This page was created by Cubik's Content Migrator for MCMS.
For your reference, this page was migrated from:
http: // www.ccpr.org.uk / divisions / committees / dyncat.cfm ?catid=15926
Delete this message as part of your post-migration clean-up process.
AAIAC Minutes - October 2004
Minutes Meeting held 13 October 2004 at Outward Bound Centre, Ullswater Attendees
AAIAC Members
John Bevan (JB) in the Chair, Jon Cox (JC), Brian Davies (BD), Rob Henderson (RH), Martin Hudson (MH), Ian Lamb (IL), Drew Michie (DM), Mike Penny (MP), Iain Peter (IP), Ron Rutland (RR), Sandra Skinner (SS), Roger Smith (RS) and Simon Waring (SW). Secretariat
Andrew Hanson (AH) – CCPR, Charlotte Edward (CE) – CCPR and Peter Thompson (PE) – SkillsActive AAIAC Observers
Matthew Tagney (MT) – DfES, Gavin Howat (GH) – HSE and Marcus Bailie (MB) – AALA
1. Apologies for Absence
Apologies had been received from Chris Coleman, John Cousins, Jon Beynon and Howard Braithwaite. 2. Minutes of the previous meeting
Drew Michie outlined a number of detailed corrections to the draft minutes of 23 June 2004. DM’s suggested amendments were accepted. The minutes were then agreed as an accurate record. 3. Matters arising from the minutes 3.1 AAIAC’s potential to provide a mediation service on licensing issues Members received the tabled paper, which summarised the statements made by AAIAC on mediation in previous minutes and in consultation responses. Members agreed to provide comments on this paper and ideas about how to move this issue forward. It was agreed that this issue would be a substantive item on the agenda at the next meeting. Action: Members to email their comments on the paper to Charlotte. The Secretariat then to produce a paper, based on members’ comments, for discussion at the next meeting 4. Work Programme 4.1 Objective 1 – AAIAC wider role in health and safety Simon Waring reported that this working group would consist of Iain Peter, John Cousins, Tom Redfern (NCA), Nigel Timmins (BCU), Bob Barton and himself, and was planning to meet in the near future. 4.2 Objective 2 – Benchmarking Members received and discussed Roger Smith’s tabled paper ‘Expedition Benchmarking’. DM enquired whether the paper referred to the UK. RS confirmed that it was based on the information he had available at the time of writing. JB suggested that future papers identify the countries in respect of which they contained information, and indicate if further information might be required to provide a full UK picture. Roger Smith highlighted that the future objectives for the AAIAC benchmarking working group, which consists of Ron Rutland, Mike Penny, Shane Winser, Ian Lamb and himself are: 1. To continue to collect up-to-date data on a) Expedition Approval
b) Leader approval / selection
2. To evaluate the standards of the various schemes of Expedition and Leader approval
3. To agree a standard of approval for Leaders and Expeditions that is considered to be acceptable
4. To identify how AAIAC approval might be given to those expeditions and Leaders that reach the agreed standard The meeting was informed that Shane Winser from the Royal Geographical Society had been approached by the British Standards Institute (BSI) to examine standards for Adventure Travel. Gavin Howat informed the meeting that BSI is an independent organisation established by Royal Charter and is the UK national standard making body for either UK or EU standards. It was agreed that Roger Smith and Ron Rutland would contact Shane Winser and the lead Officer responsible for this issue at BSI. Action: Roger Smith and Ron Rutland to contact Shane Winser and BSI Action: Roger Smith and Ron Rutland to re-establish the working group 4.3 Objective 3 – Licensing Members received the tabled progress paper from the Licensing working group. Martin Hudson updated the members on the work of the licensing working group. MH noted that the following had attended the working group meetings; Sandra Skinner, James Stevens (RYA), Brooke Boothby (AALA Chair), Gwenfyl Edwards (Wales Tourist Board), Matthew Tagney, Ian Lamb, John Cousins, Ron Rutland and Ian McMorrin (AALA). MH reported that the first working group meeting established the group’s Terms of Reference, which are to consider and advise on alternatives to licensing. Members noted that the working group had taken its lead from Matthew Tagney’s letter of the 14 May 2004, which indicated that “the Government would, in time, review the future of the statutory Regime in the context of any successful complementary accreditation schemes or schemes established”. MH informed the meeting that the working group agreed that in the short term (next 3 years), any non-statutory scheme (s) should:
• Complement the existing Licensing Scheme
• Apply to outdoor and Adventurous Activities in the UK
• Include age ranges (but with specific reference to under 18s) Members noted the matrix of existing schemes (tabled paper), and discussed the criteria used by these schemes. MH noted that from the matrix there appeared to be two types of existing schemes:
1. External verification of safety management systems
2. Staff training schemes
MH noted that the working group had agreed that a non-mandatory scheme (s) should be an external verification of safety management systems which incorporated staff training. MH highlighted that as a result of the matrix the longer term objective would be to explore whether a single template could be created. MH informed members that the working group had discussed the following issues: a possible umbrella body to oversee a non-statutory scheme, which had been guided by the criteria DfES would accept; the robustness of self assessment; the importance of spot checks; and the possibility of cross NGB inspection for taster sessions. MH reported that the next Licensing Working Group meeting on the 16 November would:
• Complete the matrix
• Identify cost parameters
• Compare / integrate existing schemes checklists with the AALA criteria, to arrive at a benchmark against which to measure the rigour of existing schemes
• Start to explore the options for the umbrella body Marcus Bailie offered to complete the matrix for current Licensing. The meeting agreed that this information would be of use. Action: Marcus Bailie to complete the matrix for current licensing and send it to Charlotte Edward The meeting noted that the matrix did not included all known existing schemes but that this was a live document and will be added to and developed accordingly. Mike Penny noted that field study organisations and in particular The Field Study Council might wish to be involved within a non-mandatory scheme. Members were informed that Adventurous Activities were still to be defined in this context. The meeting discussed Martin Elliott’s email of 1st September 2004. Matthew Tagney informed the meeting that DfES welcomed AAIAC and their observer status. MT emphasised that DfES wanted to work in harmony with the AAIAC licensing working group. MT noted that Martin Elliott’s letter was trying to address the gap in the current AAIAC membership. DfES had received numerous replies to Martin Elliott’s email, and MT agreed to forward these to Charlotte Edward. He also acknowledged that not sending this email to Scottish organisations had been a mistake on DfES’ part. Action: MT to send Charlotte Edward copies of the responses to Martin Elliott’s email. JB suggested that the all the correspondence from DfES on AAIAC and the licensing working group had lead to some confusion, particular given the expressed preference for a Youth Adventure Safety Inspection Committee. Action: MT agreed to produce a definitive DfES statement. 5. Working at Heights 5.1 Working at Heights update
Members received the tabled paper ‘Working at Heights Update’ which had been provided by John Cousins. Members discussed the possibility of an exemption from the WAH Regulations for AALA Licensed centres and/or all NGB qualified individuals. Gavin Howat reported that HSE had yet to formulate a position paper for the Minister on the legality and structure of any exemption. He also reported that the HSC was due to meet on the 9 November, when this matter was on their agenda. Action: Members to be kept informed of any developments. MB highlighted AALA’s support for the exemption and reported that if the exemption were not to be implemented the proposed Operational Circular would still use NGB standards for Adventure Activities as the basis for the industry to comply with the Regulations. The meeting noted that although this was a unique and successful situation for the sector, the outcome was only possible due to the excellent work by John Cousins. It was noted the John Cousins’ work over the past year had been dominated by WAH, which had led to costs being incurred by his organisation. Simon Waring drew members’ attention to the lessons learnt paper from the WAH campaign. Action: To circulate the paper on the lessons learnt to members and observers. The AAIAC thanked Gavin Howat for his continued support and work in this area. GH thanked John Cousins and Tom Redfern for their expertise and work on this issue. 5.2 ACWAHT
The meeting received the tabled correspondence between AAIAC and ACWAHT. Members raised concerns about the following paragraph in the ACWAHT letter, “Whilst AAIAC members may consider that NGB good practice take priority over this code that assumption has so far not been tested. I would advise that they need to be aware that they may have to demonstrate at some stage (e.g. in the event of an incident) that it is at least equal to or better this national document when it is published”. Members were far from happy about the implications of the paragraph. GB agreed he would speak to Martin Holden about this statement. The meeting agreed it would not send an AAIAC representative to ACWAHT meetings. MB agreed to send the ACWAHT paperwork to the AAIAC Secretariat. Action: MB to send the ACWAHT paperwork to Charlotte Edward 5.3 British Standards Institution
The members received and discussed the BSI letter from John Fisher (tabled). GH informed members that either by the exemption to the WAH Regulations or in the OC, the HSE will formally record their support and recognition of NGB standards. The meeting agreed the following actions:
a) To reply to the BSI letter after the WAH decision to inform them of the outcome and of the role NGB standards have within that outcome.
b) CCPR to write to BSI to emphasise the fact that for all sport and recreation activities NGBs are the arbiters of best practice for their activities. 6. Date and Venue of next meeting
It was agreed that the next meeting will take place on the 18 January 2005 at SkillsActive, London. Members noted that the normal meeting location will be London and that meetings will be scheduled around SkillsActive / CCPR needs and work priorities for this area. Members will be informed of future meetings in due course. 7. Governance
JB reported that the morning session of the meeting (the members only session) had agreed a preferred way forward for the Committee, which involved changes to the constitution and involved organisations that were not present. JB informed Observers that further information will be circulated to them in due course.
|
Minutes
Meeting held 13 October 2004 at Outward Bound Centre, Ullswater
Attendees
AAIAC Members
John Bevan (JB) in the Chair, Jon Cox (JC), Brian Davies (BD), Rob Henderson (RH), Martin Hudson (MH), Ian Lamb (IL), Drew Michie (DM), Mike Penny (MP), Iain Peter (IP), Ron Rutland (RR), Sandra Skinner (SS), Roger Smith (RS) and Simon Waring (SW).
Secretariat
Andrew Hanson (AH) – CCPR, Charlotte Edward (CE) – CCPR and Peter Thompson (PE) – SkillsActive
AAIAC Observers
Matthew Tagney (MT) – DfES, Gavin Howat (GH) – HSE and Marcus Bailie (MB) – AALA
1. Apologies for Absence
Apologies had been received from Chris Coleman, John Cousins, Jon Beynon and Howard Braithwaite.
2. Minutes of the previous meeting
Drew Michie outlined a number of detailed corrections to the draft minutes of 23 June 2004. DM’s suggested amendments were accepted. The minutes were then agreed as an accurate record.
3. Matters arising from the minutes
3.1 AAIAC’s potential to provide a mediation service on licensing issues
Members received the tabled paper, which summarised the statements made by AAIAC on mediation in previous minutes and in consultation responses. Members agreed to provide comments on this paper and ideas about how to move this issue forward. It was agreed that this issue would be a substantive item on the agenda at the next meeting.
Action: Members to email their comments on the paper to Charlotte. The Secretariat then to produce a paper, based on members’ comments, for discussion at the next meeting
4. Work Programme
4.1 Objective 1 – AAIAC wider role in health and safety
Simon Waring reported that this working group would consist of Iain Peter, John Cousins, Tom Redfern (NCA), Nigel Timmins (BCU), Bob Barton and himself, and was planning to meet in the near future.
4.2 Objective 2 – Benchmarking
Members received and discussed Roger Smith’s tabled paper ‘Expedition Benchmarking’. DM enquired whether the paper referred to the UK. RS confirmed that it was based on the information he had available at the time of writing. JB suggested that future papers identify the countries in respect of which they contained information, and indicate if further information might be required to provide a full UK picture.
Roger Smith highlighted that the future objectives for the AAIAC benchmarking working group, which consists of Ron Rutland, Mike Penny, Shane Winser, Ian Lamb and himself are:
1. To continue to collect up-to-date data on a) Expedition Approval
b) Leader approval / selection
2. To evaluate the standards of the various schemes of Expedition and Leader approval
3. To agree a standard of approval for Leaders and Expeditions that is considered to be acceptable
4. To identify how AAIAC approval might be given to those expeditions and Leaders that reach the agreed standard
The meeting was informed that Shane Winser from the Royal Geographical Society had been approached by the British Standards Institute (BSI) to examine standards for Adventure Travel.
Gavin Howat informed the meeting that BSI is an independent organisation established by Royal Charter and is the UK national standard making body for either UK or EU standards.
It was agreed that Roger Smith and Ron Rutland would contact Shane Winser and the lead Officer responsible for this issue at BSI.
Action: Roger Smith and Ron Rutland to contact Shane Winser and BSI
Action: Roger Smith and Ron Rutland to re-establish the working group
4.3 Objective 3 – Licensing
Members received the tabled progress paper from the Licensing working group. Martin Hudson updated the members on the work of the licensing working group. MH noted that the following had attended the working group meetings; Sandra Skinner, James Stevens (RYA), Brooke Boothby (AALA Chair), Gwenfyl Edwards (Wales Tourist Board), Matthew Tagney, Ian Lamb, John Cousins, Ron Rutland and Ian McMorrin (AALA).
MH reported that the first working group meeting established the group’s Terms of Reference, which are to consider and advise on alternatives to licensing. Members noted that the working group had taken its lead from Matthew Tagney’s letter of the 14 May 2004, which indicated that “the Government would, in time, review the future of the statutory Regime in the context of any successful complementary accreditation schemes or schemes established”.
MH informed the meeting that the working group agreed that in the short term (next 3 years), any non-statutory scheme (s) should:
• Complement the existing Licensing Scheme
• Apply to outdoor and Adventurous Activities in the UK
• Include age ranges (but with specific reference to under 18s)
Members noted the matrix of existing schemes (tabled paper), and discussed the criteria used by these schemes. MH noted that from the matrix there appeared to be two types of existing schemes:
1. External verification of safety management systems
2. Staff training schemes
MH noted that the working group had agreed that a non-mandatory scheme (s) should be an external verification of safety management systems which incorporated staff training.
MH highlighted that as a result of the matrix the longer term objective would be to explore whether a single template could be created.
MH informed members that the working group had discussed the following issues: a possible umbrella body to oversee a non-statutory scheme, which had been guided by the criteria DfES would accept; the robustness of self assessment; the importance of spot checks; and the possibility of cross NGB inspection for taster sessions.
MH reported that the next Licensing Working Group meeting on the 16 November would:
• Complete the matrix
• Identify cost parameters
• Compare / integrate existing schemes checklists with the AALA criteria, to arrive at a benchmark against which to measure the rigour of existing schemes
• Start to explore the options for the umbrella body
Marcus Bailie offered to complete the matrix for current Licensing. The meeting agreed that this information would be of use.
Action: Marcus Bailie to complete the matrix for current licensing and send it to Charlotte Edward
The meeting noted that the matrix did not included all known existing schemes but that this was a live document and will be added to and developed accordingly. Mike Penny noted that field study organisations and in particular The Field Study Council might wish to be involved within a non-mandatory scheme.
Members were informed that Adventurous Activities were still to be defined in this context.
The meeting discussed Martin Elliott’s email of 1st September 2004. Matthew Tagney informed the meeting that DfES welcomed AAIAC and their observer status. MT emphasised that DfES wanted to work in harmony with the AAIAC licensing working group. MT noted that Martin Elliott’s letter was trying to address the gap in the current AAIAC membership. DfES had received numerous replies to Martin Elliott’s email, and MT agreed to forward these to Charlotte Edward. He also acknowledged that not sending this email to Scottish organisations had been a mistake on DfES’ part.
Action: MT to send Charlotte Edward copies of the responses to Martin Elliott’s email.
JB suggested that the all the correspondence from DfES on AAIAC and the licensing working group had lead to some confusion, particular given the expressed preference for a Youth Adventure Safety Inspection Committee.
Action: MT agreed to produce a definitive DfES statement.
5. Working at Heights
5.1 Working at Heights update
Members received the tabled paper ‘Working at Heights Update’ which had been provided by John Cousins. Members discussed the possibility of an exemption from the WAH Regulations for AALA Licensed centres and/or all NGB qualified individuals.
Gavin Howat reported that HSE had yet to formulate a position paper for the Minister on the legality and structure of any exemption. He also reported that the HSC was due to meet on the 9 November, when this matter was on their agenda.
Action: Members to be kept informed of any developments.
MB highlighted AALA’s support for the exemption and reported that if the exemption were not to be implemented the proposed Operational Circular would still use NGB standards for Adventure Activities as the basis for the industry to comply with the Regulations. The meeting noted that although this was a unique and successful situation for the sector, the outcome was only possible due to the excellent work by John Cousins. It was noted the John Cousins’ work over the past year had been dominated by WAH, which had led to costs being incurred by his organisation.
Simon Waring drew members’ attention to the lessons learnt paper from the WAH campaign.
Action: To circulate the paper on the lessons learnt to members and observers.
The AAIAC thanked Gavin Howat for his continued support and work in this area.
GH thanked John Cousins and Tom Redfern for their expertise and work on this issue.
5.2 ACWAHT
The meeting received the tabled correspondence between AAIAC and ACWAHT. Members raised concerns about the following paragraph in the ACWAHT letter, “Whilst AAIAC members may consider that NGB good practice take priority over this code that assumption has so far not been tested. I would advise that they need to be aware that they may have to demonstrate at some stage (e.g. in the event of an incident) that it is at least equal to or better this national document when it is published”.
Members were far from happy about the implications of the paragraph. GB agreed he would speak to Martin Holden about this statement.
The meeting agreed it would not send an AAIAC representative to ACWAHT meetings. MB agreed to send the ACWAHT paperwork to the AAIAC Secretariat.
Action: MB to send the ACWAHT paperwork to Charlotte Edward
5.3 British Standards Institution
The members received and discussed the BSI letter from John Fisher (tabled).
GH informed members that either by the exemption to the WAH Regulations or in the OC, the HSE will formally record their support and recognition of NGB standards.
The meeting agreed the following actions:
a) To reply to the BSI letter after the WAH decision to inform them of the outcome and of the role NGB standards have within that outcome.
b) CCPR to write to BSI to emphasise the fact that for all sport and recreation activities NGBs are the arbiters of best practice for their activities.
6. Date and Venue of next meeting
It was agreed that the next meeting will take place on the 18 January 2005 at SkillsActive, London.
Members noted that the normal meeting location will be London and that meetings will be scheduled around SkillsActive / CCPR needs and work priorities for this area. Members will be informed of future meetings in due course.
7. Governance
JB reported that the morning session of the meeting (the members only session) had agreed a preferred way forward for the Committee, which involved changes to the constitution and involved organisations that were not present. JB informed Observers that further information will be circulated to them in due course.
