Sounds like a cry for more money.....and staff... Sorry, none remaining, purse empty.

I do not particularly like sound bites...'those that create risk are best placed to manage it', is another overly used by the HSE and plagiarised from the Roben's Committee report. Talking of trivial risks, it's a shame the HSE could not see what the Appeal Court Judge could in R v Porter [2008] WLR (D) 167 Talk is cheap.

Ray Sorry, didn't make myself clear enough. When compiling a one page brief for sceptical internal senior management - they won't read anything longer - such soundbites have their use. But you are right, actions speak louder than words!

Ray Even Robens plagiarised that from solicitors dealing with mining accidents and safe places of work. It all comes round again. Our other exchange suggests that this again is only "good" words that mean nothing in this situation. Bob

A once semi-autonomous organisation previously held in high regard beyond these shores now reduced to the role of political puppet -or should that be ventriloquist's dummy? This isn't progress.

The above document just sets-out what H&S has been about for quite a while. No change, just simpler. I assume by "we" you mean parents. Unfortunately money speaks louder than goodwill. I await the inevitable court cases.

Interesting that the newly published 8 pages of guidance on managing safety/risk in schools makes reference to the use of external providers and states that - where appropriate - they should hold a licence under the terms of the Adventure Activities Licensing Regulations. Shame that the writer(s) seem unaware that Lord Young suggested that the AAL Regs should be repealed and the AAL Authority be scrapped...!!! Phil

So HSE are saying you do not need a risk assessment for taking a large group of children to the museum or swimming, but you do need one if the same group are in a classroom!!!(i.e, their classroom risk assessment). Uhmmm which is the higher risk!! HSE have lost the plot. The fact that the document went out to the media first and did not appear on the D of E site until today tells its own story, they wanted to get the right media spin on this. Making statements like risk assessments should only be written in exceptional circumstances now changes the requirements of the Management Regs!!

Bob Lewis - Bolton Abbey?! - Though members of the public have drowned in various incidents involving the River Wharfe near Bolton Abbey over the years, I'm not aware of any involving schools or other organised groups. Unless I'm wholly unaware of a very recent tragedy there, I guess you mean the Stainforth Beck tragedy in Oct 2000 in which two pupils from a secondary school in Leeds were swept away during a planned "river walk" near Stainforth in Ribblesdale, one of the Yorkshire Dales. One of the galling aspects of the tragedy is that apparently some pupils in the group had expressed concern beforehand to their teachers about the wisdom of walking in the beck (stream) as planned because it had become very swollen and fast-flowing after prolonged heavy rain. Most forum users will also have heard of the Glenridding Beck tragedy which occurred near Ullswater in the Lake District in May 2002. It also involved a large stream which had become swollen and fast flowing through prolonged heavy rain, and thus unsafe for a school group's planned activity of jumping into one of its large mountain pools. It is sad to note that this tragedy occurred only several months after the inquest into the Stainforth Beck tragedy which received considerable publicity, and thus ought to have left leaders of school groups generally with a much respect for activities involving water in wild terrain. Also I wonder if you are being provocative in asserting that "The real problem for Education is that the training for risk assessment has in my view been pretty poor and the need for dynamic assessment has been almost ignored totally." I can't speak for other local authorities, but think that headteachers and others who work for my employer's schools get reasonable training and guidance in risk assessment, including dynamic or "on the hoof" risk assessment. The two tragedies mentioned above are used as good examples of situations where dynamic risk assessment was desperately needed. Moreover, if the leaders involved had considered that the becks involved were unsafe, they could also have used the situations as opportunities to educate their pupils in the wider sense, i.e. through discussions as to why the planned activities were being abandoned or postponed until a later date when conditions were suitable again. It would be interesting to learn from other forum users involved with training headteachers and others from schools how they tackle the themes of risk assessment and dynamic risk assessment. While on the theme of schools and education it's appropriate to add that it seems that schools are very influenced by their perception and also direct experience of the blame & claim culture which pervades the UK. Some claims arise from situations where negligence has occurred and thus are justifiable. However, it seems that many are not. Even though spurious claims are not successful (and rightly so), they still take up considerable scarce time and other resources from schools and local authorities - and ultimately from all of us as taxpayers! Another factor which can influence schools regarding various types of off-site activities and trips is fear of adverse media publicity. If journalists learn about even minor things going wrong on a school trip, they tend publicise them. It seems that most pupils possess mobile phones so can readily tell parents and friends, some of whom will contact the media. If there are photos or video clips available via said mobile phones, all the better for some journalists to use to weave a good juicy story with scant regard for the truth! My view is that the vast majority of school trips and off-site activities are well-planned and led, and play a valuable part in educational, personal and social development. Furthermore, the pupils on them are almost certainly at less risk than when on family holidays or with their friends.

Graham Apologies if an ancient memory is at fault :-) Ray If only common sense worked!! It does not and some form of systematisation has to take place to achieve standardisation of answers to change BOB

Graham, thanks for conveying that information - makes sense to me.

Yes Ken the gloves are off and it is discouraging to see what it means. In early June, 4 people were killed and one seriously injured in the Chevron oil refinery explosion in Wales. The explosion was noted on the day by the news media and then little has been heard from them since. The HSE released a safety alert indicating relevant organisations should check tank cleaning procedures. While the outcome of the investigation remains to be seen, the dangers of cleaning tanks in major hazard sites are not new. Thank goodness the HSE proactive inspections will not be cut for such sites. By the 28th June HSE Chair Judith Hackitt was expressing her ‘disappointment’ that fatal injuries to workers had increased since last year in the midst of a recession. Commenting on the same figures: ‘Richard Jones, head of policy and public affairs at the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, told the Press Association: “This is a shock. In times of recession, there is usually a drop in accidents and fatalities because fewer people are working.”’ I cannot recall any statement from Mr Grayling the Minister responsible for health and safety at work nor were there any on the DWP press release list. Over the weekend both Judith Hackitt and Minister Chris Grayling were interviewed in the leading story on the television news: and the big story? Work related fatal injuries increasing or what is to be done about the HSE estimated 12,000 deaths per year through occupational diseases and ill health or why is it 60% of employees [HSE estimate] are not consulted by their employer when they should be and what are the Government going to do about it? No. 150 pages of guidance on planning trips outside school have been replaced by 8 pages for teachers. All to address an illusionary problem: what the DWP calls a myth. Wow - I presume this is what the Government means when they say they are freeing up HSE resources – ie cutting them by 35% - to ‘ease the burden on business’. How times change. When I was in education all those many decades ago schools weren't seen as entrepreneurial businesses. I note that the Department of Education has still kept the old guidance on its site. Quite useful if a teacher does not have sufficient information out of the new, super reduced key point outline simple summary guidance to plan a trip. However as Graham has indicated it seems to me that each year huge numbers of out of school activity goes on without incident with teachers coping with the Red Tape and keeping their children safe. Maybe this new guidance is just the inspirational move needed to provide an apparent minority of teachers with good quality training that allows them to discharge their duty in an effective manner. If increasing amounts of time are going to be spent rebutting Daily Mail et al inspired myths what about the problems causing greatest damage? Cheers. Nigel

Well said Nigel - its enough to make you weep!

"Miss Hackitt said the “gloves are off” and her organisation would target officials or employers who wrongly used health and safety to stop everyday activities." I'd prefer a headline that says: "Miss Hackitt said the “gloves are off” and her organisation would target officials or employers whose illegal activities kill & maim"

Just the url, copyright etc: http://www.spiked-online...x.php/about/article/333/

Hello Redken - apologies & to get back to the point! You are right, S.3 doesn't get much of a mention in Striking the balance guidance. A difficult area is how far should the Emergency Services go to avoid the public getting 'caught in the cross fire', and there is no mention of this in the guidance. Control rooms and operational commanders have to decide whether 'Blue light runs' are justified, but these can and do put road-using public at risk. Police Pursuits are even more risky. There may well be a clear understanding that risks to the public have to be justified, but I would suggest there is little understanding of S.3 & the new guidance does not add to it.