HSE - missing points from thread.

[MarkP]

I've just had a look at John's HSE thread. Posters are missing a few points:

1) No matter how hard you try to cover yourself by attempting to comply with HSE regs, if an incident, particularly if it's serious, happens the HSE will try to stitch you. They will even pick you up on the slightest paperwork error, regardless of its relevance.

2) No matter how much the HSE bleats on about not harrassing individual instructors teaching their mates, in the event of an incident you'll probably find their definition of "reward" will extend to the coffee the student buys you.

3) The HSE's expert witness will swear that no matter how thorough your risk assesment, _he_ would have done it differently, and so would any reasonably prudent instructor. Your teaching methods will be ripped apart, regardless of your years of trouble free instructing. The expert witness, with the benefit of hindsight, would _never_ have done what ever it was like that.

4) In the event of an incident, you're fairly likely to get sued by the injured party, who's lawyers will attempt to prove that you were operating within HSE regulations, thus being negligent by not appointing yourself in writing as the contractor for the project. For example. This may or may not be upheld in court, but who want to get that far?

5) When I bailed out of teaching, there were huge grey areas in the HSE's ACOPs. For example (working from memory here) a "suitable person" should check all equipment before its use. Most HSE regualtions closely define such a person, usually being one who has attended a specialist course in the use of the equipment. The HSE's intention here is to include instructors and divemasters as such people, but in a civil case you can bet your last o-ring that some lawyer's going to take advantage of this grey area. Even the HSE recognise(d?) that the ACOPs is (was?) in need of revision here.

Bitter and twisted? Moi? No, I'm just delighted I packed it in when I did.

Sorry about the rant.

Regards,

Mark

PS. I never had any hassle with the HSE.

[Billy the Kangaroo]

Why dont we try to get the powers-to-be to accept that recreational (non-deco) diving is NOT the same as commercial diving and draconian controls and beaurocracy can often have completely the reverse effect to that expected.

Who's up for it ?

Or we will see the gradual demise of diving in the UK ?

Pity its election day today, we could have had some sport muddying the waters to our representatives...

[John N]

I think there is no chance of them reversing any rules that are perceived to be increasing safety, as safety is the current watchword for our society.

It won't mean the end of UK diving though.

You are quite welcome to walk off the beach (on your own or with a mate) or catch a lift with an obliging skipper to do whatever dive you want without the HSE interfering.

You can also dive (or teach) with the BSAC with the same freedom although you would probably still have liability issues if it goes tits up.

It's only commercial teaching that is getting it in the neck.

Personally I don't think it's logical to apply safety rules only to those getting paid for it, but I'm not advocating the extension of the HSE's remit to cover club diving.

As the rules become more restrictive, I would expect the prices of commercial courses to go up and more people to either follow the BSAC route (although there's no sign of that happening so far) or more likely for people to do their commercial courses (in full or at least the open water section) abroad in places like Egypt where there are no rules like this.

The problem with this is that these people then need to get UK experience either by going to BSAC or commercially with companies who will be very wary of their liability on these trips. They may not bother.

Commercial instructors in the UK will be less experienced as the experienced instructors pack it in due to regulation and lack of compensation.

It means less choice, less flexibility on time, lower training standards, more expense and perversely less safety for existing and potential divers.

While this might seem good for the BSAC, fewer UK divers means less diving infrastructure such as dive shops and charter boats.

[AdmiralHanson]

Originally Posted by MarkP

5) When I bailed out of teaching, there were huge grey areas in the HSE's ACOPs. For example (working from memory here) a "suitable person" should check all equipment before its use. Most HSE regualtions closely define such a person, usually being one who has attended a specialist course in the use of the equipment. The HSE's intention here is to include instructors and divemasters as such people, but in a civil case you can bet your last o-ring that some lawyer's going to take advantage of this grey area. Even the HSE recognise(d?) that the ACOPs is (was?) in need of revision here.

After looking at H&S law in general quite a bit at the moment, the thing about an ACOP is that is not 'law' .... Merely a way of doing things. If you get citied under an ACOP, isn't up to you to prove that the method you are doing it is as safe or safer than the 'recommended' practice ?

[The Duck]

From Introduction to Health & Safety at Work (The Handbook for the NEBOSH National General Certificate)
"ACOPs have a special legal status (sometimes refered to as quasi-legal). ... If a company is prosecuted for a breach of health and safety law and it is proved that it has not followed the relevant provisions of the ACOP, a court can find them at fault, unless the company can shown that it has complied with the lae in some other way."

About the best description that I've come across so far.

[MarkP]

Originally Posted by AdmiralHanson

After looking at H&S law in general quite a bit at the moment, the thing about an ACOP is that is not 'law' .... Merely a way of doing things. If you get citied under an ACOP, isn't up to you to prove that the method you are doing it is as safe or safer than the 'recommended' practice ?

But part of my argument is that you don't want to have to prove anything in court. It's a lot of worry and hassle. The other part, from the section you quoted, is that a lawyer would read "a suitable person" in HSE speak as one who's done the relevant course. If you haven't, you'd have to go to court and try to prove that that wasn't the HSE's intention when the ACOPs was drafted. The HSE would, of course, act as a witness on your behalf in a civil case. Not.

The long and the short of it is that the potential hassle involved in teaching stopped it being worthwhile for me. Other people have their own levels of hassle tolerance, just as others do dives I wouldn't dream of.

Regards,

Mark