Rank: Super forum user 
|
I have noted that the HSE seem to be directing people to external guidance on appropriate practice which there are normally fees payable for copies. Is this the way everything is now heading?
For example only - I noted this http://forum.iosh.co.uk/...spx?g=posts&m=735600 takes you to a HSE web page that redirects you to guidance for storage of cylinder at a mere £46 (cheaper than a lot of guidance have seen).
H&S covers so many different facets that if everything goes this way it will either make smaller company’s (and some larger) not buy and therefore possibly not control things quite as they should or cripple them financially. You could easily end up buying guidance to find out after that it is useless as it does not answer the question you may have
Is this a good direction, what are people’s views?
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I do think companies should evolve their business in ways which comply with relevant laws and should also expect to pay for products and services from others as they themselves expect to be paid for their products and services.
If they buy guidance which turns out to be useless and does not answer the questions they have maybe they can take that up with the provider or the HSE or else take advice from another competent provider. I don't see a problem with raising issues with those who provide poor guidance.
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Legislation, Regulation, ACOP, Standards, Guidance, i feel is all in a state of flux.
I have my own views, and think historically those producing and those receiving have to a degree not helped.
The HSE have produced some excellent (and still do) materials with Regulations, having ACOP's and guidance packaged together - but Red Tape Challenge, gold plating, etc I fear will put an end to this, and those using these documents still fail to differentiate (just read some of the questions on here).
Legislation will still come in to force - but limited
Regulation even less so
ACOP's I feel will disappear
Guidance will only be produced where there is a market for sale
This in relation to your post Chris42 will limit both the knowledge base, and access to it. Whether that is a good or bad thing is subject to debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
On the other hand..........
Its only quite recently ( past 10 years) that HSE publications have become free to down load.
I seem to remember I had a budget of £500 every year for these and it still was not enough and I used to have to go to the public library to look stuff up
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There is free basic guidance--
SAFE USE OF PROPANE AND BUTANE CYLINDERS & CARTRIDGES
http://www.uklpg.org/uploads/DOC52F9010872343.pdf
Scope
This Information Sheet gives general guidance for all users in domestic, small
commercial and industrial applications who use LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas)
cylinders and cartridges as a fuel supply to gas fired appliances. This guidance applies
to vapour use only. The Health and Safety Executive was consulted in the production of
this publication and endorses the advice set out in this guidance.
In this document cylinders are portable pressure containers up to 150 L capacity and
cartridges are small containers of less than 1.4 L capacity [see 4].
The reference to Propane and Butane also covers mixtures of these two gases.
The guidance is limited to appliances only operating with pre-set pressures and does not
cover Bitumen Boilers, and is limited to the storage and use of up to four cylinders or
cartridges. Where a greater number of cylinders are required we recommend that
consideration is given to a bulk storage tank.
For further information on the use and storage of cylinders refer to:
UKLPG Code of Practice 7; Storage of Full and Empty LPG Cylinders and
Cartridges
UKLPG Code of Practice 24 series; The Use of Cylinders Part 1-6 depending upon
your application.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Gas cylinders have always been payable to the BCGA who are the industry leaders. This one, at least, has remained the same as far as I am aware.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Its likely a function of current government direction and resourcing.
In a desire to be seen to move away from any claims of gold plating, acops and guidance become ever more compliance only documents - describing the bare minimum or the nature of the approach to be taken. The more you publish, the more you need to review and update...and reductions in scope and extent now also contribute to reduced burden on them in the future.
HSE looking to industry to provide more and more specific advice and take responsibility for it where once upon a time they would have been fundamental contributors to HSE owned documents. Its not necessarily wrong but given the new sentencing guidelines references to 'industry guidance' it has potentially significant consequences.
Bigger companies can forge their own way (rightly or wrongly) in the new potentially guidance lite future but smaller business will clamour ever louder for greater direction where standards are unclear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks for the Link Jay, I was just using it as an example I found when reviewing Oxygen / Acetylene kit in relation to DSEAR and Zoning, and wondering about the zoning of a portable set. I wandered off track and this was the last in a long line of Paid for guidance I have come across recently, hence starting the discussion.
I think Westonphil has a point about the various association / institutes putting time and effort into creating guidance, why should they not get paid. Then again I feel that as noted the HSE moved to make guidance free and I feel this was a positive move.
Very few of us would only want access to one or two guidance documents ie even if you’re not in construction you may still be interested in scaffolding to an extent, as we all will require work on our buildings at some point, and would like to have a view on the suitability of what a subbie has provided. There will potentially be hundreds of these paid for guidance documents in the future if it all goes this way. At £50 to £100 or more per time this could become a problem.
Small companies at the moment can if they wish look up and comply with most things even without “expert” advice, if they are willing to put in enough effort. I remember (though a long time ago now) when revising for my exams, reading all sorts of free guidance, as only a certain amount of info needed is provided by training company’s.
Perhaps the HSE should buy in the guidance and issue it FOC. This could be paid for by FFI, by those companies’ that then fail to heed legal requirements and appropriate guidance. Therefore, cutting costs by using external experts, but still providing a valuable service to all sizes of company and even public.
How much would you think, at say £75 a time for guidance, would your company (or consultancy) need to spend, If all guidance needed to be paid for?
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
While there has been some change to HSE ACoP/Guidance material post Lofstedt, overall, I do not think that HSE has significantly reduced it own published guidance etc. Trade Bodies expert guidance has not been free previously too, but they tend to make some of it free, when it comes to public safety, i.e. for consumers. On the contrary, HSE has significantly increased its web based content/information.http://www.bcga.co.uk/pages/index.cfm?page_id=21&title=technical_information_sheets_
BCGA has all its Guidance Notes, Technical Information Sheets & Leaflets for free if you download it :-
However, one has to pay for its Codes of Practice!
http://www.bcga.co.uk/pa...6&title=publications
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.