Can anyone help with the wording of a contract.

[pargyle]

Sjt, I would suggest that you create a risk assessment of the apiary and supply that to the council. This would show you have assessed potential risks and what actions will be taken to mitigate this risk.

Totally agree ... this would be one more mitigating action should the worst case scenario arise.


I have been on the investigative side of HSE stuff in the past and you can not protect against the unknown happening.

Exactly the problem ...


What you can do is do your best to reduce the risks.

yes ...


I've always found HSE to be professional and understanding..[/QUOTE]

Professional ... Yes. Understanding - not in the least. I had one HSE Inspector tell me that their job was not to advise but to prosecute - they didn't have enough personnel to get the message across so the way they did it was by prosecuting wherever possible and then publicising the case.

The Judges Directions provided by the HSE (which is where the prosecuting authority bring to the judge's attention 'similar' cases with the related fine/sentence in order to direct the judge in his sentencing) in the case I was involved with included the Clapham Rail Disaster - with a death toll of 35 and British Rail being fined £250,000. Our Barrister accused the HSE of being 'over zealous' in their Judges Direction (he whsipered to me they were off their trollies) and the Judge actually agreed !! Understanding .... not in the least. (Perhaps they have changed over the years.... ).

 

[thorn]

The last line is just specifying what forms part of your duty of care responsibility ... crazy though it sounds .. in the eyes of the law you have a duty of care even to those people who have gained unauthorised access to your property.

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 - "The Act extends the common duty of care to trespassers as well as visitors, providing that this duty is to be required when the occupier has actual or constructive knowledge that a danger exists and that a trespasser is or may be near it. "

The Council are simply extending their responsibility as the Occupier to you as the Tenant. If you want the Apiary site you don't have much choice - but wherever your bees are you are still going to face the same situation if they are anywhere public - or indeed private - but the eventuality is what insurance is for.

I agree.

 

[thorn]

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations require "all employers and self-employed people to assess the risks to workers and any others who may be affected by their work or business."
So, is a hobby beekeeper who sells his honey self-employed for the purpose of the Regulations? I would say probably.
So, do a risk assessment.
As to the likelihood of a civil action in negligence by someone who is stung by your bees, I've asked before on this forum if anyone has ever come across one. No-one has ever consulted me or any of my colleagues about the possibility (nor about a nuisance action, though this would have a chance of success). The greater danger is from the HSE.

 

[charlievictorbravo]

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations require "all employers and self-employed people to assess the risks to workers and any others who may be affected by their work or business."
So, is a hobby beekeeper who sells his honey self-employed for the purpose of the Regulations? I would say probably.
So, do a risk assessment.
As to the likelihood of a civil action in negligence by someone who is stung by your bees, I've asked before on this forum if anyone has ever come across one. No-one has ever consulted me or any of my colleagues about the possibility (nor about a nuisance action, though this would have a chance of success). The greater danger is from the HSE.

I think this section of the HASWA 1974 has been amended by Section 1 of the Deregulation Act 2015 to largely exclude self-employed people from this regulation unless they conduct an undertaking of a prescribed description - this gets a bit involved. It looks like this was pushed through before the dissolution of parliament (so that we can elect a new bunch of herberts!).

I'd still be inclined to write a risk assessment, though.

CVB

 

[Moggs]

A risk assessment will establish that there is a risk of getting stung. What next? Stop bees from flying?

 

[alldigging]

SBA Technical Data Sheet Number 17 -

A search for this will get you Health and Safety
Information and risk Assessment for Apiary Visits and Events.

 

[charlievictorbravo]

A risk assessment will establish that there is a risk of getting stung. ....

Err, no! A risk assessment will establish that you've thought about the risks and are doing what you can to mitigate the likelihood and severity of any injuries arising from hazards identified. Think about lifting, tripping, fire, chemicals, etc..

As was stated above, it might not prevent incidents but will help if a question of prosecution or liability arises.

CVB

 

[charlievictorbravo]

A risk assessment will establish that there is a risk of getting stung. ....

Err, no! A risk assessment will establish that you've thought about the risks and are doing what you can to mitigate the likelihood and severity of any injuries arising from hazards identified. Think about lifting, tripping, fire, chemicals, etc..

As was stated above, it might not prevent incidents but will help if a question of prosecution or liability arises.

CVB

 

[Moggs]

Err, no! ....



CVB

Err, yes!

A RA should identify all significant risks and give guidance as to how to manage those risks by elimination, reduction, isolation, control, PPE, etc

Bees will be bees.

 

[Gilberdyke John]

Sjt, I would suggest that you create a risk assessment of the apiary and supply that to the council. This would show you have assessed potential risks and what actions will be taken to mitigate this risk.

Totally agree ... this would be one more mitigating action should the worst case scenario arise.


I have been on the investigative side of HSE stuff in the past and you can not protect against the unknown happening.

Exactly the problem ...


What you can do is do your best to reduce the risks.

yes ...


I've always found HSE to be professional and understanding..

Professional ... Yes. Understanding - not in the least. I had one HSE Inspector tell me that their job was not to advise but to prosecute - they didn't have enough personnel to get the message across so the way they did it was by prosecuting wherever possible and then publicising the case.

The Judges Directions provided by the HSE (which is where the prosecuting authority bring to the judge's attention 'similar' cases with the related fine/sentence in order to direct the judge in his sentencing) in the case I was involved with included the Clapham Rail Disaster - with a death toll of 35 and British Rail being fined £250,000. Our Barrister accused the HSE of being 'over zealous' in their Judges Direction (he whsipered to me they were off their trollies) and the Judge actually agreed !! Understanding .... not in the least. (Perhaps they have changed over the years.... ).


[/QUOTE]

The 1974 Act started out with good intentions but the road to hell is paved with them! Since the original act a host of nonsense has been hung onto its coat tails creating jobs for civil servants, lawyers various "inspectors", trainers, the list grows by the day. Darwins principles should be allowed to operate unfettered or we are ultimately going to only get out of bed in cotton wool suits.

 

[charlievictorbravo]

[/I][/QUOTE]

The 1974 Act started out with good intentions but the road to hell is paved with them! Since the original act a host of nonsense has been hung onto its coat tails creating jobs for civil servants, lawyers various "inspectors", trainers, the list grows by the day. Darwins principles should be allowed to operate unfettered or we are ultimately going to only get out of bed in cotton wool suits.[/QUOTE]

In 1974, there were roughly 180 fatal accidents in my former industry, construction. In the year 2013/14, there were 42. In safety, I don't subscribe to your survival of the fittest. The above reduction was achieved with civil servants from the HSE, trainers from various companies and "safety men" working hard to ensure that everybody went home at the end of a shift, not just the fittest.
I get ticked off with politicians who get up on their hind legs and moan about "all the health and safety regulations from Brussels" when the biggest work-related injury they could get is a paper cut. Look at the statistics for all major construction projects and you'd see the progress made - 62 million working hours on the London Olympics venues construction and nobody killed.
The people who moan about risk assessments don't understand the process - it should not be a box-ticking exercise - it should be a thinking process with the thinking recorded for future reference.
My big concern with the H & S legislation is the presumption that you are guilty unless you can prove that you're innocent. That concern does not take away anything from "Safety Men" who have ensured better safety at work for everybody.

CVB

 

[pargyle]

[/I]

My big concern with the H & S legislation is the presumption that you are guilty unless you can prove that you're innocent. That concern does not take away anything from "Safety Men" who have ensured better safety at work for everybody.

CVB[/QUOTE]

Yes ... that's one of the major concerns I have ...

I grew up in the construction industry when H&S was almost non existent, Risk assessments and method statements were unheard of and people died on a regular basis. My company took the decision to meet all the requirements (and exceed them often) as they came in over the years - it often made us uncompetitive when we quoted to do a job 'properly' with the right access equipment when other people were hanging off ladders. So, I applaud the change in H&S culture, particularly within the construction sector - But it does not change my view of the HSE. It's people 'at the coalface' who have made it work ...

 

[Gilberdyke John]

[/I]

The 1974 Act started out with good intentions but the road to hell is paved with them! Since the original act a host of nonsense has been hung onto its coat tails creating jobs for civil servants, lawyers various "inspectors", trainers, the list grows by the day. Darwins principles should be allowed to operate unfettered or we are ultimately going to only get out of bed in cotton wool suits.[/QUOTE]

In 1974, there were roughly 180 fatal accidents in my former industry, construction. In the year 2013/14, there were 42. In safety, I don't subscribe to your survival of the fittest. The above reduction was achieved with civil servants from the HSE, trainers from various companies and "safety men" working hard to ensure that everybody went home at the end of a shift, not just the fittest.
I get ticked off with politicians who get up on their hind legs and moan about "all the health and safety regulations from Brussels" when the biggest work-related injury they could get is a paper cut. Look at the statistics for all major construction projects and you'd see the progress made - 62 million working hours on the London Olympics venues construction and nobody killed.
The people who moan about risk assessments don't understand the process - it should not be a box-ticking exercise - it should be a thinking process with the thinking recorded for future reference.
My big concern with the H & S legislation is the presumption that you are guilty unless you can prove that you're innocent. That concern does not take away anything from "Safety Men" who have ensured better safety at work for everybody.

CVB[/QUOTE]

Darwinism also selects the brightest. The array of spin off rules, departments, lawyers etc are not necessary if anyone intending to do anything has a working brain.

 

[charlievictorbravo]

The 1974 Act started out with good intentions but the road to hell is paved with them! Since the original act a host of nonsense has been hung onto its coat tails creating jobs for civil servants, lawyers various "inspectors", trainers, the list grows by the day. Darwins principles should be allowed to operate unfettered or we are ultimately going to only get out of bed in cotton wool suits.

In 1974, there were roughly 180 fatal accidents in my former industry, construction. In the year 2013/14, there were 42. In safety, I don't subscribe to your survival of the fittest. The above reduction was achieved with civil servants from the HSE, trainers from various companies and "safety men" working hard to ensure that everybody went home at the end of a shift, not just the fittest.
I get ticked off with politicians who get up on their hind legs and moan about "all the health and safety regulations from Brussels" when the biggest work-related injury they could get is a paper cut. Look at the statistics for all major construction projects and you'd see the progress made - 62 million working hours on the London Olympics venues construction and nobody killed.
The people who moan about risk assessments don't understand the process - it should not be a box-ticking exercise - it should be a thinking process with the thinking recorded for future reference.
My big concern with the H & S legislation is the presumption that you are guilty unless you can prove that you're innocent. That concern does not take away anything from "Safety Men" who have ensured better safety at work for everybody.

CVB[/QUOTE]

Darwinism also selects the brightest. The array of spin off rules, departments, lawyers etc are not necessary if anyone intending to do anything has a working brain.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry but I disagree with you. I cannot go with any line of thought that suggests it's ok to kill or injure stupid people - that was one of Hitler's policies!

CVB

 

[Gilberdyke John]

In 1974, there were roughly 180 fatal accidents in my former industry, construction. In the year 2013/14, there were 42. In safety, I don't subscribe to your survival of the fittest. The above reduction was achieved with civil servants from the HSE, trainers from various companies and "safety men" working hard to ensure that everybody went home at the end of a shift, not just the fittest.
I get ticked off with politicians who get up on their hind legs and moan about "all the health and safety regulations from Brussels" when the biggest work-related injury they could get is a paper cut. Look at the statistics for all major construction projects and you'd see the progress made - 62 million working hours on the London Olympics venues construction and nobody killed.
The people who moan about risk assessments don't understand the process - it should not be a box-ticking exercise - it should be a thinking process with the thinking recorded for future reference.
My big concern with the H & S legislation is the presumption that you are guilty unless you can prove that you're innocent. That concern does not take away anything from "Safety Men" who have ensured better safety at work for everybody.

CVB

Darwinism also selects the brightest. The array of spin off rules, departments, lawyers etc are not necessary if anyone intending to do anything has a working brain.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry but I disagree with you. I cannot go with any line of thought that suggests it's ok to kill or injure stupid people - that was one of Hitler's policies!

CVB[/QUOTE]

The principles of Darwinism seems lost on you.

 

[chrismcd]

Why not just "bees at work" signs

I had a similar situation, where a nicely mowed patch of grass in front of an apiary became a popular car park site and people were standing up into the bee's flight paths as they got out of the cars

We did the usual of signs and roping off.

But, we did think that warning of bees stinging was admitting liability, so we settled for the text:

"Bees at work, please avoid flight paths".

Did seem to do some good and the problems faded away.