Health and Safety Commission Paper HSC/03/20 HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMISSION

Health and Safety Commission Paper
Meeting Date:
Type of Paper:
Exemptions:
8 April 2003
Above-the-line
None
HSC/03/20
Open Gov. Status:
Paper File Ref:
Fully Open
284/SPD/1002/2002
HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMISSION
The future of the Health and Safety Commission’s Adventure Activities Industry
Advisory Committee (AAIAC)
A Paper by Nigel Hammond
Advisors: Bill Gillan and Ruth Ludbrook
Cleared by Nick Starling on 6 February 2003
Issue
1.
The Commission is asked to decide upon the future of the Industry Advisory
Committee for Adventure Activities. The AAIAC fails to satisfy all but one of the
Commission’s Criteria for Advisory/Standing Committees, the exception being the societal
concern generated by occasional incidents, usually involving school groups or other young
people.
Timing
2.
Routine: However, a decision prior to the next AAIAC meeting, scheduled for 16
April, is advised.
Recommendation
3.
The Commission is asked to consider the options set out in Paragraphs 9 to17. It is
recommended that:
· the AAIAC should not be reconstituted; and
· Option C is progressed i.e. that HSE provides limited support to interested parties
in setting up an Industry Liaison Committee.
Background
4.
The Adventure Activities Licensing Regulations 1996 were introduced as a result of
the Lyme Bay tragedy in 1993, when four young people died while taking part in a
canoeing activity. The AAIAC was formed in Spring 1997 to advise the Commission on
issues relating to the health and safety of workers and the public in the adventure activities
sector. The AAIAC is the newest of the Commission’s IACs, and commenced its second
term following reconstitution in Spring 2000; the reconstitution exercise is now due. Over
its lifetime, the AAIAC has generally met three times a year (roughly every four months)
and its sub-groups have met on an ad hoc basis.
5.
The AAIAC differs from the Commission’s other advisory committees, which tend to
deal with the health and safety of workers in “traditional” industry sectors and include
formal representation from employers, trades unions and consumers. The adventure
activities industry covers inherently disparate and fragmented sectors, which has meant
that the use of a less formalised structure was needed to capture this diversity.
6.
The role of DfES bears mention, as they have responsibility for the Adventure
Activities Licensing Regulations, and sit as observers on the AAIAC. DfES have their own
network of contacts within the industry, which includes some AAIAC members and HSE
via Safety Policy Directorate. Their interests are specific to the health and safety of school
pupil participants, rather than the wider AAIAC remit that includes adult participants and
instructors. Therefore DfES do not consider that it would be appropriate for them to take
over responsibility for the AAIAC. In addition, were the DfES to take over the AAIAC, their
remit would be limited to England rather than the present GB wide arrangement. This
would be a problem, as obviously a large percentage of adventure activities take place in
Scotland and Wales.
7.
Currently the DfES is conducting its second Triennial Review of the Regulations,
with the aim of seeking industry opinion on the implementation of a self-regulatory scheme
in the future. This may be an apposite time to start reducing HSE involvement in the
industry, giving them time to start forming a coherent structure that could eventually
support self-regulation.
8.
At meetings on the 26 June and the 26 November 2002, the AAIAC was tested
against the HSE Criteria for Advisory Committees. Whilst acknowledging that the AAIAC
failed to significantly address all but one of the criteria, members felt that there was a
strong case for keeping the AAIAC. Members therefore requested that HSC, and not the
Executive, decide upon the future of the AAIAC. Any decision to continue this work can
only be justified under the presentational issue of societal concern, as opposed to the
meeting of multiple criteria expected with other IACs. This paper considers the options for
the AAIAC.
Argument
Option A: Retain the AAIAC in its current form
9.
AAIAC members have accepted that its contribution to either the Strategic Plan of
HSE or meeting the targets of Revitalising is limited. However, the AAIAC has achieved
results on a number of issues, which are:
§
during the last review of the Adventure Activities Licensing Regulations they gave
comprehensive advice to HSC in response to the consultation exercise;
§
a sector specific version of the “Five Steps to Risk Assessment” guidance, with
four information sheets on topical issues;
§
a statement on risk perception contributing to the debate about the balance
between risk and adventure in society; and
§
pointing out problems relating to the implementation of the Work at Heights
Directive within the adventure activities industry.
10.
It should be emphasised that each of the above projects have been undertaken by
small ad hoc working groups, with the main Committee only giving final clearance to
documents, etc. Notwithstanding this, members feel strongly that there is a need for the
AAIAC to meet in plenary and be linked to the Commission. AAIAC members have argued
that the plenary meetings are the only opportunity for the different fragments of the
industry to meet. They also argue that the HSC imprimatur gives the AAIAC and its
members weight within the industry, making them better placed achieve results. However,
this could be achieved by other methods, such as an accreditation scheme e.g. UKAS.
11.
AAIAC members strongly recommend against discontinuing this Industry Advisory
Committee, as this could be seen by the industry as not only removing a level of
assurance, but also reducing the importance that the Government places on the health
and safety of young people in the adventure activities industry. In addition, as the
adventure activities industry is clearly affected by ‘societal concern’, they argue that the
AAIAC should be maintained as this particular criterion is met. However, mention of the
AAIAC in the media is rare, with the majority of media attention falling on the Adventure
Activities Licensing Authority (AALA) rather than the AAIAC. Awareness of the AAIAC in
some sectors of the adventure activities industry has remained low.
12.
The AAIAC feels it is particularly relevant at this time as it can provide an industry
response to the impending Department for Education and Skills (DfES) review of the
Licensing Regime. However, while the AAIAC may give members comments more weight,
any formal consultation would still need to ensure they were consulted.
Option B: The AAIAC should not be reconstituted
13.
The general requirements for Advisory Committees include the need to be able to
contribute to the Strategic Plan, draw the attention of HSC to matters of concern and
provide HSC with advice on specific issues. AAIAC clearly contains a great deal of
knowledge and expertise. It has also been useful in the production of guidance, and in
advising HSC as to its response to the review of the licensing regime. However, it has
been the flexible/informal arrangements (for example exchange of correspondence and emails), and not plenary meetings, that have proven most effective in canvassing and
reflecting members’ views. Again, in most cases it is likely that problems that have been
highlighted by the AAIAC to HSC would have been identified and addressed through the
formal consultation process, without the need for an advisory committee.
14.
Attached at Annex 1 is an extract from the Draft GAP 2 (version 1.0) summarising
the Indicative Criteria for HSC Advisory Committees. Comments on the AAIAC’s ability to
meet each of the criteria are shown in bold and italics. It can be seen that in its current
form the AAIAC’s strength resides at criteria (b) and (h), i.e. large numbers of public
involved and societal concern. A problem with assessing whether the AAIAC is meeting
(b) is the absence of accurate figures for either workers or participants. Also, past
experience has shown that societal concern is not at a consistently high level, but
fluctuates rapidly and dramatically. In recent years this concern has tended to be short
lived and directed towards accidents occurring on school outings or other activities
involving young people, not at adventure activity centres or providers. Media reporting of
accidents has led to the perception of higher levels of risk than actually exist. Past
experience has also shown that flexible, rather than standing arrangements are a more
appropriate way of addressing media interest and societal concern, as the occurrence of
incidents is infrequent and therefore unpredictable.
15.
Since it was first formed in 1997 the AAIAC has continually pushed in widening its
focus to look at issues outside its remit, such as the promotion of adventure activities as
part of a healthier life style. It is not within the remit of the AAIAC to address these issues,
and such agendas have hampered addressing more relevant health and safety issues.
HSE has expressed a view that an industry led focus group could address these issues as
well as health and safety (with a limited amount of HSE support), thereby better serving
the industry. The AAIAC members have indicated they are not able to take the initiative in
the formation of any new group.
Option C: An Industry Liaison Committee as an alternative to the AAIAC
16.
Some AAIAC members have suggested that their industry does not have the
capacity to organise and manage its own industry focus group. Option C would involve the
present HSE secretariat providing limited assistance to interested parties in setting up an
Industry Liaison Committee. The Committee itself would then take the lead in being
responsible for its plan of work and output, with HSE having observer status.
17.
A possible structure for an Industry Liaison Committee is described at Annex 2.
Consultation
18.
This paper has been prepared in consultation with the AAIAC, the DfES, the AALA,
HSE’s Food and Entertainments Sector, and SASD’s External Engagement Branch.
Presentation
19.
The AAIAC does not meet HSC’s Criteria, nor does it contribute to the delivery of
the Strategic Plan. Therefore, HSC could be challenged on the IAC status afforded to the
Adventure Activity Industry. Conversely, if the AAIAC ceases to exist and another incident
occurs, HSC/E could equally be criticised for removing a level of protection.
Costs and Benefits
20.
There would be significant savings in terms of both the staff time and finances (see
Paragraph 21) needed to run the AAIAC, allowing these resources to be diverted to higher
priorities.
Financial/Resource Implications for HSE
21.
Travel and subsistence costs for the meetings are approximately £12K per year. In
addition, HSE allocates resources to providing secretariat support to the Committee and its
sub-committees, estimated at approximately 100 staff days per year. Curtailment of the
AAIAC would release these resources to higher priority issues.
Environmental Implications
22.
None from this paper.
Other Implications
23.
None from this paper.
Action
24.
The Commission is asked to decide on the need to have an Advisory Committee for
the Adventure Activities Industry.
Annex 1
Extract from Draft GAP 2 (Version: Draft 1.0)
The Role of Advisory Committees
2.4 The Commission’s Advisory Committees provide it with an additional and major
source of expertise and advice on specific health and safety matters and issues, and they
have a key role in delivering the outcomes in its Strategic Plan. Generally, ACs fall into
two categories: Industry Advisory Committees (IACs) concerned with health and safety in
a particular industry or sector, and Subject Advisory Committees (SACs) concerned with
particular hazards that may be present across a range of industry sectors. But all ACs:
· give closer and more detailed attention to the problems of various hazards and
particular industries than the Commission is able;
· make use of available expertise and advice using a balance of employer,
employee, technological, professional, consumer and public interest
representatives;
· encourage the participation of all concerned in improving health and safety at
work, through consultation and providing recommendations on policy and
appropriate standards and guidance.
Indicative criteria
2.5 There are no additional resources available for AC work under the delegated
management arrangements. HSE will prioritise the available resource to ensure the most
efficient and effective means are used to secure the Commission's desire that there are
adequate liaison arrangements between HSC/E and the whole economy. This will require
flexibility and adaptability to suit particular circumstances, and may for instance involve
brigading some sectors or reducing the frequency of meetings, so as to reflect the priority
needed to deliver the Commission's Strategic Plan outcomes. The Commission has
therefore adopted a set of indicative criteria which HSE will use as the basis for prioritising
resources in this area. These indicative criteria are sumarised below:
a)
High numbers/rate of injury/ill-health
Comment: HSE/AAIAC does not have detailed information on employee accident
and injury rates within the Adventure Activities industry - nor does it have
information on accidents to participants. Previous AAIAC discussions have
repeatedly pointed out that the industry is relatively safe as major incidents are few.
Due to the low levels of information there is no base line so it is difficult to
demonstrate that there has been a change in the number of incidents. There are no
indications that the number of incidents is increasing. Some AAIAC members have
commented that due to licensing (a DfES responsibility) standards have been
raised.
b)
Large number of workers/public
Comment: While it is estimated that the number of employees in the industry is in
the low thousands, participation figures for all forms of adventurous/outdoor
activities are estimated to be considerably higher. However, the high participation
rate alone does not support the need for standing arrangements.
c)
Defined causes of harm
Comment: There is a great deal of knowledge within the adventure activities
industry about the causes of harm, and it is unlikely that these causes will change.
If the activities change with the advance of technology the causes of harm will
remain (for example falls from height, drowning in water etc).
d)
Multiplicity of representative organisations
Comment: AAIAC is represented by a cross section of the industry and its diversity
has been important in gaining views from a large section of industry. Its downfall is
that the adventure activities sector is so fragmented there are still groups that are
not represented. With 17 existing members (plus observers) it would be impractical
to increase the group size to include the many different interests. Informal
networking arrangements with all interested parties would appear more appropriate.
e)
External requirements (e.g., European law, public concern)
Comment: Any political pressure will probably be in relation to the licensing
scheme and placed on DfES Ministers. HSC/E’s interest would be limited to how
health and safety legislation works in conjunction with the scheme. However, the
AAIAC has recently been consulted on the effects of new, EC driven legislation on
the adventure activities industry. The comments received have enabled the policy
team responsible to take account of issues not previously considered.
f)
Change of culture
Comment: Safety culture of the industry is generally very good. Changes to the
way the industry operates should be minor and focused on specific skill/activities.
g)
High/major hazard
Comment: Not applicable as this industry does not involve high/major hazards.
h)
Societal concern
Comment: Societal concern can be directly attributed to the introduction of the
licensing scheme and the formation of the AAIAC. However, it could be argued that
‘societal concern’ is only a factor following an incident. Past experience has shown
that networking arrangements with the industry, the majority of which are AAIAC
members, has been the most effective way of addressing issues as they arise.
Strategic focus
2.6 Each AC’s aim, under its terms of reference, is to consider and advise the
Commission on the health and/or safety of people at work and members of the public likely
to be affected by the work activity in the AC’s area of concern.
Comment: Current arrangements allow for the HSC to be informed of issues.
However, the standing committee arrangements are not appropriate for dealing with
issues as they arise. AAIAC members have often been used to inform HSC/E
through more flexible arrangements as opposed to formal meetings.
ACs may also deal with any other associated matters referred to them by the Commission
or HSE. However, the Commission wishes ACs to move from being output driven to
playing a key role in the delivery of outcomes. Therefore, in addition to demonstrating that
the indicative criteria are met, proposals to constitute or reconstitute an AC should explain
how it will contribute to achieving strategic outcomes, and the planned timescale (including
any sub-goals with milestones), so that progress can be monitored.
Comment: AAIAC’s contribution to the delivery of the HSC’s Strategic Plan is
limited. This was observed by the HSC Chairman at the AAIAC meeting in Wales
(Feb 2001) and is acknowledged by AAIAC.
2.7 It is not possible in this GAP to specify how an AC might contribute to the
achievement of strategic outcomes. But considerations will include the effectiveness of
linkages with:
· the Commission's Priority Programmes; or
· work to manage health and safety in high hazard industries and to prevent major
incidents where the health and safety of many people, whether workers or
members of the public, is affected.
2.8 Other factors might be the extent to which a proposed AC could help achieve
strategic goals and targets through:
· promoting continuous improvement;
· ensuring the necessary skills and understanding are there to deliver
improvements in health and safety; and
· ensuring that appropriate support and advice mechanisms are in place.
2.9 The HSC/E Business Plan includes templates for setting out key activities under the
priority programmes and major hazard industries. These templates might also provide a
useful basis for setting out how an AC proposes to contribute to the achievement of
strategic aims.
Annex 2
Possible structure for a GB wide Industry Liaison Committee for Adventure Activies
1. As stated in the paper, the AAIAC has shown itself to be unwilling to take the lead. It is
therefore suggested that, due to HSE’s wide range of contacts and experience of
committees, it assists them in the initial stages of setting up an infrastructure that the
industry can operate. After that HSE would have no involvement in the administration of
the Committee but continue to participate in an observer capacity.
2. Experience with the AAIAC shows that the most efficient and productive approach has
been small working groups, with voluntary participants dedicated to achieving a specific
outcome. By brigading members into sector specific taskforces, diversity of participants
can be maintained whilst improving the members ability to focus on targeted outcomes
within shorter timeframes.
3. To ensure this diversity of representation, HSE could assist in selecting interested
parties to participate in the taskforces, basing this choice on experience, expertise,
contacts and influence within the industry, while ensuring GB wide inclusiveness. From
within each taskforce members would nominate a representative to attend meetings.
Observers from DfES, HSE and AALA would attend.
4. Meetings could be arranged on an ad hoc basis, with only one meeting a year being
mandatory, keeping the cost and time involved for the industry to a minimum. This
arrangement would also mean that should the issue impact on multiple sectors, they have
an opportunity to liaise via their representatives.
5. As only one annual meeting of representatives would be mandatory, the majority of any
resources would be dedicated to the working groups. Not only are these groups proven to
be more productive, but members should be more willing to invest their time etc into them,
as they will only be involved if it is something that impacts directly on their sector.
6. HSE’s responsibility would be to provide the conduit for health and safety advice with
the taskforce representatives as well as individual members themselves.
7. It will be for each taskforce to select a representative who is best able to liase between
them and HSE, and for them to keep that person provided with up to date information
about their needs. Ultimately it is in their best interests to ensure they are involved with
any proposals relevant to their sector. Any negative consequences resulting from failure to
participate may reasonably be seen to be the responsibility of the representatives or the
interested parties themselves, not HSC or the Executive.
8. A diagram of the possible structure is shown at Figure 1.
Figure 1. Diagram of a possible structure for a GB wide Industry Liaison Committee for the
Adventure Activities Industry
Local
Authority
Private
Sector
Consumer
HSE
Land
Based
Water
Based
AALA
TUC
Voluntary
FOD/LA
DfES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TASKFORCES
Local Authority
Private sector
Wales
Scotland
England
Individual/Family businesses
Corporate events
SMEs
Water based
Land based
Coasteering
Yachting
Canoeing
River walking
Pony trekking
Mountaineering
Hill walking
Cycling
Caving
Voluntary
Consumer
Scouts/Guides
Duke of Edinburgh
Charities
Youth Organisations
Teachers/Head teachers
Consumer bodies
Child safety bodies