[TCUG] Re: FW: National Highway Sector Schemes : Sector 8
- From: "Wears, Russell" <russell.wears@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 11:32:21 +0100
We have been discussing this with our own health and safety unit and have
come to the same conclusion
Russell Wears
Dumfries and Galloway Council
-----Original Message-----
From: Wallis, Ian [mailto:Ian.Wallis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 23 May 2005 11:24
To: 'tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [TCUG] Re: FW: National Highway Sector Schemes : Sector 8
*** Before reading or acting on this e-mail, or opening any attachment,
please read Derby City Council's disclaimer and confidentiality statement at
the end of this e-mail ***
Dennis,
I too have been concerned about the Sector 8 scheme and how it applies to
City Council employees.
The UKAS document suggests that Authorities might require accreditation of
their contractors (but not of their own employees) and I think that those
contractors have a right to expect the Authority to only allow competent
people to access the controller cabinets.
With this in mind we are devising an in-house scheme which will train and
assess signal technicians in relevant aspects such as controller
familiarisation, health and safety, use of manual panel, use of handset etc.
It's still early days yet so no definite plans have been drawn up but we
believe that such a scheme will be more relevant to us as a Local Authority,
give confidence to our signal contractor that the Authority's staff are
competent and provide additional documented training for technicians.
Any comments on this?
Ian Wallis
Derby City Council
-----Original Message-----
From: tcug-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tcug-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Beever, Dennis
Sent: 23 May 2005 10:16
To: tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [TCUG] FW: National Highway Sector Schemes : Sector 8
Like many other authorities, I'm somewhat concerned at the hype
surrounding the Sector 8 scheme insofar as it relates to Highway
Authority Engineers. A number of contractors maintain that local HA
engineers will need to be card carrying so I sought some clarification
from Vas Siantonas at ASLEC who I believe are administering the scheme.
My enquiry and his response are copied below for information.
Interestingly, I note that 'a more detailed guideline is scheduled for
release in May' - Anyone know anymore about this?
From: "Beever, Dennis" <dbeever@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <vas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: National Highway Sector Schemes : Sector 8
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 11:19:01 +0100
>
> Vas
>
> I'm seeking clarification on a point that myself and a
> number of neighbouring Highway Authorities have with
> respect to the application of the National Highway Sector
> Scheme for Quality Management in Highway Works, in
> particular, the Sector 8 scheme. There is some
> considerable confusion with respect to accreditation of
> their own employees.
>
> Local Highway Authority engineers carry an operational
> burden with respect to their traffic control assets.
> Traffic signal design engineers attend site from time to
> time to interrogate their traffic signal controllers and
> change operational timings. Insofar as the installation
> is concerned they are the design engineer, network manager
> , client and guardian of the asset.
>
> I would not consider that the card carrying requirements
> of the Sector 8 scheme would apply to our own employees,
> since, for the most part it appears to be written with the
> supplying contractor and maintainer in mind. However, a
> number of traffic signal contractors consider that their
> clients should be card carrying and are offering training
> courses etc in support of this. This premise seems at
> odds with the Highway Authority role given that we design,
> specify, test and effectively own the equipment.
>
> Given that the deadline for grandfather rights draws near,
> many of us are understandably confused and anxious. I
> should be grateful therefore for any light you could shed
> on this dilemma. Thank you.
>
> Dennis Beever Group Engineer, Urban Traffic Control
> Highways & Engineering, Wakefield MDC
-----Original Message-----
From: vassiantonas [mailto:vassiantonas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 10 May 2005 21:24
To: Beever, Dennis
Subject: Re: National Highway Sector Schemes : Sector 8
Dennis
Thank you for your message.
I am aware that there is some confusion about the issues you
raise. We had a Sector Scheme meeting last week at which it
became clear that clarity is required. We are currently
talking to various people at TCUG and with this obejective
in mind.
A simple answer to your points is that the grandfather
rights deadline is primarily intended for contractors staff
who must register their operatives before 30 September in
order to avoid having to do an NVQ. For client bodies,
since an NVQ doesn't cover their work, the grandfather
deadline becomes purely academic. From your point of view
you don't need to rush into doing anything before this
deadline but you should commence your planning.
More detailed guidlines will be prepared fairly quickly,
hopefully by the end of May.
Hope this helps
Vas Siantonas
The WMDC Disclaimer can be found at:
http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/SiteInformation/E-MailDisclaimer/default.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
**********************************************************************
The views expressed in this email are personal and may not necessarily
reflect those of Derby City Council, unless explicitly stated otherwise
This email, and any files transmitted with it, are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you should not copy it
for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person.
Senders and recipients of e-mail should be aware that under the Data
Protection Act 1998 and Freedom of Information Act 2000, the contents may
have to be disclosed.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
Surfcontrol for the presence of computer viruses. However, we cannot accept
liability for viruses that may be in this e-mail. We recommend that you
check all e-mails with an appropriate virus scanner.
www.surfcontrol.com
**********************************************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
--
Any email message sent or received by the
Council may require to be disclosed by the
Council under the provisions of the Freedom
of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
Other related posts:
