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=18466
Delete this message as part of your post-migration clean-up process.
Minutes
Meeting held 18 January 2005, at SkillsActive, London
Part II: Members, Observers and Guests
Attendees
AAIAC Members and Secretariat as in Part I
AAIAC Observers
Martin Elliott (ME) – DfES, Howard Braithwaite (HW) – Welsh Assembly Government, Alan Blackshaw (AB) – SAAF and Marcus Bailie (MB) – AALA.
Guests
John Cousins (JC) and Quincy Lissaur (QL)
John Bevan welcomed the observers and guest to part II of the AAIAC meeting.
1. Apologies for absence
In addition to apologies received in Part I, apologies for absence had also been received from Gavin Howat, John Gilmour, Karen Mitchell, Nick Harkness, Matthew Tagney and John Beynon.
2. Minutes of the previous meeting
The minutes were agreed as an accurate record.
3. Matters arising from the minutes
3.1 AAIAC potential to provide a mediation service on licensing
Members received and discussed the paper ‘The AAIAC’s Potential Role in Mediation’, which had been produced by the secretariat, based upon the statements made by AAIAC in previous minutes and in consultation responses.
Marcus Bailie informed the meeting that within the 8 years of AALA there had only been 2 formal appeals and in AALA’s view an official mediation service was not required. MB also suggested that a ‘critical friend’ relationship between AAIAC and AALA could be extremely useful to discuss issue when they arise, rather than an official mediation service. Members welcomed this relationship between AAIAC and AALA.
Members agreed not to pursue the setting up of a mediation service further at present.
As a result of this discussion, it was agreed that AAIAC needed advice with regard to its own legal status.
Action: Secretariat to seek advice on AAIAC’s legal status
4. Work Programme
The meeting agreed that the Secretariat would be informed of all working group meetings and when possible will attend these meetings.
It was noted that the working groups were likely to produce documents for publication. It was therefore agreed that the secretariat would seek advice on the publication, ownership, and branding of AAIAC documents, and explore the possibility of a dedicated website presence.
Action: Peter Thompson to investigate the possible publication of AAIAC documents under SkillsActive’s name. Secretariat to discuss AAIAC website presence.
4.1 Objective 1 – AAIAC wider role in Health and Safety
Simon Waring presented the papers from the working group and discussed with the meeting the draft paper ‘The health and safety of those who work professionally in adventure activities’.
SW informed the meeting that the final paper or series of papers would be aimed primarily at individual workers. The meeting therefore discussed how it/they would reach their target audience.
The members discussed specific elements of the paper, which included employer/ee responsibility and short term contracts. MB felt it should highlight positive aspects of working in the outdoors. Simon Waring asked members to supply illustrative case studies.
The meeting discussed the possibility of seeking HSE approval to relevant material in the document. It was agreed that John Cousins would pass the draft to Gavin Howat for comment.
4.2 Objective 2 – Benchmarking
Roger Smith informed the meeting of the two main outcomes from the Benchmarking working group, which were:
1. Quincy Lissaur (BSI) to be invited to the next AAIAC meeting to outline the exploratory discussions between BSI and the Adventure Industry.
2. A recommendation that the AAIAC accept/ approve the OEAP’s Guidance for Overseas Expeditions for those that fall within scope, to include Independent Schools as endorsed by the ISAAA.
Members agreed that a copy of the OEAP guidance should be circulated to members.
Action: To circulate the OEAP Guidance to AAIAC members and observers
The members noted that the membership of OEAP had representatives from both England and Wales and that the Scottish representative had observer status. Members discussed the possibility of broadening the working group membership to include Home Nation representation. Alan Blackshaw confirmed that SAAF would like to be involved in the working group.
Drew Michie suggested that this issue and the OEAP Guidance should be included on the SAPOE agenda at future meetings.
Action: Drew Michie and Roger Smith to raise this at SAPOE
MB highlighted that there are two useful Scottish documents which may be of use to this area of work.
Action: MB to provide details of these documents to RS
Ian Lamb reminded members that he had been involved with the original benchmarking working group and wished to be involved in the future work of this group.
Members agreed to return to the recommendation in the light of further discussions.
4.2.1 British Standards Institute update
Quincy Lissaur provided an overview of the functions of the British Standards Institute (BSI) and the five areas of BSI, which include;
1. Product Services - Kitemarking
2. Management Systems – ISO9000
3. Inspectorate
4. British Standards
5. Business information
The meeting discussed the BSI process of creating ‘Publicly Available Specifications’, which includes initial discussion with clients and then wider consultation within the industry.
QL confirmed that BSI are looking at the possibility of setting up a risk committee.
QL outlined the role of the Consumer Policy Unit within British Standards. This unit had identified a lack of standards in {overseas} Adventure Activity Holidays, which had resulted in initial discussion between BSI and the Royal Geographic Society and the possibility of creating a Publicly Available Specification for such adventure activity holidays.
As a result of the discussion on standards, Roger Smith confirmed that the aim of benchmarking working group, would be to create generic pan UK standards.
QL was thanked for his helpful presentation.
4.3 Objective 3 – Licensing
The members received and discussed the notes of the licensing working group meeting held on the 16 November 2004. Martin Hudson highlighted the two main actions which were:
1. To create an inspection checklist for a possible complementary scheme
2. To draft a tender document, with a view to gaining details of the costs of running a complementary scheme.
Martin Elliott informed members that due to the Better Regulation Taskforce, Ministers are under pressure to seek alternatives to legislation and in particular to statutory licensing in this field.
The meeting noted that seeking an alternative to licensing would be a two-stage process. Firstly a non-statutory scheme would be trialled with out of scope activities and/or providers: only at a second stage could such a non-statutory scheme replace licensing if it proved its worth. ME confirmed that the existing licensing regime would not be broadened to include out of scope activities and /or providers.
The meeting discussed which organisations might be suitable to run a non-statutory scheme. Iain Peter suggested that a pre-tender questionnaire would help to identify which organisations had the technical expertise. MB proposed that AALA would be happy to hear suggestions about how a non-statutory scheme could be linked to the existing licensing regime. However MB did confirm that he could not guarantee if this work could be taken forward by AALA.
5. Working at Heights
5.1 Working at Heights update
John Cousins provided an overview of the recent developments on the Working at Height Regulations.
The Department for Work and Pensions had commissioned a report from Treasury Counsel ‘in the matter of the Application of the Work at Height Regulations to Adventure Activity Providers’. This report highlights in the QC’s opinion which parts of the Regulations the sector could be excepted from.
The crisis committee had also recently received a letter from the Chair of the Health and Safety Commission, Bill Callaghan, seeking views on the issues surrounding any form of exception or exemption. In addition, an incomplete paper for the HSC, written by Ian Greenwood of HSE, about adventure activities had been received.
JC confirmed that the dialogue with HSC/E, DWP and a variety of Ministers and MPs continues.
MB confirmed AALA’s support for the work of JC and an exemption for the sector, whilst at the same time ensuring a workable alternative if an exemption is not forthcoming.
5.2 ACWAHT
MB informed the meeting that the ACWAHT guidance would be passed to BSI and that it currently made no reference to the adventure activities sector.
6. Any other business
Members received and discussed a tabled paper from AALA ‘Observations on peer belaying by licensed providers’.
The meeting agreed that it is very useful to receive observations from AALA inspectors on certain issues; however concern was expressed about some of the solutions, and about some of the terminology, in the paper – which were seen as inappropriate and/or unduly prescriptive.
Action: Marcus Bailie to receive any further comments on the paper
[Post meeting note: following the discussion of the ‘Critical Friend’ relationship between AAIAC and AALA and the discussion on the peer belaying paper, it has been suggested that the ‘Critical Friend’ relationship be explored further at the June meeting]
7. Date and venue of next meeting
It was agreed that the next meeting will take place on Tuesday 21 June 2005 at SkillsActive, London.
AAIAC Mins Jan 2005
| Minutes Meeting held 18 January 2005, at SkillsActive, London Part II: Members, Observers and Guests Attendees
AAIAC Members and Secretariat as in Part I AAIAC Observers
Martin Elliott (ME) – DfES, Howard Braithwaite (HW) – Welsh Assembly Government, Alan Blackshaw (AB) – SAAF and Marcus Bailie (MB) – AALA. Guests
John Cousins (JC) and Quincy Lissaur (QL) John Bevan welcomed the observers and guest to part II of the AAIAC meeting. 1. Apologies for absence
In addition to apologies received in Part I, apologies for absence had also been received from Gavin Howat, John Gilmour, Karen Mitchell, Nick Harkness, Matthew Tagney and John Beynon. 2. Minutes of the previous meeting
The minutes were agreed as an accurate record. 3. Matters arising from the minutes 3.1 AAIAC potential to provide a mediation service on licensing
Members received and discussed the paper ‘The AAIAC’s Potential Role in Mediation’, which had been produced by the secretariat, based upon the statements made by AAIAC in previous minutes and in consultation responses. Marcus Bailie informed the meeting that within the 8 years of AALA there had only been 2 formal appeals and in AALA’s view an official mediation service was not required. MB also suggested that a ‘critical friend’ relationship between AAIAC and AALA could be extremely useful to discuss issue when they arise, rather than an official mediation service. Members welcomed this relationship between AAIAC and AALA. Members agreed not to pursue the setting up of a mediation service further at present. As a result of this discussion, it was agreed that AAIAC needed advice with regard to its own legal status. Action: Secretariat to seek advice on AAIAC’s legal status 4. Work Programme
The meeting agreed that the Secretariat would be informed of all working group meetings and when possible will attend these meetings. It was noted that the working groups were likely to produce documents for publication. It was therefore agreed that the secretariat would seek advice on the publication, ownership, and branding of AAIAC documents, and explore the possibility of a dedicated website presence. Action: Peter Thompson to investigate the possible publication of AAIAC documents under SkillsActive’s name. Secretariat to discuss AAIAC website presence. 4.1 Objective 1 – AAIAC wider role in Health and Safety
Simon Waring presented the papers from the working group and discussed with the meeting the draft paper ‘The health and safety of those who work professionally in adventure activities’. SW informed the meeting that the final paper or series of papers would be aimed primarily at individual workers. The meeting therefore discussed how it/they would reach their target audience. The members discussed specific elements of the paper, which included employer/ee responsibility and short term contracts. MB felt it should highlight positive aspects of working in the outdoors. Simon Waring asked members to supply illustrative case studies. The meeting discussed the possibility of seeking HSE approval to relevant material in the document. It was agreed that John Cousins would pass the draft to Gavin Howat for comment. 4.2 Objective 2 – Benchmarking
Roger Smith informed the meeting of the two main outcomes from the Benchmarking working group, which were:
1. Quincy Lissaur (BSI) to be invited to the next AAIAC meeting to outline the exploratory discussions between BSI and the Adventure Industry.
2. A recommendation that the AAIAC accept/ approve the OEAP’s Guidance for Overseas Expeditions for those that fall within scope, to include Independent Schools as endorsed by the ISAAA. Members agreed that a copy of the OEAP guidance should be circulated to members. Action: To circulate the OEAP Guidance to AAIAC members and observers The members noted that the membership of OEAP had representatives from both England and Wales and that the Scottish representative had observer status. Members discussed the possibility of broadening the working group membership to include Home Nation representation. Alan Blackshaw confirmed that SAAF would like to be involved in the working group. Drew Michie suggested that this issue and the OEAP Guidance should be included on the SAPOE agenda at future meetings. Action: Drew Michie and Roger Smith to raise this at SAPOE MB highlighted that there are two useful Scottish documents which may be of use to this area of work. Action: MB to provide details of these documents to RS Ian Lamb reminded members that he had been involved with the original benchmarking working group and wished to be involved in the future work of this group. Members agreed to return to the recommendation in the light of further discussions. 4.2.1 British Standards Institute update
Quincy Lissaur provided an overview of the functions of the British Standards Institute (BSI) and the five areas of BSI, which include;
1. Product Services - Kitemarking
2. Management Systems – ISO9000
3. Inspectorate
4. British Standards
5. Business information The meeting discussed the BSI process of creating ‘Publicly Available Specifications’, which includes initial discussion with clients and then wider consultation within the industry. QL confirmed that BSI are looking at the possibility of setting up a risk committee. QL outlined the role of the Consumer Policy Unit within British Standards. This unit had identified a lack of standards in {overseas} Adventure Activity Holidays, which had resulted in initial discussion between BSI and the Royal Geographic Society and the possibility of creating a Publicly Available Specification for such adventure activity holidays. As a result of the discussion on standards, Roger Smith confirmed that the aim of benchmarking working group, would be to create generic pan UK standards. QL was thanked for his helpful presentation. 4.3 Objective 3 – Licensing
The members received and discussed the notes of the licensing working group meeting held on the 16 November 2004. Martin Hudson highlighted the two main actions which were:
1. To create an inspection checklist for a possible complementary scheme
2. To draft a tender document, with a view to gaining details of the costs of running a complementary scheme. Martin Elliott informed members that due to the Better Regulation Taskforce, Ministers are under pressure to seek alternatives to legislation and in particular to statutory licensing in this field. The meeting noted that seeking an alternative to licensing would be a two-stage process. Firstly a non-statutory scheme would be trialled with out of scope activities and/or providers: only at a second stage could such a non-statutory scheme replace licensing if it proved its worth. ME confirmed that the existing licensing regime would not be broadened to include out of scope activities and /or providers. The meeting discussed which organisations might be suitable to run a non-statutory scheme. Iain Peter suggested that a pre-tender questionnaire would help to identify which organisations had the technical expertise. MB proposed that AALA would be happy to hear suggestions about how a non-statutory scheme could be linked to the existing licensing regime. However MB did confirm that he could not guarantee if this work could be taken forward by AALA. 5. Working at Heights
5.1 Working at Heights update
John Cousins provided an overview of the recent developments on the Working at Height Regulations. The Department for Work and Pensions had commissioned a report from Treasury Counsel ‘in the matter of the Application of the Work at Height Regulations to Adventure Activity Providers’. This report highlights in the QC’s opinion which parts of the Regulations the sector could be excepted from. The crisis committee had also recently received a letter from the Chair of the Health and Safety Commission, Bill Callaghan, seeking views on the issues surrounding any form of exception or exemption. In addition, an incomplete paper for the HSC, written by Ian Greenwood of HSE, about adventure activities had been received. JC confirmed that the dialogue with HSC/E, DWP and a variety of Ministers and MPs continues. MB confirmed AALA’s support for the work of JC and an exemption for the sector, whilst at the same time ensuring a workable alternative if an exemption is not forthcoming. 5.2 ACWAHT
MB informed the meeting that the ACWAHT guidance would be passed to BSI and that it currently made no reference to the adventure activities sector. 6. Any other business
Members received and discussed a tabled paper from AALA ‘Observations on peer belaying by licensed providers’. The meeting agreed that it is very useful to receive observations from AALA inspectors on certain issues; however concern was expressed about some of the solutions, and about some of the terminology, in the paper – which were seen as inappropriate and/or unduly prescriptive. Action: Marcus Bailie to receive any further comments on the paper [Post meeting note: following the discussion of the ‘Critical Friend’ relationship between AAIAC and AALA and the discussion on the peer belaying paper, it has been suggested that the ‘Critical Friend’ relationship be explored further at the June meeting] 7. Date and venue of next meeting
It was agreed that the next meeting will take place on Tuesday 21 June 2005 at SkillsActive, London. |
