Not an sector I am familiar with, and only the Courts can decide, etc....... But, just from an initial glance. You have a Policy/Procedure, which you are unable to follow...either resource up so that you can implement this policy correctly, or, alter your policy to what you can manage. In the meantime the gap between policy expectation, and real world implementation, could in certain cases be interpreted as a breech/contravention (talking H&S here) - the policy requirement may even exceed what is considered the minimum legal standard (if there is one), but can still be taken in to account because if it had been implemented fully the outcome, risk, hazard, accident, incident, would have been reduced or prevented. I sure others will come a long with more refined comments in this specific sector

clane, I worked in college for many years. The PPC you are talking about, do you mean the HASPS? In which case we always completed this at the beginning of the apprenticeship (sign-up) and depending on whether it was a low, medium or high risk workplace, determined how often it would need to be redone, i.e. High=1 year/ Medium=2 years/ low= 3 years. In between this time the assessors would carry out reviews which would include H&S questions/ checks. This coupled with H&S being assessed as part of the qualification on the higher risk industries ,e.g. Construction was deemed sufficient. As the HASPS was not exactly an audit of a workplace anyway, not to mention did not require any specific training to carry out, I doubt they would hold any weight anyway. As mentioned, HASWA is there for that purpose. Yours is a case of a duty of care that if you see it report it, and you ensure that you encourage your Apprentices to talk to you if they have any issues. However, if your apprentices are not being seen up to a year then you also have a massive potential for claw-back of funding.

Yes I mean the HASPS and yes we adopt the same approach as in high = 1 year review etc etc. The difference being our concentration has been and remains on out of funding leaners, in order to get them through their NVQ. Hence why our reviews are so far behind which ultimately I feel puts learners at risk as and that means h&s isn't being adequately assessed. I agree that ours is a duty of care, but if we're not there then we can't report it. If our assessors were on site more frequently, like it stipulates in our policy, then the chances of any accident taking place would be reduced or at the very least an unsafe system of work flagged up and the apprentice taken off site. As someone earlier mentioned, should an incident occur then we maybe in breech of our own policy. Is the answer as simple as altering our own policy to what we can manage?

This isn't "risk assessment" it's about re-evaluating the efficacy of your provider assessment systems, and the management processes that will apply in the event of failure, fault or incident. So-called evaluation systems I've seen in the past were a waste of time, applying a tick-box approach on having a policy, insurances, etc.; conducted by unqualified persons. Someone has to make a decision on whether the provider continues to be considered suitable, or whether your trainees need to be pulled out. Big decision. Is it yours to make? Who's having dialogue with the provider? What assurances and investigative reports have been provided? Whilst much usually depends on the severity or potential consequences but there's a big clue in that live working is in every respect, the last resort; requiring very formal and strictly applied safe systems of work.

There are 3 matters from your post. 1. The proper monitoring of apprentices in the workplace is not happening according to your policy/training provider standards. That is a management issue and not a specific OSH matter. That failure should be addressed by the College management irrespective of any OSH concerns. 2. I am unclear what you mean by ‘risk assess’ the current set up. If it is a simple question as to what would be an appropriate level of onsite OSH monitoring then that would surely come from the review of your arrangements. The underwriting of that question is really ‘do we need to visit every 10 weeks for OSH? Are the students really at any more OSH risk because they have not been seen on a regular basis? The reverse of that is that your systems cannot rely upon simple tick box and set periodicity to establish criteria for an ongoing assurance of safety. 3. I am sure you realise that you appear to be running an assessment policy that is at odds with the updated guidance issued a few years ago. The old principles of the safe learner concept were torn apart in that latest guidance. The simplistic use of HASPS 1-10 would not, IMO, meet the current duty of care. (IMO they never did!) That is something that may require action by you to get changes agreed. So given these points it seems that you may be at risk of not meeting the duty of care you have identified. If you modify your arrangements to more closely align with current guidance then I would say that you need not be concerned. The level of monitoring required in post should be driven by the general management of the student alongside your confidence in the employer to keep your students safe. Setting out a simple list of matters to consider would help to identify what is an appropriate level of monitoring. For example, a new employer might require some early visits where a long standing, trusted employer may need fewer visits. As an example of where arrangements would need to change due to circumstance. You have recently had an incident; you have likely had a review of arrangements and a recorded discussion with the employer; you have agreed changes which may, for example, include some spot visits; you then determine whether you remain confident that the employer is capable of ensuring the safety of your apprentices. If not then------- A quick comment about liability. The DfE issued some guidance in 2015 which included this paragraph “In the rare case where an accident may happen on an employer’s premises, the employer would be liable if the provider has taken the steps described in HSE’s guidance to satisfy themselves that the employer has put in place measures to manage the associated risks in their work place, prior to the placement.” DfE 00108-2015 With that in mind, I am suggesting that it reads as though you have a policy that is outdated, impossible for you to meet and is likely not going to prove adequate to demonstrate you have satisfied yourselves that measures are in place to manage the associated risks. I hope this helps but apologise in advance if it is teaching grandma.

From the HSE website: Training providers (England and Wales only) Training providers include all those who arrange or fill apprentice vacancies. This includes third party sub contractors.and also includes those who are only involved in organising the off the job training element of the apprenticeship. The employer has the primary responsibility for the health and safety of the apprentice and should be managing any significant risks. As the training provider, you should take reasonable steps to satisfy yourself that the employer is doing this This does not mean trying to second guess an employer’s risk assessment or risk control measures, and you are not required to carry out your own workplace assessment You can rely on past experience, for example, if the employer is familiar to you and they have a good track record on health and safety. You should keep checks in proportion to the environment: For low risk environments, such as an office or shop, with everyday risks that will mostly be familiar to the apprentice, simply speaking with the employer to confirm this should be enough. This can be part of any wider conversation on placement arrangements that may take place. For environments with less familiar risks, like light assembly or packing facilities, talk to the employer to find out what the apprentice will be doing and confirm the employer has arrangements for managing risks, including induction, training, supervision, site familiarisation, and any protective equipment that might be needed. For higher risk environments such as construction, agriculture or manufacturing, discuss with the employer what the apprentice will be doing, the risks involved and how these are managed, satisfying yourself that the instruction, training and supervisory arrangements have been properly thought through. Check the apprentice knows how to raise any health and safety concerns.

The issue I have since the guidance was removed is that "they" say carry out checks commensurate with the risk, but how do you know the risk unless you visit the employer. The case in question I had a person in a flower shop, low risk. Until I saw the blades and cutters and suchlike that he was using

The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) had robust systems in place for Learner Health and Safety however when the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) took over Learner Health and Safety was not seen as a priority or indeed not in any way the responsibility of the SFA hence Learner Health and Safety has become diluted to an extent Learners can potentially be put at risk owing to lack of Safety Training / Supervision / monitoring and checks by the SFA, Training Providers and Employers themselves. The SFA is party to the arrangements when entering into Learner contractual arrangements but I would suggest take no active measures to ensure Learners are safe on the Apprentice and other training they fund. If the SFA were to be asked how many Learners accidents have occurred on the training they fund I doubt if they would be able to provide an answer. These are mainly young people entering the workplace for the first time and therefore need a higher degree of the Duty of Care owed to them by all parties concerned with their training.