Posted By Lilian McCartney Have a word with the agency as teh H&S legislation comes first - they maybe haven't realised this yet. Lilian

Posted By CFT Jay Surely in this situation the well being of the individual comes first and foremost (see my final comment)? I refer specifically to the fact that your underwriters almost certainly won't cover anyone under 18 for specific activities? In interpreting the descriptive nature of the Act, I don't see it supporting this issue of 18 or under, clearly one must be 18 to enter a Public Mouse and consume alcohol, and whatever else one has to be 18 for these days; authorities/employers etc therefore have every reason to ask when right and proper to do so. In point of fact you will be neither harassing or discriminating against the individual and any concerns you might have in breaching the Act in this instance should be dismissed. Live long and prosper. CFT

Posted By Tabs I think the crux of the matter is that you cannot discriminate ... So, if the only reason you refuse to take an under 18 is that you don't want to do a YP's risk assessment, you have problems. If you do the risk assessment and it shows that they would be an unnecessary risk, you should not employ them (you are not obliged to provide additional supervision just so you can employ a young inexperienced person (yet)). Either way, asking them whether they are above 18 is not harassment, nor against the regulations because (as already said) H&S legislation would take precedence.

Posted By Darren (Daz) Fraser Look at the following link http://www.businesslink....opicId=1077243939&r.s=sl for a useful, downloadable guide then I would suggest that you get together with the supplying agency and take them through each section. I have just done this with our temp agencies and discovered that a) they were not aware they had responsibilities b) they did not know how to do a basic risk assessment c) the information they should ask for before placement d) technically they would report RIDDOR (once explained what that is) e) if under the age of 18 they would need to complete a YP RA prior to placement

Posted By Pete48 Jay, I agree with your note that as long as your limitations or restrictions on employment of young persons are based on sound assessments, you should have no problems. Obviously if such assessment identifies prohibitions based on age or experience then the agency must be told. The young person and their health, safety and WELFARE must be placed at the CENTRE of any assessment where they are to be employed. So what exactly are these risks to a young person from being in the chemical research lab, are there increased risks to young bodies from any exposure for example, would any PPE work as well for a young person, is the level of maintained discipline too high for a young person to safely maintain? (rhetorical questions only since I am not competent in that area) What the codes require is that these matters are considered generically for any young person who might work in those areas. (if you intend to employ young people) You must specifically CONSIDER the impact on them and others from a possible lack of experience, skills, maturity and awareness of H&S. (sorry I have used caps because we cannot underline anything here) However, in many cases, this doesn't automatically mean anything more than you might have to do for an adult temporary worker especially. But it does mean it is prudent to look more closely at each young person since they are more likely to lack experience, still be developing etc. Even if the agency tells you that they have vetted the young person I would still want to make some individual assessment. I have met many 16/17 year olds who are more mature, have a much better grasp of H&S and acquire knowledge and skill better and quicker than a 50 year old. Of course they may need an adult mentor to "keep an eye" on them but it often does not need to be at apron strings level. If the young person can demonstrate the required level of maturity for the job, then why maintain supervision at any greater level than for others? I hope my position of challenge to your assumptions about young people is a help to your decision making. I am sure you have approached it from a sensible view but it may be worth revisiting just to make sure you have not been over cautious? What skills, qualifications are required for the job? What specific age related factors are supporting the need for extra supervision? Just saying immaturity is not enough, what is it about the job that requires what level of maturity. And always remember the rhyme: One young person is a delight and fun, Two young people and you start to run Just to keep up with the questions for one: Three young people and life gets busy, Four young people and your head gets dizzy: More than four, you must be a saint, Sensible and sane, you definitely aint!