final-report-of-the-advisory-committee-on-falsework-bragg-report - Flipbook - Page 84
Certification
We must now consider how the effectiveness of training
can be measured. We have been told of many courses
which were carefully prepared but where no assessment was made of the effects of those attending. We
have heard from a national safety organisation of
tudents who have started courses during a period of
et weather, but were called away from the course
when site conditions become dry enough for work.
One example was mentioned of a student who sat
throughout an entire training course without benefit,
because he came from an industry different from that
for which the course was devised.
Certificates of attendance are issued for some courses
but the response to the final question session is often
the only guide to the level of understanding reached.
We consider it essential that students should be
required to give an indication of their understanding
of the basic principles being taught. The assessment
hould be made on an individual basis and for many
grades it could be based entirely on oral question and
answer. Some students may fail but this is inevitable if
the standards set are those needed by an industry
which is determined to put its own house in order
by refusing to employ those who do not reach minimum standards of safety consciousness. Some of those
who fail may benefit from a further training course,
others may see fit to seek an alternative outlet for
their abilities. Only those who have achieved the
requisite standard will be given a certificate for the
ourse.
Incentives
We must now ask why, given all the resources which
are available and given the general agreement on the
need for better training, no courses of the type we
commend have yet been established. Surely it must
be in the interests of employers that their personnel
are trained to such a level of competence that falsework does not collapse causing delay, damage and injury. It is equally in the interests of employees that each
one is well trained so that he is neither a danger to himself nor to others; and so that he can work as one of a
team with comparative strangers knowing that they
will all use common techniques.
In fact there has been very little demand indeed for
this sort of training. Such an attitude of apathy and
indifference to safety has been commented on forcefully in the Annual Reports of HM Chief Inspectors
of Factories. The total effort expended on falsework
training has been pathetically small. Employers may
claim that the benefits of better workmanship do not
compensate for the cost of training and the loss of
working time while employees are being trained: They
may also claim that the industry has become accustomed to existing standards and it is still possible to
build within their limitations. They may also claim
that employees will leave after they have been trained
so that the benefit of their training is lost to the employer. The last argument is not strong one because
if all employers supported training schemes the loss of
trained men by one employer would be balanced by
his recruitment of those whom others had trained.ยท
Employees may well argue that there is a demand for
their services which they can fulfil without further
training: indeed the thought of any form of further
schooling is an anathema to them. A recent report
by the Training Services Agency of the Manpower
Commission showed the difficulty of establishing
schemes to train young persons in skills that they can
transfer from one job to another. There is already
a shortage of people with certain skills and there is a
real risk that the situation will actually get worse.
a
Since exhortation, encouragement and appeals are
apparently not enough to convince all parties of the
need for training it is necessary to consider other
incentives.
(i) The legislative approach It is a matter of some surprise that, until quite recently, legislation whose purpose was to safeguard the safety and health of persons
working in the construction industry should have
contained few requirements for training. The requirements which did exist covered only specialised
jobs such as crane driving. The provisions of the
common law made only general comments on the
need to provide a safe system of work. It is therefore
a welcome feature of the Health and Safety at Work
Act 1974 that, in addition to general statements about
the health, safety and welfare of persons at work, it
requires specifically that every employer must arrange
for "such instruction, training and supervision as is
necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable,
the health and safety at work of his employees". In
our opinion such a statutory requirement was long
overdue although it is still rather too general to be
of much immediate value. It remains to be seen what
detailed interpretation and subordinate legislation are
produced by the Health and Safety Commission. We
advocate that the instruction and training provisions
should be implemented with the least possible delay:
it is expected that the streamlining of procedures
which was one of the principal objectives of the
Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Robens
will facilitate this.
85
