final-report-of-the-advisory-committee-on-falsework-bragg-report - Flipbook - Page 85
(ii) Licensing of contractors We have given some
thought to the desirability of introducing a system
which would allow only licensed contractors to undertake various grades of operation involving falsework.
The issue of a licence would be conditional on the
contractor being able to demonstrate that all those
employed had been properly trained and certificated.
The nature of the falsework operations which the
firm had successfully completed in the past would also
be taken into account and it was even suggested that
the firm's safety record might be invoked, particularly
where substantial falsework collapses had occurred.
We do not, however, advocate such a system at the
present time. Within the relatively small confines of
the United Kingdom, a contractor's reputation
should be sufficiently well-known to make licensing
unnecessary if the proposals for a certificate of proficiency of individual skilled men are adopted. Such
a licensing system may be kept in reserve and introduced only if necessary at a later stage.
(iii) Restricted tendering list The tendering system
adopted for certain civil engineering projects is an
alternative to licensing. An approved list of the organisations which have sufficient experience, expertise
and financial standing, is issued to a number of clients,
particularly in the public sector. Contracts may not
be placed with any firm not on the list. Such a scheme
could be implemented in the civil engineering side of
the industry. But it would not be practicable in the
case of the smaller contractor whose performance
depends upon the staff he happened to employ at a
particular time and may vary from month to month.
Once again we consider that an extension of this
system is not immediately desirable though it could
provide a fall-back position.
(iv) Registration The fourth possibility is that only
those who have been trained should be allowed to
work on falsework. We have already said that it is
essential that a certificate should be issued on successful
completion of a training course. This would then
become the qualification required for working on a
project which involves falsework.
It is encouraging to see that the Sub-Committee of the
Joint Advisory Committee on Safety and Health in
the Construction Industries recommended in their
Report that a certificate of competence should ultimately become compulsory for all who erect, substantially alter or dismantle scaffolds: in the meantime
these operatives should carry an official record of
their training and experience. The view of the National
Association of Scaffolding Contractors was expressed
in a pamphlet "Training for the Scaffolding Industry".
They wrote "to achieve general adherence to accepted
86
safety standards and training standards some form
of sanction needs to be introduced such as a require.ment that scaffolding operatives must hold a certificate
of competence before they are engaged". We welcome
this proposal in a related industry.
Our object is that everyone working on falsework
should have had a minimum technical training and
should understand the safety implications of his
particular work. This cannot, ~f course, be achieved
overnight, but we estimate that about 10 % of the
skilled labour force could be trained in any one year.
To ensure that this rate is maintained we consider
that each employer and contractor should keep a
register of all trained employees. This will need to be
revised at frequent intervals, probably monthly. Into
it will be entered a copy of the certificate of attendance
and competence that each employee has obtained
from one of the approved courses. This register should
be made available for inspection at all reasonable
times by authorised representatives of employed
persons, such as trade union officials, by the client
and by HM Inspectors and others. Such conditions
could be included as a standard clause in the contract,
and failure to meet them be made an offence under the
appropriate statutory regulation. A contractor who
could not provide proof that the proportion of his
workforce which had been trained met the minimum
requirements would, prima facie, be deemed not to
provide a safe system of work. Such a scheme would
have the advantage of imposing a distinct, understandable and reasonably practicable duty upon the
employer. The necessity for training would be made
clear to those attending courses, for they would not
be allowed to continue working on falsework unless
they were certificated. The date at which the scheme
came into operation must allow time for the training
organisations to marshall their resources to cater
for the progressively increasing demand for training.
Time scale
It is clearly necessary to give some indication of the
time scale which we have in mind for programming
the courses of instruction. It is impossible to obtain
exact figures of the number employed in falsework
and difficult to obtain reliable estimates. We do know
that there are about 3500 people employed on formwork and from an estimate of the proportion of the
carpenters and joiners, scaffolders, bar benders, concreters and other support groups, there would seem
to be upwards of some 60 OOO persons employed on
projects where falsework is important. Less than onetenth of these constitute first-line supervision and
of course not all aredirectly involved in constructing
the falsework. As we said before, we consider that
