Health and Safety Group

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Andy, as a quick overview of the consultation replies (which will now be collated and presented to FISA / AFAG at the next meeting and thereafter will formally be reported back to the industry)

 

- 70% respondents in ARB industry

- 59% AA members (so 41% NOT AA)

- Variable roles, inc. contractor / consultant / manager / climbers

- Variable freq. of accessing AFAGs / FISAs from daily (3%) to yearly (36%)

- Usage variable, and equal(ish), inc. training / compliance / RA / monitoring

- Format accessed variable from hard copy to pdf etc. (roughly 50/50)

- The 9 chainsaw guides (300 series) to be combined in 1 or 2 documents (59% and 24% respectively)

- Forestry & ARB combined guides or separate (40% and 60% respectively.)

 

Broadly those were the findings which overall confirms the value of the guidance published.

 

RE- FISA members, and in particular the FC in my experience, imposing specific contract and training / skills requirements I think the answer is undoubtedly 'YES' they will...and do already (EFAW '+F').

 

I am pushing FISA to issue a clear 'Position Statement' regarding FISA refresher training and ARB, i.e. that it is not applicable, and they agree in principle but no statement yet. However 'current' (C&Gs / NPTC or Lantra Awards) training / updates will be required, and with that I cannot disagree.

 

Hope this helps and forgive me if I've missed some bits of your email, its a hot day and I'm wilting fast.

 

Regards..

Paul

[Andy Clark]

Andy, as a quick overview of the consultation replies (which will now be collated and presented to FISA / AFAG at the next meeting and thereafter will formally be reported back to the industry)

 

- 70% respondents in ARB industry

- 59% AA members (so 41% NOT AA)

- Variable roles, inc. contractor / consultant / manager / climbers

- Variable freq. of accessing AFAGs / FISAs from daily (3%) to yearly (36%)

- Usage variable, and equal(ish), inc. training / compliance / RA / monitoring

- Format accessed variable from hard copy to pdf etc. (roughly 50/50)

- The 9 chainsaw guides (300 series) to be combined in 1 or 2 documents (59% and 24% respectively)

- Forestry & ARB combined guides or separate (40% and 60% respectively.)

 

Broadly those were the findings which overall confirms the value of the guidance published.

 

RE- FISA members, and in particular the FC in my experience, imposing specific contract and training / skills requirements I think the answer is undoubtedly 'YES' they will...and do already (EFAW '+F').

 

I am pushing FISA to issue a clear 'Position Statement' regarding FISA refresher training and ARB, i.e. that it is not applicable, and they agree in principle but no statement yet. However 'current' (C&Gs / NPTC or Lantra Awards) training / updates will be required, and with that I cannot disagree.

 

Hope this helps and forgive me if I've missed some bits of your email, its a hot day and I'm wilting fast.

 

Regards..

Paul

 

Paul,

 

For me it all falls down at your first point -

 

Re: - 70% respondents in ARB industry -

 

The AA consultation went out to around 7,000 people by your accounts.

 

The last Survey of the T&T industry run by LANTRA in 2011 reported 4,538 business with 23,766 workforce in the Arb industry. And that is only those with a Primary Arb business, not those that also have a Secondary business interst in Arb.

 

Therefore, the AA survey went to less than 30% of the primary industry, so 70% returned surveys would only equate to feedback from around 20% of the "Arb Industry".

 

The % numbers are fag packet calcs, but you certainly begin to get a clearer picture of reality.

[Andy Clark]

I'm still REALLY struggling to understand why there is so little interest in this subject.

 

Is there seriously no one else that has anything to add/comment on this subject?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

I'm still REALLY struggling to understand why there is so little interest in this subject.

 

Is there seriously no one else that has anything to add/comment on this subject?

 

Hi Andy, "seemingly not."

 

I think much/most of the industry is just happy to 'crack on' and do what they do oblivious, in part, to what's going on in the industry at large as it doesn't really affect them....until something goes wrong perhaps.

 

I guess another take on this is a failure for groups like HSE / AFAG / FISA and probably the AA to actively engage and involve them. We are very good at engaging with our members, or at least much better than previously, but engaging the wider industry is challenging.

 

I have previously got very frustrated that the industry doesn't more actively engage with the arb approval scheme. Afterall I'm sure they'd all, well mostly, welcome a central government / HSE edict that said tree surgery business must be 'HSE accredited' etc., which is never going to happen of course, but the majority don't actively engage with an industry 'voluntary' scheme. Most because you don't need to be 'arb approved'...but the more that were would make that position more likely.

 

Ah well, keep pushing..."onwards and upwards, n chin up."

 

I hope you're well.

Paul

[treequip]

I'm still REALLY struggling to understand why there is so little interest in this subject.

 

Is there seriously no one else that has anything to add/comment on this subject?

 

I am going to guess that its because a lot of contractors don't want more regulation and many actually resent what's already on place considering it an unnecessary hoop to jump through.

[aspenarb]

I am going to guess that its because a lot of contractors don't want more regulation and many actually resent what's already on place considering it an unnecessary hoop to jump through.

 

I feel the industries perspective on HSE has become fragmented. There is no chance of unification within the current crop of qualification providers and the last thing needed is another tier of bull over the top of them.

 

Bob

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Simplistically, and I know it's never quite such, there are only TWO 'recognised' (chainsaw etc.) qualification providers in the arb sector:

 

1. City & Guilds / NPTC

2. Lantra Awards

 

A qualification, bearing in mind Lantra Awards have only very recently been issuing such for chainsaws etc., from either body is acceptable / recognised, usually.

 

FISA quals., or 'certificates of training' (refreshers), are specific to the forest industry sector, not arb, albeit there is a cross-over where arb's are doing forestry sector works.

 

Is that "another tier of 'bleep'?"...possibly, actually, i.e. another tier!

 

Will FISA lead on 'arb' H&S stuff = no (albeit they may be consulted / involved with certain activities which cross industry sectors, e.g. chainsaw use for tree crown break-downs, or vica-versa.)

 

Hope this helps to reassure...at least a little.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Andy Clark]

Hi Andy, "seemingly not."

 

I think much/most of the industry is just happy to 'crack on' and do what they do oblivious, in part, to what's going on in the industry at large as it doesn't really affect them....until something goes wrong perhaps.

 

I guess another take on this is a failure for groups like HSE / AFAG / FISA and probably the AA to actively engage and involve them. We are very good at engaging with our members, or at least much better than previously, but engaging the wider industry is challenging.

 

I have previously got very frustrated that the industry doesn't more actively engage with the arb approval scheme. Afterall I'm sure they'd all, well mostly, welcome a central government / HSE edict that said tree surgery business must be 'HSE accredited' etc., which is never going to happen of course, but the majority don't actively engage with an industry 'voluntary' scheme. Most because you don't need to be 'arb approved'...but the more that were would make that position more likely.

 

Ah well, keep pushing..."onwards and upwards, n chin up."

 

I hope you're well.

Paul

 

 

Hi Paul,

 

It's not so much a question of my opinion (re: your PM), moreso that I actually pay attention to the facts and figures, and do draw a very different conclusion from those facts and figures.

 

As an example, you mention your frustration that the industry doesn't engage more actively with the Approval scheme......

 

But why would it? What reason does the industry have in order to make it want/need to engage with the scheme?

 

Over 60% of the companies within the industry are small (0-4) employees, which means they have no need, inclination, requirement, perhaps even desire, to have ANY form of documented health and safety arrangements.

 

So on that basis alone, for some 60% of the industry the approval scheme is, in effect, not fit for purpose. For some 60% of the industry, there is no need for that 60% to pay the scheme even the slightest iota of attention, let alone fork out cash to seek registration. For some 60% of the industry, there is no legal requirement for those companies to have in place the documentation that the AA need in order to grant approved status. So how do you ever hope to engage, while that is the case?

 

Obviously i'm not saying that we need to seek to change the HaSaWA or the MoHSaWR, but does the AA not need to change its tack and look at ways of how it makes the Approval scheme something that can actually, and realistically, be assessed by all? Regardless of size of company and/or number of employees?

 

And then go a step further and think of that 60% in terms of accident reporting and accurate stats regarding accidents in the industry - with no requirement for any documented H&S arrangements, how many unreported accidents/incidents/near misses are going under the radar? A hell of a lot, I'd wager! Which in turn then throws the whole accuracy of the accident stats being passed back to AFAG/HSE/FISA into total disarray and non representative of what actually goes on.

 

 

And what makes this whole thing ironic, is that these facts and figures are taken from the very same report that the AA et al used to base the R2 project on. So why are those stats not given due credence across the entire spectrum of the industry "model"/structure, and used by the AA et al to learn from past mistakes?

 

I mean, this whole FISA subject is just taking us right back to the late 70's early 80's, when those in Arb tried previously to work under the umbrella of the old FSC (Forestry Safety Council). It didn't work back then, to the point that the ASC (Arboriculture Safety Council) was then formed, so why are we heading back there again, having already been there and having already proven that the model just does not work??

 

And what's MORE ironic, is if the facts/figures are anything to go by, the Arb industry is actually the BIGGER industry (in terms of numbers of companies/people employed within the sector) out of Arb and Forestry!

Edited June 19, 2015 by Andy Clark

[Andy Clark]

I am going to guess that its because a lot of contractors don't want more regulation and many actually resent what's already on place considering it an unnecessary hoop to jump through.

 

Well but this is the rub isn't it. It is panning out so far, looking at what little info is in place already, like there will be an increase in those unnecessary hoops.

 

Which is why I'm surprised that it's not being given more attention.

[treequip]

Well I am not one for more regulation but as an industry we are relatively unencumbered (compared to some) by regulation.

 

What regulation we do have often gets ignored by anyone that can get away with because compliance is largely self regulating

 

I don't know what more attention the situation warrants, the powers that be will do what they will. If they think more regulation is needed they will inflict it on us no matter what, and chances are they will be aided and abetted by industry figures.