Apologies if this has been raised before. I am revamping the Company's Permit to work procedure, and ideally I want to be able to categorize work that needs a permit and work that does not rather than leaving people with a judgement call to make, I want a system that takes away the judgement call but don't want a system where we blanket cover all types of work with a permit which devalues them in my opinion. I work in a medium sized manufacturing plant with a warehouse, labs and office attached so there are hazardous activities that go on from time to time especially maintenance. The thing is at the moment we blanket cover everything with a permit and it's just paying it lip service, for instance someone who comes onto site just to fix the photocopier is having a permit written, I personally don't think this type of activity requires one, on the other hand we have people coming onto the plant that may be breaking into process pipe work which carries sufficent hazards that should always have a permit I would just like to know how other similar industries catergorize work that happens on their site. Even if people are doing low level work it still needs capturing somewhere but I don't theink the permit to work is the right place to do it. Any ideas how low level work should be dealt with and how do you decide what is low level ? I also have a problem where by there are two types of work that can happen 1)planned and 2)unplanned (breakdowns). With planned work it is easy to have up front Risks and method Statementd and carry out relevant inductions get all the correct paper work upfront but for breakdowns that may happen at the weekend or in the middle of night and it requires call out sometimes the people who arrive have not been inducted and don't have RAMS, there is no one on site at that time to induct them etc... what do other companies do under these conditions? Its just that I don't want to write something into the procedure that is not workable. Wondering whether anyone else has had these problems

Re unplanned works, you can control contractors completing unplanned work by setting up agreements with specific companies on a retained basis for call outs - the number and type of companies will depend on your industry and business. With these retained clients you can then collate and appraise their H&S documentation at the tender stage (generic risk assessments, method statements, management system etc.). It can then be agreed with the company that their operatives attending a call out with complete a on-the-job risk assessment in advance of commencing works. Presumably for overnight or weekend call outs there will still be a memeber of staff present - they can then be trained in contractor management (including providing a relevant induction and suitabel monitoring requirements). Where possible (again depending on how your business is structured), group inductions could be completed in advance with operatives from those companies who you will call (this may not be possible if your sites are spread out) (this would reduce the burden with overnight / weekend call outs). A 24/7 contact should also be available for advise if required (maybe not your mob. though!).

The classic reasons for having a Permit are any of: - where some of the hazards/key controls are NOT under the control of the work party (e.g. isolations, ajacent activities); - where the task may present hazards for people other than the work party; - where there is a need for the person in control of a site to know about ongoing activities, particularly when a task extends beyond a single shift or workday. Often these good reasons get added to by other ones, as in your case, thus diluting the system and drowning everyone in useless paperwork. I've seen reasons such as: needing to know where everyone is in case of emergency (even though having a Permit for a particular task doesn't mean you are at that worksite 100% of the time); covering yourself 'in case something happens' (as Smart suggests above) - we should be designing and using systems that keep people safe, rather than ones intended to avoid blame when they don't work! If there is a need to know that a contractor or in-house technician is on the premises, even though they are fully competent to manage all the associated hazards and risks. In such a case, you might wish to use some very simple 'permission for access' paperwork which links to their own risk assessment and competences.

Some really good suggestions here thanks for the input Although there maybe low level works that go on which doesn't require a permit how do other people capture these type jobs which are say borderline? Is the fact that they are signed into site sufficient. I'm thinking of designing a permit with a Part A and Part B Part A can ask some quick yes /no questions which can either drive you to completing the more complicated Part B or if it's deemed that the part B is not needed then at least there is a record of a simple activity happening on site Is isolation required (No continue) (Yes please complete part B)