Maybe a Change of Tact From HSE.
- Thread starter aom
- Start date
The issue that HSE have been trying to promote for many years is not the doing away of paperwork but the doing away of excessive and unrealistic paperwork that contributes nothing to health and safety. Paperwork must be a reflection of agreed best practice and what goes on out on site.
Unfortunately many people see it as an a.rse covering exercise - "if I have the paperwork I will be alright". Not so - it can actually make things worse in many instances. One of the first things that HSE will want sight of, following an incident is the "paperwork".
If the paperwork bears no resemblence to the activities on site, you will politely be requested to explain - probably under caution with your solicitor present - why your management arrangements for health and safety were not working.
The best kind of paperwork is the straightforward simple kind that the blokes undertaking the work have bought into, so that they know what is required of them.
As has already been said a couple of times in this thread - a method statement the size of the gothenburg bible, that is impossible to read in a short time span is about as much use as a chocolate tea pot. In my opinion any method statement longer than a couple of sheets of A4 is useless. If you want to produce a longer one for the site agent go ahead - make sure the guys on site have got a short work plan so they know what is required of them. Make sure it reflects the main method statement or refers to it.
And you can't rely on the guys reading it - because they don't - however one of the first questions the supervisor or the guys are likely to be asked by an inspector is "what does your method statement say?" - not likely to impress the inspector if he is greeted by blank looks or told that "it's back in the office" (Remember the legal requirement under WAHR 2005 is to have a method statement available at all times for the erection, alteration and dismantling of scaffolding).
Far better to have the supervisor brief the workplan and then the crew signs to say that they've been briefed - a bit like working on the railway - Network Rail insist that this is the way to go as they have been seriously stung in court by some of the issues to do with people "reading" method statements.
The framework that scaffolders work with (TG20 and SG4:10) is the best way that the scaffolding industry - maybe not all of it admittedly - has come up with to work within the legal requirements imposed on it by the Health and Safety at Work Act, the Work at Height Regulations and the Construction (Design and Management) regulations.
I completely agree with Jakdan's statement regarding real hazards and the way paperwork is regarded in the construction industry, but how else, except by working within those guidelines would you achieve legal compliance - which is what this is all about.
Health and safety isn't complicated - it's about doing simple things well. A bit like first aid really - two important quotes:
"Managers will only recieve the standard of health and safety that they demonsttrate they want" - Mr Justice Fennel - Kings Cross enquiry.
How to keep out of jail in eight easy steps - Anthony Scrivener QC (top criminal lawyer)
1. Carry out risk assessment to cover all your activities. (Not usually done very well)
2. Then establish safe systems of work (method statements). (Also not usually done very well)
3. Audit the systems. Companies must be able to show that the paperwork has been acted on. (Never done....)
4. Have arrangements in place for obtaining immediate legal advice and assistance if there is an accident.
5. Do not allow yourself to give ill-informed answers to questions. You should decline to answer immidiately if you need to check documents to ensure accuracy.
6. Managers and Directors will be liable for delegated work and must therefore be able to justify that delegation and have full knowledge of what the delegate has been doing.
“You can’t get away with employing the village idiot to be responsible for safety” says Scrivener.
7. Safety must be at the top of every board meeting.
8. Make sure that systems are in place to deal appropriately and kindly with the relatives of those killed or injured. To act decently does not amount to an admission of guilt and provides good evidence of the attitude of the company.
Just my thoughts and my italics above.
Happy New Year
Otto
Unfortunately many people see it as an a.rse covering exercise - "if I have the paperwork I will be alright". Not so - it can actually make things worse in many instances. One of the first things that HSE will want sight of, following an incident is the "paperwork".
If the paperwork bears no resemblence to the activities on site, you will politely be requested to explain - probably under caution with your solicitor present - why your management arrangements for health and safety were not working.
The best kind of paperwork is the straightforward simple kind that the blokes undertaking the work have bought into, so that they know what is required of them.
As has already been said a couple of times in this thread - a method statement the size of the gothenburg bible, that is impossible to read in a short time span is about as much use as a chocolate tea pot. In my opinion any method statement longer than a couple of sheets of A4 is useless. If you want to produce a longer one for the site agent go ahead - make sure the guys on site have got a short work plan so they know what is required of them. Make sure it reflects the main method statement or refers to it.
And you can't rely on the guys reading it - because they don't - however one of the first questions the supervisor or the guys are likely to be asked by an inspector is "what does your method statement say?" - not likely to impress the inspector if he is greeted by blank looks or told that "it's back in the office" (Remember the legal requirement under WAHR 2005 is to have a method statement available at all times for the erection, alteration and dismantling of scaffolding).
Far better to have the supervisor brief the workplan and then the crew signs to say that they've been briefed - a bit like working on the railway - Network Rail insist that this is the way to go as they have been seriously stung in court by some of the issues to do with people "reading" method statements.
The framework that scaffolders work with (TG20 and SG4:10) is the best way that the scaffolding industry - maybe not all of it admittedly - has come up with to work within the legal requirements imposed on it by the Health and Safety at Work Act, the Work at Height Regulations and the Construction (Design and Management) regulations.
I completely agree with Jakdan's statement regarding real hazards and the way paperwork is regarded in the construction industry, but how else, except by working within those guidelines would you achieve legal compliance - which is what this is all about.
Health and safety isn't complicated - it's about doing simple things well. A bit like first aid really - two important quotes:
"Managers will only recieve the standard of health and safety that they demonsttrate they want" - Mr Justice Fennel - Kings Cross enquiry.
How to keep out of jail in eight easy steps - Anthony Scrivener QC (top criminal lawyer)
1. Carry out risk assessment to cover all your activities. (Not usually done very well)
2. Then establish safe systems of work (method statements). (Also not usually done very well)
3. Audit the systems. Companies must be able to show that the paperwork has been acted on. (Never done....)
4. Have arrangements in place for obtaining immediate legal advice and assistance if there is an accident.
5. Do not allow yourself to give ill-informed answers to questions. You should decline to answer immidiately if you need to check documents to ensure accuracy.
6. Managers and Directors will be liable for delegated work and must therefore be able to justify that delegation and have full knowledge of what the delegate has been doing.
“You can’t get away with employing the village idiot to be responsible for safety” says Scrivener.
7. Safety must be at the top of every board meeting.
8. Make sure that systems are in place to deal appropriately and kindly with the relatives of those killed or injured. To act decently does not amount to an admission of guilt and provides good evidence of the attitude of the company.
Just my thoughts and my italics above.
Happy New Year
Otto
Last edited:
superscaff75
Well-known member
Hello otto I noticed you are on forum and reading this haha Happy New Year :idea:
I believe people are trying mate - it's an uphill struggle - the main contractors load it all on to the sub contractors - then it's the subbie's fault when it all goes wrong.......
Luckily most inspectors can see through the smokescreen.
Happy new year to you superscaff!
All the best
Otto
Luckily most inspectors can see through the smokescreen.
Happy new year to you superscaff!
All the best
Otto
PW
Well-known member
The reams of paperwork that are put in place today is just a joke, I will be the first to admit the key information in our Method Statement is in the first two pages, the remaining 6 are just dross to keep the PC’s happy, on the other hand our Risk Assessment is just a page of Ticks, simple and to the point and has never once been flagged up as lacking.
In my humble opinion the issues are as follows:
Message from above
It’s about time Judge’s etc threw out these spurious claims from the ambulance chasing “No Win-No Fee” business’s, as mentioned before, legal aid was put into place to assist people who could not afford justice, it has fragrantly been abused and needs addressing immediately. Speaking personally, last year we had a bus hit one of our scaffolds, the bus company insurers were straight on to us claiming this and that, following investigation even though we were closer to the kerb edge than Local Authority stipulations we were still far enough away to satisfy the Police in regard to the road Traffic Act etc, it was deemed the bus must have mounted the kerb around mid length with the rear wheels hitting the kerb causing the collision...The Bus Company went away....Didn’t stop some individual one the bus whacking a claim in for “Injuries Undetermined” WTF!!! Our Insurers advised us to settle before the costs start racking up...Crazy world we live in eh?
Personal Responsibility
In all my years in the industry (26 years and a bit) I am privileged to say I have never (Touch Wood) had to deal with a fatality, very close but that’s another story. I have however had to deal with 4 No Serious Incidents, of the 4 only 1 I would say the business was at complete fault (SGB may I add) in having a complete lack of procedures in place for Trainee’s etc, I am going back about 15 years now. Of the other three I would lay most of the blame at the door of the Employee’s yet the companies got prosecuted.
1)Operatives erecting edge protection to Steel, everything was in place, training, experience, paperwork, machinery (Cherry Picker) Foreman Scaffolder decides to climb directly onto the steel contravening everything instructed of him, falls off and breaks his ankle very nastily, lucky it was only his ankle!! You guessed it..The business settled out of court.
2)Operatives erecting access tower to face of building...Same M/O as above, Leading Hand decides to climb up the face brace rather than use the ladder next to the job that was actually going into the job, falls off backwards and smashes his pelvis and legs to bits..Once again company is fined and he received a substantial compensation package.
3)Operative dismantling loading bay, goes to remove the gate, gate falls forward and he comes with it, fractured his skull and numerous other injuries, another one lucky to be alive he simply decided not to use the harness he had been issued and trained to use and although wearing it decided not to clip on...This guy got a six figure settlement.
At the end of the day, even if you demonstrate you have all the systems in place they will hit you with “Lack of Supervision” and also the Risk Assessment was not suitable and sufficient.
It is about time rather than big payouts some individuals got prosecuted for endangering their own lives and that of their work mates and people around them.
No Win – No Fee
I think it at the very least be curbed, ensure the claimant has to forfeit at least a deposit, if the ambulance chasers or clients have to put up a surety of say £500.00 then I think it would certainly make people think about bringing spurious cases to court, furthermore those that are found to be bringing false claims should be prosecuted for at the very least wasting time of the courts and at the worst fraud, at the minute when a case is found to be a blatant lie no one actually chases and brings the chancers to book.
I can give you a cast iron guarantee that if the above started to happen Business’s would stop all the ******** “Arse Covering”and actually concentrate on doing what they are supposed to do and that is provide jobs and a living for their Employee’s, they could also get rid of a lot of the “Non Job’s” saving even more thus making even more, a business in profit is a healthy business able to invest in its workforce, expand and create even more positions and elviate the current employment problems and finally as an added benefit Insurance costs would go down across the board, and that benefits everyone in my book.
In my humble opinion the issues are as follows:
Message from above
It’s about time Judge’s etc threw out these spurious claims from the ambulance chasing “No Win-No Fee” business’s, as mentioned before, legal aid was put into place to assist people who could not afford justice, it has fragrantly been abused and needs addressing immediately. Speaking personally, last year we had a bus hit one of our scaffolds, the bus company insurers were straight on to us claiming this and that, following investigation even though we were closer to the kerb edge than Local Authority stipulations we were still far enough away to satisfy the Police in regard to the road Traffic Act etc, it was deemed the bus must have mounted the kerb around mid length with the rear wheels hitting the kerb causing the collision...The Bus Company went away....Didn’t stop some individual one the bus whacking a claim in for “Injuries Undetermined” WTF!!! Our Insurers advised us to settle before the costs start racking up...Crazy world we live in eh?
Personal Responsibility
In all my years in the industry (26 years and a bit) I am privileged to say I have never (Touch Wood) had to deal with a fatality, very close but that’s another story. I have however had to deal with 4 No Serious Incidents, of the 4 only 1 I would say the business was at complete fault (SGB may I add) in having a complete lack of procedures in place for Trainee’s etc, I am going back about 15 years now. Of the other three I would lay most of the blame at the door of the Employee’s yet the companies got prosecuted.
1)Operatives erecting edge protection to Steel, everything was in place, training, experience, paperwork, machinery (Cherry Picker) Foreman Scaffolder decides to climb directly onto the steel contravening everything instructed of him, falls off and breaks his ankle very nastily, lucky it was only his ankle!! You guessed it..The business settled out of court.
2)Operatives erecting access tower to face of building...Same M/O as above, Leading Hand decides to climb up the face brace rather than use the ladder next to the job that was actually going into the job, falls off backwards and smashes his pelvis and legs to bits..Once again company is fined and he received a substantial compensation package.
3)Operative dismantling loading bay, goes to remove the gate, gate falls forward and he comes with it, fractured his skull and numerous other injuries, another one lucky to be alive he simply decided not to use the harness he had been issued and trained to use and although wearing it decided not to clip on...This guy got a six figure settlement.
At the end of the day, even if you demonstrate you have all the systems in place they will hit you with “Lack of Supervision” and also the Risk Assessment was not suitable and sufficient.
It is about time rather than big payouts some individuals got prosecuted for endangering their own lives and that of their work mates and people around them.
No Win – No Fee
I think it at the very least be curbed, ensure the claimant has to forfeit at least a deposit, if the ambulance chasers or clients have to put up a surety of say £500.00 then I think it would certainly make people think about bringing spurious cases to court, furthermore those that are found to be bringing false claims should be prosecuted for at the very least wasting time of the courts and at the worst fraud, at the minute when a case is found to be a blatant lie no one actually chases and brings the chancers to book.
I can give you a cast iron guarantee that if the above started to happen Business’s would stop all the ******** “Arse Covering”and actually concentrate on doing what they are supposed to do and that is provide jobs and a living for their Employee’s, they could also get rid of a lot of the “Non Job’s” saving even more thus making even more, a business in profit is a healthy business able to invest in its workforce, expand and create even more positions and elviate the current employment problems and finally as an added benefit Insurance costs would go down across the board, and that benefits everyone in my book.
Guys, this is my first post on here as I am a newbie and this tread caught my attention.
I have been in the construction industry for just over 10 years on all sorts of projects but now in housebuilding. All this time I have been battling to reduce the amount of meaningless paperwork that offers no or little value apart from collecting dust and wasting people time landing on my desk.. this is an never ending task for me and don't get me started on the high, medium, low risk tables in risk assessments that everybody seems to use - absolutely pointless!!! A risk is a risk.... just bl00dy control it!!
It would appear that many subcontractors, safety advisers, safety consultants (especially them) produce reams and reams of paperwork or try and bamboozle Site Managers / Clients. "More paperwork the better, they never look at it anyway" I frequently hear.. Well I do!!
All that is needed is minimum, relevant and necessary information that the contractors guys can understand and easily follow which is site and activity specific. Oh, I am only talking about Method statements and Risk Assessments here.
I had one contractor who documentation almost broke my desk, 212 pages of risk assessments done by his so called safety professional, 212 pages!!!! I sat down with him for 20mins and hand wrote his risk assessment, 4 pages, 4!!! I felt like asking him for the £1,500 he was charged.. I should work for myself as a Safety Consultant, it appears that all they do is churn out the same old crap by pushing a few buttons on their keyboard.. A few months later the site had a NHBC audit and a HSE visit, both highly commended the 4 page risk assessment and said that is exactly what they are after. The HSE inspector even took a copy to use as an exemplar to other trades and Site Managers / Clients..
I think what the HSE inspector in Scotland was talking about was exactly this - make it simple and relevant with minimum paperwork. In plain english, just use common sense..
Sorry for sticking my ore in but this does really get up my nose something chronic. None of us have time for all the paperwork that is getting created, we need to slash it so we can get on with some productive work.
Rant over!
I have been in the construction industry for just over 10 years on all sorts of projects but now in housebuilding. All this time I have been battling to reduce the amount of meaningless paperwork that offers no or little value apart from collecting dust and wasting people time landing on my desk.. this is an never ending task for me and don't get me started on the high, medium, low risk tables in risk assessments that everybody seems to use - absolutely pointless!!! A risk is a risk.... just bl00dy control it!!
It would appear that many subcontractors, safety advisers, safety consultants (especially them) produce reams and reams of paperwork or try and bamboozle Site Managers / Clients. "More paperwork the better, they never look at it anyway" I frequently hear.. Well I do!!
All that is needed is minimum, relevant and necessary information that the contractors guys can understand and easily follow which is site and activity specific. Oh, I am only talking about Method statements and Risk Assessments here.
I had one contractor who documentation almost broke my desk, 212 pages of risk assessments done by his so called safety professional, 212 pages!!!! I sat down with him for 20mins and hand wrote his risk assessment, 4 pages, 4!!! I felt like asking him for the £1,500 he was charged.. I should work for myself as a Safety Consultant, it appears that all they do is churn out the same old crap by pushing a few buttons on their keyboard.. A few months later the site had a NHBC audit and a HSE visit, both highly commended the 4 page risk assessment and said that is exactly what they are after. The HSE inspector even took a copy to use as an exemplar to other trades and Site Managers / Clients..
I think what the HSE inspector in Scotland was talking about was exactly this - make it simple and relevant with minimum paperwork. In plain english, just use common sense..
Sorry for sticking my ore in but this does really get up my nose something chronic. None of us have time for all the paperwork that is getting created, we need to slash it so we can get on with some productive work.
Rant over!
Good first post Wadds and welcome to the forum. I can only agree with what you are saying and to be honest try and put that into practice where possible.
Feel free to stick your oar in some more and let us hear a few more rants from your side.
Feel free to stick your oar in some more and let us hear a few more rants from your side.