No clever links as I would have had to do it at the time but a few days ago I read a wee snippet in one of the papers up here about general H&S at work. As usual I can't remember exactly what it said but what did grab my attention was the statement from an inspector who was quoted as saying that employers should concentrate on the real dangers facing their workforce rather than producing reams of unnecessary paper work. I have heard similar noises coming from other sources and thought it sounded like a big shift in emphasis to me as up till now that was what was meant to protect us should the worse happen. I liked the sound of it and wondered if anyone else has noticed the same?
Maybe a Change of Tact From HSE.
- Thread starter aom
- Start date
paddy carr
Moderator
It sounds like the recommendations from Lord Youngs report, commissioned by David Cameron.
paddy carr
Moderator
Lord Young restores common sense to health and safety
Friday 15 October 2010
Lord Young, the Prime Minister’s adviser on health and safety law and practice, has today published his report "Common Sense, Common Safety".
Lord Young, the Prime Minister’s adviser on health and safety law and practice, has today published his report Common Sense, Common Safety.
The report follows a Whitehall-wide review of the operation of health and safety laws and the growth of the compensation culture.
•Read the full report [pdf, 688 kb]
The PM and the Cabinet have accepted all of the recommendations put forward by Lord Young, who will continue to work across departments to ensure his recommendations are carried through.
Common Sense, Common Safety puts forward a series of policies for improving the perception of health and safety, to ensure it is taken seriously by employers and the general public, while ensuring the burden on small business is as insignificant as possible.
The report also calls for restrictions on advertising for “no win, no fee” compensation claims and a revolution in the way personal injury claims are handled.
Welcoming the report, the PM said:
“Good health and safety is vitally important. But all too often good, straightforward legislation designed to protect people from major hazards has been extended inappropriately to cover every walk of life, no matter how low risk.
A damaging compensation culture has arisen, as if people can absolve themselves from any personal responsibility for their own actions, with the spectre of lawyers only too willing to pounce with a claim for damages on the slightest pretext.
“We simply cannot go on like this. That’s why I asked Lord Young to do this review and put some common sense back into health and safety. And that’s exactly what he has done.”
Among the key recommendations is to extend the simplified Road Traffic Accident Personal Injury Scheme to include other personal injury claims. This would provide a simple three-stage procedure for lower value claims, accessible via the internet, with fixed costs for each stage.
Lord Young also proposes a common sense approach to educational trips, which currently entail a plethora of forms to fill in, deterring teachers and others who work with children from arranging any trips at all. He recommends a single consent form covering all activities a child might undertake at school.
Friday 15 October 2010
Lord Young, the Prime Minister’s adviser on health and safety law and practice, has today published his report "Common Sense, Common Safety".
Lord Young, the Prime Minister’s adviser on health and safety law and practice, has today published his report Common Sense, Common Safety.
The report follows a Whitehall-wide review of the operation of health and safety laws and the growth of the compensation culture.
•Read the full report [pdf, 688 kb]
The PM and the Cabinet have accepted all of the recommendations put forward by Lord Young, who will continue to work across departments to ensure his recommendations are carried through.
Common Sense, Common Safety puts forward a series of policies for improving the perception of health and safety, to ensure it is taken seriously by employers and the general public, while ensuring the burden on small business is as insignificant as possible.
The report also calls for restrictions on advertising for “no win, no fee” compensation claims and a revolution in the way personal injury claims are handled.
Welcoming the report, the PM said:
“Good health and safety is vitally important. But all too often good, straightforward legislation designed to protect people from major hazards has been extended inappropriately to cover every walk of life, no matter how low risk.
A damaging compensation culture has arisen, as if people can absolve themselves from any personal responsibility for their own actions, with the spectre of lawyers only too willing to pounce with a claim for damages on the slightest pretext.
“We simply cannot go on like this. That’s why I asked Lord Young to do this review and put some common sense back into health and safety. And that’s exactly what he has done.”
Among the key recommendations is to extend the simplified Road Traffic Accident Personal Injury Scheme to include other personal injury claims. This would provide a simple three-stage procedure for lower value claims, accessible via the internet, with fixed costs for each stage.
Lord Young also proposes a common sense approach to educational trips, which currently entail a plethora of forms to fill in, deterring teachers and others who work with children from arranging any trips at all. He recommends a single consent form covering all activities a child might undertake at school.
R
ragscaff
Guest
Each time I have met the HSE for the SCCR, they have always maintained that you need to plan each work practice efficiently.
The over board attitude to paperwork & systems has not come from them but from main client & NASC.
Dare I start the Monty Python bit again.
What has changed in 30 years of scaffolding??
How many scaffolders have been badly injured whilst tunnelling?
How many scaffold collapse have been down to tampering or cowboy firms?
Main issues that need answering!!!!
Ragscaff
The over board attitude to paperwork & systems has not come from them but from main client & NASC.
Dare I start the Monty Python bit again.
What has changed in 30 years of scaffolding??
How many scaffolders have been badly injured whilst tunnelling?
How many scaffold collapse have been down to tampering or cowboy firms?
Main issues that need answering!!!!
Ragscaff
In my limited experience Stewart it's more ill-informed MC's and insurance companies than the NASC. I hate the paper work and would be the first to cut it if I thought I wouldn't need it but unfortunately despite what the hse say's if they found it lacking they would still use it to beat you round the face and head with it if something went wrong. I suppose you could argue that if the work was planned properly nothing would go wrong but I think we are all long enough in the tooth to accept that is just not true. As for changes in scaffolding in the past 30 years, I would say there are too many to mention. I know you mean the basic activity but if you were able to look back our's and nearly every other job I know would be unrecognisable. I don't know what the answer is but I just liked the sound of what this inspector was saying even though I know it just wouldn't be acceptable in the current climate of litigation.
until the HSE stops quoting the nasc and tg20/08 as best practice i personally dont see what real difference the report will make,apart from the office enviroment were office health and safety may well give way to some more common sense practices
It wasn't that report I was referring to daftscaff although it may very well be borne from it, you may have seen it, it was a wee snippet in the daily Ranger page 2 just before hogmanay about an end of year report about general health and safety at work in Scotland although not restricted to construction. As a foot note the inspector in question reckoned employers should concentrate on the real dangers rather than getting bogged down with paper work and I thought it sounded like a nice sentiment but over the last few years I have come to accept that both these things come hand in hand and cannot be separated.
Without NASC guidance documents SG/TG series, they would be produced by an organisation with probably little or no association to the scaffolding industry - appointed by the HSE.
The NASC is very careful to produce documents that the idiots at the HSE are happy to endorse, without giving in to any more bureaucracy than is totally necessary to keep these characters happy.
I know which option I'd rather go with....
Dandaps
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2009
- Messages
- 858
- Reaction score
- 0
The legal aid system was brought in to protect the little man, but has been abused by quite a lot of people and ambulance chasers. The government is right to try and bring in this common sense approach. Touch wood we have not had any claims made against us but I have heard many a firm being sued by some downright cheeky bstards. The first company I ever worked for had a claim made against them once when they cordened off some stacked gear and someone said they tripped over it and injured his back. Funny when the insurance firm filmed him playing golf. They want people to have a responsibilty for there actions aswell as the employer, contractor, etc
bigfish
Moderator
There should be some thing in place to penalise the ambulance chasers when they get it wrong,at the moment they chase every case with legal aid,and it's cheaper for the insurance companies to just pay out,rather than fight,even when they know it's a fraudulant claim,so it's a total win win situation for the claims lawyers,until this is addressed,things wont change
Zotsey
Well-known member
Well somethings wrong.
I had an accident on motorway end of Nov. Some geezer side swiped me.
Rang insurers etc gave details, girl says any personal injuries, anyone hurt ? No I say
You sure ? She says. You can get a couple ton just for a little scratch. Sometimes injuries come on a week or so after the accident, she said, just give us a call !!!!
It's like I was being cajoled into making an injury claim even though I told her I hadn't been hurt
I had an accident on motorway end of Nov. Some geezer side swiped me.
Rang insurers etc gave details, girl says any personal injuries, anyone hurt ? No I say
You sure ? She says. You can get a couple ton just for a little scratch. Sometimes injuries come on a week or so after the accident, she said, just give us a call !!!!
It's like I was being cajoled into making an injury claim even though I told her I hadn't been hurt
X
XxIANxX
Guest
.
When you have politicians on the take for everything they can swindle that seems to have given the green light for everyone to join the gravy train
.
Feck just got a twinge in my finger while typing that, gotta be worth a grand £££££££
There should be some thing in place to penalise the ambulance chasers when they get it wrong,at the moment they chase every case with legal aid,and it's cheaper for the insurance companies to just pay out,rather than fight,even when they know it's a fraudulant claim,so it's a total win win situation for the claims lawyers,until this is addressed,things wont change
I would agree with that bigfish, a degree of risk would curtail a few of them.
Garry Adams
Well-known member
General H&S at WORK...
Employers should concentrate on the real dangers facing their work force rather than producing reams of unnecessary paper work !!!.
Am I lead to believe that the HSE are now telling us to dilute that which they have already sanctioned ???. Selective culling of addendum's to the HaSaWA associated Regulations, ACoP and Industry Guidance ???---which part or parts of the aforementioned are deemed to be unnecessary paper work ???.
Questions to the Forum...
1) What are the real dangers facing the work force ???.
2) What is the unnecessary paper work ???.
3) When will the HSE ask US for OUR input ???.
We---the Scaffolders have identified that our Industry has for quite some time has been top heavy with Administrative Regulators who's motives have not wholly been in the interest of that which they profess, put simply, self and or Organizations interests have taken the place of common sense and sound judgement---if we are ever to get back to basics, WE, the Scaffolders whom actually are the producers of and generate the revenue to sustain ALL of the Blue and White Collar Workers in OUR Industry, then we the Scaffolders demand our right to Consultation in the Amendments and Addendum's that the HSE are speaking of, are we not ???.
Employers should concentrate on the real dangers facing their work force rather than producing reams of unnecessary paper work !!!.
Am I lead to believe that the HSE are now telling us to dilute that which they have already sanctioned ???. Selective culling of addendum's to the HaSaWA associated Regulations, ACoP and Industry Guidance ???---which part or parts of the aforementioned are deemed to be unnecessary paper work ???.
Questions to the Forum...
1) What are the real dangers facing the work force ???.
2) What is the unnecessary paper work ???.
3) When will the HSE ask US for OUR input ???.
We---the Scaffolders have identified that our Industry has for quite some time has been top heavy with Administrative Regulators who's motives have not wholly been in the interest of that which they profess, put simply, self and or Organizations interests have taken the place of common sense and sound judgement---if we are ever to get back to basics, WE, the Scaffolders whom actually are the producers of and generate the revenue to sustain ALL of the Blue and White Collar Workers in OUR Industry, then we the Scaffolders demand our right to Consultation in the Amendments and Addendum's that the HSE are speaking of, are we not ???.
jakdan
Well-known member
1) What are the real dangers facing the work force ???.
1a) Falls from height, working in and around other trades, depending on the location, chemicals, electricity, traffic, water, etc etc. quite simple stuff really.
2) What is the unnecessary paper work ???.
2a) (not so much the position i am in now but in previous positions), simple method statements turned into 22+ page "production plans" or whatever they want to call them these days, that scaffolders do not have the need the inclination or the want to read at the best of times never mind 7.30 monday morning, just so some jumped up safety pr1ck can say your ar se is covered.
Risk assessments that only need to be tickky box, not 10 pages of hazards that "might" come into play?
Most scaffs know the risks prior to starting and if not, a brief explanation normally does the trick.
3) When will the HSE ask US for OUR input ???.
3a) Probably never Garry its only the boys in suits that ever get asked and again its all about covering their ar se.
IMO i am all for education especially when wet behind the lugs but don't bog us down, keep it simple, keep paper work down to a minimum and let scaffs do "their" job
1a) Falls from height, working in and around other trades, depending on the location, chemicals, electricity, traffic, water, etc etc. quite simple stuff really.
2) What is the unnecessary paper work ???.
2a) (not so much the position i am in now but in previous positions), simple method statements turned into 22+ page "production plans" or whatever they want to call them these days, that scaffolders do not have the need the inclination or the want to read at the best of times never mind 7.30 monday morning, just so some jumped up safety pr1ck can say your ar se is covered.
Risk assessments that only need to be tickky box, not 10 pages of hazards that "might" come into play?
Most scaffs know the risks prior to starting and if not, a brief explanation normally does the trick.
3) When will the HSE ask US for OUR input ???.
3a) Probably never Garry its only the boys in suits that ever get asked and again its all about covering their ar se.
IMO i am all for education especially when wet behind the lugs but don't bog us down, keep it simple, keep paper work down to a minimum and let scaffs do "their" job
paperwork and regs getting ridiculous now!!! had a ginney wheel trainning course today more ar!se covering in case of a accident couldn,t believe such a small piece of kit could make a course up for 5 hours of slides swl nuts washers rope ect ect ect!!! couldnt believe after 6 months our firms scraps them even thou theve not been used as its cheaper to buy new rather than have them checked and tested again!!! £100 £150 each bet they dont stay in the skip long !!!!
Garry Adams
Well-known member
Jakdan
Thanks, I was just wondering how they are going to stream line the H&S requirements and how come it is okay to do so now ???
Which bits are they going to scrub ???
Gar...
Thanks, I was just wondering how they are going to stream line the H&S requirements and how come it is okay to do so now ???
Which bits are they going to scrub ???
Gar...
AS STATED IN AN EARLIER POST ITS THE NASC AND NOT REALLY THE HSE THAT DETERMINES THE PAPERWORK AND SHIITE THAT WE AS SCAFFOLDERS AND MANAGEMENT HAVE TO ABIDE WITH,CAN ANYONE TELL ME WERE IN ANY HSE REGS OR GUIDELINES IT STATES THE NEED FOR A CISRS CARD TO ERECT A SCAFFOLD,OR THE NEED FOR A SCAFFOLD INSPECTION CERT TO DO A SCAFFOLD INSPECTION.
THE SG4 IS A VALUED ADDITION TO SCAFFOLDING SAFETY AS ARE THE OTHER FALL ARREST DEVICES ON THE MARKET,BUT AGAIN DO WE REALLY NEED THE SCAFF STEP,AND WHAT ABOUT THE ADVANCE GUARDRAIL AND HANDRAILS ON NON WORKING LIFTS(SOON TO BE DOUBLEHANDRAILS) COME ON TO FECK.
THE SAFE WORKING AT HEIGHTS REGS WERE DESIGNED FOR OTHER TRADES WHOSE WORK MAYWELL INVOLVE WORK AT HEIGHT,NOT FOR SCAFFOLDERS WHO BY THE VERY NATURE OF THEIR WORK IS ALL ABOUT PUTTING THEMSELVES INTO A POSITION OF DANGER TO ENABLE OTHERS TO WORK SAFELY AT HEIGHT,MAYBE THE SOONER PEOPLE STARTED APPRECIATING THIS FACT AND STARTED PAYING US A WEE BIT MORE RESPECT AND A FEW MORE BOB THE BETTER
THE SG4 IS A VALUED ADDITION TO SCAFFOLDING SAFETY AS ARE THE OTHER FALL ARREST DEVICES ON THE MARKET,BUT AGAIN DO WE REALLY NEED THE SCAFF STEP,AND WHAT ABOUT THE ADVANCE GUARDRAIL AND HANDRAILS ON NON WORKING LIFTS(SOON TO BE DOUBLEHANDRAILS) COME ON TO FECK.
THE SAFE WORKING AT HEIGHTS REGS WERE DESIGNED FOR OTHER TRADES WHOSE WORK MAYWELL INVOLVE WORK AT HEIGHT,NOT FOR SCAFFOLDERS WHO BY THE VERY NATURE OF THEIR WORK IS ALL ABOUT PUTTING THEMSELVES INTO A POSITION OF DANGER TO ENABLE OTHERS TO WORK SAFELY AT HEIGHT,MAYBE THE SOONER PEOPLE STARTED APPRECIATING THIS FACT AND STARTED PAYING US A WEE BIT MORE RESPECT AND A FEW MORE BOB THE BETTER
Garry Adams
Well-known member
nae si daftscaff
I concur that the NASC has a big influence on the HSE endorsements for the NASC Guidance---However, I seek clarification on the HSE's statement on "employers should concentrate on the REAL DANGERS facing their work force rather than unnecessary paper work" !!!.
The only premise where H&S can be Lawfully discounted is when an Operative accepts the additional level of perceived Risk by way of enhanced remuneration, for example, Non fit injura...
I concur that the NASC has a big influence on the HSE endorsements for the NASC Guidance---However, I seek clarification on the HSE's statement on "employers should concentrate on the REAL DANGERS facing their work force rather than unnecessary paper work" !!!.
The only premise where H&S can be Lawfully discounted is when an Operative accepts the additional level of perceived Risk by way of enhanced remuneration, for example, Non fit injura...