Claire, it's soooooo refreshing to read something which is true and not negative about health and safety. Hopefully the Lofstedt Review will also highlight that health and safety is not such a burden to employers. I feel the tide is beginning to turn.

All we need to do now is convince some of our own colleagues to more sensible and rely less on RAs for trivial risks and we could be on a winner.

Claire apologies if I am hijacking your topic but I just want to ask ray about his comment that "All we need to do now is convince some of our own colleagues to more sensible and rely less on RAs for trivial risks and we could be on a winner".

My point is that we risk assess everything, even life in general. We have to otherwise we would all be doing very risky things and the risk assessments allow us to decide what is best and what is not.

Regarding the more trivial risks the ra's do and should get done but nothing is recorded - that is the pain of risk assessment - writing up everything that is not necessary.

That was quick Ray.

Good you saw my point.

Thanks for the loan of the topic Claire.

There has been previous debate about RA's. RA should not be a pain and writing up everything is not necessary. Only 'sgnificant risks' need recording. Risk assess everything, even life in general - not me.

Clairel - good for spotting the news link and sharing it on the forum.

As much of my work involves advising and supporting my employer's schools I can comment that the information is very welcome, although not especially new as other advisers like me can confirm.

Science is becoming increasingly popular in secondary schools again, as evidenced by the numbers of recent GCSE successes. Part of this is reckoned to be due to the influence of Prof Brian Cox and other trendy presenters of science-related TV programmes. Therefore, it is imperative that schools continue to be supported in providing science subjects in an interesting and stimulating way without signficant risk to teachers and pupils.

Those who work with schools will know of the excellent service provided by CLEAPSS (a not-for-profit organisation based at Brunel University) to primary and secondary schools throughout England & Wales regarding safety in science and also design & technology. Unfortunately, in response to budget cuts, some local authorities propose to cancel their annual memberships of CLEAPSS to save a few thousand pounds each. If such cancellations go ahead, the schools which form part of the local authorities involved will lose out on the wealth of sensible practical advice and guidance from the experts at CLEAPSS, plus the capacity to have training for teachers and technicians. A reduction in membership and related income could also impinge over time on CLEAPSS's capacity to provide its breadth and quality of service - all counter to the spirit raised by this topic.

One example of CLEAPSS's work was a joint exercise with the Royal Society of Chemistry a few years ago in which schools were asked to respond and say which experiments and chemicals they thought were not allowed in schools. See http://www.rsc.org/Scien...cy/SurelyThatsBanned.asp for details and a link to the ensuing report "Surely that's banned". It mentions numerous experiments and substances which school staff understood to be banned but, in fact, are okay for schools - provided that appropriate basic precautions are taken.

p.s. As one who complains from time to time about unfamiliar acronyms on this forum, I'd better conclude for now by explaining that CLEAPSS is short for "Consortium of Local Education Authorities for the Provision of Science Services". Also, in extolling CLEAPSS, I've no vested interest in it, just that from the professional perspective of advisers like myself it provides high quality specialist advice, support and training which is not available from anywhere else.

You're missing the point Ron. The point is it makes a change for the news to report that it isn't H&S's fault. Normally they would default to either not reporting at all or to it being the fault of H&S. Don't be so quick to shun such a news report that is very rare and we hope turns the tide. None of us like the elf n safety stories widespread in the news but we the need the news to help reverse the negative opinion that they helped create. The media is an important tool.

From the news report:

"It appears that teachers may cite health and safety when they are unsure of their ability to carry out a field trip or believe that the volume and nature of paperwork will outweigh any benefits of taking on the trip."

I read that as not having the skills and not wanting the hassel of the paperwork.

As per Thundercliffe26308

I have three children at school (two in secondary school one in junior school); and in both cases the schools are happy for children to have mobiles but state that they must be switched of during lessons (agree that this is totally reasonable).

With regards to school trips then pupils in both schools can take their mobile phones with them; and my oldest has used her (quite flash phone, well you know what teenagers are like) to take photographs of her days out with no problems from the teachers.