Hi Graham, Might be dependent on the complexity of the workplace and type of work carried out. Some people use a general PTW that also has an area specifically for hot work to be completed. Others have a separate hot work permit and covers controls/checks in much more detail. Also consider review your current policies that cover general work and specifically hot work and their adequacy?

You can have it so that you have a General Work Permit, which will cover all types of work permits. You need to state on the General Work Permit if other ones are requires such as Hot Work Permit, Working at Height, Confined Space (generally as tick box section and space for reference #) etc. Some General Work Permits may have more than one specific Work permit related to it. You would then complete your general work permit, attach the specific permit(s), bearing in mind to give each permit an I.D # and reference them on each one. A good idea is to keep any JHA and Risk Assessments with the permits.

Hot work permits for contractors working on your premises also ensure that the contractor complies with their insurance conditions. The public liability policy for a contractor engaged in hot works will carry a "burning and welding" condition that is precedent to liability attaching under the policy. What this means, if the contractor has failed to take the precautions set out in the B+W condition, the policy liability will not be triggered and the insurers will wash their hands of the matter. B+W conditions have the usual precautions - maintenance of fire watch during and after completion of work, clearance of combustible materials from work areas and a provision of FEA or charged fire hose.

Errrrrrrrm! I suggest that a PTW is used to complement or reinforce a safe system of work, for certain types of work where the risks are usually high and/or the risks and/or controls are 'complex'. They are typically used for some 'hot works', confined spaces entry, work on electrical systems, (especially live work), pressure systems and other 'complex' systems, where there is a need to strictly control the work being carried out. The PTW may well detail systems that are to be disabled before work commences, and have a corresponding' instruction to reinstate those systems back to operation at the end of the work. They are typically signed by two (or more) people; the person completing the permit (authorising the work!), and the person 'accepting' the permit; accepting the 'terms' of how they will conduct their work and the specific precautions that they must take, before, during and on completion of the work. They are generally time limited. often for th eperiod of a working shift. As far as responsibility goes, it is wrong to suggest that the person that authorises the work would be responsible "..if all goes wrong..". Responsibility, as liability, is determined by the individual circumstances of the incident. e.g. if the person authorising the work, has correctly identified the risks and the necessary controls and has recorded this on the PTW and the worker has 'accepted' this by signing the permit, but does not then follow the precautions, and "..all goes wrong.." as a result of this, then I suggest that the latter rather than the former would bear the bulk of the responsibility (arguments about supervision aside). If on the other hand the person authorising the work does not correctly identify all of the risks and necessary precautions and this results in an incident, then yes, I would expect the bulk of the responsibility to lie with them. Responsibility rests with the person who is genuinely responsible for the incident, not merely the person that signs the PTW. That is the defence or 'get out'.

Merv I have always considered the management of health and safety risks to require a more 'holistic' or joined up approach rather than trying to 'assign' responsibility to one or other party. There is a joint responsibility between the 'owner' and those carrying out the work, as well as the assessment and the management of the associated risks. Your original post said "Those who sign the permit and thus authorise the work accept that they wilol be held responsible if it all goes wrong", is (at best) misleading. Responsibility generally lies, where it is FOUND to lie depending on the individual circumstances of each case. It does not follow that the person that authorises the work will necessarily be found to be responsible, it depends on what has happened and who has doe, or not done, what! I see absolutely no reason why the "safety person" shouldn't sign a PTW; I find that a slightly bizzare poistion to adopt! What sort of message does that send out? As long as they are competent, I suggest that it is entirely reasonable that they should do so. I have completed and signed both hot work and confined spaces permits, and have been entirely satisfied that this was , reasonable, responsible, appropriate and the right thing to do. I will also add for the benefit of Graham, that you would normally have a list of those people who are deemed competent to complete the various PTWs.