Probably right Smurf, raise the applicable age to 21, as many younger people are not getting jobs until that age so are very inexperienced even at 21 these days.

quote=David H]Not sure Smurf.
I agree that with the changing face of UK industry and the need for many to take a change in career - (myself included) - there are many "inexperienced" workers now exposed to new hazards in the workplace.
But I believe they are a bit more mature than the "young persons" and therefore less prone to just diving in, or being afraid to stop and speak up for themselves if they feel at risk.

David

The specific "Young persons" aspects in the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations originate from a European Directive and no matter what politicians or we want/say, it is there to stay unless the Directive is amended!

How many young persons have a part time job? I know while i was in the 6th form i worked for a well known supermarket so the regulation protected me.

Sorry for any mistakes spell check not working

An interesting question. We would need to consider (in no particular order):

-the difference between age related development and inexperience of the work place.

-what is the current % of children who leave to find employment at 16 as opposed to staying at school or college and entering the workplace later. i.e how much difference will there actually be.

-the reason for identifying young people and children as specific persons at risk is based in the fact that development is generally age related during childhood and adolescence.

-the work environment design aspects

-people have been entering the workplace between 16 and 24 for many years and will continue to do so.

-young apprenticeships can start as young as 14

-young people as young as 13 will still enter the workplace on approved and allowed work

The key reason for the current regs is that employers need to recognise the difference between a young person and a new inexperienced employee. A young person is both, anyone can be the latter.
So, systems to deal with the latter are already required and need no change. Systems to cover the former also exist and they need no change in my view.

p48

Let's not forget that the legislation is in place to cover not just experience but also a lack of physical development. I know that most 14 year olds tower over me now but they are not fully developed until a few years later when they start to fill out.

Surely politicians make EU Directives .... Oh, of course, they don't, it is the faceless bureaucrats who do this!

@Bob S. The controls are not just for inexperience. They also recognise that the general development of children is age related. So we have an additional area to assess over and above the inexperience of a workplace. That inexperience could apply to anyone starting work for the first time later in life or indeed returning to work after a long absence.
I would argue that existing duties require any new employees to be identified as a group at risk. Therefore this is adequately covered in existing Regs.
To abandon the Young Persons/Child approach would be a backward step in my opinion. If there is a specific issue arising from the change in minimum school leaving age then the better way would be to update RA guidance.
@Rich777
I said “young people as young as 13 will still enter the workplace on approved and allowed work” in my earlier post and I include work experience in that definition.

P48

Post #17 by Bob Shillabeer

Bob - I am perplexed and rather disappointed that you feel it necessary to bring politics into your posts.

It's not the first time and I'm sure there are other people who would much rather have straight forward answers to questions from you without your left wing leanings.

Rich

I dont think we should get rid of section 7, we'd only have the carrott then for employees and no stick. Besides, the judge may want to punish the individual as well as the employer. Also, correct me if Im wrong but, I think vicarious liability is civil law and the HASWA is criminal law due to the statute bar to claim damages die to a breach.

Fairly recent case
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is warning machine operators
to ensure that they adhere to safe working practices when using
excavators, following HSE’s prosecution of an excavator driver after a
pedestrian was killed in Maida Vale, Westminster, in February 2007.

Colin Clifford, 50, from Enfield, was today fined £2,500 and ordered to
pay costs of £1,250 at the Old Bailey, after pleading guilty to
breaching 7(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

HSE investigating inspector Lisa Chappell said: "Construction
machinery is obviously dangerous, and can cause harm to both site
workers and members of the public. Plant operators must take
sufficient time and care when manoeuvering vehicles. This case
shows the worst case of what can go wrong when operators cut
corners."