Rank: Forum user 
|
This article made me smile this morning. Why? Because this was essentially my policy back in the early 90s when I worked for Lincolnshire Training and Enterprise Council. I didn't see why employers who provided training places should be penalised by additional clauses in the health and safety part of the contract. All I looked for was reasonable compliance with existing legislation. Amazing how everything comes around again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Bob, what were/are the additional clauses?
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Straining my brain cells to remember what I deleted ...
Asking employers with less than 5 employees to have written Safety Policies and risk assessments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Can you reference the article please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I remember it well. What I hope this announcement is about is the removal of the bureaucratic and burdensome system that requires any employer, who takes an apprentice or work experience student, to undergo a sort of quasi supplier H&S check. That is I guess Bob the system that you reference.
Of course it is essential that some discussion is held with employers before students are placed with them; the colleges and schools have a duty of care after all especially for the pre 16's. However, it should focus on how the youngsters are going to kept safe and what type and level of monitoring will be carried out by the college or school.
When I left this sector the system of checks defined by the Learning & Skills Council and others had lost it's way and was in dire need of an overhaul. It had become a means to get employers to improve their overall H&S rather than focusing on the youngsters. Thus you can see why employers would see it as a burdensome and overly bureaucratic system.
I dont think for a minute that the announcement has anything to do with removing or reducing employers responsibiities for apprentices or other young people employed in their businesses,
p48
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
pete48 wrote:I remember it well. What I hope this announcement is about is the removal of the bureaucratic and burdensome system that requires any employer, who takes an apprentice or work experience student, to undergo a sort of quasi supplier H&S check.
p48
We still asked for pre-employment vetting, but tried to keep it fairly brief. My audits and compliance checks were based on risk rather than the pure numbers system that existed before. Gave me more time to be involved in getting more information out to employers and being involved in training. Anyone who can remember the old TEC H&S Code of Practice will have an idea of how I did it.
Having seen some recent pre-employment vetting forms it is saddening to see that some people still ask for totally irrelevant information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I've read the IOSH News link, and I'm still non the wiser regarding the Regulations being discussed.
What exactly is being revoked?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
ron hunter wrote:I've read the IOSH News link, and I'm still non the wiser regarding the Regulations being discussed.
What exactly is being revoked?
Nothing
All smoke and mirrors as usual
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
"We will remove all health and safety requirements beyond what health and safety legislation requires"
Can anyone explain what this means?
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
What it means is that apprentices will have the same as others: No more, no less.
Section from Hansard:
John Hayes (Minister of State (Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning):
"I can announce today that, first, we will bring ## reduce to one month the time it takes for an employer to advertise an apprenticeship vacancy, including identifying the provider and completing an agreement on a training package between the employer and the provider; ## and secondly, we will remove all health and safety requirements that go beyond what health and safety legislation requires. From 1 January, employers that meet the Health and Safety Executive’s requirements as set out in “Health and safety made simple” will be deemed to provide a satisfactory level of compliance. We will also work with the insurance industry to encourage an approach that is proportionate to risks, and with training providers to develop new service standards for supporting SMEs to be included in all contracts for apprenticeships delivered from March 2012"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If all the above is true, then surely IOSH have erred in translating this 'misinformation' onto their own news pages?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
This news item on the National Apprenticeship Scheme website is presumably pertinent:
http://www.apprenticeshi...est-News/Article051.aspx
My guess then is that those administering this scheme currently apply some system of prequalification to prospective employers of apprentices. Reading between the lines, it would seem that the "health and safety regulatory compliance" element of that pre-qual. will henceforth be essentially discarded?
There must surely be a some sort of acknowledgement and check/balance by the NAS to ensure that any employer who up to now has not employed any young person is actually aware of the specific statutory requirements in that regard, and has systems of compliance in place?
This Government does seem hell-bent in carrying forward the Thatcherite ethos of deregulation, irrespective of consequence (planning and adoption being current in the news jsut now). There have been a fair few recent tragedies involving young persons entering the world of work. It seems that caution is not a watchword of the current political regime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ron, you are right. The subject is the regulation of apprenticeships not a legal Regulation.
The most relevant phrase in the article you reference is "Health and safety requirements will be streamlined so that there are no additional demands on employers THAT ALREADY MEET NATIONAL STANDARDS" (my caps sorry but there is no italic or underline facility on here)
Please also see my comment on the other topic
http://forum.iosh.co.uk/...spx?g=posts&t=103563
p48
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
so the devil is in the detail - which doesn't appear to be in the public domain!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.