Access Key     Description
1Home Page
| Home Page |

Live consultations

Here's a list of the documents we'd like your comments on.

If you'd like your comments and opinions to be considered for inclusion in the IOSH response to any of the documents below, please send them to our Consultations Team.

Consultation documents feed

Subscribe to our consultation documents feed and you'll have alerts sent straight to your desktop whenever a new document is available for comment. For more information and details of how to subscribe, visit the about news feeds page.

To read the summary, submit an opinion or request an alert, please click on the relevant buttons below. Before you can submit an opinion, you'll need to tick the box on the form to say you have read and agree to our Terms of use.

  • Consultation to replace the existing Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (application Outside Great Britain) order 2001 with a new 2013 Application Outside Great Britain Order.

    Created: 23 April 2012
    Issued By: The Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
    Submission date: 20 June 2012

    Summary

    Consultation to replace the existing Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (application Outside Great Britain) order 2001 with a new 2013 Application Outside Great Britain Order
    Published by: HSE
    Closing date for comments: by 20/06/2012

    About this consultation

    Previously HSE had an Order to extend the cover of the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA), to regulate and protect employees working in hazardous activities in offshore energy related activities. Statutory protection for relevant workers will expire and HSE will lose regulatory jurisdiction unless the 2013 Order is in force on or before 6th April 2013, as this is when previous Orders end. This is also when the new work activities associated with Emerging Energy Technology (EET) are expected to commence. Without the 2013 Order HSE will not have the power to regulate these high risk activities and employees will not have the protection provided under HSWA. The HSE wishes to ensure it retains and consolidates its jurisdiction to regulate energy structures (e.g. wind/wave farms) or related structures and associated work activities, including decommissioning and demolition. The proposed Order would clarify the structures that HSE would regulate as offshore installations. The Intention is to update and clarify that offshore EET work activities e.g. those associated with Combustible Gas Storage, Carbon Dioxide Storage and Underground Coal Gasification(UCG) fall within the scope of the new Order and the HSWA. This would ensure that all relevant workers offshore are adequately protected by law and HSE has the authority to regulate offshore. The Order would also make provision to include micro businesses and start up companies.

    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 Consultation@iosh.co.uk by 20 June 2012.

    Consultation questions:

    Please provide some comments to support your answer and include any alternative proposals you may have.

    1. Do you support HSE’s proposal to replace the 2001 Order with a new 2013 Order?

    2. Are you aware of or can you suggest any other activities that would take place offshore beyond 12 miles that are not already covered by Articles 4 -11 in the new 2013 Order?

    3. Do you agree that the wording in the proposed Article 8 (covering gas importation and storage) specifically covers activities connected with both Combustible Gas and Carbon Dioxide storage?

    4. Combustible Gas and Carbon Dioxide importation and storage is included in Article 8:
    a) Is HSE right to include them in the same article (Article 8)?
    b) Do you think HSE should address Combustible Gas and Carbon Dioxide activities in two separate articles?

    5. Do you agree that all work activities associated with Combustible Gas and Carbon Dioxide are covered by Article 8? If not please give reasons why and explain how you think HSE should address this?

    6. Do you believe that Article 10 which is specific to Underground Coal Gasification, is sufficient to give HSE the jurisdiction to regulate all activities associated with UCG?

    7. Given the limited information available about the storage of carbon dioxide and UCG, do you agree with HSE that the most appropriate way to regulate these activities in the short term is by applying the general provisions of the HSWA?

    8. Can you think of any situation where an offshore installation would ever be used for anything other than activities connected with oil and gas exploitation or exploration, or the storage and recovery of gas (as outlined within the definition of an offshore installation)?

    9. Do you think HSE needs to take these steps to ensure it can regulate high risk decommissioning and dismantling activities associated with offshore installations using its offshore major hazard regulations?

    10. Do you agree with HSE’s proposals to clarify the structures that HSE will regulate as offshore installations under the HSWA and offshore regulations?

    11. Do you agree with HSE’s view that micro businesses and ‘start ups’ need to be covered by, and comply with, the 2013 Order?

    12. Please give your reasons for agreeing, or not agreeing, that micro-businesses and ‘start ups’ need to be covered by the Order?

    13. Do you agree with the analysis presented in the Impact Assessment specifically;
    a) That it has been assumed that there will be no extra compliance costs to industry from these proposals?
    b) That the assumptions on how long it will take industry to familiarise themselves with the 2013 Order are correct?

    14. What do you think would happen to health and safety performance in the sector if a new Order is not introduced?

    Submit opinion


     
     
      
     

    Captcha

    Note: This is Case Sensitive *





     

    Alert

      
  • Consultation on proposals to remove fourteen legislative measures

    Created: 23 April 2012
    Issued By: The Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
    Submission date: 20 June 2012

    Summary

    Consultation on proposals to remove fourteen legislative measures

    Published by: HSE

    Closing date for comments: by 20/06/2012

    About this consultation

    The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is proposing to repeal or revoke fourteen legislative measures (one Act, twelve Regulations and one Order). HSE believes these are either redundant, have been overtaken by more up to date Regulations or do not deliver their expected benefits such as the regulations requiring the notification of tower cranes. More detail of the legislation that the HSE proposes to repeal and revoke together with the reasoning and impact assessments is contained in the'consultation document'. The impact assessment in the consultation document also includes reassurance to the concerns that the Sikh community might have.

    This consultation proposes the removal of the:
    • Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act 1922
    • Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act 1922 (Exemptions) Regulations 1980
    • Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act 1922 (Repeals and Modifications) Regulations 1974
    • Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989
    • Docks Regulations 1988
    • Docks, Shipbuilding etc (Metrication) Regulations 1983
    • Gasholders (Record of Examinations) Order 1938 and a related provision (section 39 (2)) in the Factories Act 1961
    • Gasholders and Steam Boilers (Metrication) Regulations 1981
    • Locomotives etc Regulations 1906 (Metrication) Regulations 1981
    • Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations 2010
    • Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes (Amendment) Regulations 2010
    • Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982
    • Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances (Amendment) Regulations 2002
    • Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing Regulations 1960

    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 Consultation@iosh.co.uk by 20 June 2012.

    Consultation questions:

    1. Do you agree with the proposal (as outlined in the Annex) to revoke the Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act 1922, the Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act 1922 (Repeals and Modifications) Regulations 1974 and the Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act 1922 (Exemptions) Regulations 1980?

    2. To the best of your knowledge, are there any groups or individuals who keep or store raw celluloid or cinematograph film in non-workplace premises, and therefore have duties under this legislation?

    3. If you have answered ‘Yes’, please can you provide contact details for any groups/ individuals who do keep or store raw celluloid or cinematograph film so they can be contacted to discuss the impact of this proposal?

    4. To help HSE prepare the Impact Assessment we would be grateful if you would answer the following questions:

    a) what impact would the removal of the legislation have on the health and safety of these groups / individuals?
    b) what additional costs or savings do you estimate the removal of the legislation would impose on these groups / individuals, e.g. in terms of monetary costs, or in time spent?

    5. Do you agree with the proposal (as outlined in the Annex) to revoke the Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989?

    If you have answered ‘No’, what are your objections?

    6. If the proposal is agreed, HSE plans to publicise the change to help ensure the construction industry understands that it will still require employers to provide, and workers to wear, head protection where there is a risk of head injury. Can you suggest ways in which you/industry could help achieve this?

    7. Do you agree with the IA’s assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposed revocation of the CHP Regulations?
    If you have answered ‘No’ please explain your objections?

    8. The impact assessment estimates that:

    a. 5% of the self-employed (with no employees) in construction will spend time understanding the nature of this change and what it implies for them. Do you think the estimate is reasonable? If not, what would be a better estimate? If possible, please explain why.

    b. 25% of employers in construction will spend time understanding the nature of this change and what it implies for them. Do you think the estimate is reasonable? If not, what would be a better estimate? If possible, please explain why.

    c. The activity described in a) and b) would take 10 minutes to do.
    Do you think the estimate is reasonable? If not, what would be a better estimate? If possible, please explain why.

    d. Those self-employed and employers in construction who are familiar with the CHP Regulations will also be familiar with the PPE Regulations.
    Do you think the estimate is reasonable? If not, what would be a better estimate? If possible, please explain why.

    e. 5% of new self-employed entering the construction sector currently read the CHP Regulations.
    Do you think the estimate is reasonable? If not, what would be a better estimate? If possible, please explain why.

    f. 25% of new businesses (employers) entering the construction sector currently read the CHP Regulations.
    Do you think the estimate is reasonable? If not, what would be a better estimate? If possible, please explain why.

    g. It takes half an hour to read and understand the CHP Regulations.
    Do you think the estimate is reasonable? If not, what would be a better estimate? If possible, please explain why.

    9. HSE believes that the proposed change will maintain the high level of provision and use of head protection that the construction industry has already achieved. Do you agree?
    If you answered ‘No’, in your view, how would this affect the use of head protection:

    a)by the self-employed?
    • It would not affect it
    • It would make it less likely that they would wear head protection
    • They would not wear head protection at all
    • Don’t know
    • Other (please explain)

    b)by employers to their workers?
    • It would not affect it
    • It would make it less likely that employers provide head protection and require it’s worn
    • Employers would not provide head protection and require it’s worn
    • Don’t know
    • Other (please explain)

    10. Would this revocation have any implications (positive or negative) for businesses workers or others that we have not considered in the impact assessment?
    If you have answered ‘Yes’ please explain what these are.

    11. Do you agree with the proposal (as outlined in the Annex) to revoke the Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations 2010 and the Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes (Amendment) Regulations 2010?
    If you have answered ‘No’ what are your objections?

    12. In addition to HSE’s continued work with the industry to improve standards can you suggest cost-effective, non-regulatory ways in which the public could be reassured that tower cranes on construction sites are being used to high standards of safety?

    13. Do you agree with the IA’s assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposed revocation of the Notification of Conventional Tower Crane Regulations and their Amending Regulations? If you have answered ‘No’ please explain your objections.

    14. The impact assessment estimates that:
    a) It will take 10 minutes to understand that tower cranes should no longer be notified to HSE when the Regulations are revoked.
    b) Do you think the estimate is reasonable? If not, what would be a better estimate? If possible, please explain why.

    15. In every company, an average of three managers would have to understand this.
    a) Do you think the estimate is reasonable? If not, what would be a better estimate? If possible, please explain why.

    16. Would this revocation require you to make any changes to your computer systems?
    If you have answered ‘Yes’, please could you estimate how much this will cost you?

    17. Would this revocation have any implications (positive or negative) for businesses, workers or others that we have not considered in the impact assessment? If you have answered ‘Yes’ please explain what these are.

    18. Do you agree with the proposal (as outlined in the Annex) to revoke:
    a) The Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982?
    b) The Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances (Amendment) Regulations 2002? If you have answered ‘No’ to either of the above, what are your objections?

    19. Do you agree that a consequential amendment should be made to the Dangerous Substances (Notification and Marking of Sites) Regulations 1990 to ensure there is a specific notification requirement for Ammonium Nitrate if both the 1982 and the 2002 NIHHS Regulations are revoked? If you have answered ‘No’, what are your reasons?

    20. Do you agree that in the consequential amendment the threshold limit for Ammonium Nitrate should be 150 tonnes (i.e. the threshold limit in NIHHS)? If you have answered ‘No’, what are your reasons?

    21. To help HSE prepare the Impact Assessment we would be grateful if you would answer the following questions:

    a) Does your business have to complete notifications under these Regulations?
    b) If you have answered ‘Yes’:

    22. How long does it take to complete a notification under the NIHHS
    a) Regulations and submit it to HSE?
    b) What is involved?
    c) Who in the organisation (level / grade) will do this?
    d) What do you think are the benefits of revoking the NIHHS Regulations?

    23. Do you agree that all the information notified under NIHHS is repeated in other legislation? If you have answered ‘No’ please explain what information is not repeated.

    24. Will there be any extra costs of notifying Ammonium Nitrate (as defined in the NIHHS Amendment Regulations 2002) under the NAMOS Regulations 1990 rather than under the amendment regulations? If you have answered ‘Yes’ please explain what they will be.

    25. How long will it take to familiarise yourselves with the revocation of the NIHHS Regulations?

    • Approximately 20 minutes
    • Approximately 40 minutes
    • Approximately 60 minutes
    • Approximately 90 minutes
    • Other (Please state)________________


    26. How many people in your organisation will be involved with the familiarisation?

    a) What level / grade of staff will be involved?
    b) Does your site dispense petrol but is not covered by COMAH?
    c) If you have answered ‘Yes’: Do you know what is required to comply with the Petroleum legislation and licensing regime?

    27. If you have answered ‘Yes’ can you estimate what compliance with this legislation might cost?

    28. If you have answered ‘No’ how long do you think it will take to find out and who in your organisation will have to do this?

    29. Will there be any other costs from the proposed revocation of the NIHHS Regulations? a) If you have answered ‘Yes’ please explain what these will be.

    30. Do you agree with the proposal (as outlined in the Annex) to revoke the Gasholders (Record of Examinations) Order 1938 and section 39 (2) for the Factories Act 1961? If you have answered ‘No’ what are your objections?

    31. To help HSE prepare the Impact Assessment please estimate what changes to your business would you make (if any) as a result of the Order being revoked?

    32. Would this revocation have any implications (positive or negative) for businesses, workers or others that HSE has not identified? If you have answered ‘Yes’ please explain what these are.

    33. Do you agree with the proposal (as outlined in the Annex) to revoke The Docks Regulations 1988 and for HSE to withdraw its approval of COP 25?

    34. To help HSE prepare the Impact Assessment please consider how long you estimate it will take for an employer to appreciate that this revocation will not change their day to day operations?

    • Approximately 20 minutes
    • Approximately 40 minutes
    • Approximately 60 minutes
    • Approximately 90 minutes
    • Other (Please state)

    If you have answered ‘No’ what are your objections?

    35. Would this revocation and the withdrawal of the ACoP have any implications (positive or negative) for businesses, workers or others that HSE has not identified?
    If you have answered ‘Yes’ please explain what these are.

    36. Do you agree with the proposal (as outlined in the Annex) to revoke the Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing Regulations 1960 If you have answered ‘No’ what are your objections?

    37. To help HSE prepare the Impact Assessment please consider how long you estimate it will take for an employer to appreciate that this revocation will not change their day to day operations?
    • Approximately 20 minutes
    • Approximately 40 minutes
    • Approximately 60 minutes
    • Approximately 90 minutes
    • Other (Please state)________________

    38. Would this revocation have any implications (positive or negative) for businesses, workers or others that HSE has not identified? If you have answered ‘Yes’ please explain what these are.

    39. Do you agree with the proposal (as outlined in the Annex) to revoke the:

    • Docks, Shipbuilding etc (Metrication) Regulations 1983;
    • Gasholders and Steamboilers (Metrication) Regulations 1981;
    • Locomotives etc Regulations 1906 (Metrication) Regulations 1981

    If you have answered ‘No’ what are your objections?

    40. Are there any further comments you would like to make on the issues raised in this consultative document?

    41. Is there anything you particularly liked or disliked about this consultation?

    Submit opinion


     
     
      
     

    Captcha

    Note: This is Case Sensitive *





     

    Alert

      
  • Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Towards a workforce strategy for the public health system – consultation document

    Created: 02 April 2012
    Issued By: The Department of Health
    Submission date: 01 June 2012

    Summary

    Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Towards a workforce strategy for the public health system – consultation document
    Published by: Department of Health
    Closing date for comments: 1 June 2012

    About this consultation

    This consultation is the Government’s first step to developing a new Public Health Workforce Strategy. Its aim is to realise the vision of its ‘Healthy Lives, Healthy People’ Whitepaper, through the contribution of public health workforces and councils and communities. It is intended that the Strategy will be a ‘living document’ that is regularly reviewed and updated.

    Under the new system, the public health workforce will be employed by a range of different employers. Local Authorities will take responsibility for delivering against public health outcomes. The consultation document sets out proposals and asks questions about how public health specialists will be developed and supported in the new public health system and how public health capacity can be embedded in the wider system. Proposals apply to England, but the Department of Health will work closely with the devolved administrations on areas of shared interest.

    Chapters include key messages, proposals, consultation questions and conclusions. The members of the ‘Public Health Workforce Strategy Working Group’ are listed in Annex A and the 17 consultation questions in Annex B. There is also an accompanying ‘impact assessment’ for comment, available on the Department of Health website.

    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 Consultation@iosh.co.uk by 1 June 2012.

    Consultation questions

    Q1 (Para 1.7): Do you agree that a public health workforce strategy should be reviewed regularly? If so, should this be every three years or every five years?

    Q2 (Para 2.5): Are these four groups a useful way of describing the public health workforces?

    Q3 (Para 2.12): Do you agree that methods of enumeration of the public health consultant and practitioner workforces should be scoped and piloted at a national level? Or do you think that workforce planning can take place effectively at a more local level e.g. Local Education and Training Boards (LETBs) working with local partners?

    Q4 (Para 3.7): Would these values, combined with the features of public health in Box 2, serve to bind together dispersed public health workforces?

    Q5 (Para 3.14): What further actions would enhance recruitment and retention of truly representative public health workforces?

    Q6 (Para 3.25): Are there workforce challenges and opportunities we have not identified? What support could be put in place to help meet these challenges?

    Q7 (Para 4.7): How can local people be encouraged to develop their skills for public health in the new system?

    Q8 (Para 4.11): How can the public health element of GP training and continued professional development be enhanced?

    Q9 (Para 4.18): Would it be helpful to describe the potential career pathways open to public health practitioner workforces?

    Q10 (Para 5.14): What benefits would multi-disciplinary training bring to the public health workforces?

    Q11 (Para 5.24): How can LETBs best support flexible careers to build extended capacity in public health?

    Q12 (Para 5.25): Is the healthcare Education Outcomes Framework appropriate for public health education and training? If not, how could it be adapted?

    Q13 (Para 5.31: How can flexible careers for public health specialists best be achieved?

    Q14 (Para 5.38): What actions would support the development of strong leadership for public health?

    Q15 (Para 5.43): What actions can be taken, and by whom, to attract high-quality graduates into academic public health?

    Q16 (Para 5.50): Are these the right actions to develop and strengthen the public health information and intelligence function? Who should be responsible for delivering these actions?

    Q17 (para 6.3): Do you have any evidence or information that would help analyse the impact of these proposals?

    Submit opinion


     
     
      
     

    Captcha

    Note: This is Case Sensitive *





     

    Alert