Regulation? Law? ??
Discussion
Vaud said:
21TonyK said:
If a public body fails to adopt a Govt. regulation what are the implications? Is it a legal requirement, ie. someone can be prosecuted for not adopting it or is it a "nice to have" if you can do it?
Can you give an example?My understanding from a H&S background where there are a lot of Regulations is that a breach of regulations is not an actually breaking the law. Regulations are in effect regarded as best practice but if as a result of a breach there is some legal action then the regulations can be used in evidence.
A similar situation is the Highway Code. You may breach one of the 'rules' but that may or may not be against the law as such but the HC could be used against you in a prosecution.
A similar situation is the Highway Code. You may breach one of the 'rules' but that may or may not be against the law as such but the HC could be used against you in a prosecution.
elanfan said:
My understanding from a H&S background where there are a lot of Regulations is that a breach of regulations is not an actually breaking the law. Regulations are in effect regarded as best practice but if as a result of a breach there is some legal action then the regulations can be used in evidence.
A similar situation is the Highway Code. You may breach one of the 'rules' but that may or may not be against the law as such but the HC could be used against you in a prosecution.
Statute laws are made two ways, by an act of Parliament or regulations made by the relevant Secretary of State. Breaking either leads to a criminal offence. I think you are confusing this with an approved code of practice (acop) and with guidance both of which are often included in with a health and safety regulation. Not following an acop can be used in court to show you are not compliant with the regulation, it is up to you to prove you are. Not following guidance can not be used the same way. There are some odd laws which only allow for civil actions not criminal. Please hand in your NEBOSH cert at the door on the way out A similar situation is the Highway Code. You may breach one of the 'rules' but that may or may not be against the law as such but the HC could be used against you in a prosecution.
21TonyK said:
If a public body fails to adopt a Govt. regulation what are the implications? Is it a legal requirement, ie. someone can be prosecuted for not adopting it or is it a "nice to have" if you can do it?
You're prosecuted under the primary legilsation (the Act of Parliament) that enabled the relevant Govt department to create the secondary legislation (the Regulations) you've breached. No public body has to "adopt" them; as soon as the order or regulation is live they have to be complied with if they govern the body or their activities. For example schools have to comply with the Fire Regulatory Reform Order and when they don't they get prosecuted http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/4586945.Schoo...You normally get around 18 months notice that regs are changing so there's no reason not to be ready to comply.
Thanks for the replies. Without copy and pasting stuff in excess this is the opening statement from the document.
"The Secretary of State for Education makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 114A(a) and 138(7) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998(b):"
AFAIK the result is a "Policy".
TBH it's not a life of death thing, just that I have worked for months to meet the requirements and my employer is saying "we don't want to do it" as its a bit of a PITA and might costa few quid.
"The Secretary of State for Education makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 114A(a) and 138(7) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998(b):"
AFAIK the result is a "Policy".
TBH it's not a life of death thing, just that I have worked for months to meet the requirements and my employer is saying "we don't want to do it" as its a bit of a PITA and might costa few quid.
Don't know the circumstances OP posted on, but there is one law which seems to be subject to local variations. Dog tagging. AFAIK, the law ( as recounted to me by a dog training club secretary) is that it is a legal requirement ( apart from chipping-Don't forget that this was pre chip days) for a dog to wear a collar with a tag giving the owners name/address etc. BUT this law is dependant on the local council adopting it as policy for the dog wardens. Five or so years ago, I decided to rescue a dog from my favourite breed rescue charity, and sought advice from our local dog warden supervisor on what to include on the tag. Short answer was that they didn't know as our local authority has no requirement for dogs to carry a tag. Best guess was name/address and mobile telephone number of owner and include the fact that he was chipped.
Whether this law has changed to take the enforcement out of LA hands, I don't know.
Whether this law has changed to take the enforcement out of LA hands, I don't know.
21TonyK said:
Thanks for the replies. Without copy and pasting stuff in excess this is the opening statement from the document.
"The Secretary of State for Education makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 114A(a) and 138(7) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998(b):"
AFAIK the result is a "Policy".
TBH it's not a life of death thing, just that I have worked for months to meet the requirements and my employer is saying "we don't want to do it" as its a bit of a PITA and might costa few quid.
The policy is "healthy foood for school children", the regulations discussed here is how the Governemnt is enacting that policy."The Secretary of State for Education makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 114A(a) and 138(7) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998(b):"
AFAIK the result is a "Policy".
TBH it's not a life of death thing, just that I have worked for months to meet the requirements and my employer is saying "we don't want to do it" as its a bit of a PITA and might costa few quid.
As it's the The Requirements for School Food (England) Regulations 2014 (Google is a wonderful thing) setting out what should & shouldn't be served for school dinners personnally I would disagree on whether it's life or death, it's just not immediate death if you get it wrong. It is lifestyle choices, life chances and ability to receive education though. As for your boss, well it might be a PITA now, but if they think compliance with this is a PITA god help them if the school mums find out & get organised on Facebook & the media. As to costing a few quid, are you the school or a catering contractor?
21TonyK said:
Thanks for the replies. Without copy and pasting stuff in excess this is the opening statement from the document.
"The Secretary of State for Education makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 114A(a) and 138(7) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998(b):"
AFAIK the result is a "Policy".
TBH it's not a life of death thing, just that I have worked for months to meet the requirements and my employer is saying "we don't want to do it" as its a bit of a PITA and might costa few quid.
that;s secondary legislation ( the regulations) detailing how primary legislation ( sections of the act) are goingto be implemented. "The Secretary of State for Education makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 114A(a) and 138(7) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998(b):"
AFAIK the result is a "Policy".
TBH it's not a life of death thing, just that I have worked for months to meet the requirements and my employer is saying "we don't want to do it" as its a bit of a PITA and might costa few quid.
An Organsiation wthin the scope of the regulations would need to develop operational policy ( often with legal and union advice) on how these regualtions are to be incorporated into practice.
as other posters have suggested Codes of Practice can to all intents and purposes be as powerful as legislation especially once there is case law that supports the ACOP , industry CoP or industry body guidelines on making a policy ...
21TonyK said:
Thanks for the replies. Without copy and pasting stuff in excess this is the opening statement from the document.
"The Secretary of State for Education makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 114A(a) and 138(7) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998(b):"
AFAIK the result is a "Policy".
TBH it's not a life of death thing, just that I have worked for months to meet the requirements and my employer is saying "we don't want to do it" as its a bit of a PITA and might costa few quid.
Policy doesn't trump legislation. It's not clear what it is they "don't want to do" and whether it the school head or the governors who are emulating an ostrich."The Secretary of State for Education makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 114A(a) and 138(7) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998(b):"
AFAIK the result is a "Policy".
TBH it's not a life of death thing, just that I have worked for months to meet the requirements and my employer is saying "we don't want to do it" as its a bit of a PITA and might costa few quid.
See - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1603/regul... - the word 'must' means it's not optional.
The schedules referred to are:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1603/sched...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1603/sched...
As said above, once social media and the local press gets wind of it things could go pear shaped pretty quickly.
Is the school under the control of the local authority or independent?
21TonyK said:
Thanks for the replies everyone. Looks like the question of whether or not they want to adopt the standards is irrelevant. I feel a higher level meeting coming on.
Good luck. Hope you don't need this:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/blowing...
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff