just reply N/A.
1. Are company directors providing useful and relevant information on the company’s:
i) forward-looking strategy and
ii) principal risks and uncertainties?
2. What are the constraints on companies providing information on these issues?
3. Does the information provided reflect the issues discussed by the directors in board meetings?
4. Does the information help shareholders to press directors on key issues relating to strategy and risk, or inform their business decisions?
5. If a company does not provide sufficient or material information to you, do you challenge it? Is there anything which could help you to do so?
6. What other sources of company information do you use and how valuable are they (e.g. information provided on the website, analysts’ briefings, dialogue with the company, corporate social responsibility report)?
7. Is there scope to reduce or simplify the requirements on which companies report?
8. Is there scope to arrange the information in a more useful way?
9. Looking at an Operating & Financial Review and the existing business review (see Annex D), do you see value in reinstating elements of an OFR and if so what would they be? In particular, would a statutory reporting standard help to improve the quality of reporting?
10. The business review provisions require quoted companies to report, to the extent necessary, on:
• main trends and factors likely to affect the future development, erformance and position of the company’s business
• information on environmental matters
• information on employees
• information on social and community matters
• persons with whom the company has essential contractual and other relationships
i) Is this information useful to you? How do you use it?
ii) Could disclosure be improved? If so, how?
iii) Are there key issues which are missing? If so, please explain?
11. Would more guidance be helpful? If so, what form should this take? For example: best practice example, sample Key Performance Indicators, etc?
12. Should there be a shareholder’s advisory vote on the Business Review?
13. Are there non-regulatory solutions to increasing quality through better guidance or publicising excellence in business reports? If so, what?
14. Do the current disclosure requirements provide clear and usable information about:
• the total remuneration paid to directors, and how this is made up;
• the performance criteria for payments to directors, and how these relate to the company’s strategic objectives;
• company performance against these criteria, so that there is a demonstrable link between pay and performance;
• the process by which directors’ remuneration is decided?
If not, please explain including any views on how this might be improved
Potential Costs
15. If you can provide any information on costs associated either with the existing narrative reporting requirements e.g. preparing your business review or your views on potential costs and benefits in relation to any of the ideas in this consultation, please give details.
- Created: 20 July 2010
Issued By: IOSH
Iosh Response
Response Document: IOSH submission to Lord Young review July'10.pdfSummary
- Created: 08 March 2010
Issued By: Office of Rail Regulation
Iosh Response
Response Document: ORR review of RSSB.pdfSummary
RSSB review - general review for individuals and organisations with less direct involvement with RSSB
Published by: The Office of Rail Regulation
Closing date for comments: 30 April 2010
About this consultation
This consultation is made up of a simple questionnaire covering aspects of the Rail Safety Standards Board’s (RSSB) work. The consultation is aimed at individuals and organisations that have less direct involvement with RSSB.
The review of RSSB is being carried out by the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) to examine the RSSB’s role and functions and to ascertain if there are any issues of funding or governance that need to be addressed.
The review will consider the following areas:
• What activities the RSSB currently undertakes
• Are these activities still needed?
• Are there any new or expanded roles that RSSB, as a joint industry body, might undertake to add value to the industry?
• Do RSSB’s governance arrangements remain appropriate?
• How should RSSB be funded?
Have your say
Please send any comments on this consultation to Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk by 30 April 2010.
You may have a particular interest in certain sections of this consultation and may only wish to comment on those, or you may have views on all the issues addressed by the review. You are welcome to answer as many or as few questions as you like.
Consultation questions
a) What do you think are the strengths of RSSB and why?
b) What do you think are the weaknesses of RSSB and why?
c) What recommendations would you make for improving the effectiveness of RSSB?
d) Any other comments
- Created: 27 April 2010
Issued By: Policy Exchange
Iosh Response
Response Document: Policy Exchange report.pdfSummary
- Created: 09 March 2010
Issued By: Environment Agency
Iosh Response
Response Document: Fairer and Better Environmental Enforcement.pdfSummary
Fairer and Better Environmental Enforcement: Implementing the new civil sanctions
Published by: The Environment Agency
Closing date for comments: 26 April 2010
About this consultation
The Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 (the RES Act) introduced a new range of alternative civil (rather than criminal court) sanctions. These have been made available to the Environment Agency in England and Wales for use when an offence has been committed and sanction is needed. This consultation sets out how the Environment Agency propose to implement these sanctions.
What are the new civil sanctions?
Compliance Notice – a regulator’s written notice requiring actions to comply with the law, or to return to compliance, within a specified period;
Restoration Notice – a regulator’s written notice requiring steps to be taken, within a stated period, to restore harm caused by non-compliance, so far as possible;
Fixed Monetary Penalty – a low-level fine fixed by legislation that the regulator may impose for a specified minor offence;
Enforcement Undertaking – an offer to take steps that would make amends for non-compliance and its effects that is formally accepted by the regulator;
Variable Monetary Penalty – a proportionate monetary penalty which the regulator may impose for a more serious offence; and
Stop Notice – a written notice which requires an immediate stop to an activity that is causing serious harm or presents a significant risk of causing serious harm.
Have your say
Please send any comments you have on this consultation to
Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk by 26 April 2010. To assist you with your response, the consultation questions are printed below. You may have a particular interest in certain sections and may only wish to comment on those, or you may have views on all the issues. You are welcome to answer as many or as few questions as you like.
Consultation questions
1. Do you agree with the structure of the new Enforcement and Sanctions documents? If not, please explain why and provide details of any alternatives.
2. Do you agree with the content of the new Enforcement and Sanctions documents? If not, please explain why and provide details of any alternatives.
3. Does the VMP guidance in Annex 5 provide a clear explanation of how one of the three possible starting points would be selected in a particular case? If not, please explain how it could be improved.
4. Do the VMP multipliers work to adjust the deterrent element in a fair and proportionate way? If not, please explain why.
5. Do the VMP mitigating features work to reduce the deterrent element in a fair and proportionate way? If not, please explain why.
6. How should the offender and regulator work together to identify and agree VMP cost deductions?
7. Do you agree with our proposal to reduce the total VMP by £1 for every £2 spent on Third Party Undertakings to a maximum of one third of the overall penalty? If not, please explain why and provide details of any alternative suggestions.
8. Do you agree with the proposals for use of Enforcement Undertakings? If not, please explain how they might be improved.
9. Do you agree with the format for the proposed Enforcement Undertakings? If not, please explain how it might be improved.
10. Are the civil sanction processes clear? If not, please explain how they might be improved.
11. Do you think the proposed Governance structure will provide the right degree of safeguards? If not, please explain why and provide details of any alternatives.
12. Do you agree with our proposals for reporting information on the use of sanctions? If not, please explain why.
- Created: 10 February 2010
Issued By: The Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: IOSH response to the Legislative Reform Order CD230 consultation.pdfSummary
A consultation document on a proposed Legislative Reform Order that will allow HSE to make regulations for the protection of animal health under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: Friday 12 March 2010
About this consultation
This consultation paper sets out the Government’s proposals for reforming the legislation governing those working with animal pathogens in laboratories and other similar environments where it is necessary to ensure the effective containment of pathogens to protect animal health. The aim of the proposal is to extend the scope of the Health and Safety at Work etc. 1974 (HSWA) to enable the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to regulate this work as part of its existing work regulating human pathogens and genetically modified organisms.
The consultation explains the process of making this change through a Legislative Reform Order (LRO) and the arguments for the change. These are based on The Callaghan Review, (2007) which concluded that the current regulatory systems in place for the regulation of micro-organisms (including those that are genetically modified) in contained use were complicated, with three separate but overlapping sets of regulations, and recommended there should be a new, unified regulatory framework for those micro-organisms based on risk-assessment with a common set of containment measures.
Have your say
Please send any comments you have on any or all of the above changes to
Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk by 12 March 2010.
- Created: 20 November 2009
Issued By: The Government Office for Science
Iosh Response
Response Document: IOSH response to the Guidelines on Scientific Analysis in Policy Making consultation.pdfSummary
Guidelines on Scientific Analysis in Policy Making
Published by: The Government Office for Science
Closing date for comments: 02 February 2010
About this consultation
This is a consultation by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser which seeks views on the update of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser’s Guidelines on scientific analysis in policy making. The Guidelines provide a high-level framework for addressing the way in which government departments obtain and use science and engineering advice and were last revised in October 2005. This updating allows for developments in policy making best practice to be reflected.
In addition to your comments on the consultation and/or answers to the consultation questions below, the Government Office for Science would also appreciate suggestions for documents that might usefully be referenced in addition to/other than those in the reference section.
Consultation questions
Question 1: The provision of science and engineering advice to government has continued to develop since 2005, for example the appointment of Chief Scientific Advisers (CSAs) to all the major science using government departments.
• Are the Guidelines still necessary or relevant to the current context of science and engineering advice?
• In revising these Guidelines, are there additional issues that could be usefully covered?
Question 2: Adequate dialogue with experts, stakeholders and the public is crucial to allow early identification of issues that require specialist advice.
• Are there other methods for identifying issues that require specialist advice that could usefully be highlighted in this section?
• How and when might advice at the strategic level (for example from Scientific Advisory Committees and Science Advisory Councils) be usefully distinguished from advice at the individual policy level?
Question 3a: On the evidence base:
• Is there anything more that can be said about ensuring an appropriate, adequate evidence base and the role of expert advice in identifying gaps and weaknesses?
• What key indicators might policy makers use as guidance on when it is necessary to commission new research/expert advice?
Question 3b) On expert advisors
• When developing policy, how can the Government ensure that a full spectrum of evidence is heard, from across government and externally?
• What mechanisms should government use to identify expert advisors? What role should the National Academies and other learned societies play?
• The independence of science and engineering advisors, and of advice to government, is critical. How might independence be defined? Can we ensure “independence” is delivered in practice?
Question 3c) On government advisory structures
• How might individual advisory structures determine whether a lay member/consumer representative/ethicist would add value to its working?
• How might government better draw upon established sources of expert advice (Science Advisory Councils and Scientific Advisory Committees, for example)?
Question 3d) On external opinion and public dialogue
• How should policy-makers manage a situation where public opinion ran contrary to expert evidence-based advice?
• What, if any additional items on public dialogue should be included in the guidelines?
Question 4: The Government is committed to evidence-based policy-making, and the provision of independent science and engineering advice is key to underpinning this aim.
• Academics and other external sources of research-based evidence can provide input at different times in the process of policy development, including policy formation and evaluation. How can the Government identify at what stages input would be most effective?
• When in the policy making process should the Government publish the evidence base for a given policy decision?
• On what occasions, if any, might it be appropriate for the Government or advisers to withhold advice provided/the evidence base for a policy?
• Should further distinction, if there is one to make, be made between advice in a crisis and advice delivery where the timescales are longer?
Question 5: Peer review and quality assurance can play an important role in assessing the evidence-base for a policy.
• How might departments identify when peer-review of the evidence-base is warranted?
• What kind of quality assurance is needed in different circumstances and at different stages of the policy-making process?
• What other quality assurance processes might usefully be highlighted in the updated Guidelines?
Question 6: Scientific evidence does not always provide a clear cut answer, and sometimes there are differing schools of thought on a subject. New research can valuably provide different perspectives on an issue, but managing the impact of this may be particularly challenging in the case of novel and emerging issues.
• How should policy-makers deal with a situation where experts disagree on the interpretation of a body of evidence?
• How should policy makers respond to changes in the balance of evidence?
• How might public opinion be taken into account in a context of rapid evidential change?
• How do we ensure the ability or competence of policy advisers and decision makers to interpret advice and reach sound decisions, particularly when given conflicting advice?
- Created: 18 November 2009
Issued By: The Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: IOSH response to the artificial optical radiation consultation.pdfSummary
CD227 – A consultative document on legislation to implement the Physical Agents (Artificial Optical Radiation) Directive
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 02 February 2010
About this consultation
This consultative document sets out proposed legislation and new guidance for employers on the Control of Artificial Optical Radiation at Work Regulations, which will come into force in April 2010.
The regulations will supplement the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (1999) and aim to ensure employees are protected from the harm to eyes and skin that is associated with very intense light.
We would welcome your feedback on any aspect of the legislation or guidance. In particular it would be very helpful if you could address the questions below in your response.
Consultation questions
Question 1. Does the guidance in Annex B help you identify those sources of light in your workplace that are safe and require no further assessment? [If no, what additional sources should be listed as safe or what sources are you unclear/concerned about?]
Question 2. Does the guidance in Annex B help you identify those particularly intense sources of light in your workplace that are hazardous? [If no, what additional sources should be listed as potentially hazardous or what sources are you unclear/concerned about?]
- Created: 20 November 2009
Issued By: Department for Children, Schools and Families
Iosh Response
Response Document: IOSH response to the Hasloc consultation.pdfSummary
Health and safety of learners outside the classroom (HASLOC)
Published by: The department for Children, Schools and Families
Closing date for comments: 01 February 2010
About this consultation
This consultation sets out a new framework for schools, children’s services settings and employers when organising and carrying out learning outside the classroom activities. It replaces a range of previously published documents in this area and carries new material not available previously. Key aims of this revision include the reduction of ‘red tape’, the introduction of sensible management of any significant risk and legal assurance to staff involved in activities.
- Created: 17 November 2009
Issued By: The Department for Business Innovation and Skills
Iosh Response
Response Document: IOSH response to the OECD Guidlelines consultation.pdfSummary
UK Consultation on the terms of reference for an update of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
Published by: The Department for Business Innovation and Skills
Closing date for comments: 18 January 2010
About this consultation
This consultation aims to collect the views of UK stakeholders on the priority areas for an update of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The guidelines provide a voluntary set of principles and standards covering all major business issues and aim to encourage international businesses, suppliers and sub-contractors to observe these standards.
Some of the possible areas for revision include:
• Technical updates
• Supply chain
• Human rights
• Environment
• The OECD risk awareness tool for multinational enterprises in weak governance zones (the risk awareness tool)
We would welcome your responses on the specific questions asked in the consultation (see below) and would be interested in any other comments or suggestions you may have for updating the guidelines.
Consultation questions
1 Are technical updates of the OECD Guidelines needed, and if so what aspects?
2 Is clearer guidance required regarding the application of the Guidelines to supply chains, and if so, what should this include?
3 Should the human rights section of the current Guidelines be updated, and if so, what should it include?
4 Should the disclosure chapter of the Guidelines be updated, and if so, what should this include?
5 Is there a need to clarify the application of Chapter V on Environment to climate change and green growth issues, and if so what should the chapter cover?
6 Should the consumer chapter of the Guidelines be expanded, and if so, what should it include/cover?
7 Should the taxation chapter of the Guidelines be updated, and if so, what should it include/cover?
8 How can the Risk Awareness Tool be more closely associated with the implementation of the Guidelines?
9 Does the procedural guidance need to be updated to give greater direction to institutional structure and functioning of NCPs, and if so, how?
10 How can the complaints procedures of the current Guidelines be improved?
11 Would there be merit in developing further guidance on parallel proceedings and building it in the Procedural Guidance or Commentary, and if so, what type of guidance?
12 Is there scope for adding references to the NCP following-up on the publication of a Specific Instance by building it in the Procedural Guidance or Commentary, and if so, what type of follow up?
13 Would there be merit in further developing guidance on retrospective guidance on new cases and building it in the Procedural Guidance or Commentary, and if so, what type of guidance?
14 Is clarification needed on the circumstances under which NCPs could accept a complaint against a financial institution, and if so, what type of clarification is needed?
15 Should a more structured peer review process be considered and built into the Procedural Guidance or Commentary of the Guidelines, and if so what type of review process?
16 Apart from the possible issues listed above, are there any other specific issues or parts of the OECD Guidelines that need updating, and if so, what should this include/cover?
- Created: 18 November 2009
Issued By: Sentencing Guidelines Council
Iosh Response
Response Document: Sentencing for CM and H&S offences causing death - IOSH response Jan'10.pdfSummary
Sentencing for corporate manslaughter and health and safety offences causing death
Published by: The Sentencing Guidelines Council
Closing date for comments: 23 December 2009
About this consultation
This is the first offence guidance for sentencing organisations that cause death through gross breaches of care under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.
The guidelines suggest that fines should be punitive and significant and should seldom fall below £500,000. In virtually all cases, organisations found guilty will have a Publicity imposed on them which will require them to make a statement about their conviction and publish this on their website.
The consultation guidelines reject advice that fines should be based on a percentage of an organisation’s average annual turnover, as it is believed that this approach could inadvertently risk an unfair outcome. Instead the guidelines propose a level below which fines would not be expected to fall and an indication of how much higher than this level fines should be.
We would welcome your opinion on the proposed guidelines and would be interested in any other comments or suggestions you may have in relation to their operation.
- Created: 21 October 2009
Issued By: The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)
Iosh Response
Response Document: Research Excellence Framework.pdfSummary
Research Excellence Framework
Published by: The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)
Closing date for comments: 09 December 2009
Background
This document sets out proposals for the new arrangements for the assessment and funding of research in UK higher education institutions (HEIs) via the Research Excellence Framework (REF). The REF will replace the current Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). The outcomes of the REF will be published in 2013 and be used to inform research funding in 2014.
What will be assessed?
The REF will assess research outputs in terms of quality and the wider social and economic impacts of research. The quality and impact of research will be assessed by expert panels which will include research users from the private, public and third sectors drawn from a wide range of nominated bodies.
The REF will also consider the environment in which the research was developed and HEIs will submit qualitative evidence on the areas of resourcing, management and engagement.
Each of these areas will be graded and an ‘overall excellence’ score will be awarded. This score will be used by UK funding bodies to allocate research funding.
Have your say
We would welcome your responses to this consultation. Please send any comments you have to
Murray Clark by
09 December 2009
Consultation questions
Question 1:
Do you agree with the proposed key features of the REF? If not, explain why.
Question 2:
What comments do you have on the proposed approach to assessing outputs? If you disagree with any of these proposals please explain why.
Comments are especially welcomed on the following proposals:
• that institutions should select research staff and outputs to be assessed
• for the categories of staff eligible for selection, and how they are defined
• for encouraging institutions to submit – and for assessing – all types of high-quality research outputs including applied and translational research
• for the use of citation information to inform the review of outputs in appropriate UOAs (including the range of appropriate UOAs, the type of citation information that should be provided to panels as outlined in Annex C, and the flexibility panels should have in using the information) and on the following options:
• whether there should be a maximum of three or four outputs submitted per researcher
• whether certain types of output should be ‘double weighted’ and if so, how these could be defined.
Question 3:
What comments do you have on the proposed approach to assessing impact? If you disagree with any of these proposals please explain why.
Comments are especially welcomed on the following:
• how we propose to address the key challenges of time lags and attribution
• the type of evidence to be submitted, in the form of case studies and an impact statement supported by indicators (including comments on the initial template for case studies and menu of indicators at Annex D)
• the criteria for assessing impact and the definition of levels for the impact sub-profile
• the role of research users in assessing impact.
Have your say
We would welcome your responses on this consultation.
Please fill out your response in the
Submit opinion section below or alternatively send any comments you have to
Murray Clark by
09 December 2009.
- Created: 21 October 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: IOSH response to HSE preliminary consultation on ICL Nov'09.pdfSummary
CD224 - Preliminary consultation into the Gill report on the 2004 ICL Plastics explosion
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 12 December 2010
Background
This consultation seeks views on recommendations made by Lord Gill in relation to all installations where LPG is used as a fuel source.
The recommendations arise from the findings of Lord Gill’s inquiry into the 2004 explosion at the ICL Plastics factory in which 9 people died and 33 were injured.
The five core principles
The Gill Inquiry recommended that the following five principles should be adopted:
1. All underground metallic pipework between LPG bulk tanks and buildings on industrial/ commercial premises should be replaced with polyethylene pipework. This should take place on a prioritised basis.
2. All buildings that have a bulk LPG supply should be inspected to identify if there are any hazardous features of the pipework layout or of the building structure itself, given that it has a bulk LPG supply.
3. A new safety regime should be put in place governing the installation, maintenance, monitoring and replacement of all LPG systems.
4. A new scheme should be introduced that would require all LPG suppliers to be registered and accredited.
5. The current risk assessment system should be improved by the addition of an independent audit process.
Implications
The introduction of an independent safety audit (principle 5) would mean changing current practice. Logically, it would not just apply to the storage and use of LPG, but also to risk assessments performed for all workplaces and all work activities.
Have your say
We would welcome your responses on the specific questions that are asked in the consultation and would be interested in your opinions the use of LPG. We would welcome your responses on this consultation.
Please fill out your response in the
Submit opinion section below or alternatively send any comments you have to
Murray Clark by
12 November 2009
- Created: 21 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Work and Pensions
Iosh Response
Response Document: Workers Memorial Day Public Consultation Cm7563.pdfSummary
Workers Memorial Day - Public consultation
Publiished by: The Department for Work and Pensions
Closing date for comments: 12 October 2009
About this consultation
This consultation seeks views on the Government’s proposals for the official recognition of Workers Memorial Day in the UK and explores some of the options for this. Workers Memorial Day provides an opportunity for people to reflect on relatives, friends and colleagues who have been harmed by work, but also on the need for workplaces to be both healthy and safe going forward.
It is hoped that the Day will become and officially recognised focus for all those affected by health and safety failures including business leaders, employers, employees and their representatives, to work together to improve health and safety performance. Subject to the outcome of this consultation, formal recognition would first take effect in the UK on 28 April 2010.
Have your say
We would welcome your responses on the specific questions that are asked in the consultation (see below) and would be interested in any other comments or suggestions you may have for marking Workers Memorial Day. Please send any comments you have to Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk by 12 October 2009.
Consultation Questions
1. Do you agree that the UK should officially recognise Workers Memorial Day?
2 If ‘Yes’ to Question 1, do you agree that official recognition should take effect from 28 April 2010?
Workers Memorial Day – specific proposals
We would also welcome your views on specific ways in which the UK might recognise Workers Memorial Day, each year. Would you agree with some/all of the options outlined below?
3. Do you agree that, with a view to promoting UK-wide involvement in Workers Memorial Day, a different UK region should lead on the commemorations each year?
4. Do you agree that Government-sponsored websites – such as BusinessLink and Directgov -should promote Workers Memorial Day each year, and publicise details of commemorative events?
5. Do you agree that Government should encourage workplace commemorations of Workers Memorial Day, each year, in manners appropriate to individual workplaces?
6. Do you agree that Government should, where appropriate, encourage commemorations to be held on the nearest Saturday to Workers Memorial Day?
7. Do you agree that Government Ministers should be actively involved in commemorating Workers Memorial Day each year?
8. Have you any other proposals for marking Workers Memorial Day each year? If yes, please give details
Any other comments?
9. Have you any other comments on this consultation exercise and its proposals? If yes, please give details
- Created: 22 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Iosh Response
Response Document: Hazardous_Waste_Strategy_response.pdfSummary
Consultation on the Strategy for Hazardous Waste Management in England
Published by: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
Closing date for comments: 06 October 2009
About this consultation
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) have launched a consultation on a proposed Strategy for Hazardous Waste Management in England which will be of high interest to all those who are involved in the handling of hazardous waste.
The proposed strategy has been developed to support the practical application of the revised Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC (WFD). The aim of this strategy is to work in conjunction with revised Directive relating to hazardous waste and to obtain a clear picture of how the requirements of the revised WFD should be implemented. The proposed strategy also intends to facilitate the provision of infrastructure for the management of hazardous waste It gives clear signal to all stakeholders to improve hazardous waste treatment by adopting the revised waste hierarchy as described in WFD to secure protection of the environment and human health.
The Strategy for Hazardous Waste Management comprises of four parts;
(i) seven high level principles relating to the management of hazardous waste,
(ii) a set of outline decision trees to aid waste producers/managers in their decision making processes in the management of hazardous waste produced;
(iii) a timeline of action on issues arising from introduction and implementation of the strategy; and
(iv) a list of guidance relating to the treatment of hazardous waste.
The seven principles based on a legal requirement stemming from European
Directives are:
1. the waste hierarchy
2. infrastructure provision
3. reduction of our reliance on landfill
4. prohibition on mixing or dilution
5. treatment of organic hazardous waste
6. end of reliance on the use of Landfill Directive waste acceptance criteria derogations
7. treatment and land filling
This strategy does not set out treatment techniques for every individual hazardous
waste stream in detail, instead it seeks to set out a framework to help hazardous
waste producers and hazardous waste managers to find the best solution for their
waste streams.
Your views are important
The consultation document seeks your views on proposed Strategy for Hazardous Waste Management in England. The document asks a number of questions (see below). You may answer any or all of these, but do not feel constrained by them as you may feel they do not cover an issue you think is important. We would be happy to received any comments you may have, so please send them to
Murray Clark by 06 October 2009.
The consultation questions
Question 1: Do you support principle 1? If not please explain, and what changes, if any, you think are needed.
Question 2: Do you support principle 2? If not please explain, and what changes, if any, you think are needed.
Question2a: Do you agree that the needs for hazardous waste infrastructure for England identified in Waste Strategy 2007 at Annex 1 continue to exist and if not, how should they be amended?
Question 3: Do you support principle 3? If not please explain, and what changes, if any, you think are needed.
Question 4: Do you support principle 4? If not please explain, and what changes, if any, you think are needed.
Question 5: Do you support principle 5? If not please explain, and what changes, if any, you think are needed.
Question 6: Do you support principle 6? If not please explain, and what changes, if any, you think are needed.
Question 7: Do you support principle 7? If not please explain, and what changes, if any, you think are needed.
Question 8: Do you think that the decision trees (Pages 20-24) support a) the principles of the Strategy for Hazardous Waste Management in England and b) the revised Waste Framework Directive hierarchy?
Question 9: The revised Waste Framework Directive requires waste producers to consider the hierarchy when considering the management of their wastes. Do you think the decision trees will aid you in this respect?
Question 10: Are the decision trees easy to follow or is more clarity needed?
Question 11: Various generic waste processes have been considered in the decision trees. Are these the right processes? Have any significant processes been missed?
Question 12: Are you aware of any waste streams that would not be appropriate for the decision trees? Are you able to describe waste streams and provide estimated quantities?
Question 13: How do you think waste streams that are not appropriate for the decision trees should be managed?
Question 14: Do you think that a definition of ‘organic’ and ‘inorganic’ is needed, and if so how do you think this should be defined?
Question 15: Do you think additional guidance for use of the decision trees is required? Should this guidance be based around waste streams?
Question 16: Do you support this timeline for implementation?
- Created: 22 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Iosh Response
Response Document: Revised_WFD_Response.pdfSummary
Stage One: Consultation on the transposition of the revised Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC)
Published by: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and theWelsh Assembly Government (WAG)
Closing date for comments: 01 October 2009
About this consultation
This consultation seeks views on the UK government’s preferred option for transposing and implementing the revised Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) in England and Wales. This revised Waste Framework Directive (WFD) was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in November 2008 and entered into force on 12 December 2008. Member states are required, under its article 40, to introduce national legislations to implement this Directive by 12 December 2010. The purpose of this Directive is to re-enact, repeal or to revise the three existing Directives:
(i) Waste Framework Directive (2006/12/EC)
(ii) Waste Oils Directive (75/439/EEC)
(iii) The Hazardous Waste Directive (91/689/EEC)
This revised Directive sets out some basic concepts and definitions related to waste management and lays down waste management principles in general. The overall objective of this Directive is:
”to protect the environment and human health by preventing or reducing the adverse impacts of the generation and management of waste and by reducing overall impacts of resource use and improving the efficiency of such use.”
The geographical scope of this consultation exercise is England and Wales. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is responsible for transposing the revised Directive in England whilst the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) is responsible for its transposition in Wales. This consultation paper is stage one of a two-stage consultation process proposed by DEFRA/WAG. The purpose of this consultation paper is to invite stakeholder’s opinions and views to help inform key policy decisions that are necessary for Ministers to take on the transposition of the revised WFD in England and Wales. In general, the consultation paper invites views on the transposition and implementation of the following provisions:
1. the waste hierarchy
2. extended producer responsibility
3. re-use, recycling and collection
4. principles of self-sufficiency and proximity
5. hazardous waste
6. waste oils
7. bio-waste
8. waste management plans
9. waste prevention programme
10. public participation
Stage two of the consultation exercise will involve consultation on the Regulations necessary to ensure that the revised waste framework directive is fully and correctly transposed, taking account of Ministers’ decisions on the stage one consultation.
Your views are important
Stage one of consultation exercise seeks your views to help inform key policy decisions that are necessary for Ministers to take on the transposition of the revised Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) in England and Wales. The document asks a number of specific questions (see below). You may answer any or all of these. We would be happy to receive any additional comments you may have, so please send them to
Murray Clark by 01 October 2009.
The consultation questions
Question 1: What steps do you consider DEFRA/WAG should take to apply the waste hierarchy set out in Article 4(1) of the revised WFD as a priority order in waste management legislation?
Question 2: Are there specific waste streams where you believe that departing from the waste hierarchy would be justified by life-cycle thinking on the overall impacts of the generation and management of such wastes, in order to deliver the best overall environmental outcome?
Question 3: Are there any further steps stakeholders and members of the public would like DEFRA/WAG to take to ensure that the development of waste legislation and policy, to apply the waste hierarchy as a priority order, is a fully transparent process?
Question 4: Are there any specific waste streams which you consider should be the subject of a producer responsibility regime under Article 8? If so, please explain what the economic and environmental costs and benefits of such regimes would be.
Question 5: Are there any further measures you consider it would be appropriate for DEFRA/WAG to take under the terms of Article 11(1) to promote the re-use of products or preparing for re-use activities?
Question 6: Do you agree with the proposed approach to implementing the requirements of Article 11(1) on separate collections? Please provide reasons for your answer including, if possible, the costs and benefits of your preferred approach.
Question 7: Do you consider that:
a) There are any measures that are technically, environmentally and economically practicable and appropriate to take in England and Wales, on the separate collection of household, commercial or industrial waste to meet the necessary quality standards for the relevant recycling sectors? Please give reasons for your answer; and
b) If yes, which measures do you think should be introduced to achieve this?
Question 8: Do you consider that:
(a) It will be technically, environmentally and economically practicable to set up by 2015, in England and Wales, separate collection for paper, metal, plastic and glass which is classified as household, commercial or industrial waste: Please give reasons for your answer; and
(b) If yes, which measures do you think should be introduced to achieve this?
Question 9: Do you agree with the proposed approach to implementing the recycling target for household and similar waste required by Article 11(2) (a)?
Question 10: (England only): Given the LAWRRD model scenarios above, do you agree with the Government‘s preferred ¯no further measures approach?
Question 11: (England only): If you think the Government should look to introduce additional measures to ensure that the recycling target of 50% for household and similar wastes is reached by 2020, do you have views about what these additional measures should be?
Question 12: (England only): Do you have views about targeting any additional measures on specific materials?
Question 13: (Wales only): Do you think that Wales’ approach will meet the requirements of Article 11(2) (a) of the revised WFD?
Question 14: Do you agree with our assessment of the extent to which we are already meeting this construction and demolition waste recovery target in England and Wales?
Question 15: Do you believe that any additional policy or legislative measures are necessary for us to guarantee that we are meeting this target in England and Wales?
Question 16: Do you agree that the UK is currently self-sufficient in installations for the recovery of mixed municipal waste from private households etc? If not, please (i) explain your reasons and (ii) the steps you consider need to be taken by the UK to achieve self-sufficiency in relation to such installations.
Question 17: Do you consider that the following changes will have an impact on the way in which hazardous waste is managed?
(a) The addition of a new property: “H13 (*) ‘Sensitizing’”: substances and preparations which, if they are inhaled or ingested or if they penetrate the skin, may induce non-hereditary congenital malformations or increase their incidence;
(b) Existing property H13 has been re-numbered to H15. This means that this property “H15: Waste capable by any means, after disposal, of yielding another substance, e.g. a leachate, which possesses any of the characteristics above” now also applies to “H14 ‘Ecotoxic‘”. In other words, H14 ecotoxicity) now has to be considered as a criterion for H15; and
(c) (c) Article 18(2) which allows mixing only where the permitted mixing operation conforms to best available techniques.
Question 18: Do you agree with the proposed approach to rely on the measures adopted to transpose and implement the waste hierarchy (and related measures) and not to prescribe under Article 21(3) that waste oils must be regenerated if technically feasible.
Question 19: Do you agree that sufficient measures are already being taken in England and Wales to encourage bio-waste treatment etc as envisaged in Article 22?
If not, please (i) explain your reasons and (ii) the measures you consider need to be taken in England and Wales to encourage bio-waste treatment etc as envisaged in Article 22?
Question 20: What revisions do you consider DEFRA/WAG should make to the existing arrangements for waste management plans (see paragraph 2.134 of consultation doc) to transpose the requirements of Articles 28(1), (2) and (3) (a)-(e) of the revised WFD? Please give reasons for your answer.
Question 21: Which, if any, of the discretionary issues set out in Articles 28(4) (a)-(d) of the revised WFD do you consider DEFRA/WAG should address in the arrangements for waste management plans adopted in response to Question 20?
Question 22: What are your views on the merits of either
(i) freestanding national waste prevention programmes in England and Wales or
(ii) a more dispersed approach which would involve introducing a requirement for local authorities to draw up their own waste prevention programmes?
Question 23: What are your views on the integration of waste prevention programmes into the waste management plans required by Article 28 of the revised WFD, their integration into other environmental policy programmes or their functioning as separate programmes?
Question 24: Member States must evaluate the usefulness of – but not necessarily adopt - the 16 examples of waste prevention measures in Annex IV to the revised WFD. Do you have views on the usefulness of any of these examples as waste prevention measures? If so, please specify the measures and give reasons for your answer.
Question 25: Do you consider that the costs and benefits of the transposition and implementation of the provisions of the revised WFD that are the subject to the Stage One consultation exercise have been accurately assessed in the initial Impact Assessment at Annex 3 (page 71) to the consultation paper? If not, please provide whatever evidence you can to enable a more accurate assessment to be made in the Impact Assessment that will form part of the Stage Two consultation exercise.
- Created: 22 October 2009
Issued By: DWP Health, Work and Well-being Directorate
Iosh Response
Response Document: Reforming the Medical Statement - IOSH response Aug'09.pdfSummary
Reforming the medical statement
Health, Work and Well-being Directorate
Closing date for comments: 14 August 2009
About this consultation
The medical statement is the normal method by which employees provide evidence of sickness to employers during absence and may also be used to support claims to health-related benefits. The Government believes the current format does not provide sufficient focus on how or whether an individual’s condition could be accommodated at work and is seeking to change the emphasis of the medical statement to focus more on what an individual with a health condition can do. The new medical statement will be introduced in April 2010, subject to Parliamentary approval.
The changes
The format and content of the medical statement will change so that, as well as indicating whether a patient is fit or not fit for work for benefit and sick pay purposes, the form will allow doctors to record information to help inform discussions between individuals and their employers about whether there are any changes to the employee’s work environment or job role which could help in achieving an early/earlier return to work.
The medical statement will include a new option to allow a doctor to provide an assessment of an individual’s fitness for work. Doctors will be able to indicate where someone ‘May be fit for some work now’ and will be required to provide general details of the functional effect of that individual’s condition and supply generic advice. The employer will not be bound to implement suggestions by a doctor for workplace changes which would facilitate a return to work. Changes will be provided at the discretion of employers and with the agreement of the employee.
Have your say
We would welcome your responses on the specific questions that are asked in the consultation (see below) and would be interested in any comments you have on the proposed changes. Please send your comments to
Murray Clark by the closing date of 14 August 2009.
Consultation questions
Question 1: Do you have any further information, data or analysis which would be useful for improving the quality of the analysis in the attached impact Assessment?
Question 2: The Government welcomes views on whether listing common types of changes is helpful; whether those listed are sufficient; and on whether ‘Occupational Health assessment’ should be added to the revised statement.
Question 3: Will the changes described in paragraph 40 ensure that the current functions of the special statement - form Med 5 - are accurately incorporated in the revised form Med 3?
Question 4: The Government welcomes views on whether medical statements should only be issued when a patient is assessed as ‘not fit for work’ or ‘may be fit for some work’.
Question 5: The Government welcomes views on whether the draft regulations, including the rules, achieve the intentions expressed in the commentary. In particular, bearing in mind the Government’s aim of reducing sickness absence and supporting people with health conditions to return to work at the earliest opportunity, should the maximum duration of a medical statement be less than 6 months? (See Rule 13.)
- Created: 22 October 2009
Issued By: General Medical Council
Iosh Response
Response Document: Tomorrow's doctors - IOSH response.pdfSummary
Tomorrow's Doctors 2009: a draft for consultation
Issued by General Medical Council
Closing date for comments: Mar 27, 2009
BackgroundThe General Medical Council (GMC) regulates undergraduate medical education and sets down standards and ensures that those standards are met. The GMC are revising Tomorrow’s Doctors, the standards for undergraduate medical education, and will publish a new edition in summer 2009. The document lists outcomes that graduates from UK medical schools must achieve in order to graduate, as well as standards for the delivery of teaching, learning and assessment.
The consultation will interest the public and patients who will be treated by tomorrow’s doctors; employers of doctors; teachers in medical education, doctors and students; medical schools and other organisations providing medical education and training.
Purpose
The overall purpose of the consultation is to ensure that a full range of perspectives and information sources is considered in the revision of the standards for undergraduate medical education.
Have your say
We would welcome your response to this consultation. Please send your comments to
Murray Clark by the closing date of 27 March 2009.
- Created: 22 October 2009
Issued By: The Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: HSE STRATEGY - IOSH RESPONSE MAR'09.pdfSummary
The Health and Safety of Great Britain: Be part of the solution
Issued by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 16 February 2009
About this consultation
On 3 December the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) launched its strategy consultation, inviting all stakeholders to help HSE in its mission – to prevent death, injury and ill health in Great Britain’s workplaces – by becoming part of the solution.
The consultation document presents the Board’s proposed new strategy for the health and safety system as a whole. It recognises and addresses the many stakeholders, who have a role in maintaining or improving health and safety standards, including:
• employers and their representative bodies
• the self-employed
• workers and their representative bodies
• the HSE
• Local Authorities
• Government, through its departments and agencies etc
• the devolved administrations and their agencies etc
• professional bodies
• voluntary and third sector organisations.
Stakeholders are invited to consider their existing activities and decide what they can do to improve their health and safety performance and so help deliver the benefits of the new strategy.
The strategy has 10 goals:
• To continue investigating work related accidents and ill health and taking enforcement action to prevent harm and to secure justice when appropriate.
• To encourage strong leadership in championing the importance of, and a common sense approach to, health and safety in the workplace.
• To motivate focus on the core aims of health and safety and, by doing so, to help risk makers and managers distinguish between real health and safety issues and trivial or ill-informed criticism.
• To encourage an increase in competence, which will enable greater ownership and profiling of risk, thereby promoting sensible and proportionate risk management.
• To reinforce the promotion of worker involvement and consultation in health and safety matters throughout unionised and non-unionised workplaces of all sizes.
• To specifically target key health issues and to identify and work with those bodies best placed to bring about a reduction in the number of cases of work related ill health.
• To set priorities and, within those priorities, to identify which activities, their length and scale, deliver a significant reduction in the rate and number of deaths and accidents.
• To adapt and customise approaches to help the increasing numbers of SMEs in different sectors comply with their health and safety obligations.
• To reduce the likelihood of low frequency, high impact catastrophic incidents while ensuring that Great Britain maintains its capabilities in those industries strategically important to the country’s economy and social infrastructure.
• To take account of wider issues that impact on health and safety as part of our continuing drive to improve Great Britain’s health and safety performance.
Your views are important
Your views are sought on the HSE’s strategy. The consultation asks a number of questions (see below). You may answer any or all of these, but do not feel constrained by them as you may feel they do not cover an issue you think is important. We would be happy to receive any comments you may have, so please send them to
Murray.Clark by Monday 16 February 2009
Consultation Questions
Question 1 - Do you support the goals as set out in the strategy and are there any omissions?
Question 2 – How can you/your organisation help us deliver the goals?
Question 3 – Can you help us to identify others who have a role to play in delivering the goals as set out in the strategy?
Question 4 – Who else should HSE and the Local Authorities be engaging with to help deliver the goals in the strategy?
Questions 5 – What should HSE and Local Authorities do differently to help deliver the goals in the strategy?
Questions 6 – What parts of which goals in the strategy are best delivered by others?
Question 7 – What can your own and other organisations so differently to help in the delivery of the strategy?
- Created: 22 October 2009
Issued By: PSHE Association
Iosh Response
Response Document: IOSH PSHE submission v4.pdfSummary
Sir Alasdair Macdonald's review of PSHE
Closing date for comments: 04 December 200
About this consultation
The non-statutory programme of study for personal wellbeing is intended to support schools in developing coherent whole-school approaches to personal, social, health and economic wellbeing (PSHE). It provides a context for schools to fulfil their legal responsibilities to promote the wellbeing of pupils and provide sex and relationships and drugs education. It also provides schools with an opportunity to focus on delivery of the skills identified in the framework for Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL). This programme of study replaces the non-statutory framework for personal, social and health education. The content is based on the Every Child Matters outcomes.
Personal development: Risk
The consultation explores the concept of risk and aims to provide an understanding risk in both positive and negative terms and understanding that individuals need to manage risk to themselves and others in a range of situations. It also covers:
• Appreciating that pressure can be used positively or negatively to influence others in situations involving risk.
• Developing the confidence to try new ideas and face challenges safely, individually and in groups.
Pupils should be able to:
a) use knowledge and understanding to make informed choices about safety, health and wellbeing
b) find information and support from a variety of sources
c) assess and manage the element of risk in personal choices and situations
d) use strategies for resisting unhelpful peer influence and pressure
e) know when and how to get help
f) identify how managing feelings and emotions effectively supports decision-making and risk management.
Have your say
We would welcome your response to the way risk management concepts are outlined in the consultation and would be interested in any other comments you have this proposed aspect of the curriculum. Please send your comments to Murray Clark by the closing date of 04 December 2008.
- Created: 23 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Iosh Response
Response Document: Primary Authority Scheme.pdfSummary
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008: Consultation on the Primary Authority Scheme
Issued by: The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Closing date for comments: Wednesday 26 November 2008
About this consultation
The new Primary Authority scheme has been designed to improve consistency for businesses that trade across council boundaries. Under this initiative, firms will for the first time have the right to work with one council – the ‘primary authority’ – that is responsible for providing reliable and robust advice on its legal obligations.
These new partnerships might cover single specialist areas, such as health and safety or trading standards, or a local authority's full range of regulatory services. A business can also ask its primary authority to produce a national inspection plan, giving guidelines to other councils to avoid unnecessary checks and tests.
The aim of the scheme is to help ensure that only appropriate enforcement action is taken. Before an enforcing authority can start imposing sanctions it must check to see whether a company has acted in accordance with the advice given by its primary authority, reducing the likelihood of inconsistent interpretation of the law.
The question of resourcing the partnership is up to the councils and businesses concerned, allowing a primary authority to recover the costs of providing this premium service. Partnership registration, guidance and help to resolve any disputes will be provided by the Local Better Regulation Office LBRO.
The Primary Authority Scheme has been developed from two long-standing voluntary schemes, Home Authority and Lead Authority, which have not always worked consistently or effectively because of their voluntary status.
Your views are important
Your views are sought on proposed operation of the Primary Authority Scheme. The consultation asks a number of questions (see below). You may answer any or all of these, but do not feel constrained by them as you may feel they do not cover an issue you think is important. We would be happy to receive any comments you may have on the scheme, so please send your comments to
Murray Clark by Wednesday 26 November 2008
Consultation questions
Question 1 - Is there any legislation on these lists that you believe relates to matters which are not reserved matters in relation to Scotland or transferred in Northern Ireland or should for any other reason not be included?
Question 2 - Is there any legislation or are there any functions that are not on these lists that you believe should be included? This may include Acts of Parliament, statutory instruments or European obligations. Please be as specific as possible.
Question 3 - Do you agree that sanctions listed in the draft statutory instrument at Annex D should be regarded as enforcement action for the purposes of the Primary Authority scheme?
Question 4 - Are there other sanctions that should be included in this list?
Question 5 - Do you agree that oral advice should not be regarded as enforcement action for the purposes of the Primary Authority scheme?
Question 6 - Do you agree that written advice, even where it includes a warning regarding the possibility of a sanction, should not be considered enforcement action for the purposes of the Primary Authority scheme? If not, how might this be done without causing unnecessary bureaucracy?
Question 7 - Do you agree that the investigative actions listed in paragraph should not be considered enforcement action for the purposes of the Primary Authority scheme?
Question 8 - If so, can you specify any statutory powers under which such investigative action can be taken?
Question 9 - Are there any other actions that you believe should not be regarded as enforcement action for the purposes of the Primary Authority scheme?
Question 10 - Do you agree with the proposed approach to removing licensing under the Licensing Act 2003 and the Gambling Act 2005, and fire safety under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005, from the definition of enforcement action to be used for the purposes of the Primary Authority scheme?
Question 11 - Do you agree with this approach to defining emergencies in the statutory instrument?
Question 12 - Are there other forms of enforcement action which you believe should be excluded so as to allow urgent action to prevent significant risk of serious harm? Please include full references to the relevant legislation if possible.
Question 13 - What enforcement actions do you believe should be excluded, on the grounds of proportionality, from the requirement to consult the Primary Authority before taking the action?
Question 14 – What should enforcement officers take into account when taking a decision as to whether a pre-notification of enforcement action would be wholly disproportionate?
Question 15 - Do you agree that exclusions should be made where enforcement action is required urgently to prevent or stop relatively minor harm? If so, which enforcement actions should be excluded on this basis?
Question 16 - Do you agree that where an organisation enters into an enforcement undertaking there should be no requirement placed on the enforcing authority to contact the Primary Authority prior to taking enforcement action?
Question 17 - Do you agree with our proposed approach to excluding Part 8 of the Enterprise Act from the requirement to consult a Primary Authority before taking enforcement action?
Question 18 - Do you consider there are other occasions where undertakings may be given, for example voluntarily, which should also be excluded from the requirement to consult with the Primary Authority?
Question 19 - Do you agree that ten working days is a reasonable amount of time for a proposed enforcement action to be referred to LBRO? If not, how many days do you think would be reasonable?
Question 20 - Do you agree that relevant information should be provided to LBRO when a proposed enforcement action is referred to it? If so, what information do you believe LBRO should be given?
Question 21 - Do you agree that the information we have specified should be given to LBRO before it consents to a referral? Is their any other information that you believe should be provided?
Question 22 - Do you agree that LBRO should be able to take consistency with its own guidance into account when making a decision on an enforcement action referred to it?
Question 23 - Are there any other matters relating to the statutory instrument at Annex E, which you want to raise? Please give details, and where possible, specify any alternative approach that you believe should be explored.
Question 24 – Do you believe the assessment of costs and benefits in the Impact Assessment are realistic? If not, is there any further evidence that you can provide that should be taken into account?
- Created: 23 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Work and Pensions ((DWP)
Iosh Response
Response Document: No one written off.pdfSummary
Green Paper - No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility
Published by: Department for Work and Pensions DWP)
Closing date for comments:15 October 2008
About this consultationThis Green Paper sets out in more detail the government’s plans for the reform of the benefits system. The aims of the reforms are primarily to maximise the number of people in work and minimise the number of people claiming benefits. It is hoped that this will help achieve 80 per cent employment, reduce social exclusion, end child poverty and provide equality for disabled people. The proposals in this paper will be tested before they are applied nationally.
Proposed approach
In order to ensure that everyone who can work does so, the government propose introducing a system whereby anyone on out-of-work benefits (e.g. Incapacity Benefit, Job Seekers Allowance) is subject to a regime of ongoing support that aims to move them off benefits and back into paid employment. The government will offer skills training and medical support in return for greater responsibility on the part of claimants to take available employment. Claimants will be required to accept the support offered and legislative powers and financial sanctions will be used to ensure this.
The longer claimants remain on benefits, the more they will be required to do, including engagement with full-time work programmes and daily attendance at Jobcentre Plus offices. For claimants who are deemed capable of work there will no right to a life on benefits, however the changes will not apply to the most severely disabled and people with full time caring responsibilities.
Have your say
Please find below the questions asked throughout the Green Paper. You may wish to address some or all of these, or you may wish to make different points entirely. Whichever it is, if you have any comments on the proposals for welfare reform contained in this consultation, please send them to
Murray Clark by 15 October 2008
Consultation questions
Question 1: How long should ‘work for your benefit’ last at different stages in the claim?
Question 2: How could capacity and capability to provide full-time work experience in the community sector be provided and incentivised to produce the best employment outcomes for participants?
Question 3: Is full-time ‘work for your benefit’ as an alternative to a sanction of loss of benefit for repeated non-compliance with work search requirements an effective option for some jobseekers? How should it be targeted?
Question 4: What penalties do you think would be most effective to deter more people from committing benefit fraud?
Question 5: Do you think it would be appropriate to reduce or withdraw entitlement to benefit after a first offence? How long should the sanction period be?
Question 6: Do you agree with the proposed approach for identifying problem drug use? How should it be implemented? Do you think that everyone claiming a working-age benefit should be required to make a declaration of whether or not they use certain specified drugs?
Question 7: What elements should an integrated system of drug treatment and employment support include? Do you agree that a rehabilitation plan would help recovering drug users to manage their condition and move towards employment?
Question 8: When is the right time to require ESA claimants to take a skills health check?
Question 9: Should ESA customers be required to attend training in order to gain the identified skills they need to enter work?
Question 10: In view of the need to help lone parents develop the skills they need to find work, are we right to require lone parents to have a skills health check and training as a condition of receiving benefit?
Question 11: Should we pilot extra benefit payments for lone parents in return for training, and if so, when the youngest child is what age?
Question 12: Are there any other circumstances where customers cannot get the skills they need to enter employment under present and planned arrangements?
Question 13: How might we build on the foundations of the current rules so that they do not discourage unemployed people from volunteering as a deliberate back-to-work strategy, while retaining a clear focus on moving off welfare into paid employment?
Question 14: Do you agree that the WCA and WFHRA should be re-focused to increase work-related support?
Question 15: What expectations should there be of people undertaking the personalised support we will now be offering in the Work Related Activity Group? Could this include specific job search?
Question 16: How can we make Access to Work more responsive to the needs of claimants with fluctuating conditions – including mental health conditions?
Question 17: What additional flexibilities in the system or forms of support would claimants with multiple and complex problems need to enable them to meet the new work-focused requirements proposed in this Green Paper?
Question 18: What are the key features of an action planning approach that would best support employees and employers to take the steps for the employee to make a swifter return to work?
No question 19
Question 20: What approach might be suitable to assist partners of benefit claimants who can work into employment?
Question 21: What are the next steps in enabling disabled people, reliably and easily, to access an individual budget if they want one? Should they include legislation to give people a right to ask for a budget or will the other levers the Government has got prove sufficient? What are the safeguards that should be built in? How can this be done?
Question 22: Is a system based on a single overarching benefit the right long-term aspiration? How could a simpler system be structured so as to meet varying needs and responsibilities?
Question 23: Would moving carers currently on IS onto JSA be a suitable way of helping them to access the support available to help combine caring with paid work or preparing for paid work?
Question 24: How might we reform Bereavement Benefit and IIDB to provide better support to help people adjust to their new circumstances while maintaining the work focus of the modern welfare state?
Question 25: Are lump sum payments a good way of meeting people’s needs? Do they give people more choice and control? Could we make more use of them?
Question 26: What information would providers need to make the Right to Bid effective? How would the evaluation process need to work to give providers confidence that their ideas would be evaluated fairly and effectively? How do we get the balance right between rewarding those who come up with new ideas and the obligation to tender projects?
Question 27: What would the processes around contributing to commissioning and performance management look like in a range of different partnership areas? How might they best be managed to achieve the desired outcomes?
Question 28: How could a link be made to the radical proposals for the pilots set out in Chapter 3, which seek to reward providers for outcomes out of the benefit savings they achieve?
Question 29: How effective are current monitoring and evaluation arrangements for City Strategies?
- Created: 23 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills
Iosh Response
Response Document: Science and society.pdfSummary
A vision for science and society
Issued by: The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills
Closing date for comments: Monday 13 October 2008
About this consultationThis consultation sets out the government’s vision for science and society, which is:
'A society that is excited about science, values its importance to our social and economic wellbeing, feels confident in its use, and supports a representative well-qualified scientific workforce'.
The consultation presents the arguments for a more ‘mature’ relationship between science, policy and society. This is needed as science is likely to become more important as the government seek to address major issues such as climate change, global security, shortages of food, water and natural resources and pandemic influenza.
At present the relationship between science, policy and society as a whole is a weak one, and this strategy sets out ways to:
• strengthen the level of high quality engagement with the public on all major science issues; and
• increase the number of people who choose to study scientific subjects and work in research and scientific careers.
It is hoped that by addressing these two key areas the government can ensure a science-literate society who will be able to effectively contribute to complex political and ethical debates in areas such as GM foods, biometric data and nuclear energy.
Your views are important
If you have views or opinions on science policy and the way it interacts and influences society please send them to
Murray Clark by Monday 13 October 2008.
The consultation poses a large number of questions (see below) which you may find helpful. You can respond to us by addressing some or all of the questions, but we would also be happy to hear from you if you would like to address any area related to the consultation that is not covered by the questions.
Consultation questions Q1. What steps can we take to co-ordinate better or streamline science and society activity to make it more effective?
Q2. How should we measure progress? What indicators do we need to measure success?
Q3. How can scientists further improve and professionalise engagement with the public?
Q4. How should high quality engagement be recognised and rewarded?
Q5. How can the scientific and policy communities make science more interesting for the public and particularly for those difficult to reach groups?
Q6. What contribution can science centres make to the science and society agenda?
Q7. How can the media better support society’s need for balanced information that accurately portrays the nature of science and improves scientific literacy?
Q8. How can the lack of quantity and breadth of science television on terrestrial and other channels be addressed?
Q9. How can new technologies help empower all people, especially minorities and those currently excluded, to contribute ideas and opinions to scientists and decision-makers?
Q10. How can business better engage with society and policy makers about the development and use of science in everyday life?
Q11. How can policy makers better engage with society about the development of science?
Q12. How can we capture emerging issues effectively and feed into the communication and engagement process?
Q13. How can we embed and communicate the principles of responsible scientific practice and ethics?
Q14. What more can the science community and the media do to foster a shared understanding of the nature of science?
Q15. What more can the education community do to develop scientific literacy in young people?
Q16. How can we develop the scientific literacy of the science policy and public communities?
Q17. What more can the business community do to foster public confidence in science in industry?
Q18. How can we use technology better to empower more people to contribute ideas, opinions and data to science?
Q19. What can we do to reach those not able to use technology?
Q20. How can we ensure policy makers understand the benefits of engagement with society on science in bringing a wider dimension to policy making?
Q21. How can good practice in public dialogue be embedded across government?
Q22. What additional mechanisms should be put in place to enable scientists to better interact with policy makers?
Q23. How is good practice by scientists engaging with policy makers celebrated and rewarded?
Q24. What additional mechanisms should be put in place to enable policy makers to better interact with scientists?
Q25. How is good practice by policy makers engaging with scientists celebrated and rewarded?
Q26. What further support do teachers need to help young people understand how science works, how government works and how the media works?
Q27. What more do schools need to enhance the science curriculum to make it more exciting and relevant?
Q28. What can the science and business communities do to tell young people about the career opportunities that a science education opens up in all work areas?
Q29. How can we measure future demand for science skills in the UK?
Q30. What can business do to make sure that its efforts in enrichment activities are co-ordinated and effective?
Q31. Is there a different way to teach science subjects which could help overcome the issue of under-representation of some groups?
Q32. How can the science community and employers show society that they welcome and embrace diversity, including women, ethnic minorities and older people?
Q33. What can policy groups and business do to address issues of under-representation and retention?
Q34. Do these areas and questions provide a suitable framework for addressing the challenges we have identified?
- Created: 23 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
Iosh Response
Response Document: Gangmasters exclusions consultation.pdfSummary
Consultation on the operation of the Gangmasters Licensing (Exclusions) Regulations 2006
Issued by: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Closing date for comments: Monday 13 October 2008
About this consultation
This consultation suggests some refinements to the Gangmasters Licensing (Exclusions) Regulations 2006 to widen the range of excluded circumstances and to clarify the terms used to define the current exclusions. The consultation is not intended to initiate a fundamental review of the scope of the scheme as a whole, as this is considered to be unhelpful at this time.
Suggested changes
Several changes to the terms of the Exclusions Regulations are considered. The purpose of these changes is as follows:
i) to relieve the burden imposed by licensing on mainstream farming and forestry practices which do not involve the use of labour providers;
ii) to remove from the scope of licensing other activities caught by the licensing requirement which do not represent labour provider activity; and
iii) to clarify and make more transparent the application of the terms used in the Regulations to describe the activities excluded from licensing.
Your views are important
Your views are sought on all of the suggestions in the consultation. You are also invited to identify other areas in the Regulations which you think should be excluded or clarified and to explain why you think such a change is necessary. Please send your comments to
Murray Clark by Monday 13 October 2008
Questions asked in this consultation
Q1. Do you agree that the definitions used in the Regulations convey accurately the terms used?
Q2. If not, which definitions need further clarification and why?
Q3. Do you think the definition of “share farming agreement” is too restrictive? If so, how do you think it should be changed?
Q4. Do you consider that the 20% rule restricts the flexible operation of mainstream farming practices involving the loan of workers between farmers? If your answer is yes, do you have evidence to support your response?
Q5. Do you think that the terms of the exclusion for farmer to farmer loans of workers should be relaxed? If so, why and how?
Q6. Should the terms of the exclusion for farmer to farmer loans be extended to short-term loans of workers to undertake non-agricultural activities covered by the Act?
Q7. Do you agree that the terms of the Exclusions contained at sub-paragraphs 4(a) and 4(c) should remain unchanged? If not, why?
Q8. Does the 20% rule restrict the flexible operation of traditional farming practices involving the supply of services? If your answer is yes, what evidence do you have to support your response?
Q9. Do you think that the terms of the exclusion for the supply of services between farmers should be changed? If so, why and how?
Q10. Do you agree that there is a need to review the wording of the exclusion to make it clear that the provisions of the exclusion are interdependent?
Q11. Is the current threshold of one worker supplied at any one time too low? If it is, what should it be changed to and why?
Q12. Should competences gained through experience also qualify for exclusion from licensing?
Q13. Should the requirement that the skilled worker supplied by a labour provider must be employed by the labour user be retained? If not, why not?
Q14. Do you agree that charities and public bodies used to deliver charitable services should be excluded from the gangmaster licensing arrangements?
Q15. Should there be a blanket exclusion for such organisations, or are there any organisations which you think should be retained within the scope of the scheme? If so, why?
Q16. Which organisation do you suggest should be excluded?
Q17. Do you think that supplies between corporate bodies within the same ownership should be excluded from licensing?
Q18. If we excluded this circumstance, do you think it would be easy for labour providers and users to restructure their activities in order to take advantage of this exclusion?
Q19. Do you think that arrangements – such as pea vine co-operatives or sugar beet co-operatives – where workers are loaned to the co-operative to undertake harvesting duties for the cooperative should be excluded from the licensing arrangements?
20. Do you think forestry should be removed from the scope of the licensing scheme? If yes, why?
Q21. Should licensing apply only to part of the forestry sector? If yes, to which activities should it apply?
- Created: 23 October 2009
Issued By: The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills
Iosh Response
Response Document: Higher_Education_at_Work_pdf.pdfSummary
Higher education at work - High skills: High value
Published by: The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills
Closing date for comments: 03 July 2008
About this consultation
This consultation sets out the background arguments for a higher skilled workforce to enable the UK economy to compete effectively in global markets and meet employer demands. The consultation looks at employer engagement with government strategies and seeks views on how to incentivise employers and employees and how to encourage higher education providers to be responsive to business demands.
The consultation covers an number of policy proposals described as a ‘framework of aspiration’ that sees a world-class education system delivering high level skills appropriate to employer needs, a commitment from employers to pay for educational provision, and HE providers working with government, employers and other partners to highlight the value of high level skills.
Have your say
If you have any comments on this policy consultation please send them to
Murray Clark by 03 July 2008
Questions for debate
Question 1: What incentives would encourage employers to be more involved in providing careers information, advice and guidance both before and during university?
Question 2a: Given that subject choice at 14 and GCSE and A-level attainment are critical factors, is there a case for specific incentives to prospective students to take Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects?
Question 2b: How could any incentives avoid simply reinforcing the decisions of people who would have chosen STEM subjects anyway?
Question 2c: More generally, is there a case for providing incentives to universities or employers to encourage more young people to study STEM and to pursue careers in it?
Question 3: What support and incentives would help universities offer access to the workplace for all their students?
Question 4: How can we help employers better articulate their needs for these broad based employability skills?
Question 5: What more can we do to provide more graduates with the language skills and cultural awareness to thrive in a global marketplace?
Question 6a: What further incentives are needed to stimulate and meet employer demand for high level skills?
Question 6b: How can we best build on the contributions of Further Education (FE) colleges and providers and their links (in particular) to networks of small and medium sized enterprises?
Question 6c: How well does the framework for high level skills support employer engagement?
Question 7a: How can we best work with businesses and employers, Trade Unions and employees to encourage demand for high level skills?
Question 7b: How can we encourage rapid implementation of an effective framework for credit accumulation and transfer?
Question 8: Do we have the right incentives to encourage higher education providers to be more responsive to business and employer demand?
Question 9: What should be the key features of a model for regional and sectoral bodies to play a much greater role in solving local skills problems and linking higher education institutions and businesses?
Question 10: How can we encourage Regional Development Agencies and Sector Skills Councils to work together to solve local and sectoral skills needs?
Question 11a: What further incentives are needed in universities – e.g. through internal appraisals, promotion processes – to increase demand from academic staff for business secondments?
Question 11b: And how can we encourage movement in the other direction so that business people are increasingly contributing directly to course content, design and teaching?
Question 12: How can we do more to increase the level of STEM skills in the existing workforce?
- Created: 23 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Communities and Local Government
Iosh Response
Response Document: Mining Waste Directive.pdfSummary
EU Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from the extractive industries (The ‘Mining Waste Directive’)
Consultation paper on proposals for transposition of the Directive in England and Wales
Published by: The Department for Communities and Local Government
Closing date for comments: Friday 4 April 2008
About this consultation
This consultation seeks views on the UK government’s preferred option for transposing and implementing the EU Mining Waste Directive (MWD) in England and Wales. The aim of the Directive is to reduce as far as possible, any adverse effects on the environment and any resultant risk to human health brought about as a result of the management of waste from the extractive industries.
Scope of the MWD
The MWD covers the management of waste resulting from prospecting, extraction, treatment and storage of mineral resources and the working of quarries, referred to as ‘extractive waste’. The UK is required to transpose the MWD into national law by 1 May 2008. The Directive only applies to on-shore operations.
The options for transposition
The consultation document presents three alternatives for transposing the Directive in the UK. These are:
(i) The planning and existing consents option
(ii) The Environmental Permitting Programme (EPP) option – with two variations to this model depending on whether the principal regulatory (‘competent’) authority is (a) the local mineral and waste planning authority, or (b) the Environment Agency
(iii) A ‘hybrid’ option involving elements of (i) and (ii), whereby the Directive’s requirements would be delivered through the planning system, apart from the requirements relating to Article 7 which would be delivered through the EPP.
The government’s preferred option is (ii), the Environmental Permitting Programme, with the Environment Agency as the principal competent authority, and the consultation sets out reasons and invites views on this proposition.
Your views are very important
The UK and Welsh Assembly Governments welcome views on their preferred option for transposition set out in this consultation paper, and would also welcome any responses to the specific questions presented below. You are also invited to comment on the Impact Assessment that forms part of the consultation document.
If you have any comments on this consultation please send them to
Murray Clark by Friday 4 April 2008.
Questions Applying to England and Wales
Principal Issue
1. Do you agree that the Environmental Permitting Programme offers the best option for transposing the Mining Waste Directive? If not, would you prefer to see the planning and existing consents option or the hybrid option used as the means of transposing the Directive? If your preference is for one of the latter two options, what are your reasons for this view?
2. If you agree that the Environmental Permitting Programme offers the best option, do you also agree that the Environment Agency should act as the competent authority (or regulator), or do you think that the planning authority should be the principal competent authority under this option?
Other Questions
3. Do you think that:
(a) the prerequisite for planning permission should be applied to Article 7 permits as proposed in the draft transposing Regulations?; or
(b) there are alternative ways of ensuring that the competent authority complies with the requirements of Articles 7(3)(b) and 11(2)(a) of the Directive? {Paragraph 3.66}
4. Do you agree that the local fire and rescue authority for the area would be best placed to act as the ‘competent authority’ for the purposes of the emergency external plan under Article 6? If not, who would be best placed to act as competent authority for the external emergency plan, and what are your reasons for this suggestion? {Paragraph 4.11}
5. The Government would welcome views on the proposals for implementing Article 6 requirements on major accident prevention. Do you think the draft regulations at Annex E are appropriately based on the ‘COMAH’ model, and are they sufficiently clear? {Paragraph 4.14}
6. The Government would welcome any further views on the best approach, or approaches, to financial guarantees (or equivalent), as required under Article 14 of the Directive. {Paragraph 4.24}
7. Do you have any views on which authority (or authorities) would be best placed to prepare and maintain the inventory of closed waste facilities required under Article 20 of the Directive? {Paragraph 4.28}
8. Do you have any comments on the proposed implementation of the transitional provisions for existing waste facilities? In particular, do you agree that 1 May 2010 should be specified as the date by which operators of existing waste facilities are required to submit their applications for permits under the EPP and hybrid options, in order to ensure that the competent authority has sufficient time to process these applications by 1 May 2012? {Paragraphs 5.3 – 5.5}
9. Do you agree with the Government’s proposals for applying transitional provisions to existing operations which do not involve waste facilities, in particular, the establishment of a 12-month time limit for approved waste management plans for such operations to be in place? {Paragraphs 5.6 – 5.9}
10. Do you have any views on the Government’s proposals for applying the transitional provisions in respect of waste facilities closed before 1 May 2008 and certain waste facilities that will be effectively closed by 31 December 2010? {Paragraph 5.15}
11. Do you consider that there are specific circumstances in relation to mining and quarrying activities that would justify the inclusion of a provision in the Regulations, so that the conditions in the EP permit take precedence over any conflicting conditions that may arise in the planning permission for the site? What problematic inconsistencies do you envisage arising that might justify such a provision? {Paragraph 6.7}
12. If provision is not made in the Regulations to give precedence to the EP permit over planning conditions, do you think there should be a requirement for planning authorities to conduct a review of all relevant permissions, as and when EP permits are issued? Alternatively, do you think that mining and quarrying operators should be able to request that the planning authority review the planning conditions in a particular case, and that at the same time, a power should be provided for planning authorities to be able to conduct a review where they considered it necessary? {Paragraph 6.12}
13. Do you have any views or comments on the Impact Assessment that accompanies this consultation?
Questions specifically relating to transposition in Wales
14. What would be the advantages and/or disadvantages of requiring a financial guarantee from an operator seeking a permit for a waste facility?
15. Have you any evidence or analysis of the implications of such a guarantee for the amended waste regime?
16. How would you envisage such a financial guarantee working along side the restoration bonds required by some minerals planning authorities?
- Created: 23 October 2009
Issued By: The Audit Commission
Iosh Response
Response Document: Use_of_resources_assessment_2008_pdf.pdfSummary
Use of resources assessment 2008/9
Published by: The Audit Commission
Closing date for comments: 08 February 2008
About this consultation
This consultation sets out the approach for assessing the use of resources for Local Authorities, Primary Care Trusts (PCTs), Fire and Rescue Authorities (FRA) and Police Authorities for the autumn 2009 assessments. The consultation outlines the key lines of enquiry (KLOE), scoring rules and themes that will be used, and calls for views on these.
Background
Use of resources judgements are used as part of current performance frameworks and aim to stimulate improvement, promote effective financial management and reporting and establish high standards of governance and accountability.
These judgements have been criticised in the past for concentrating mainly on financial resources. With this in mind, this consultation puts forward a broader set of proposals to ensure judgements can take account of wider resource issues such as people, information technology and the use of natural resources. Judgements will also focus more on outputs and outcomes and be more strategic and less detailed.
Proposed approach
The will be a single annual judgement on value for money in the use of resources which will be scored and published and will feed into performance assessment frameworks. Judgements will be scored against three themes:
1. managing money
2. managing the business
3. managing other resources
Each of these scored themes will have a scored KLOE. These level scores are as follows:
Level 1. failure to meet the minimum requirements
Level 2. only at minimum requirements – adequate performance
Level 3. consistently above minimum requirements – performing well
Level 4. well above minimum requirements – performing strongly
This new approach could mean that organisations see a change in their previous performance levels.
Have your say
If you have any comments on the proposed assessment criteria please send them to
Murray Clark by 08 February 2008
- Created: 23 October 2009
Issued By: The Sentencing Guidelines Council
Iosh Response
Response Document: Sentencing_for_corporate_manslaughter_pdf.pdfSummary
Sentencing for corporate manslaughter consultation
Issued by: The Sentencing Advisory Panel
Closing date for comments: Thursday 31 January 2008
About this consultation
The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (CMA) will come into force on 06 April 2008 creating the new statutory offence of corporate manslaughter. The Sentencing Advisory Panel has issued this consultation to seek views on sentencing guidelines for this new offence.
The offences
An organisation is guilty of an offence under CMA if the way its activities are managed or organised:
a) causes a person’s death
b) amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased
A gross breach is defined as conduct that falls far below what can reasonably be expected in the circumstances. In deciding this, a jury will consider any relevant health and safety guidance and the ‘corporate culture’ of the organisation. This examination will be used to assess the seriousness of the breach and this will be used by a jury to decide the organisation’s culpability. The seriousness and culpability factors will be used to inform sentencing and the sanctions imposed.
The new offence is designed to compliment rather than replace existing offences under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. (HSWA)
The sanctions
The CMA only applies to organisations therefore imprisonment is not a sentencing option, but organisations found guilty can face:
i. Unlimited fines
ii. Publicity orders
iii. Remedial orders
i. Fines under CMA must reflect the seriousness of the offence and take into account the financial circumstances of the offender. The consultation sets out a range of models of how fines may be calculated.
ii. Publicity orders will require convicted organisations to advertise their conviction locally or nationally and across a range of media. The advertisements will include particulars of the offence, the amount of the fine imposed, and the terms of any remedial orders.
iii. Remedial orders will set out steps to be taken to ensure that the failures that led to the death are addressed. Failure to comply with a remedial order is an offence punishable on indictment by an unlimited fine.
In addition the court has the power to make an order requiring the organisation to pay compensation for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from the offence.
Your views are very important
We would like to hear your views on these proposed sentencing guidelines. Please read the consultation, consider the questions below and send your thoughts and comments to Murray.Clark@iosh.co.uk by Thursday 31 January 2008
Consultation questions
Question 1
Do you agree with the approach to the assessment of seriousness?
Question 2
Is each of the above aggravating and mitigating factors relevant to sentencing for:
a) an offence of corporate manslaughter
b) an offence under the HSWA involving death?
Are there are any other factors which may aggravate or mitigate either or both of these types of offence?
Question 3
What do you consider should be the main aim of sentencing an organisation for an offence of corporate manslaughter or an offence under the HSWA involving death? Should there be any difference between the two types of offence and, if so, why?
Question 4
Do you agree that the aims of the fine should be to ensure future safety and reflect serious concern at the unnecessary loss of life? Should there be any difference in aim when imposing a fine for corporate manslaughter or for an offence under the HSWA involving death?
Question 5
Do you agree that a fine imposed for an offence of corporate manslaughter or an offence under the HSWA involving death should aim to eliminate any financial benefit resulting from the offence? If so, what information would be necessary, and how could this be obtained?
Question 6
Do you agree with the Panel’s proposed starting points and ranges for a) offences of corporate manslaughter and b) offences under the HSWA involving death? If not, what alternative approach would you suggest for the fining of organisations for these offences?
Question 7
Do you agree that it is for the prosecution and defence to raise issues of profitability and liquidity? What impact should these factors have on the calculation of the fine?
Question 8
Do you consider that there should be a minimum fine for a) offences of corporate manslaughter and b) offences under the HSWA involving death? If so, what amount do you think would be appropriate?
Question 9
Do you consider that a report on each offender should be prepared for the court with full details of financial status? If so, how would this be provided?
Question 10
Do you agree with the Panel’s approach to the impact of the fine on the offender, its employees, customers and shareholders? If not, why not?
Question 11
Do you agree that the court should treat offenders consistently, whether or not they are publicly funded or providing a public service? If not, how do you think that considerations specific to public bodies should be reflected?
Question 12
Do you agree that, when sentencing an organisation for an offence of corporate manslaughter, the court should impose a publicity order?
Question 13
What should the extent of the publicity be and how (if at all) will this differ between offences of corporate manslaughter?
Question 14
Do you agree that the making of a publicity order should not lead to a reduction in the level of fine imposed on an organisation for an offence of corporate manslaughter?
Question 15
Do you agree that the making of a remedial order should not lead to a reduction in the level of fine imposed on an organisation for an offence of corporate manslaughter or an offence under the HSWA involving death?
- Created: 27 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Communities and Local Government
Iosh Response
Response Document: CoE_response_pdf.pdfSummary
A centre for excellence for the fire and rescue service
Published by: The Department for Communities and Local Government
Closing date for comments: Friday 25 January 2008
About this consultation
This consultation seeks to determine the level of support for a Centre of Excellence (CoE) for the Fire and Rescue Service (FRS). The CoE will only be established if FRS and other stakeholders offer support, including financial support. The consultation sets out a range of options for the role, functions, status and governance of a CoE.
Main points:
• Location – Moreton-in-the-Marsh
• Functions – organisational development, equality and diversity, operational doctrine, health and safety, fire prevention support, technology and research
• When – April 2009
• Funding – set up costs covered (if appropriate) by Dept for Communities and Local Government. Funding for functions to come from FRS starting in the financial year 2009-10 for 3 years.
In the area of health and safety, it is envisaged that the CoE will provide advice and guidance to the Dept. for Communities and Local Government and provide capacity at national level to help FRS maintain high standards.
- Created: 27 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Iosh Response
Response Document: BERR_Improving_outcomes_pdf.pdfSummary
Improving outcomes from health and safety: A call for evidence
Issued by: Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR)
Closing date for comments: Thursday 24 January 2008
About this consultation
This consultation paper sets out the key issues and questions of a review considering the how the health and safety regime affects small employers and employers whose overall risk is low such as microbusinesses (0-90 employees) small employers (0-49 employees) and small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) (<250 employees).
The Review was announced by Government in ‘Next Steps on Regulatory Reform’ alongside a series of other measures to improve regulation and the way it is perceived.
The review calls for views from anyone with an interest in the health and safety system, either through professional involvement or experience of being regulated or affected by it.
What does it cover?
The review looks at the health and safety system and influences on employers, issues around self-regulation and challenges for the system. The review calls for evidence in 6 key areas:
• General issues
• Perceptions of health and safety
• Drivers for better health and safety
• Information and advice
• Health and emerging risks
• The impact of regulatory structures on outcomes
- Created: 27 October 2009
Issued By: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)
Iosh Response
Response Document: NICE_Workplace_health_promotion_pdf.pdfSummary
Workplace health promotion: how to encourage employees to be physically active
Published by: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)
Closing date for comments: 23 January 2008
About this consultation
This document sets out the preliminary recommendations of the Public Health Interventions Advisory Committee (PHIAC) on the information to be included in public health guidance that aims to encourage employees to be more physically active.
Who is the guidance for?
The guidance is for employers and professionals who have a direct or indirect role in improving health in the workplace. This includes those working in the NHS, local authorities, human resources and occupational health.
Recommendations
The main recommendations of the PHIAC are that:
• Organisations develop an organisation-wide policy or plan to encourage employees to be more physically active. This should be developed in consultation with employees, set organisational targets and be sustainable.
• Organisations introduce and monitor an organisation-wide, multi component programme that might include a health check, information, advice and support and flexible working schemes.
• Employees should be encouraged to use the stairs and cycle or walk to work
- Created: 27 October 2009
Issued By: Work and Pensions Committee
Iosh Response
Response Document: W&P_Inquiry_response.pdfSummary
Work and Pensions Committee
Select Committee to inquiry into the Health and Safety Commission and Executive
Following a recent one-off evidence session, the Work and Pensions Committee has today announced a decision to undertake an inquiry into the operations and work of the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), and the proposals to merge the two bodies. In particular, the Committee will examine:
The legislative framework
Is the health and safety regulatory burden on businesses proportionate? Are EU directives interpreted and translated by HSC into UK law appropriately? Are businesses given appropriate guidance by HSE on their obligations under health and safety law? What impact will the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act (2007) have on businesses’ approach to occupational health and safety? Are director’s health and safety duties appropriately covered by voluntary guidance? What influence does HSE have as a statutory consultee in local authority planning?
Resources
Does the HSE have sufficient resources to fulfil its objectives as the health and safety regulator and meet its PSA targets? Does HSE allocate its budget efficiently? Are there areas of HSE’s operations that require additional investment?
Inspection, enforcement and prosecutions
What impact has the reduction in inspection rates had on standards of occupational health and safety? Does HSE get the balance right between prevention and enforcement? Are penalties for health and safety offences proportionate? Should the removal of its crown immunity be a priority for HSE? How effectively do HSE and local authorities interact in their inspection roles?
Hazardous Occupations
Is HSE doing enough to improve health and safety standards in hazardous occupations, in particular:
Is HSE doing enough to tackle the rise in fatalities in the construction industry?
Is HSE doing enough to tackle offshore health and safety risks in the oil and gas industry?
Is HSE doing enough to maintain health and safety standards in the chemicals industry?
Migrant workers
Are migrant workers more at risk of occupational accidents? Does HSE do enough to protect migrant workers from health and safety risks?
Occupational Health
What must HSE do to meet its PSA targets for ill health and days lost per worker? Does HSE do enough to embed vocational rehabilitation in the workplace?
- Created: 27 October 2009
Issued By: National Director for Health
Iosh Response
Response Document: Carol_Black_response_pdf.pdfSummary
No summary is available for this consultation
- Created: 27 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
Iosh Response
Response Document: Sustainable_construction_pdf.pdfSummary
Draft strategy for sustainable construction: a consultation paper
Published by: The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR)
Closing date for comments: Friday 23 November 2007
About the consultation
This strategy document aims to establish a joint government and industry strategy for sustainable construction and is part of the government’s initiative to achieve a lower carbon budget for the UK. It builds on previous strategy documents related to the construction industry, such as ‘Rethinking construction’ (1998) and ‘Accelerating change’ (2002) and proposes a platform for change across government and industry.
Aims
The strategy aims to achieve a step change in the sustainability of the construction industry that will reduce the current levels of landfill waste, water consumed, emissions and new materials used in construction.
What does it cover?
The strategy is divided into the following sections:
1. Industry Improvement Elements (the Means)
This area covers: procurement, design, innovation, the people agenda (includes health and safety), better regulation and business support simplification.
2. Output Elements (the Ends)
This area covers: climate change, water, biodiversity, waste and materials.
3. Delivery:
This area covers: delivery of the sustainable construction strategy and how achievements will be monitored.
Each area for action has been allocated targets and milestones and work to achieve these by both government and the industry is outlined.
- Created: 27 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Children, Schools and Families
Iosh Response
Response Document: Staying_Safe_pdf[1].pdfSummary
Staying Safe: A consultation document
Published by: The Department for Children, Schools and Families
Closing date for comments: 25 October 2007
About
This document seeks to raise awareness of issues around the safety of children and young people and looks at how to strike a balance between keeping children safe and allowing them to grow, explore and enjoy their childhoods. It sets out existing work at national and local level and makes proposals for new action.
What does it cover?
The consultation is divided into 3 main sections:
• Helping all children and young people to stay safe
• Protecting vulnerable children and young people
• Responding when children and young people have been harmed.
Principles for improving the safety of children and young people
The key principle behind improving the safety of children and young people as set out in the consultation is that everyone working in this area should be alert to risks and indicators of harm and know when and with whom to share information. Some specific occupational groups that need this awareness are mentioned including employees in:
• Children’s services
• Police services
• NHS organisations
• Services for vulnerable adults
• Schools and Further Education Colleges
Understanding and managing risks
To help children and young people to understand an manage the risks they face, the consultation advocates teaching safety in schools through Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) teachers. Proposals in this area are:
• To carry out a research study into the best PSHE materials for teaching about safety, helping teachers to identify which resources will be most helpful for their particular school;
• To create a module of Continuing Professional Development for teachers of PSHE about how to teach children and young people to keep themselves safe.
- Created: 27 October 2009
Issued By: The Office of Science and Innovation
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf_SACs.pdfSummary
Update to the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees
Published by: The Office of Science and Innovation
Closing date for comments: Friday 7 September 2007
About this consultation
This consultation is issued by the Office of Science and Innovation presents proposals to update the Code of Practice used by Scientific Advisory Committees (SACs). These committees cover a wide range of areas and offer advice to government on policy-making based on scientific evidence. The code is used by SACs, their chairs, members and secretariats and provides detailed guidance on the operation of SACs.
Main changes
The consultation addresses recommendations by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and updates the existing Code in line with these. The changes reflect a change in emphasis on the use of all forms of evidence and aim to ensure key decision makers can be confident that evidence is robust and stands up to the challenges of credibility, reliability and objectivity.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Guide to safety at sports grounds
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf_Guide_to_safety_at_sports_grounds.pdfSummary
Guide to safety at sports grounds
Published by: The Football Licensing Authority (FLA)
Closing date for comments: 31 August 2007
About this consultation
This is a consultation on the fifth edition of the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds, often known as the green guide. The Guide has no statutory force but many of its recommendations will be made statutory at individual grounds by their inclusion in safety certificates issued under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 or the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987.
The draft text does not include a glossary or worked examples to access these please follow the links below:
Worked examples:
http://www.flaweb.org.uk/files/20070731WE.doc
Glossary: http://
www.flaweb.org.uk/files/20070723glossary.doc
What is the scope of the guide?
The Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 defines a sports ground as:
‘A place where sports or other competitive activities take place in the open air, and where accommodation has been provided for spectators, consisting of artificial structures or of natural structures artificially modified for the purpose.’
The Guide applies to the safety of spectators at all sports grounds which meet the above definition, whether or not the grounds are issued with a safety certificate.
What is the guide for?
The object of the Guide is to provide guidance to ground management, technical specialists such as architects and engineers, and representatives of all relevant authorities, in order to assist them in the assessment of how many spectators can be safely accommodated within a sports ground used for a sporting event. The document also provides guidance on measures intended to improve safety at existing grounds, in terms both of their design and safety management, while taking into account the constraints and difficulties which may exist at these grounds. In addition, the Guide offers guidance on how to apply good practice in the design and management of new grounds or newly constructed sections of grounds.
Main changes
The draft document follows the format of the fourth edition except that the chapter on spectators with disabilities has been integrated into the general text. Almost all the other chapters have been brought up to date, and chapter 2, ‘Management – responsibility and planning for safety’ has been revised to include sections on: fire safety legislation, the Disability Discrimination Act, deputising, staffing – risk assessment, staffing – numbers, counter terrorism and pre-event activities.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: European Commission
Iosh Response
Response Document: EU_Strategy_response.pdfSummary
No summary is available for this document
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Cabinet Office
Iosh Response
Response Document: CoP_for_ Regulators_pdf.pdfSummary
A Code of Practice for Regulators – A Consultation
Issued by the Cabinet Office Better Regulation Task Force
Closing date for comments: Wednesday 01 August 2007
Background
This consultation is based on the recommendations of the Hampton Report and stresses the need for regulators carrying out regulatory activities to adopt a constructive and preventative approach towards ensuring compliance by:
• Helping and encouraging regulated entities to understand and meet regulatory requirements more easily; and
• Responding proportionately to regulatory breaches
This consultation
The purpose of the Compliance Code is to promote efficient and effective approaches to regulatory inspection and enforcement. It aims to ensure that legislation is fit for the purpose and is enforced in a proportionate, flexible, risk-based manner to ensure that resources are focussed on areas where risks to society are greatest.
The Compliance Code is in two parts. Part 1 is an introductory section describing the purpose, background and scope of the Code. Part 2 covers the specific obligations of the Code.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Cabinet Office
Iosh Response
Response Document: Regulatory_Enforcement_Sanctions.pdfSummary
Consultation on the Draft Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill
Issued by the Cabinet Office Better Regulation Task Force
Closing date for comments: Wednesday 01 August 2007
Background
Local Authority (LA) trading standards and environmental health services are the largest regulatory enforcement operation in the United Kingdom (UK) and are responsible for enforcing hundreds of regulations. Phillip Hampton’s 2005 review identified a lack of consistency and coordination in LA regulatory services and recommended a risk-based approach to raise standards, improve efficiency and support compliance.
This consultation
Part 1
The proposed Bill aims to implement the Hampton agenda and is comprised of two parts. The first establishes the Local Better Regulation Office (LBRO) as a statutory corporation with statutory powers. The objective of the LBRO is to help LAs regulate more effectively and it will have five key functions. These are:
• improving the coordination and consistency of regulatory functions and enforcement
through the Primary Authority Principle, resolving disputes when they arise;
• issuing guidance to local authorities in respect of regulatory services;
• reviewing and revising a list of national priorities for local authority regulatory
services;
• providing advice to Government on enforcement and regulatory issues associated
with local government; and
• encouraging best practice, and innovative approaches to the provision of local
authority regulatory services, including through the use of its programme budget
The consultation provides detailed examination of how these functions will be executed.
Part 2
The second part of the Bill focuses on sanctions, and proposes to introduce an alternative system of civil sanctions referred to as the ‘extended sanctioning toolkit’. Hampton had found penalty regimes to be ‘cumbersome and ineffective’ and called for a review. This was carried out by Prof Richard Macrory whose proposals are reflected in this part of the Bill.
The aim of the ‘toolkit is to set up a modern, targeted, fit for purpose sanctioning regime that will provide a broad range of regulatory sanctions to allow regulators to choose the most appropriate and effective response to non-compliance. The new sanctions can be used in combination with each other and alongside current existing sanctions.
The proposed ‘extended sanctioning toolkit’ is made up of the following:
• Fixed monetary penalties (The level of penalties will be predetermined by legislation and recipients of a Fixed Monetary Penalty would be able to appeal.)
• Discretionary requirements: (applied to more serious offences and would take into account aggravating and mitigating circumstances.)
- Variable Monetary Penalties
- Compliance and Restoration notices
• Cessation notices- permanent and temporary ( requires the defaulter to take such steps as the notice may specify, within a deadline, to make sure that the regulatory non-compliance does not continue or recur)
• Enforcement undertakings (promises made by the defaulter to the regulator to take specific actions related to the non-compliance.)
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: British Standards Institution (BSI)
Iosh Response
Response Document: BS31100_CoP_risk_mgt_pdf.pdfSummary
Draft BS 31100 Code of practice for risk management
Issued by the British Standards Institution (BSI)
Closing date for comments: Monday 16 July 2007
This consultation
This draft British standard aims to assist organisations to achieve their objectives through effective risk management. It provides definitions of risk management terms and a guide to risk management principles, models, framework and processes. Annexes supply information on risk management tools and a glossary of risk management terms.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf_SWMPs_defra.pdfSummary
Consultation on site waste management plans for the construction industry
Issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
Closing date for comments: Tuesday 26 June 2007
Background
The government estimates that the UK construction industry uses 400 million tonnes of solid materials annually, but that only two-thirds are added to building stock. The remainder is sent directly to landfill. There has also been a rise in waste crime – illegally dumped or fly-tipped construction waste – which results in clearance and enforcement costs to Local Authorities and the Environment Agency of between £50 and £100 million per year. To help tackle these problems it is proposed to make regulations requiring that those responsible for construction projects should prepare a site waste management plan (SWMP).
About this consultation
This consultation seeks views on the benefits and costs of introducing legislation to make site waste management plans (SWMPs) a legal requirement in England. The term ‘construction’ in the consultation refers to all forms of building, civil engineering, refurbishment and maintenance work. The consultation explains the background to the proposals, what a SWMP is, who it will apply to and how it will be enforced. Regulations covering SWMPs could be in place as early as April 2008, dependent on the results of this consultation.
Proposals
The main proposals for SWMPs are as follows:
• Waste should be considered at the design conception and planning stage and the design and material specifications should be adapted to address waste management issues.
• The type of waste that will be produced on site should be determined and how much of this can be reused or recycled should be considered.
• Before work begins, the client will sign and commit to the principles of the waste duty of care regime. Duties should be explained to contractors and sub-contractors.
• The SWMP will be kept up-to-date with actual quantities of waste. This may be subject to inspection by regulatory bodies.
• Savings and lessons learnt from the SWMP should help to improve resource efficiency when planning future projects.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: CD212_ response_pdf.pdfSummary
Proposals for revised policies to address societal risk around onshore non-nuclear major hazard installations - CD212
Issued by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
Closing date for comments: Friday June 22 2007
Background
This consultation results from the work of a Governmental Task Group set up to look at how to address societal risk and the various economic, social and public health and safety policy implications of doing so. The government is seeking informed public opinion to guide decisions on societal risk, not solely the judgement of professionals.
About this consultation
This consultation looks at the concept of societal risk and explains what HSE mean by this term. It discusses the current arrangements for managing risk around major hazard sites and invites views on how societal risk can be factored into the existing management arrangements. The consultation document gives some background information on the tolerability of risk principle, the COMAH Regulations and the current regime for planning and population control around major hazard sites.
Proposals
The consultation document argues that there is now more information available on societal risk and therefore it should be factored into on-site measures. Although this may mean major (and possibly expensive) work is required by the site operator the principle of ‘reasonably practicable and proportionate in cost’ is retained.
The other main area examined in the consultation is HSE advice to planning authorities (PAs).
Currently this does not take account of the cumulative effects of developments over time on societal risk, but it is argued that this should be considered as the adverse effect of any incident may be greater if more people are present.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Institute of Directors and the Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf_IoD_guide.pdfSummary
Leading health and safety at work: actions and good practice for board members
Issued by the Institute of Directors and the Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: Friday June 15 2007
This consultation
Directors and boards have a vital role in the achievement of high standards of workplace health and safety in their organisations. At the request of the HSC, the Institute of Directors (IoD) is leading a steering group of key stakeholders, including IOSH, to produce new, authoritative guidance setting out clearly what’s expected of directors.
About the guidance
The guidance sets out an agenda for embedding fundamental health and safety principles and includes a checklist of key questions, a summary of legal liabilities and a list of resources and references for implementing this guidance in detail.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Disability Rights Commission
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf_draft_disability_webpages.pdfSummary
DRC Project stage 2: guidance on risk assessment and disability
Issued by the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) and the Health and Safety Commission
Background
In January 2007 the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) and the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) issued a statement on the overarching principles of the health and safety management and disability.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/disability/risk.htm
The statement outlines that health and safety law and its implementation is in the interests of all employees, whether disabled or non-disabled, and that disabled people should expect effective and enabling risk management in the workplace. It concludes that health and safety should never be used as a false excuse to justify discriminatory treatment and it should be the exception rather than the rule to exclude disabled people from particular jobs and tasks.
About this guidance
The DRC and HSE have produced this draft guidance document as the basis for consultation on content, and are simultaneously developing a web resource so that the actual site and its accessibility can be tested with a range of disabled people in June 2007.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Trade and Industry (DTI)
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf_success_at_work_response.pdfSummary
Consultation on measures to protect vulnerable agency workers
Published by: The Department for Trade and Industry (DTI)
Closing date for comments: Friday 25 May 2007
Background and key facts
• The agency and temporary work sector is estimated to be worth £24.8 billion to the UK economy.
• Three are 17,000 employment agencies in the UK
• There are approximately 1 million temporary business and contract workers in the UK
About the consultation
This consultation addresses the needs of certain vulnerable agency workers who face the risk of being denied their employment rights and who are less able to protect themselves. The intention of the consultation document is to remedy bad practices that fall outside the current legislation governing this sector. (The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003).
The proposals
The proposals aim to strengthen the existing legislation and guidance, and address the following areas:
• Charges for unwanted services (e.g. accommodation, transport)
• The provision of loans that are not easily repaid
• Confusion over information requirements for short-term assignments
• Fees taken on the day of or during a casting session
• Costs charged to models and actors for inclusion in publications and websites.
The consultation is made up of a discussion of the issues, a copy of the proposed legislation, a partial regulatory impact assessment, and a short questionnaire.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf_cd211.pdfSummary
Proposals for revised policies for HSE advice on development control around large-scale petrol storage sites
Issued by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
Closing date for comments: Tuesday 15 May 2007
Background
This consultation follows from the investigation into the accident at Buncefield Oil Storage Depot in December 2005, in which a large vapour cloud exploded injuring 40 people and destroying or damaging 80 businesses. Prior to this accident a large vapour cloud explosion of this type was not considered credible for this type of site and it is still not known exactly how the incident occurred. Research into vapour clouds is ongoing, but previous safety assumptions about sites like Buncefield are now open to challenge. There are between 50 and 60 sites of this type in Great Britain.
Proposals
The HSE manages the areas around hazardous sites through a system of Land-Use Planning (LUP) which is guided by policy objectives and principles. The Buncefield accident shows that some changes need to be considered and the consultation sets out 4 possible options for changes to the distances, zone boundaries and advice that accompany LUP for new petrol storage depots. Any changes will not be imposed retrospectively on developments around existing sites. HSE request your opinion on these options which are based on the best evidence currently available.
HSE is also consulting on whether the principles guiding LUP remain a sound basis for HSE’s land use planning advice to planning authorities or if these need to be revised.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Work and Pensions
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf_IIDB_response.pdfSummary
Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit Scheme: A consultation paper
Published by: The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)
Closing date for comments: Monday 16 April 2007
About the consultation
This consultation is a review of the Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) scheme which provides compensation and benefits for people who are injured or made ill through work. The review is part of the government’s welfare reform package that aims to help more people move off benefits and back into work. The review addresses questions such as who should be covered by a new occupational injury scheme and whether employers should do more to help reduce the risks of work related accidents and illness.
Background and key facts about IIBD
IIDB was first introduced in 1948 at a time when 61 per cent of jobs were in heavy industry. It provides state-funded no fault compensation for disablement arising from injuries or diseases caused by work. There are currently 350,000 people receiving IIDB in the UK at a cost of £776m. Just over half of current claimants are working age (53 per cent). Four out of five claimants are men. Each year there are 13,000 new claims put into payment.
The consultation argues that the world of work has changed greatly since the inception of IIBD, with a sizable shift away from the heavy industries to the point where 70 per cent of today's workforce operates in the office and service occupations and women now form half the workforce. In the light of these changes, a more modern scheme is required that might include help with early rehabilitation and financial incentives for employers relating to health and safety to help reduce the risks of accidents and illness.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Trade and Industry (DTI)
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf_workplace_reps_1.pdfSummary
Workplace representatives: a review of their facilities and facility time
Published by: The Department for Trade and Industry (DTI)
Closing date for comments: Thursday 22 March 2007
About the consultation
This consultation presents the first findings of a government review into facilities and facility time provided to union and non-union workplace representative in the UK.
The review addresses 2 key points:
• Whether new methods of working at the modern workplace seriously affect the ability of workplace representatives to function well
• Whether the effectiveness and efficiency of workplace representatives can be enhanced in order to optimise the net benefits they bring to employer, employees and society in general
The review looks at the characteristics of representatives, their training, time off requirements, and facilities available to them. The annexes contain information on the benefits and costs of representatives and an examination of the legal framework.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Education and Skills (DfES)
Iosh Response
Response Document: Accidental_injury_to_pupil_pdf.pdfSummary
How to investigate fairly after any accidental injury to a pupil
Published by: The Department for Education and Skills
Closing date for comments: Wednesday 14 March 2007
About the consultation
This draft guidance aims to offer guidance and information for school employers and employees on the fair investigation of an accidental injury to a pupil taking part in school activities outside the classroom.
The draft guidance briefly cross-refers to existing guidance and contains a list of references to further sources of information. The main aim of the guidance is to reassure staff about their rights and duties when participating in out of school activities, therefore the main focus of the guidance is the law, both civil and criminal, and types of insurance.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Commission
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf_CD_210_a_stronger_voice.pdfSummary
A Stronger voice for health and safety CD210
Published by: The Health and Safety Commission
Closing date for comments: Monday 26 February 2007
About the consultation
This consultation seeks views on proposals to merge the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to form a single Non Departmental Public Body (NDPB).
The proposed changes are driven by both public accountability requirements and changes to the world of work. The proposed changes aim to deliver:
• A more accountable structure
• Better decision making
• A clearer public and regulatory presence
Although the business of the new governing body would be similar to that undertaken by the HSC, it would have a broader remit than the existing HSC as it would scrutinise programme delivery and expenditure and hold the ‘CEO and his senior management team to account for matters relating to operational effectiveness and efficiency’. The new governing body would in turn be accountable to Ministers for organisational performance.
The structure of the new governing body for health and safety
Two models were considered for the structure of the new governing body:
• The non executive model (membership of the governing body is entirely composed of non-executive directors)
• The mixed model (the CEO, with or without members of his senior team, sits on the governing body with non-executive directors)
Both models are explained full in the consultation, but it is the non executive model that is favoured by HSC.
Coming into force
If the consultation is favourable to the proposals, new structures will be put in place as soon as possible, but it is unlikely that the necessary legislative changes could take place before summer 2008.
Please look at the 9 key questions HSC is asking about this consultation, and let us know your thought son any or all of them. The questions are:
Question 1 – Do you agree with our proposals for merging HSC and HSE into a new single authority for regulating health and safety at work in Great Britain?
Question 2 – Do you agree with the overarching governance principles for a new merged health and safety authority?
Question 3 – Do you agree that the governing body of the new merged health and safety authority should consist entirely of non-executive directors?
Question 4 – Do you agree that the governing body should have the scope to increase in size to 11 independent members should the need arise in future?
Do you have views on the right size?
Question 5 – We would welcome your views on whether we should be doing more to enhance our relationship with stakeholders
Question 6 – Do you agree that prosecution and individual enforcement decisions within a merged health and safety authority should continue to be taken by officials?
Question 7 – Do you agree that the merged body should be known as the Health and Safety Executive?
Question 8 – In your view, how well does this Consultative Document represent the different policy issues involved in this matter?
Question 9 – Is there anything you particularly liked or disliked about this consultation exercise?
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee
Iosh Response
Response Document: Lords_employment_trng_YP_pdf.pdfSummary
No summary is available for this document.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Laboratory
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf_LPGA_Code_of_Practice.pdfSummary
LPGA Code of Practice 1: Bulk LPG Storage at Fixed Installations - Part 4 Buried/Mounded LPG Storage vessels.
Published by: The Health and Safety Laboratory
Closing date for comments: Wednesday 06 December 2006
About the consultation
This consultation seeks views on a draft Code of Practice (CoP) produced by the LP Gas Association (LPGA) for bulk LPG storage at fixed installations.
A response to this consultation was produced by the Hazardous Industries SG on behalf of IOSH and this is available to view or download above.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Commission
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf_worker_involvement.pdfSummary
CD207 Improving worker involvement – Improving health and safety
This consultation is published by the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and sets out options aimed at increasing the quantity and quality of worker involvement in health and safety risk management.
The HSC believe that worker involvement is at the heart of sensible health and safety management, and that providing encouragement and support for greater worker consultation and partnerships with management will lead to a reduction in workplace accidents and ill-health, and create competitive and successful organisations.
The HSC strategy for achieving an increase in worker involvement is based on three pillars. These are:
• Legislation
• Guidance
• Encouragement
The consultation presents options for strengthening these pillars through:
• Providing and promoting better good practice guidance
• Developing a framework of voluntary standards of best practice
• Amending the legislation on worker consultation
CD207 outlines the background to the consultation, gives details of the three pillars strategy and presents the options for strengthening these. It also provides and partial regulatory impact assessment and an explanation of the current legal framework for worker involvement in health and safety. A questionnaire exploring the issues raised in the consultation is also provided, but the key questions HSC would like consultees to address are:
1. Have we got the right legislation, guidance and encouragement?
2. Have we got the balance between these three right? In particular, would further legislation bring improvements?
3. If we were to propose amendments to the regulations, how can we keep administrative burdens to a minimum and maximise the impact on improved health and safety?
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Department of Health
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf_Nuisance_NHS_ healthcare.pdfSummary
Tackling nuisance behaviour on NHS healthcare premises: a paper for consultation
Published by: The Department of Health (DH)
Closing date for comments: Friday 25 August 2006
Background
In 2004-05 more than 60,000 assaults were carried out on NHS staff, and although legal measures are in place to prosecute offenders after the event, this consultation presents a more proactive approach that seeks to prevent incidents of nuisance or disturbance behaviour escalating into violence in the first place.
Proposals
The consultation proposes to make causing a nuisance or disturbance on NHS premises a summary legal offence, punishable by a fine of up to £1,000, and to give certain employees the power to remove persons committing this offence from NHS premises.
Scope of the proposals
The legislation would cover the following:
• NHS Trusts
• Primary Care Trusts (PCTs)
• NHS Foundation Trusts
This includes all buildings owned, leased or managed by these NHS health bodies and all external areas such as car parks, paths and parkland. It is believed that these measures would prevent and reduce the human and financial impact of crime on the NHS and would also:
• Tackle fear of crime and low staff morale, and provide staff with a better working environment
• Provide a safer treatment environment for patients
• Free up resources
• Reduce the impact of NHS crime on the police and Criminal Justice System
Consultation questions
1. Do you agree that a new offence and power of removal is needed to deal with the problem of nuisance or disturbance behaviour on NHS healthcare premises?
2. Do you agree that section 547 of the Education Act 1996 (c.56) offence is a suitable model for use within the NHS?
3. Which types of behaviour should be covered?
4. Which types of NHS bodies and NHS premises should be covered by these proposals?
5. Is the proposed sanction appropriate and proportionate?
6. Do you agree that use of the powers should be authorised by a ‘responsible person’ designated by the chief executive of the health body?
7. What additional safeguards do you think will need to be put in place to ensure that these powers are operated in a fair, objective and ethical manner?
8. What sort of training do you think security staff removing nuisance individuals will need?
9. How often do you think the power of removal will be used?
10. Do you think these proposals could adversely affect any particular group of society?
11. What safeguards do you think will need to be in place to prevent this from happening?
12. How should this be monitored?
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Department of Health
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf_picture_warnings.pdfSummary
Consultation on the introduction of picture warnings on tobacco packs
Published by: The Department of Health
Closing date for comments: 21 August 2006
About the consultation
The consultation is made up of:
• Introduction and background information on the proposals
• Proposed timescales for the introduction of picture warnings
• Library of pictures that will appear on tobacco products
• Partial regulatory Assessment
What are the proposals?
This consultation presents plans to print picture warnings on all tobacco products sold in the United Kingdom (UK). The pictures will be full colour photographs taken from a library of images held by the European Commission. 14 images have been chosen from the library and will be used in rotation on packaging. The images will appear on cigarette packs by September 2008 and all other tobacco products by September 2009.
The picture warnings are being introduced to maintain the effectiveness of the successful written warnings on tobacco products, introduced in 2003. Evidence shows these have encouraged many people to give up or reduce the amount they smoke.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA)
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf_Driver_assessment.pdfSummary
Driving for Work: Driver Assessment and Training and Driving for Work: In-Vehicle Technology consultations
Published by: Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA)
Closing date for comments: 30 June 2006
About these consultations
With support from the Department for Transport (DfT) RoSPA is producing two additional guides in the series of ‘Driving for Work’ resources. They will be designed to encourage and help employers to introduce policies on assessing and training drivers and on the provision and safe use of in-vehicle technology, for example SatNavs.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA)
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf_in-vehicle_technology.pdfSummary
Driving for Work: Driver Assessment and Training and Driving for Work: In-Vehicle Technology consultations
Published by: Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA)
Closing date for comments: 30 June 2006
About these consultations
With support from the Department for Transport (DfT) RoSPA is producing two additional guides in the series of ‘Driving for Work’ resources. They will be designed to encourage and help employers to introduce policies on assessing and training drivers and on the provision and safe use of in-vehicle technology, for example SatNavs.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf_nanoscale_materials.pdfSummary
Consultation on a proposed Voluntary Reporting Scheme for engineered nanoscale materials
Published by: The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
Closing date for comments: 16 June 2006
About the consultation document
The consultation comprises:
• background information on free engineered nanoscale materials and nanotechnologies
• proposals for the operation of a voluntary reporting scheme for producers, importers and users of these materials
• details of a publicity campaign to encourage industry participation in the scheme
• partial regulatory impact assessment (RAI) which outlines the costs and benefits of the scheme
What are engineered nanoscale materials?
A nanometre (nm) is one billionth of a metre. Nanoscale sized particles are fabricated from a range of materials including metals such as gold and copper, oxides, ceramics and even organic matter. When reduced to nanoscale-size these materials exhibit novel features that they do not display at larger sizes. These new properties can be used in a wide range of applications and it is envisaged that nanotechnologies will have an impact in many areas of our lives. Already, they are utilised in the production of a range of products including sunscreens, paint, photographic paper, self cleaning windows fuel additives and even socks.
What are the occupational health and safety implications?
There are a large number of uncertainties posed by the development of nanoscale technologies, and this consultation proposes that evidence about risk should be gathered in order to provide a sound basis for consideration of what controls may be needed. The consultation describes this as the ‘green line’ approach. Areas of concern include the risks to the environment, food safety, occupational health and safety, clinical safety and public health posed by the production use and disposal of nanotechnologies.
What is the consultation about?
The consultation proposes a voluntary reporting scheme (VRS) to encourage industry to submit existing data on the characteristics of engineered nanoscale materials, in order to develop an evidence base of the materials currently in production. This is necessary as there is very little data available and uncertainty surrounds the risks posed and the controls needed. The VRS would seek to gather a range of information including, data on physico-chemical properties, toxicity and risk management practices. It is proposed that the VRS will operate for an initial 2-year period, with 6 monthly reviews by Defra during this period. Data from the scheme will be shared across government and be used to inform the assessment of potential risks, develop appropriate controls and good practice guidance for making handling and using nanoscale materials.
Key questions
Do you agree with the overall ‘green line’ approach of moving towards evidence-based appropriate controls? If not, what alternatives would you suggest?
Do you agree with the proposed Voluntary Reporting Scheme? If not, what alternatives would you suggest?
Do you have any views on the appropriate format or method for reporting to the scheme?
How should good practice guidance be developed and disseminated, and by whom?
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Education and Skills
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdfEvery_child_matters.pdfSummary
Every Child Matters – Primary Capital Programme
Published by: The Department for Education and Skills (DfES)
Closing date for comments: 14 June 2006
Background
This consultation looks at the long-term needs of primary school buildings and sets out a strategy for the improvement of at least half of all primary schools and primary-age special schools. This includes rebuilding 5 per cent of those buildings in the worst physical condition nationally, and the worst 20 per cent in the most-deprived communities.
What are the proposals?
The strategy calls for good, sustainable design that meets local needs, achieves significant national impact, utilises the best models of procurement and construction and delivers value for money for the taxpayer. The strategy is accompanied by the following short set of questions that seek to explore views on how these aims can be achieved and the barriers that might be encountered.
Key questions
1 What are the most important ways that capital investment can help primary schools play a role at the heart of the community and deliver wider services to children?
2 Do you agree with the proposal to allocate funding on a formulaic basis, with every authority benefiting from additional funding from the second year of the programme?
3 Do you agree with the proposed framework of national targets, planning and monitoring?
4 What are the barriers to joined-up planning and funding?
5 Do you agree with the proposed approach for ensuring good, sustainable design in the primary capital programme?
6 Is this the best way to achieve efficiency and best value for money?
7 Do you agree with the aims and approach for ICT within this programme?
8 What additional support is needed to build the skills and capacity of those involved in making the programme a success?
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Education and Skills (DfES)
Iosh Response
Response Document: Raising_skills_response.pdfSummary
Further Education: Raising skills, improving life chances – Cm 6768
Published by: Department for Education and Skills
Closing date for comments: Monday 12 June 2006
About this consultation
This White Paper sets out government reforms of the of the further education (FE) system. The reforms aim to enable the nation to meet future economic and social challenges by providing a labour force with the skills needed to sustain the economy. Currently for post 16 education and training the UK ranks 24th out of 27 developed nations and for adults with skills at level 2, the UK ranks 17th out of 30 developed nations.
To improve these positions a range of measures are presented including Continuing Professional Development (CPD) requirements for staff, recruitment of skilled specialists to teach in FE, leadership qualifications for college principals and a range of specialist diplomas designed with input from employers and other stakeholders.
The new system is focused on core employability and a range of funding options will be made available. One area that will cease to receive any funding is health and safety qualifications for employees, as employers ‘should cover the full cost’.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf_INDG322.pdfSummary
No summary is available for this document.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: European Commission Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf_EC_Green_Paper_Mental_Health.pdfSummary
Green Paper – Improving the mental health of the population: Towards a strategy on mental health for the European Union
This Green Paper is published by the European Commission Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General and proposes that a European Union (EU) strategy on mental health should be developed. The aim of the Green Paper is to launch debate about the relevance of mental health in the EU, whether there is a need for a strategy or not and if so, what its priorities should be.
The paper proposes that ‘there is no health without mental health’ and outlines the scope of mental ill health in the EU. For example:
• 1 persons in 4 is affected by mental health problems
• 27 per cent of adult Europeans experience a form of mental ill health every year
• 28 per cent of employees report stress at work
• The most common forms of mental ill health are depression and anxiety disorders
• By 2020 depression will be the highest ranking cause of disease in the developed world
• 3 to 4 per cent of EU GDP is lost through mental ill health
• It is the leading cause of early retirement and disability pensions in the EU
The paper suggests a comprehensive approach across all policy areas is needed, and highlights that workplaces are crucial settings for action. It goes on to suggest a series of initiatives that could be included in a EU strategy to tackle this difficult problem.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: British Standards Institution (BSI)
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdfPAS99.pdfSummary
PAS 99 Requirements for Integrating Management Systems
This PAS specifies requirements for a framework that addresses the needs of the management system where two or more management system standards or specifications are being used by an organisation. This PAS looks at the nature of an organisation’s management systems and draws together the common requirements of management system standards and specifications into a single management system. It is primarily intended to be used with: ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO 27001, ISO 22000, ISO 20000 and OHSAS 18001.
This is not an exhaustive list of all the standards and specifications that can be used in an integrated management system and standards from other disciplines not subject to ISO control may be incorporated. It may also be used in respect of management systems which are not the subject of any management system standards. It applies to all sizes and types of organisation. It is not primarily intended for organisations where their management system is based upon a single standard or specification except as preparation for the adoption of additional systems or standards.
NOTE: The organisation should specify the scope of operations that the IMS covers.
BSI issued the text as a limited, private consultation and it is covered by full copyright restrictions. For these reasons neither the document nor any part of it can be reproduced on this site, but the IOSH response to the document can be reproduced.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Work and Pensions
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdfWelfareReform.pdfSummary
Cm6730 - A new deal for welfare: Empowering people to work
This consultation is a Green Paper presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. It opens the debate about the future direction of welfare reforms in the UK and explains the way the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) aim to:
• Reduce the number of claimants on incapacity benefit by 1 million
• Help 300,000 lone parents into work
• Increase the number of number of older workers by 1 million
The Green Paper sets out the background thinking behind the proposed benefit reforms, examines the challenges involved in achieving the aims outlined above, and explains the principles and approaches that may be used.
The consultation also highlights the integral role of occupational health and safety in workplace well-being and effective business management, and discusses the Workplace Health Connect pilot project. This project aims to ensure that everyone working in small firms will have free access to consistent, high quality advice on creating a healthy workplace and should provide national coverage by 2008, subject to availability of resources.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: competencedoc.pdfSummary
Managing competence for safety-related systems
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 24 February 2006
This guidance explains the main features on a competence management system (CMS) for all staff at all levels of responsibility that work on safety-related systems within an organisation. It describes the main features of a CMS and gives details on how to implement and operate a CMS effectively.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Department of Health
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf NHS firecode.pdfSummary
Fire Safety in the NHS: Guidance in support of functional requirements
Published by: The Department of Health
Closing date for comments: 08 February 2006
What is this consultation about?
This is a technical memorandum which provides a framework of core fire safety measures which should be incorporated into the design of new healthcare buildings or modifications to existing buildings. It supersedes all previous guidance and comes into effect from 1 April 2006.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Education and Skills
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf Education outside the classroom.pdfSummary
No summary is available for this document.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Department of Health
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf Healthcare waste.pdfSummary
Safe management of healthcare waste: A public consultation
Published by: The Department of Health
Closing date for comments: 02 February 2006
About this consultation
Draft best practice guidance which updates and revises previous guidance issued by HSE. Includes legislative changes governing the storage, carriage, treatment and disposal of healthcare waste.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf Asbestos CD205.pdfSummary
CD205 - Proposals for revised Asbestos Regulations and an Approved Code of Practice
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 25 January 2006
This consultation is issued by the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and sets out proposals to implement the European Asbestos Worker Protection Directive (AWPD). EU Member states have until April 2006 to implement the required changes. In the UK, it is proposed that these will take the form of a new set of regulations and an Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) which will replace the following existing legislation:
The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002
The Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983
The Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 1992
These regulations will be combined into a single set of regulations. It is proposed that the new regulations will include a number of changes including:
a) A new concept where the requirement to notify work to the enforcing authority (HSE or the Local Authority) and the requirement for medical surveillance of workers will not apply to certain specified types of work.
b) A new World Health Organisation (WHO) asbestos fibre counting method will replace the
current European Reference Method (ERM).
c) A risk-based approach to define what comes within the definition of sporadic and low intensity worker exposure and a definition of which work will be exempt from a licence on the same basis. The requirement to have a licence would be based on whether or not the worker exposure is likely to be sporadic and low intensity.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Scottish Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf Expert Group report on CorpHom.pdfSummary
No summary is available for this document.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Royal College of General Practitioners
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf GP curriculum.pdfSummary
No summary is available for this document.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf gangmasters exclusions 2.pdfSummary
No summary is available for this document.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf building regs.pdfSummary
No summary is available for this document.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Department for Education and Skills
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf BB100 fire in schools.pdfSummary
BB100 Designing and managing against the risk of fire in schools
Published by: The Department for Education and Skills
Closing date for comments: Monday 24 October 2005
About this consultation
This guidance document issued by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) addresses the issues of life safety and property protection. The aim of the guidance is to reduce the risk of fires occurring, or the spread of fires, through good design and management practices.
The guidance is applicable to all Local Educational Authority (LEA) maintained schools in England and Wales, and will be of interest to a variety of individuals and bodies including: LEAs, Head Teachers, School Governors, Building Control bodies and the Fire and Rescue Services and Design Consultants.
The guidance advocates a risk assessment approach which requires the identification and assessment of risks presented by different areas of a school, and where necessary, the implementation of actions to reduce them.
The guidance provides advice on a wide range of areas including the roles of the Head Teacher and staff, escape routes, preventing the spread of fire, the design of ancillary accommodation (such as kitchens and laboratories) automatic fire detection and suppression systems and utilities.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf railways infrastructure.pdfSummary
No summary is available for this document.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Standing Conference of Principals
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf national credit.pdfSummary
No summary is available for this document.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Standing Conference of Principals
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf UK degree.pdfSummary
No summary is available for this document.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf edsg risk debate.pdfSummary
No summary is available for this document.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Department of Health
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf NHS research.pdfSummary
Best research for best health: A new national health research strategy – The NHS contribution to health research in England: A consultation
Issued by: The Department of Health (DH)
Closing date for comments: Monday 17 October 2005
About this consultation
This consultation sets out proposals for the radical restructuring of the health research system in UK, in order to meet both high societal expectations of health and healthcare, and to increase national competitiveness and economic growth.
The consultation outlines a wide range of fundamental changes to the direction of health research in the UK in order to create a world-class environment for research, based on the needs of patients. These changes include:
• The creation of a ‘virtual’ facility to be known as the National Institute for Health
Research, to manage the research and research infrastructure of the NHS
• The establishment of a Faculty with three tiers of staff who will deliver NHS research
• New funding schemes that allow for patient involvement, responsive funding, applied
research, a challenge fund and an award for research for innovation, speculation and
creativity (RISC)
• Competitively selected Academic Medical Centres
• Expanded research networks
It is intended that these new ways of working will strengthen public confidence in medical research as they will promote high quality outputs and high standards of safety and risk management in research.
- Created: 29 October 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf MoCs.pdfSummary
Proposals for the essential elements of a HSE strategy for management of Contractors (MoC)
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closes for comments on: Monday 3 October 2005.
This is an informal consultation issued by the Health and Safety Executive which seeks contributions to the development of a HMRI interventions strategy for the management of contractors in the rail industry.
The consultation presents a report of the findings of research into contractor management carried out by Atkins Rail, and includes six proposed measures for further development. These measures are as follows:
• Develop a MoC inspection strategy that the HSE/HMRI can employ in the Rail industry
• Enhance the guidance for the individuals who review Railway Safety Cases prior to approval.
• Encourage the rail industry to improve their MoC and develop measures to ensure this
is as effective as possible in respect of safety.
• Encourage the rail industry to establish a single contractor / supplier accreditation
scheme for the whole industry.
• Encourage contractual arrangements that provide more effective framework for safe
performance.
• Provide further railway-specific guidance on good practice in ensuring safety in a
contractual environment.
- Created: 02 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Commission
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf DDE23.pdfSummary
A proposed statement by the Health and Safety Commission on the public safety role of the Health and Safety Executive – DDE23
Closing date for comments: Monday 26 September 2005.
About this consultation
This discussion document (DD) is issued by the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and seeks views on what the position of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) should be in relation to protecting the public from work-related risks. The aim of the DD is to ascertain stakeholder opinion on HSE priorities, and proposes six draft principles for the regulation of public safety to help guide future decisions in this area. These principles are as follows:
1. HSE will provide public assurance that health and safety risks in the major hazards industries are properly managed
2. HSE will continue to work with other regulators that have public safety duties, and specific expertise, to promote a coherent overall approach to public safety, including greater clarity of responsibilities among the regulatory bodies.
3. HSE will not unnecessarily restrict the liberty of people to engage in certain hazardous activities, should they wish to do so.
4. HSE will give particular priority to intervention when the risks to the public from a work activity and the risks to workers from that same work activity are linked.
5. That where possible and appropriate, risks to public safety that arise in a particular locality be dealt with by those within that locality.
6. HSE will, where circumstances demand, apply its unique expertise in controlling and managing risk to pressing issues of public and national concern.
- Created: 02 November 2009
Issued By: Rail Safety and Standards Board
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf cranes.pdfSummary
GM/RC1503 Railway Group Approved Code of Practice on safe use of cranes
Closing date for comments: 1 September 2005.
About this consultation
This document has been issued for consultation by the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) and is for use by all Railway Group members. The aim of the code is to help Railway Group members understand their responsibilities under GM/RT1402, issue 2 in relation to lifting equipment.
The code sets out the recommended allocation of duties to the following personnel:
• Crane controller – planning
• Crane controller – on-site
• Slinger
• Crane operator
The code also sets out recommendations for the use of lifting equipment in specific operational instances, including:
• Lifting rail
• Lifting of track panels
• Thimbling
• Tandem lifting
• Multiple lifting with equipment other that cranes (iron men, switch handling units and similar items)
The consultation will be approved at a meeting of the Plant Subject Committee at the end of September 2005.
- Created: 02 November 2009
Issued By: Office of Science and Technology
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf CSA guidelines.pdfSummary
Guidelines on scientific analysis in policy making: A consultation by the government Chief Scientific Advisor
Closing date for comments: 5 August 2005.
About this consultation
This consultation issued by the government Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA) through the Office of Science and Technology (OST) proposes updating the CSA guidelines to policy makers. The aim of the revision is to ensure an effective advisory process exists which allows decision-making to be based on a high-quality and wide-ranging evidence base. The revision is prompted by an increasing public interest in evidence-based issues and a decline in public confidence in decisions made on that evidence base.
This revision is based on current best practice and requires government departments and policy makers to:
• Think ahead and identify issues that will require scientific advice
• Access a wide range of the best scientific advice sources from internal and external sources, including professional bodies.
• Publish evidence, analysis and relevant papers surrounding an issue.
The guidelines cover all specialist disciplines used for policy-making including the natural, physical and social sciences, and indicate when scientific advice should be sought, how policy risk should be considered and how advice should be handled. The guidelines also require the involvement of the public at an early stage.
- Created: 02 November 2009
Issued By: Department of Health
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf Smokefree elements.pdfSummary
Consultation on the smokefree elements of the Health Improvement and Protection Bill
Closing date for comments: Wednesday 31 August 2005.
About this consultation
This consultation published by the Department of Health aims to shift the balance significantly in favour of smokefree environments. It sets out proposals to regulate, with legislation where necessary, in order to ensure that:
• All enclosed public places and workplaces (other than licensed premises which are dealt with below) will be smokefree
• Licensed premises will be treated as follows:
All restaurants will be smokefree
All pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be smokefree
Other pubs and bars will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smokefree
In membership clubs the members will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smokefree
Smoking in the bar area will be prohibited everywhere.
Smokefree places will be introduced through a staged approach, as follows:
• By the end of 2006, all central government departments and the NHS will be smokefree
• By the end of 2007, all enclosed public places and workplaces, other than licensed premises (and those specifically exempted), will, subject to legislation, be smokefree
• By the end of 2008, arrangements for licensed premises will be in place
The consultation covers proposed details including definitions of ‘enclosed’ public place/workplace, ‘prepare and serve food’ and exemptions in general. It also sets out proposals for signage, offences, penalties, defences and enforcement. Enforcement will be a matter for the appropriate local authority enforcement officers and the legislation should give a general power to the appropriate enforcement officer. They will have the power to:
• Inspect premises
• Bring prosecutions for any offence under the legislation, including repeat offences
- Created: 02 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Commission
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf cdm regs.pdfSummary
(CD200) - Revision of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM) 1994, Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) (CHSW) Regulations 1996, Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) and Guidance
Issued by: The Health and Safety Commission
Closing date for comments: Monday 18 July 2005.
About this consultation
These proposals consolidate and revise the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM) 1994 and Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) (CHSW) Regulations 1996. The aim of this revision is to produce a single set of regulations covering construction work in Great Britain, which will simplify and clarify what duty holders need to do.
The main area of change is to the role of the Planning Supervisor, which is to be replaced by the new, and substantially different role of ‘the co-ordinator’. The function of ‘the co-ordinator’ is to assist in achieving better health and safety on site.
The consultation also contains a draft guidance document that may become an Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) subject to responses received to this consultation. If accepted, the new regulations and ACoP/guidance will be in place by October 2006.
- Created: 02 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf riddor.pdfSummary
DDE22 - The Review of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR)
Closing date for comments: 23 June 2005.
About this consultation
This discussion document issued by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) reviews RIDDOR 1995 and presents proposals for change in areas that might improve the system and benefit the HSE, Local Authorities and duty holders. The broad proposals for change outlined include the options to:
• Remove the current requirement on duty holders to report occupational diseases
• Remove or make changes to the current reporting requirement on duty holders to notify and report some Dangerous Occurrences.
• Remove the current reporting requirement on duty holders to notify and report ‘Major Injuries’ replacing it with a requirement to report and record all work-related over- 3-day absences.
• Consider whether to make ‘at work’ work-related Road traffic incidents reportable under RIDDOR
The aim of the review is to ensure RIDDOR is fit for the purpose and delivers the information the enforcing authorities need to guide policy and improve health and safety standards, as well as helping businesses to achieve regulatory compliance without undue administrative costs. The proposals discussed in DDE 22 are likely to guide HSE RIDDOR policy up to and beyond 2010.
- Created: 05 November 2009
Issued By: Issued by Home Office
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf Corporate Manslaughter Bill.pdfSummary
Corporate manslaughter: The Government’s Draft Bill for Reform
Published by: The Home Office
Closing date for comments: 12 June 2005
About this consultation
This Draft Bill published by the Home Office sets out proposals for a new specific offence of corporate manslaughter. The aim of the Draft Bill is to resolve difficulties that have arisen in the prosecution of large corporations under current law.
The new offence will apply to an organisation or Crown body based on individual or collective ‘management failure’ by senior managers, but this must amount to a ‘gross breach of the duty to take reasonable care’. The Draft Bill provides for an assessment framework based on statutory criteria to assess the level of culpability. The sanctions suggested for the offence of corporate manslaughter are financial penalties and the imposition of remedial court orders.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf gangmasters exclusions.pdfSummary
Consultation on the draft Gangmasters (Exclusions) Regulations 2005
Published by: The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
Closing date for comments: 20 May 2005
About this consultation
This consultation presents draft regulations which set out the circumstances in which a licence is not required under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. These circumstances are described in the Schedule to Regulation 2 and are also set out in a table at Annex 5 of the consultation.
The consultation describes the area covered by the regulations as ‘initial processing’ work and defines this as areas such as washing, dressing, cleaning, grading, cutting, trimming, dividing or filleting. The supply of workers for this kind of work will require a licence. Whereas ‘second stage processing’, defined as ‘the application of any process applied to shellfish, fish and produce derived from agricultural work, shellfish or fish after initial processing has been completed’ will not require a licence.
However, this situation may change, depending on responses to this consultation and research to be undertaken into second stage processing, as the Government have not yet decided if second stage processing warrants inclusion under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act. The consultation sets out four options for second stage processing work. These are:
1) Include all second stage processing within the licensing scheme
2) Exclude all second stage processing from the scope of the licensing scheme
3) Exclude all second stage processing from the scope of the licensing scheme but review within 12 months
4) Exclude all second stage processing with the exception of those activities where research and the outcome of the first consultation provide unequivocal evidence of abuse and illegal activity.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf MHSWR 2005.pdfSummary
Proposals for a new regulation amending the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996.
Published by: The Heath and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: Thursday 12 May 2005
About this consultation
These regulations amend the provisions concerning civil liability for breached of duties, currently imposed under the management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSWR) and the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 (HSCER).
At present the MHSWR permit civil claims against employers and employees who are in breach of their duties under the regulations, but exclude the right of third parties to bring a civil claim against employers. This amendment recommends extending this exclusion to employees.
The consultation also presents an amendment to HSCER that would remove the civil liability exclusion contained in Regulation 5, and would mean that a breach of duty under this regulation would confer a right of action in civil proceedings.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Home Office
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf Road Traffic Offences.pdfSummary
Review of road traffic offences involving bad driving
Published by: The Home Office
Closes for comments on: 3 May 2005
About this consultation
This consultation document reviews the type of offences and level of penalties that are currently applicable in cases where people are killed or seriously injured by bad driving. The review primarily looks at bad driving and how it should be treated in criminal law and aims to close the gap between sentences for careless driving and dangerous driving.
Currently the maximum penalty for careless driving where death or serious injury occurs is £2,500. The maximum penalty for dangerous driving where death or serious injury occurs is 14 years in prison. The review proposes a new offence of causing death by careless driving which will carry a maximum penalty of up to 5 years in prison. Similarly, a new offence of death resulting from illegal driving is also proposed, and this will also carry a maximum 5-year prison term.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: House of Commons
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf defence cmtee.pdfSummary
House of Commons Defence Committee- Duty of Care in the Armed Forces
In April 2004, IOSH provided written evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee on The Duty of Care in the Armed Forces. This evidence and subsequent oral and supplementary evidence submitted by IOSH at the request of the Committee, was subject to an embargo until March 2005, but is now available in full on the IOSH website. The full report of the Committee can be downloaded from the United Kingdom
Parliament website at http://
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmdfence/63/6302.htm
The Committee examined the duty of care regimes in initial training establishments in all three services of the Armed Forces. The Committee’s Terms of Reference were:
• To examine how the Armed Forces discharge their duty of care responsibilities to recruits under initial training
• To consider what improvements might be made to the duty of care regime for these recruits, consistent with maintaining operational effectiveness
• To examine the Armed Forces’ ability to assess risk to recruits under training and their ability to recommend improvements to the care regime
• To examine the effectiveness with which these recommendations are implemented
• To consider the need for independent oversight of Armed Forces recruit training
IOSH submitted evidence in response to the issues under examination and subsequently received a request to present oral evidence before the Committee. Lawrence Waterman, President-Elect and Jeremy Corfield presented this evidence on 16 June 2004. A full transcript of the questions posed and answers provided is published as part of the IOSH response.
Further to this oral evidence, members of the Committee requested further information from IOSH on the following areas:
• IOSH members in the Armed Forces; (Question 173, asked by Mr Hancock)
• Current Armed Forces uptake of IOSH health and safety awareness training and CPD courses; (Questions 168 and 169 asked by Mr Hancock)
• Possible sources of information on the effectiveness of initial assessment of recruits before training. Questions 166 and 167 asked by Mr Hancock and Questions 180 and 181 asked by Mr Gapes)
This information was sent to the Committee in the form of a supplementary note in July 2004 and this data also forms part of the full IOSH response available above.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Office of Rail Regulation
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf ORR.pdfSummary
Office of Rail Regulation Draft Corporate Strategy
Closing date for comments: Thursday 24 March 2005
About this consultation
This consultation sets out the forward strategy of the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR). Under the Railways Bill currently being considered by Parliament, ORR will become the independent economic and health and safety regulator for the railway industry. Responsibility for the regulation of railway health and safety (including London Underground, heritage railways and tramways) will transfer from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to ORR at the end of 2005 or early 2006.
ORR will be responsible to health and safety regulation policy, will enforce health and safety requirements and will fulfil the role of single independent source of health and safety analysis and information for the industry. ORR will appoint a non-executive Board member with extensive health and safety expertise and will set up an Advisory Committee with stakeholder representation to ensure policies are well informed and evidence-based.
The closing date for comments to be included in the IOSH response to the strategy is Thursday 24 March 2005.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: DTI Office of Science and technology
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf Science review of HSE.pdfSummary
Science review of the Health and Safety Executive
Issued by: The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
Closing date for comments: 18 February 2005
About this consultation
The Office of Science and Technology within the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) are undertaking a rolling review programme of the quality and use of science within government departments, and are currently examining the work of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The review will look at how HSE identify research requirements, commission research, assure research quality and use science and scientific advice to meet their objectives. A report on the review will be published in mid 2005.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf L-111.pdfSummary
Draft COMAH Guidance L111 for consultation
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 14 February 2005
About this consultation
As a consequence of changes to the Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) Regulations 1999, the accompanying regulatory guidance, L111 has been amended. This consultation presents the revised guidance. The revised L111 will be issued alongside the amended regulations, which come into force on 1 July 2005.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Heath and Safety Commission
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf HSC Science Strategy.pdfSummary
Draft HSC Science Strategy 2005-2008
Published by: The Health and safety Commission
Closing date for comments: 03 February 2005
About this consultation
This draft strategy sets out how the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) aims to contribute to the work of the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) through the application of science and engineering. The strategy outlines how work will be targeted through 5 strategic programmes (SPs) that cover:
• Major hazards (includes Nuclear, Offshore, Onshore, Railways)
• Sectors (includes Construction, Agriculture, Health services, Government as an exemplar, manufacturing, utilities, services and transport)
• Health and safety hazards (includes workplace transport, fall from height, slips and trips, musculoskeletal disorders, stress, chemicals, noise and vibration)
• Local Authority (LA) partnership
• Better Health at Work partnership (includes occupational safety and health support systems, worker involvement, corporate social responsibility and rehabilitation)
These SPs are seen as the best way to use existing resources to better deliver strategic business priorities, especially the ‘Revitalising’ health and safety targets. The strategy also outlines a new emphasis on occupational health and human and organisational behaviour, and signals a shift away from collaboration on the development of standards and guidance, especially in the area of major hazards research.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf civic amenities.pdfSummary
Operating civic amenity site safely discussion document
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 17 January 2005
About this consultation
This draft guidance document, issued by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Waste Industry Safety and Health (WISH) forum, aims to explain how the key health and safety risks associated with civic amenity sites can be reduced. The emphasis of the guidance is on risk assessment and it includes checklists for good skip/container practice and pre-use of machinery, to assist with this process. The text of the guidance concentrates on five main areas of risk: transport, falls from height, slips and trips, manual handling and machinery guarding. It also briefly looks at some issues relating to staff welfare, hygiene, personal protective equipment, stress and the threat of abuse and physical violence to staff.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: HM Treasury
Iosh Response
Response Document: public_risks.pdfSummary
Managing risks to the public: appraisal guidance – Draft for consultation
Published by: HM Treasury
Closing date for comments: 06 January 2005
About this consultation
This consultation is published by HM Treasury as a supplement to Treasury guidance ‘Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government’ (the Green Book). The document provides guidance for developing and assessing proposals that affect the risk of fatalities, injury and other harms to the public in line with the Government's Principles of Managing Risks to the Public – openness, transparency, involvement, proportionality, consistency, evidence and responsibility. The guidance also contains a detailed discussion of cost-benefit analysis techniques and methodologies and presents a ‘concern assessment tool’ to help structure and make explicit the evaluation of concerns that may exist about risks.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: BSI
Iosh Response
Response Document: PAS 999 response.pdfSummary
PAS 999 A methodology for assessment of risk to people from fire in buildings (Fire Risk Assessment)
Published by: BSI
Closing date for comments: 05 January 2005
About this consultation
This draft specification has been developed and published by BSI and takes the form of guidance and recommendations to assist ‘appropriately qualified and competent people’ with fire risk assessment. It is not a British Standard. BSI issued the text as a limited, private consultation and it is covered by full copyright restrictions. For these reasons the document nor any part of it can be reproduced on this site, but the IOSH response to the document can be reproduced.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: Regulation & recognition CD - IOSH response 24.12.04.pdfSummary
Regulation and recognition: Towards good performance in health and safety
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
Closing date for comments: 17 December 2004
About this consultation
This consultation identifies and describes the thirteen main ‘intervention techniques’ used by the HSE as regulator. The document examines the value of these techniques in relation to different sized organisations and sectors and discusses a priorities framework for their use. The aim of the consultation is to gain stakeholder suggestions on the best and most cost-effective use of these techniques with the intention of developing a transparent and accountable ‘interventions strategy’.
The consultation also discusses the concept of ‘recognition’ or ‘earned autonomy’ whereby those organisations that can demonstrate a good health and safety performance will require less regulator intervention. The main argument for this concept is that it assists with resource targeting, as it leaves resources available to target poorer performers. The document puts forward four possible methods of performance assessment and a range of possible assessment criteria.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf Irish Safety Bill.pdfSummary
Republic of Ireland - Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004
This new Bill will repeal the 1989 Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act and develop a new legal framework for health and safety, enabling the Republic of Ireland to comply with the EU health and safety directives. Features of the new legislation will include on-the-spot fines and the provision of maximum fines of up to €3 million and terms of imprisonment of up to two years for breaches of the law. Company directors and managers may be held liable in circumstances where they are found to have contributed to any offence and they may be prosecuted under the new provisions. Meanwhile, employees will be guilty of an offence if they report for work in an intoxicated condition and they may be subjected to testing by their employers to ensure compliance.
Should IOSH members wish to submit comments for possible inclusion in an IOSH response, they should email the Irish Branch Secretary Eamon.murtagh@aer-rianta.ie by 31 August 2004.
Main Provisions of the Bill
HSA
The National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health will be renamed the Health and Safety Authority (which is the more usual name by which it is known).
On the Spot Fines
An innovation in the Bill will provide for the imposition of on-the-spot fines on either employers or employees. It enables the Minister to make Regulations for a limited range of clearly defined situations where employers or employees are found to be in clear breach of safety regulations, to be liable for an on-the-spot fine, which if paid within a defined period no prosecution will ensue. The amount of the fine will start at €100 which will also be defined in the Regulations. The amount of the fine may be increased over time to €1,000.
Publication of Names
The Bill will provide for the Health and Safety Authority to compile a list of the names of persons,
• on whom a fine or other penalty was imposed by the Courts,
• on whom a prohibition notice was served, and
• in respect of whom an interim or interlocutory order was made by a Court.
The Authority may publish that list.
Penalties
There are two levels of prosecution for offences under the Bill:-
• summary prosecution in the District Courts for relatively minor offences, and
• prosecution on indictment in the Circuit Courts for very serious offences.
The maximum fine in the District Court on summary conviction is €3,000, 6 months imprisonment or both. The Bill provides in the case of conviction on indictment in the Circuit Court for the imposition of a fine of up to €3million or imprisonment for up to two years, or both.
General Duties of Employees
In general employees must,
• comply with relevant safety and health laws,
• not be under the influence of an intoxicant at the place of work; and in that regard submit to an appropriate test, if reasonably required by their employer,
• not engage in improper conduct or behaviour,
• wear personal protective clothing where necessary,
• cooperate with their employer and look out for one another, and
• not do anything which would place themselves or others at risk.
Testing for intoxicants will be regulated by the Minister and must be carried out by a registered medical practitioner. There are two situations in which testing will apply under the Bill -
Firstly, if an employee appears to be under the influence of an intoxicant and in such a state as to endanger his/her own safety or the safety of others, or, secondly, where an employee is working in a safety critical situation, he or she may be required to undergo a periodic medical assessment of fitness to work.
General Duties of Employers
It will continue to be the duty of every employer to do everything he or she can, as far as reasonably practicable, to ensure the safety, health and welfare of his or her employees. The list of specific duties and responsibilities on employers will include responsibility for ensuring adequate instruction and training, without loss of earnings to employees.
Employers must also ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that others at the place of work, not being employees, are not exposed to risks to their safety, health or welfare.
Risk Assessment
Every employer must identify the hazards in the place of work, known as a Risk Assessment.
Safety Statement
It will continue to be a requirement on every employer to have a written Safety Statement, which identifies the risks and hazards in the place of work. Under a new requirement it will have to be reviewed annually.
A novel feature is that an employer with three or less employees can meet the Safety Statement requirement by adhering to a special Code of Practice to be developed by the Health and Safety Authority for a particular industry or sector. The likely beneficiaries will be in the farming sector and small businesses, for example, in the maintenance and service sectors.
Joint Safety and Health Agreements
A new feature, which will provide that where employers and trade unions get together and agree practical guidance on health and safety in an industry or sector, that agreement can be recognised by the HSA and taken account of in enforcement.
Designers, Manufacturers, Importers
They must ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that anything which they design, manufacture or import is properly tested and safe and that adequate information is provided to ensure safe and proper use.
Construction of Places of Work
A new provision in the Bill provides that persons who commission, procure or construct a place of work must appoint a competent person to ensure that construction is carried out safely and properly and without risk to health or safety.
Protection against Dismissal and Penalisation
Another new provision in the Bill will ensure that employees have an avenue of appeal against any form of penalisation in their employment, which results from carrying out their duty in regard to safety matters.
They may appeal to a Rights Commissioner for a determination. In the event of a further appeal, this can be heard by the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
It is expected that the use of the existing employment appeals machinery will ensure order and fairness in dealing with matters which give rise to dispute at the place of employment.
Safety Representatives
As is still the case, employees will continue to be entitled to select and appoint Safety Representatives, who will have wide powers to,
• inspect,
• investigate accidents or dangerous occurrences,
• accompany a HSA inspector on an inspection
• make oral and written submissions, etc
An employer must consider representations from a Safety Representative.
Advisory Committees
The Health and Safety Authority may establish Advisory Committees to advise in relation to any of its functions. This is intended to provide a broad base for consultation with all sectoral interests in relation to any matter under consideration.
Codes of Practice
Codes of Practice exist for the purpose of regulating safety and other procedures and activities. A failure to observe a Code of Practice, which leads to an accident and subsequent prosecution, will be admissible as evidence in a Court.
Improvement Plan
Where an inspector comes across work activities which involve risk to safety, health or welfare he or she can give written direction requiring the submission of an improvement plan.
Prohibition Notice
If an inspector encounters a risk of very serious injury in a workplace he or she can serve a prohibition notice. This will have the effect of stopping the work activity until the matter has been remedied.
An employer may appeal to the Courts against either an Improvement or Prohibition Notice.
Liability of Directors and Bodies Corporate
Where an offence under the Bill is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance or can be attributed to any neglect on the part of a director, manager or other officer of a company that person as well as the company will be guilty of an offence and liable to be proceeded against.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf wah2mtre.pdfSummary
Work at Height and the Construction Industry 2-metre rule
Published by: Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 3 December 2004
About this consultation
Following on from the Proposals for Work at Heights Regulations (WAHR) (CD192) consultation carried out in April 2004, this 2-page consultation requests comments on the proposal to include a new regulation for construction work into the WAHR. The regulation (Reg 7.3) is described as the ‘2-metre rule’, and already exists in the Construction Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations, but was not originally included in the WAHR. The revised regulation does not remove the obligation to prevent falls below 2 metres (two thirds of injuries arise from falls below this distance) but aims to act as a trigger point for construction work, as the construction industry have successfully argued that his level of certainty is required.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Department for Transport
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf DfTRH lanes.pdfSummary
Consultation concerning new prohibitions on some vehicles using the right hand lane of three or more lane motorways; and powers for new Traffic Officers on motorways.
Published by: Department for Transport
Closing date for comments: 24 November 2004
About this consultation
This consultation sets out the options available to the UK in order to comply with Directive 20002/85/EC which extends the category of vehicles that are required to be fitted with a speed limiter, to include new goods vehicles of a maximum mass of more that 3.5 tonnes and passenger carrying vehicles of more that 8 seats, irrespective of weight. Once fitted with a limiter, these vehicles will be prohibited from using the right-hand lane of motorways.
The document also details the transfer of certain traffic management tasks from the police to new Traffic Officers. These Officers will patrol motorways with the aim of keeping traffic moving, will wear a uniform and be operational 24 hours a day. Although they will not have law enforcement powers, it will be an offence not to comply with their directions.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Heath and Safety Commission
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf offstrat2010.pdfSummary
HSE Offshore Health and Safety Strategy to 2010
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 23 November 2004
About this consultation
This short strategy document sets out strategic goals for the upstream petroleum industry, up to and beyond 2010. The strategy outlines the background to the offshore sector, describes the HSE’s key functions and approach to this area, and examines future challenges such as the involvement of smaller companies, the safety and environmental issues arising from decommissioning and the impact of an ageing workforce. The strategy reiterates the industry’s need to meet government targets of a 50 per cent reduction in major and fatal injuries by 2010 and a reduction of significant hydrocarbon releases by 10 per cent for the same period, and advocates an increased emphasis on improving risk perception, workforce involvement and communication to achieve these targets. Occupational health issues are also considered, and the strategy pledges to target the incidence of musculoskeletal disorders and stress in the offshore industry.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Heath and Safety Commission
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf CD199.pdfSummary
CD199 - Proposals for new safety regulations for railways and other guided transport systems
Published by: Heath and Safety Commission
Closing date for comments: 19 November 2004
About this consultation
The HSC have issued a comprehensive consultation detailing proposals for new regulations covering safety management on the railways and other guided transport systems, and an Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) on the management of risks from fatigue. The key aims of the new regulations are to implement European requirements, to streamline rail safety requirements by amalgamating three existing sets of regulations into one, and to conclude outstanding recommendations from recent public enquiries.
The Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 2000 will be replaced, and details of the new regulations are provided in the document. The Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994 will be revoked and new regulations will require assessment and monitoring of competence and fitness by an impartial assessor and will define safety critical work in terms of tasks and activities. The approval by HSE within the Railways and Other Transport Systems (Approval of Works, Plant and Equipment) Regulations 1994 (ROTS) will be replaced by a requirement for operators to seek safety verification from a competent person on the open market (subject to a 2 year transitional period).
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf Gangmasters.pdfSummary
The Gangmasters (Licensing Authority) draft Regulations 2004
Published by: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
Closing date for comments: 25 October 2004
About this consultation
These draft regulations describe the proposed status and constitution of a Licensing Authority that will operate a licensing scheme for labour providers in the agriculture, shellfish gathering and associated packaging and processing sectors. Once the licensing scheme is in place, The Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 will prohibit anyone from acting as a gangmaster in these areas without an licence and will make it an offence for an individual to enter into an arrangement with an unlicensed gangmaster. A register of licensed gangmasters will be drawn up and be made available for public inspection, free of charge. A partial regulatory impact assessment is included in the consultation, and this estimates that a gangmaster license will cost between £1,750 and £2,250 and this will be valid for three years. The draft regulations also include details of the proposed composition of the licensing board, the role of consulting committees, voting procedures and staff remuneration.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Department of Trade and Industry
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 69 Working time 2.pdfSummary
A preliminary consultation on long hours working in the UK and the application and operation of the working time opt out
Published by: Department of Trade and Industry
Closing date for comments: 17 September 2004
About this consultation
This preliminary consultation paper issued by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) seeks views on the current operation of the individual opt out from the 48-hour working time limit under The Working Time Regulations 1998. This consultation is part of a wider review of the Working Time Directive among the European social partners, and seeks stakeholder opinions to inform UK negotiations and future policy making.
The consultation examines the European background to working practices legislation, and outlines the reasons why the UK government ‘strongly supports the retention of the individual opt out’. It goes on to briefly examine a selection of research into long working hours in the UK, discusses the role of the HSE, and concludes by presenting a range of possible options that seek to ‘improve protection for those who do not want to work long hours, without creating problems’ for those that do.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 65 offshore.pdfSummary
Proposals to replace the Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 1992
Published by: Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 06 September 2004
About this consultation
The HSE are requesting comments on their proposals to entirely replace the Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 1992 with new regulations and guidance. The new regulations aim to relieve much of the bureaucratic burden that accompanies the current safety case regime and to encourage continuous improvement. The proposals clarify key definitions and outline changes affecting a number of areas including dutyholders, the design of safety cases, the purpose of a safety case and workforce involvement. The consultation document includes an overview of the changes, the draft regulations and a regulatory impact assessment.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Construction Industry Council
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 68 SiD.pdfSummary
Manage safety in design – competence (performance and knowledge) standards consultation draft
Published by: The Construction Industry Council (CIC)
Closing date for comments: 25 August 2004
About this consultation
This draft consultation presents learning units and training elements that aim to provide a benchmark of safety competence for construction designers. CIC estimate there are in excess of 250,000 designers in the UK who are subject to Regulation 13 of The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994. This requires designers to design out hazards in order to make buildings safe to construct, maintain and demolish, but there currently no benchmarked standards by which a designer can demonstrate competence in this regard. The consultation puts forward a mix of learning outcomes that focus on the knowledge needed to design safely, and benchmark standards that focus on competence.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: House of Commons
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 49 WP Com.pdfSummary
IOSH evidence to the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee
Requested by: House of Commons
Evidence to be submitted by: 12 August 2004
About this consultation
IOSH submitted written evidence to the House of Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee looking into the work of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. The IOSH submission was followed by the request to give oral evidence to the Committee and subsequently to supply supplementary information arising from our oral evidence. The supplementary information given to the Committee is appended to this response. Many IOSH comments were included in the final report including the recommendation that additional resources should be made available to the HSE.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Commission of the European Union
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 47 intmarket.pdfSummary
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on service in the internal market
Published by: Commission of the European Union
Closing date for comments: 09 August 2004
About this consultation
As part of the process of economic reform in Europe, and to aid economic growth, the European Commission have proposed a Directive that will provide a legal framework to eliminate obstacles to the freedom of establishment for service providers to provide services between member states. It is possible that the Directive, as currently written, could prevent national enforcement agencies imposing safety laws on non-UK European businesses providing services in Britain on a non-permanent basis. Under the ‘Country of Origin’ principle, Non-UK European companies in Britain will have to comply with their own country's laws and only HSE equivalent bodies of the foreign country will be able enforce the law in Britain. Conversely, British businesses operating on a non-permanent basis on the continent will have to abide by British law and the HSE will have responsibility for inspecting, investigating and prosecuting.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Department of Trade and Industry
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 50 OFR2.pdfSummary
Draft Regulations on the Operating and Financial Review and Directors’ Report
Published by: Department of Trade and Industry
Closing date for comments: 06 August 2004
About this consultation
In September 2003, IOSH responded to a consultation by the Operating and Financial Review Working Party on Materiality. The consultation made no mention of health and safety, which IOSH considered to be a serious omission. In May 2004 the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) published a set of draft regulations for consultation entitled Draft Regulations on the Operating and Financial Review (OFR) and Directors' Report. Unlike the earlier consultation these regulations make specific mention of health and safety on 3 occasions. (Para 3.33, Para 3.42 and Para 3.48).
The proposals in this consultation on the OFR require directors of quoted companies to give a balanced and comprehensive analysis of their business in annual reports and to shareholders. The consultation sets out the detailed implementation of this requirement, which includes business, environmental, community and social matters. The OFR will be a statutory requirement, and will be mandatory for the largest companies. It should show a relevant understanding of the company business including the principle risks and uncertainties the company is facing.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Strategic Rail Authority
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 46 Community Rail .pdfSummary
Community Rail Development
Published by: The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA)
Closing date for comments: 17 May 2004
About this consultation
This consultation document examines the future of the branch network across Britain. SRA aim to maximize the potential of 1,300 miles of local and rural railways via a strategy that proposes to:
• increase passenger volume and income
• involve local communities more closely in the development of their railways
• make better use of the subsidy currently allocated
• boost tourism through inventive timetabling
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Department for Transport
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 45 Interoperability.pdfSummary
Railway interoperability – Conventional Rolling Stock and Infrastructure
Published by: Department for Transport
Closing date for comments: 12 April 2004
About this consultation
A new consultation from the Department for Transport (DfT) invites views on proposals for implementing the second Interoperability Directive (2001/16/EC) often referred to as 'the conventional directive', which extends interoperability to conventional lines. The consultation aims to raise awareness of the directive, and the impact of interoperability on railway and other stakeholders.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 44 WAHR regulations.pdfSummary
Proposals for Work at Height Regulations – CD192
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
Closing date for comments: 26 March 2003
About this consultation
HSE have published a long-awaited consultation document that sets out how the UK proposes to implement the EC Temporary Work at Height Directive (2001/45/EC). The proposed new regulations will be applicable to all businesses and all operations carried out at height, from changing a light bulb to large construction projects.
At the core of the regulations is regulation 6, which introduces a 3-stage hierarchy of controls for work at heights based on the principles of Avoid, Prevent or Mitigate. Regulation 6 requires that:
• work at height is not carried out where it is reasonably practicable to carry out the work safely otherwise than at height (Avoid)
• where work is carried out at height, every employer shall take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far is as reasonably practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury (Prevent)
• every employer shall take suitable and sufficient measures to minimise the distance and consequences of a fall (Mitigate)
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: BSI
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 25 BS 8800 .pdfSummary
Draft BS8800 Occupational health and safety management systems - Guide
Published by the British Standards Institution (BSi)
Closing date for comments: 23 February 2004
About this consultation
This consultation is a revised edition of the BS8800 standard guide. The revision has been prepared to reflect developments in occupational safety and health management that have emerged since the publication of the original standard, such as the publication of OHSAS 18001 and 18002 and the publication of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Guidelines on occupational safety and health management systems (ILO-OHS: 2001).
The revision concentrates on the HSG65 model in describing the main elements of an OH&SMS but the main text is heavily supplemented by 7 annexes covering:
• comparisons with other management systems;
• guidance on organising;
• promoting an effective OH&SMS;
• planning and implementing;
• risk assessment and control;
• measuring performance and audit; and
• hazardous event investigation
These annexes have been updated to include information on the integration of this standard with BS EN ISO 9001, BS EN ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ILO-OHS:2001. It is hoped this information will assist organisations that wish to integrate OSH into their existing or planned management system. BSi also hope that this revision will simplify the standard, but at the same time, will provide more supporting information and will therefore make BS8800 a more useful document.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Scottish Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 26 emergency workers .pdfSummary
No summary is available for this document.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 22 Oel 189 .pdfSummary
CD189 - Proposals to introduce a new occupational exposure limits (OEL) framework
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 19 December 2003
About this consultation
In line with the Revitalising Health and Safety Strategy initiative, the HSE have published a consultation document that aims to help employers protect their employees from chemical exposure. The document presents a new, simplified approach that replaces both of the previously used types of Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) with a single Workplace Exposure Limit (WEL) standard.
This change is prompted by research that shows many employers, especially those in small firms, do not know about or understand OELs. In order to tackle this problem the HSE are proposing a new, simplified system that broadens the definition of ‘adequate control’ under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations. Under the new system it will be an employers duty to ensure that any workplace exposure limit approved for a substance is not exceeded. Practical advice on the steps required to protect workers will be provided in support of the change, and it is hoped that this will lead to improved understanding and make a positive contribution to the occupational health targets set under the ‘revitalising’ strategy.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Commission
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 23 Safety on the railway .pdfSummary
Safety on the railway – shaping the future
Published by: The Health and Safety Commission (HSC)
Closing date for comments: 19 December 2003
About this consultation
This discussion document aims to prompt public debate before decisions are taken that will affect the way the railway industry deals with areas such as the competence, fitness and fatigue of safety critical workers and the control of risks arising from the introduction of new plant and equipment. In addition, the discussion seeks comments on the development of an industry led accredited licensing system for key safety critical workers and the use of independent certification for suppliers of safety critical products and services.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Commission
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 21 strat think .pdfSummary
A Strategy for Workplace health and Safety in Great Britain to 2010 and beyond
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
Closing date for comments: 27 November 2003
About this consultation
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) are calling for comments to assist them with the development of a health and safety strategy for Great Britain. The document follows on from two previous consultations on related areas, Strategic thinking - work in progress and Review of the relationship between HSE and Local Authorities.
This further strategic document outlines the ‘hard choices’ that HSE feel need to be made to ensure effective use is made of finite resources, and signals their intention to concentrate on a specific set of priorities. These include working with Local Authorities (LAs) targeting support and advice where it is most needed and moving away from areas that can be better regulated by others, for example civil law.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Department for Transport
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 20 seat belts .pdfSummary
Proposed amendment to the motor road vehicles (wearing of seat belts) regulation:
Consultation exercise seat belt wearing - exemption while undertaking deliveries or collections.
Published by: The Department for Transport (DfT)
Closing date for comments: 12 November 2003
About this consultation
The Department for Transport (DfT) has issued a short consultation exercise on the wearing of seat belts by persons undertaking deliveries or collections. Changes to the law on exemption will affect any organisation that employs or uses drivers for collection and/or delivery and may be of particular interest to IOSH members in the Local Authority, charitable and voluntary sectors. DfT consider a legislative change is required, as research has identified a lack of clarity in this area.
Currently there is no maximum prescribed distance for driving without a seat belt. This has led to some confusion, and DfT research has found that the seat belt wearing rate for van drivers and their passengers is much lower than the rate for car passengers. The aim of this consultation is to agree a maximum prescribed distance applicable to deliveries and collections, and it is hoped that this will increase the seat belt wearing rate, so reducing accidents and fatalities and their associated human and financial costs.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Dept for Education and Skills (DfES)
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 19 21st Century Skills .pdfSummary
21st Century Skills – Realising Our Potential (Cm 5810)
Published by: Dept for Education and Skills (DfES)
Closing date for comments: 27 October 2003
About this consultation
This government White Paper was presented to Parliament in July 2003 and sets out a skills strategy for the future. The Paper states that in the UK a skills-rich/skills-poor gap has developed which could undermine our long term economic progress, and notes that as a nation we do not invest as much in skills as we should.
In order to tackle this situation the White Paper outlines 5 key areas where action should take place. These are:
• putting employers needs centre stage
• raising ambition in the demand for skills
• motivating and supporting learners
• making colleges and training providers more responsive to the needs of both employers and learners
• better joint working across government and the public services
This document is likely to have a wide impact on employers, training providers, qualification bodies and public services.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 16 INDG333 .pdfSummary
Draft Back pain in the workplace: a guide to prevention and management INDG333
Published by: Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 15 September 2003
About this consultation
This draft guidance for consultation has been updated as part of a wider HSE Priority Programme aimed at tackling the problem of Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) in order to reduce the problems caused by back pain and back injuries.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Department of Trade and Industry
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 15 Materiality .pdfSummary
The Operating and Financial Review Working Group on Materiality
Published by: The Department of Trade and Industry (dti)
Closing date for comments: 12 September 2003
About this consultation
This consultation seeks to provide guidance to directors on issues that should be considered when carrying out an Operating and Financial Review (OFR). As part of the ongoing moves towards modernising company law, it will be the duty of any company operating over a certain size threshold to prepare and publish an OFR. The OFR should contain information on issues that are material to a particular business, although it is at the discretion of the directors to decide if an issue is material or not.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 14 strategic thinking -progress .pdfSummary
Strategic thinking – work in progress, a draft strategic plan for 2004 – 2010
Published by: Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 08 August 2003
About this consultation
This document covers a wide range of issues, including: the need for an evidence-base; reporting; changing workforce patterns; designing-in occupational safety and health (OSH); a unified enforcement agency; interventions and partnerships; incentivisation and education/training.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 24 investigation guide .pdfSummary
A summary is not available for this consultation document.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 17 MAC .pdfSummary
Manual Handling Assessment Charts (MAC)
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
Closing date for comments: 21 July 2003
About this consultation
At the end of July 2003, IOSH responded to HSE requests for input to the new Manual Handling Assessment Charts (MAC) tool. The MAC tool is part of a wider HSE priority programme aimed at tackling the problem of Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) in order to reduce the problems caused by back pain and back injuries. The MAC tool can be viewed on the HSE website at:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/msd/mac/index.htm and is also available as a hard copy leaflet from HSE Books.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 18 HSE-LA relationship .pdfSummary
A summary is not available for this consultation document.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 10 dde20 .pdfSummary
DDE20 - Revitalising health and safety in construction
Published by: Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 20 December 2002
About this discussion document
The very poor health and safety record of the construction industry comes under the spotlight in this new discussion document from the Health and Safety Executive. ‘Revitalising’ is a call for change, and is intended to stimulate debate about how change can be brought about. The document does not put forward specific proposals; rather it examines issues and calls for innovative ideas from all sectors of the industry, in order to set an agenda for action for the rest of the decade and beyond.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Department for Education and Skills
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 3 work in progress dfes .pdfSummary
A summary is not available for this document.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Scottish Parliament Transport and the Environment Committee
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 43 Scotland evidence .pdfSummary
A summary is not available for this consultation document.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Commission
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 9 permissioning .pdfSummary
A summary is not available for this consultation document.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Department for Transport
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 12 mobiles .pdfSummary
Mobile phones and driving – proposal for an offence of using a hand-held mobile phone while driving
Published by: The Department for Transport
Closing date for comments: 20 November 2002
About this consultation
This consultation addresses the issue of the significant number of drivers who are ignoring the risks of using a hand held mobile phone while driving. In an effort to reduce the number of road traffic accidents that may occur because drivers are distracted by using a mobile phone, it is proposed to make this an offence under Regulation 104 of the Construction and Use Regulations 1986. This proposal would apply to the driver of any motor vehicle and to anyone who ‘caused or permitted’ someone to drive whilst using a mobile phone, such as an employer.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 8 fire safety .pdfSummary
A consultation document on the reform of fire safety legislation
Published by: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM)
Closing date for comments: 18 November 2002
About this consultation
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) has issued a Consultation Paper aimed at simplifying, rationalising and consolidating existing fire legislation. The document sets out proposals to remove the current multiple and overlapping fire safety provisions and to replace them with a single fire safety regime. The aim of the proposals is to provide a more consistent and easily understandable regime that will apply to employers and virtually all those who are responsible for buildings to which the public may have access.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Department of Health
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 11 NHS costs .pdfSummary
The recovery of National Health Service costs in cases involving personal injury compensation
Published by: The Department of Health
Closing date for comments: 04 November 2002
About this consultation
This consultation Issued by the Department of Health outlines proposals for a scheme to recover NHS treatment costs in all cases where people claim and receive personal injury compensation for accidents or illness. It is argued that under the current system, the taxpayer subsidises the wrongdoer in such cases by meeting the costs of his or her wrongdoing, and these costs are estimated to be between £100m to £120m annually.
The proposals would affect the person paying compensation, not the person receiving it, and the NHS costs would be additional to the personal injury compensation paid out. It is hoped that this policy will make people more aware of their responsibilities and encourage them to take active steps to reduce the risk of causing injury to third parties.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Department for Transport
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 13 RAIB .pdfSummary
A summary is not available for this consultation document.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 39 expectant mothers .pdfSummary
New and expectant mothers at work - A guide for Health Professionals and A guide for new and expectant mothers who work
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 30 August 2002
About this consultation
The Health Directorate, Division A of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), has issued these 2 draft guidance notes. The aim of the documents is to support the revised New and Expectant Mothers at Work - A guide for employers (to be published in October 2002). The documents aim to provide advice and information to employees and health professionals on the health and safety implications and obligations relating to nursing and pregnant workers.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: National Liaison Committee
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 7 WRD 2 .pdfSummary
Work-related deaths Protocol for liaison
Published by: The National Liaison Committee
Closing date for comments: 31 July 2002
About this consultation
The draft document on Work related deaths - A protocol for liaison is issued by the National Liaison Committee. The protocol has been reviewed by a working group made up of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) the Local Government Association (LGA) the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and British Transport Police (BTP).
The revision was undertaken to ensure the protocol deals clearly with the issues surrounding a work related fatality, and in particular with incidents where the crime of manslaughter or corporate manslaughter may have been committed. The draft document sets out the principles governing liaison between the signatory parties, and acknowledges that each party has a particular role and responsibilities during the investigation and handling of a work related death.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Strategic Forum for Construction
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 6 accelerate change .pdfSummary
Rethinking Construction: Accelerating Change
Published by: Strategic Forum for Construction
Closing date for comments: 31 May 2002
About this consultation
IOSH has submitted a response to the consultation paper issued by the Strategic Forum for Construction. The consultation document entitled Rethinking Construction: Accelerating Change, seeks to tackle identified barriers to progress within the construction industry and aims to accelerate the pace of change. The consultation document supports the principles of the Construction Task Force Report, Rethinking Construction, published in 1998. (http://www.rethinkingconstruction.org)
The consultation document identifies three main areas for continuous improvement within the construction industry. These are:
• client leadership
• integrated teams and;
• 'people issues', especially health and safety.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: European Commission
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 38 EU changes .pdfSummary
Adapting to change in work and society: a new Community strategy on health and safety at work 2002 - 2006
Published by: The European Commission
Closing date for comments: 03 April 2002
About this consultation
IOSH has submitted comments to the Commission of the European Communities publication COM (2002) 118 final Adapting to change in work and society: a new Community strategy on health and safety at work 2002 -2006. The strategy covers areas of interest and importance to OSH practitioners and places emphasis on consolidation and improvement of regulation, rather than the development of new regulations.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: HM Inspector of Railways
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 5 escape of persons from trains .pdfSummary
A summary is not available for this consultation.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 4 WRD protocol response .pdfSummary
A summary is not available for this consultation document.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Commission
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 2 TPS ltr response .pdfSummary
A summary is not available for this consultation document.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive / Health and Safety Commission
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 1 cd176 response .pdfSummary
Revised proposals for amendments to the Control of Asbestos at work Regulations and a new supporting Approved Code of Practice
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive / Health and Safety Commission
Closing date for comments: 12 February 2002
About this consultation
CD176 contains revised proposals for the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations (CAWR). The document results from and earlier round of consultation on CAWR which took place in 2000 (CD159).
The document is divided into four sections which cover points arising form the previous round of consultation, implementation issues related to the Chemical agents directive (CAD) new proposals surrounding accreditation for asbestos analysis and a proposed amendment to the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1998.
CD176 also proposes that the amendments it outlines should be consolidated into a single set of Regulations that incorporates CAWR 1987 (including 1992 and 1998 amendments).
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: AIRMIC / ALARM / IRM
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 27 airmic doc .pdfSummary
A summary is not available for this consultation.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 31 CD169 .pdfSummary
Proposals for a new duty to investigate accidents, dangerous occurrences and diseases CD169
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 03 September 2001
About this consultation
The Consultative Document sets out proposals for amending the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSWR) to include a specific duty on employers to investigate the causes of workplace accidents. The proposals, if introduced, will apply to all workplaces and employment sectors.
The Consultative Document has been developed in the light of responses to an earlier Discussion Document (DDE9 - November 1998) that explored the arguments for and against a duty on employers to investigate accidents and report findings. IOSH responded to DDE9 in February 1999 and at that time, 78 percent of respondents were in favour of a change in the law. Respondents felt the main advantages in this would be that:
• It would clarify an employer’s duties by making accident investigation required rather than implied
• It would send a clear message that accident investigation should be taken seriously
• It would improve accident investigation standards and competence levels
• It would act as an incentive towards good health and safety practice
• It would increase knowledge of accident investigation causes
Respondents also pointed out that there were some disadvantages that needed to be considered. These were:
• It could be seen as a reactive rather than proactive measure
• An ACoP approach might be more effective
• It could increase workload and costs
• It could reduce reporting and encourage poor standards of investigation.
CD169
The current Consultative Document contains the HSC’s analysis of the responses they received to DDE9; a regulatory impact assessment; the draft regulations and a structured response form.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 41 Railway H & S Strategy .pdfSummary
A summary is not available for this consultation.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Commission
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 34 dde 16.pdfSummary
A summary is not available for this consultation document.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: International Labour Organization
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf_ILO_response.pdfSummary
A summary is not available for this consultation document.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 35 cd167 .pdfSummary
A summary is not available for this consultation document.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 29 cd 164 .pdfSummary
Proposals for reducing the incidence of occupational asthma, including an approved code of practice: control of substances that cause occupational asthma
Published by: Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 16 February 2001
About this consultation
This consultative document proposes an Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) to give particular attention to reducing the incidence rate of occupational asthma (currently up to 3,000 cases per year). There is a national target for reducing cases of work-related ill-health by 20% by the year 2010, introduced by ‘Revitalising Health and Safety’ and ‘Securing Health Together’, but the HSC would like a more ambitious target for occupational asthma. The document includes ‘Reducing Occupational Asthma: A Draft Strategy’ – this outlines 5 programmes for achieving the Strategy:
Programme 1: To improve the law and compliance with it in relation to occupational asthma. (Compliance)
Programme 2: To create an environment where stakeholders can strive for excellence through continuous improvement to reduce occupational asthma. (Continuous improvement)
Programme 3: To obtain essential knowledge on occupational asthma. (Knowledge)
Programme 4: To ensure that all interested parties have the necessary competence and skills. (Skills)
Programme 5: To ensure that appropriate mechanisms are in place to deliver information, advice and other support on occupational asthma. (Support)
The ACoP is linked to the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 1999 and if adopted will be introduced in 2001 by an amendment to COSHH and will supplement the General COSHH ACoP. The proposed ACoP will apply to:
• Substances listed in Section C of the HSE publication “Asthmagen? Critical assessment of the evidence for agents implicated in occupational asthma”.
• Any other substance assigned the Risk Phrase R42 ‘May cause sensitisation by inhalation’ under the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations (CHIP) 1994, as amended.
• Any other substance which the employer’s risk assessment has shown to be a potential cause of occupational asthma.
However, it will not apply to general environmental allergens such as grass pollens and fungal spores unless the work activity generates them or leads to their occurrence at higher concentrations than are normally present in the general environment. Nor does it apply to substances (e.g. general dust) where exposure may produce asthmatic symptoms in a person with pre-existing asthma but where the substance itself is not a cause of occupational asthma.
The ACoP will apply to employers, the self-employed and employees to the extent that duties under the COSHH Regulations apply to them. It is set out as other ACoPs (i.e. Regulation, ACoP and Guidance text), however, it refers only to the relevant parts of the COSHH Regulations. There is only ACoP text for regulations 6, 7, 11 and 12, but regulations 6 to 12 (inclusive) are covered (in part) and supported with guidance relevant to asthma. There are also 6 case studies outlined to help illustrate certain points.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 33 dde15 .pdfSummary
Regulating Higher Hazards: Exploring the Issues DDE15
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 29 January 2001
About this consultation
This Discussion Document issued by the Health and Safety Executive, was written for an informed audience of safety professionals, regulators and the regulated, from all high hazard industries. It proposes definitions of the four main principles that underpin ‘permissioning’ regimes and compares example regimes to these principles. The stated aims of DDE15 were:
• to stimulate discussion about the four principles
• to stimulate discussion about different types of ‘permissioning’ regimes
• to gather information from respondents about the effectiveness of HSC policy
• to gather information from respondents about the effectiveness of legal requirements.
The document is clear and identifies key issues, and as such, is valuable in discussions about the way forward, both for railway safety regulation in the UK and for other Safety Case regimes.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 42 Ready reckoner .pdfSummary
Draft ‘Ready Reckoner’
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 01 January 2001
About this consultation
Under Action point 1 of the ‘Revitalising’ Health and Safety strategy, the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) were charged with publishing and promoting a ‘Ready Reckoner’ to update the leaflet INDG208L. In December 2000, the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) operations unit circulated a draft Ready Reckoner to IOSH and comments and suggestions were requested. The intended purpose of the Ready Reckoner is to drive home the business case for better health and safety management.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: European Commission
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 32 CSR .pdfSummary
Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility Green paper
Published by: European Commission
Closing date for comments: 21 December 2000
About this consultation
This document has been released as part of European Union endeavours to identify common values across its membership, and to reflect the growing expectations that European citizens and stakeholders have of the role of companies in the changing society of today.
The main factors driving the move towards corporate social responsibility (CSR) are globalisation and industrial change, the move towards social and ethical investment by consumers and other stakeholders, environmental concerns and the growth of the media and modern information and communication technologies.
The Green Paper explains the CSR concept in relation to key business areas, including health and safety, and outlines a holistic approach whereby CSR is integrated into corporate strategic planning.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 30 cd 161 .pdfSummary
Proposals for revising the Approved Code of Practice on ‘Managing construction for health and
safety’ - CD161
Published by: The Health and Safety Executive
Closing date for comments: 30 November 2000
About this consultation
The proposed changes include a new layout and structure aimed at assisting those implementing the
Construction, Design and Management regulations (CDM).
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Commission
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 37 enforcement policy .pdfSummary
A summary is not available for this consultation.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 28 CD 160 .pdfSummary
A summary is not available for this consultation document.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 36 dde 12 .pdfSummary
A summary is not available for this consultation document.
- Created: 03 November 2009
Issued By: Health and Safety Executive
Iosh Response
Response Document: pdf 40 dde 11 r2p2 .pdfSummary
A summary is not available for this consultation document