CCPR

[Untitled Page]

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=14784
Delete this message as part of your post-migration clean-up process.

AAIAC Minutes 23 June 2004

Meeting Held 23 June 2004 at SkillsActive, London

1. Chairman’s remarks and introductions

Ian Lamb welcomed people to the meeting, and thanked Stephen Studd and SkillsActive for the venue. Ian also noted the ongoing support from CCPR, particularly the administrative work of Charlotte Edward and Andy Hanson. It was one year since the AAIAC had first met to explore its continuation independent of the HSE. In this time the AAIAC had demonstrated its value by providing advice on the review of licensing regulations and the Working at Height directive. The HSE, AALA and devolved administrations had also re-confirmed their observer status at the AAIAC. The key task ahead for the AAIAC was to progress its benchmarking work. It would also be important to distinguish between UK and home country issues.

Attendees

AAIAC Members:

Ian Lamb (IL) in the Chair, Rob Henderson (RH), Brian Davies (BD), Drew Michie (DM), Ron Rutland (RR), Simon Waring (SW)*, Jon Cox (JoC), Martin Hudson (MH), John Bevan (JB), Iain Peter (IP),

AAIAC Observers:

Matthew Tagney (MT) - DfES, Gavin Howat (GH) - HSE, Alan Blackshaw (AB) - SAAF, Anne Salisbury (AS) -AALA, Stephen Studd (SS) - SkillsActive, Ian Greenwood* (IG) - HSE, Howard Braithwaite (HB) – Welsh Assembly

Guests:

John Cousins (JC)* - MLTUK, Tom Redfern (TR)* – NCA, Brian Lamb* - IOL

Secretariat

Andrew Hanson (AH) – CCPR, Charlotte Edward (CE)* - CCPR

* These individuals attended for part of the meeting only, due to engagements relating to the Work at Height directive.

2. Apologies for Absence

Apologies had been received from Mike Penny, Roger Smith, Sandra Skinner, Chris Coleman, Jon Beynon, Fred Nelson, Karen Mitchell, John Gilmour, Nick Harkness and Marcus Bailie

3. Minutes of the Previous Meeting

The following corrections were made to the minutes:

5.1 The reference should be to the “Scottish Adventure Activities Forum”
6.1 The following note was added “One member felt strongly that the AAIAC should have an independent HSE Chair.”

The minutes were then agreed as an accurate record.

4. Matters arising from the minutes

Minute 4. It was agreed that once the new AAIAC constitution was finalised the AAIAC should seek an appropriate relationship with the representative organisations of local government in each of the home countries.

Minute 7.3 It was noted that Julian Brazier’s Private Member’s Bill (“the volunteering bill”) related to England and Wales and was opposed by the Government. The Bill provides for voluntary organisations to offer participants “a statement of inherent risk”. Opinion within the voluntary sector was divided as to whether this would reduce organisations’ exposure to litigation, or increase it if the statement was challenged following an incident. It was noted that CCPR and SkillsActive were no longer supporting the Bill, as they now felt that this legislation was not the best means to address the issues facing volunteers.

4.1 ACWAHT

Marcus Bailie had supplied a written report of the ACWAHT meeting he had attended on behalf of AALA, along with the draft ACWAHT Code of Practice. The following points were noted in discussion:

a) Much of the Code’s content was to generic to the delivery of training and qualifications, rather than specific to Work at Heights training
b) Point 8.5 of the Code appeared to conflict with the Government’s desire to increase apprenticeships.

Action MT agreed to seek a view on 4.1b) from colleagues with responsibility for apprenticeships.

Members noted Marcus’ comment that some NGBs’ training would meet the Code of Practice, whilst others would not. It was felt that within the adventure activities sector NGB requirements would take precedence over ACWAHT’s. Nonetheless it was noted that decisions made outside the sector (e.g. by ACWAHT) could impact upon the sector. Members also noted Marcus’ view that ACWAHT’s work encompassed the adventure activities sector. However it was felt that if HSE wished to receive input from the sector, it would need to resource this.

Action The secretariat to draft a letter to HSE outlining the following:

c) NGB good practice would take precedence over the ACWAHT code within the adventure activities sector;
d) The AAIAC would like to receive copies of ACWAHT agendas, papers and minutes;
e) The AAIAC was willing to send a representative to ACWAHT but HSE would need to fund such attendance;

5. Governance

5.1 Strapline

JB confirmed that the membership working group had developed the strapline to reflect the Terms of Reference (rather than vice versa). Comments from SAAF had also been considered. The following strapline was agreed:

The Adventure Activities Industry Advisory Committee is representative of a wide range of stakeholders from the UK adventure activities sector. It works with the industry to identify, develop and disseminate good practice, and to advise Governments and Agencies accordingly.

5.2 Draft Constitution

JB explained that the Membership Working Group had been asked to draft a constitution and terms of reference, and to outline a process for implementing these. The group had incorporated the three elements into the draft constitution which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

Preamble to the Constitution

The preamble consisted of the agreed strapline, a statement outlining how the AAIAC had developed, and finally a statement of the AAIAC’s current situation. This third paragraph might change as AAIAC evolves.

SkillsActive, which finances AAIAC’s meetings, has responsibility for developing National Occupational Standards and believes the AAIAC’s views on good practice in the outdoors should inform the development of these. Hence SkillsActive had requested the AAIAC to undertake the role of Technical Reference Group to its Outdoor Sector Working Group. SkillsActive undertook to ensure that any requests for input to its work would be manageable for the AAIAC. It was agreed that the AAIAC should accept this role within the SkillsActive structure, and the inclusion of this within the preamble was confirmed.

JB explained that in legal terms the AAIAC was an unincorporated association. As such an individual or organisation that wished to sue the AAIAC would need to sue members individually. However, should an organisation adopt AAIAC’s advice, liability might then fall to that organisation.

Action The Secretariat to undertake further investigation of the AAIAC’s legal status, and its implications for giving advice prior to the next meeting.

The remainder of the constitution was discussed point by point with the following outcomes:

The Terms of Reference of the AAIAC

1) There was some discussion as to whether the AAIAC’s remit should be wider than safety and good practice. After consideration it was agreed not to widen the remit, in order to ensure the AAIAC could deliver on its primary purpose. AB suggested the wording regarding legislatures could be improved, and should potentially include Government Departments and the Judiciary.

Action AB to assist JB with rewording point 1)

2) This point was agreed.

3) Members felt the AAIAC should not be a campaigning organisation, as this would lead to unsolicited requests to campaign on issues. Nonetheless the AAIAC should respond to consultations and provide views as appropriate.

The Membership of the AAIAC

4 & 5) These points were agreed.

6) It was agreed that the first sentence should read “members would normally be appointed for a period” of three years. Also see point 7 below.

7) Members felt that “significant office” could not be clearly or consistently defined. It was agreed that point 7 should be deleted. Point 6 would need amending to reflect this.

8) This point describes the type of expertise/experience an individual should bring. It was likely that an individual would score against a number of criteria. Correspondence from the Development Training Employers Group was considered. It was agreed to insert an extra bullet point to encompass the various “purposes” of outdoor activity (e.g. recreation, training, education).

Action SW and MH to supply suggested text to JB.

9 – 12) These points were agreed.

The AAIAC Appointments Committee

JB outlined the purpose of the Appointments Committee, which would be to ensure transparency and independence in the appointment of AAIAC members.

13) This point was agreed.

14) DM stated that he had been assured that CCPR would start to communicate more effectively with the Home Country Sports Associations, and this being the case he was content with this point. There was then some discussion as to whether the members of the Appointments Committee would have sufficient knowledge to judge nominations. It was agreed that the AAIAC Chair should also be a member of the Appointments Committee. However if that individual’s name were put forward for a new term on the AAIAC they would not take part in any discussion of this.

15) There was some discussion regarding the concept of “public advertisement”. It was agreed that nominations might be sought via existing networks (e.g. home country or sector networks), and in Scotland via SAAF in particular. However, in order to meet Nolan principles and demonstrate transparency, there was also a need for open advertisement such as through a national newspaper. Those applying to be AAIAC members would be given clear guidance regarding roles and responsibilities and the commitment required. The Appointments Committee would also be given clear guidance with regard to their role.

MT stated that DfES would wish to see an extra bullet point requiring: “representation of the widest possible range from the industry”

17) This point was agreed. However JB would seek a better form of words for the first bullet point

18 – 22) These points were agreed.

Other Matters

23 & 24) These points were agreed. It was noted that three quarters of the then current serving members would need to attend the October meeting in order to adopt the Constitution.

Action JB would revise the constitution according to the points above, and circulate this electronically to the Membership Working Group for comment. The final draft would then be circulated to members prior to the October Meeting.

Action Secretariat to prepare and circulate a list of current serving members with the minutes.

Implementation

The implementation process proposed by JB was agreed. DM proposed JB as the AAIAC’s transitional Chairman, and IL seconded this proposal. JB was elected as the transitional chair, and accepted this role on condition it ended once the reconstitution process was complete. Members would decide whether to elect a vice-chair at the October meeting. Members thanked JB and the Membership Working Group for their work in producing the draft constitution.

6. Work Programme

6.1 Objective 1 - Wider Role of AAIAC in Health and Safety

Simon Waring reported that due to the demands of responding to the Working at Heights proposals, and changed responsibilities at his workplace, he had been unable to progress this work area. Work would however progress prior to the October meeting.

There was some discussion as to whether AAIAC should respond to the Department of Health’s Choosing Activity consultation, and the review of Scottish Physical Education. It was agreed that AAIAC would not respond to these issues, but that a range of outdoor organisations were likely to do so. It was noted that issues relevant to the group might emerge from sources which appear unconnected in the first instance, or from one home country only.

IP suggested that this working group should consider the Working Time Directive, which had implications for the delivery of mountain leader training. This was a UK issue. SS indicated that SkillsActive would be able to feed employer views into any work on this issue, and could also provide an outlet for the AAIAC’s view.

6.2 Objective 2 - Benchmarking

Roger Smith had not provided a report on this objective. It was agreed that the AAIAC needed to progress this work urgently. The AAIAC’s understanding was that work had commenced on expeditioning and required completion. Further work was also required on mountain biking, but it was noted that recognised qualifications did exist in Scotland. Work on high ropes courses had yet to commence.

RR agreed to chair this group, and progress the expeditioning work in the first instance. SS suggested that once in post, Skillsactive’s Outdoor Sector Manager (Peter Thompson) could research progress to date regarding expeditioning, and inform RR of its status. Peter would also be able to assist with researching other areas of benchmarking work. The AAIAC accepted this offer.

6.3 Objective 3 - Licensing

MH referred to MT’s recent letter to licence holders which stated: “the Government would, in time, review the future of the statutory Regime in the context of any successful complementary accreditation scheme or schemes established”. This emphasised the importance of progressing this objective. DM stated that following Scottish Executive funded research, Scottish Ministers had decided not to pursue a non-mandatory scheme in Scotland. Rather they would prefer to be part of a UK scheme.

The licensing working group would meet on 20 July, probably at the SkillsActive office. Current members were Chris Coleman, Sandra Skinner, IL, RR and JC. The BCU and RYA had also been invited to attend. Should other AAIAC members wish to attend they should notify MH. MH would circulate information on existing approval schemes and previous work undertaken on this issue to group members prior to the meeting.

7. Recent Consultations

7.1 Working at Height

JC updated the meeting on developments and thanked the crisis group (Doug Jones, Ian Hey, BL, TR, CE) and other parties for their work on this issue. A joint response had been submitted to the consultation, undersigned by 40 organisations. A further 354 responses had been received from the sector, from a total of 700. The crisis group had today held a press conference, and would later meet with MPs, and subsequently the Minister for Work and Pensions to outline their concerns. Whilst the EU had a target date of 19 July, the regulations would probably appear in the Autumn. The ultimate goal of the sector was to gain exemption, as the Directive would not improve safety within the sector.

IG highlighted the HSE’s current work in this area, and thanked JC, TR and Marcus Bailie for their input to this. The March AAIAC meeting had been helpful in clarifying the issues which related to Regulations and those which related to Guidance. Most aspects of the Directive affecting the sector would relate to Guidance, but there was an ongoing debate regarding fragile services. IG assured the AAIAC that resolution of this issue would meet the needs of work in the natural environment.

Whilst the sector had worked effectively on this issue IG felt that an article in Trail magazine had been misguided, as he had subsequently received a letter from the European Commission stating that the Directive did include adventure activities. The HSC would meet to consider Regulations and the issue of exemption on July 13. If exemption is not granted IG believes the sector can comply fully with the Directive. Any guidance issued is likely to be sector specific.

GH had worked with JC and TR to develop an “operational circular” linking the Regulations to NGB good practice. GH gave some examples of the Operational Circular’s likely content (e.g. it is not reasonably practicable for the sector to avoid work at height; generic risk assessments supplemented by site specific where appropriate are acceptable; signing and marking is not reasonably practicable, but clear instruction is). The operational circular was primarily aimed at enforcement officers, but GH hoped it would reach a wider audience. Where there was no NGB for an activity the HSE would seek good practice advice from the AAIAC.

IG confirmed that HSE’s advice to the HSC would be that the sector fits with the regulations without extra cost. The HSC may recommend exemption, but this could lead to “infraction” procedures from the European Commission, which is likely to be unacceptable to the Government.

Action GH would circulate the draft operational circular to the AAIAC for comment within a month. This was not to be circulated further at this stage.

IG outlined that the HSE would be providing familiarisation days for enforcement officers, and suggested that AAIAC members might wish to provide venues, and attend to provide advice. It was agreed that the AAIAC should wait for the publication of the Regulations before engaging with any familiarisation events.

7.2 Review of Licensing

MT informed the Committee that on 9 June two sets of regulations had been laid (in England and Scotland, and in Wales. Northern Ireland was not included within HASAWA 1974 or the Activity Centres (Young Person’s Safety Act) 1995.

MT had written to all licence holders to inform them of the new regulations, and had also written to LEAs in England. DM confirmed that the Scottish Executive had written to LEAs in Scotland. MT had received around 40 letters objecting to the increase in fees. The DfES view was that the increase amounted to £1 per customer per year. The DfES would also talk to the RYA to explore why their approval scheme was substantially cheaper.

GH explained that he was currently redrafting L77 to ensure it cross-referenced accurately wit the new regulations. He would then share this with the AAIAC for comment prior to further redrafting. It was hoped that the new version would be available at the year’s end.

7.2.2 The AAIAC’s potential to provide a mediation service on licensing issues

IL felt that this issue was broader than licensing, and spoke from personal experience to suggest that there was a need for a mediation service to provide advice on incidents without going to court. Following discussion it was felt that the AAIAC did not have a locus or remit to provide a general mediation service.

The issue of mediation with regard to AALA had arisen due to correspondence received by the Secretariat from a member of the Welsh Assembly. It was understood that there was a process for appeals with regards to licensing decisions, but no process for complaints with regards to other aspects of the licensing process.

JB outlined the following points: whilst the AAIAC possessed the technical knowledge to house such a process, it currently had no locus or remit to do so. If it wished to develop such a remit it would first need to identify whether the licensing authority would welcome this service. If a positive response was received the AAIAC would then need to develop an appropriate methodology.

Action It was agreed that JB and the Secretariat should review statements made by the AIAAC (in previous minutes and in consultation responses), and present these to the next meeting for consideration.

8 Any Other Business

8.1 Teacher Workload

This issue was not discussed as SW had left for a Work at Heights meeting.

AB outlined that SAAF and AALA were co-hosting a meeting with Scottish HEIs to look at the skills needed to work in the outdoor sector. AAIAC members were invited to attend.

9. Date and Venue of Next Meeting

The next meeting would be hosted by the Outward Bound Trust at its Ullswater Centre near Penrith on 13 October 2004. SW would provide a location map and collect people from Penrith if necessary.