Health and Safety Group

[Peter]

Why do you think FISA is going to muscle in on th Arb sector? Genuine question btw, I haven't personally seen any evidence that they are going to.

 

With regard to the AAAC scheme for small contractors, I'm sure you're aware of the simplified version for companies with less than 5 employees. Although the legal requirements for small firms may be low, the pressure for compliance comes from clients rather than 3rd party enforcing bodies now. (Personal experience from running a contracting business)

I have not seen an HSE inspector on site anywhere in the last 5-6 years, and the last one I saw was training a local authority employee to do basic site safety checks. IE making his own job redundant.

So I could completely ignore all the HS stuff, and just do domestic work without anyone questioning anything unless there was an accident,and AAAC would be totally irrelevant. If I want to work for LAs, schools, construction cos etc then they expect the same level of compliance from me as any other contractor.

I'm not AAAC btw, but have been on the pre approval workshop and already meet most the criteria just because I need to have it in place for my clients.

I'm not sure how you could have any kind of scheme in place which doesn't require all the same stuff as AAAC, having looked at it in some detail a few years ago for a project which you were involved with but never got off the ground.

[Joy Yeomans]

The fca are giving regular updates to its members on this but yet again as someone earlier put it's the big boys setting the agenda on the fisa board

[Andy Clark]

Why do you think FISA is going to muscle in on th Arb sector? Genuine question btw, I haven't personally seen any evidence that they are going to.

 

With regard to the AAAC scheme for small contractors, I'm sure you're aware of the simplified version for companies with less than 5 employees. Although the legal requirements for small firms may be low, the pressure for compliance comes from clients rather than 3rd party enforcing bodies now. (Personal experience from running a contracting business)

I have not seen an HSE inspector on site anywhere in the last 5-6 years, and the last one I saw was training a local authority employee to do basic site safety checks. IE making his own job redundant.

So I could completely ignore all the HS stuff, and just do domestic work without anyone questioning anything unless there was an accident,and AAAC would be totally irrelevant. If I want to work for LAs, schools, construction cos etc then they expect the same level of compliance from me as any other contractor.

I'm not AAAC btw, but have been on the pre approval workshop and already meet most the criteria just because I need to have it in place for my clients.

I'm not sure how you could have any kind of scheme in place which doesn't require all the same stuff as AAAC, having looked at it in some detail a few years ago for a project which you were involved with but never got off the ground.

 

 

No one's saying they're going to "muscle in" on arb Peter. Vice versa in fact. And FISA have already made their standpoint clear, in as far as them confirming they have no interest in Arb matters.

 

The problem that I think is easily foreseeable though, is how this will ultimately create more hoops for contractors. I mean, previously, you had one set of best practice guidance - the AFAG leaflets.

 

Now though, you will have 2 sets of best practice guidance, both written from different perspectives. Example, with FISA taking the lead on all things Chainsaw/Felling/Cross cutting/ etc, you will inevitably have to work to the FISA compiled and published guidance when undertaking task relating to those subjects, but then equally work to the AA guidance for everything else.

 

And then think of how that will pan out longer term... at the moment, the course content for LANTRA/NPTC competency certs are of course all based on the AFAG guidance. Meaning that at least there is a fair joint representation that goes into the basis of the content. And that goes across the board for all certs.

 

Now imagine those certs being based on two different set of guidelines. All the chainsaw related certs being based on FISA guidance, all the Arb specific certs being based on the AA ICOP's. Thus you inevitably have two different "standards" (for want of a better word) of certs. Ok, there's talk of FISA consulting with the AA on matters where there is a crossover, but consultation does not subsequently equate to a certainty that Arb input will make an appearance in the final draft of the document. Especially given that they openly declare they have no interest in Arb matters.

 

It may just be me but I really don't see any of these things as an improvement to the Arb industry - vice versa in fact. I see it as a detriment in the longer term. I guess time will only tell.

 

 

And yes, I do know how the AAAC scheme works. And equally I remember the project that several of us tried to get off the ground previously - and I also remember that whilst we couldn't get it off the ground, the premise of what we created still went on to achieve great things.

 

Don't forget that AB and DLJ used it to create Tree Care Approved and the first Trustmark accreditation for Arb, and shortly after that the AA followed suit and updated the AAAC criteria and also allied with Trustmark. So whilst you comment on what the AAAC criteria is now, don't forget how it got there.

 

Anyhow, this thread isn't about the AAAC, it's about what the H&S leadership/direction will look like for the Arb industry as FISA progresses.

[Peter]

I haven't forgotten!

 

Anyway, I think things are fine as they are fwiw. The domestic sector is never going to be regulated, and anyone working for corporate clients will have everything in order anyway.