Posted By Andy Cummings opinions on this one please, today I had cause to stop sub contractors from carrying out external inspection work using tower scaffold the main reason for this was failure to book in under our access permit system, But when I reached them they had commenced erection of there tower scaffold "no hard hats you got to love subbies" this was stopped. I requested to see evidence of training in tower scaffold assembly out of three men only one had a passma ticket and he was standing on the ground hands in pockets supervising he stated that as long as the others where under supervision of a trained person they where eligible to erect the tower. Sec 5 of working at height states that persons working at height if not trained to do so may do so if under going training or supervision. Does this apply to erecting tower scaffold in a live work environment?

Posted By Crim Probably - but I'd like to see their risk assessments and method statement first! One thing to bear in mind is under CDM the principal contractor does not have to supervise the work of a sub contractor. This leaves you clear to ensure the paperwork is in place and then walk away and leave them to it. There has to be an element of trust and if the operative who is trained says he can work that way why not believe him if you are unsure yourself?

Posted By Rodger Alan Ker Once again, might I suggest, that this is not a health and safety problem, but a contractual problem. Your organisation can and should specify the requirements that it wants in its sites from its contractors. If you want everybody to wear green overalls, the contractor has two choices, get green overalls or don't quote for the job, it is a simple as that. These things must be properly sorted out BEFORE CONTRACORS COME TO SITE not as described above. Once again "elf n safety" will be blamed because a Contract Manager hasn't done his job.

Posted By Dave Merchant personally I'd have stopped them, BUT:- PASMA is not required by anyone other than PASMA. It's a brand name for a training course by an industry group, and nothing 'legal'. There are other courses out there. WAHR.5 requires 'competence' but *not* 'training'. Massive difference. You can become competent without ever going on a formal, certificated course. If these guys were being directly supervised then they could easily be competent to follow orders even if they don't have a clue how to design towers.

Posted By Crim I agree with Bob on both points and add the question re Competence - How can you prove competence if training is not part of the proof?