Recommendation to abolish the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority AALA

[Wayland]

If the only intention behind the AALA is to improve standards, why do they charge £1000 to do it?

Wouldn't the best way to improve standards be to make training accessible to all that require it?

 

[johnboy]

If the only intention behind the AALA is to improve standards, why do they charge £1000 to do it?

Wouldn't the best way to improve standards be to make training accessible to all that require it?

The AALA do not provide a 'training service' they audit commercial providers and if the commercial provider meets the standard they licence the provider as competent.

Standards are improved by the fact the audit is carried out by generally well respected folk in the outdoor industry. Who provide ample feedback to the organisation being audited.

If you want training there are a host of providers to do that from MLTE and the various schemes they run to the BCU etc...

The fee covers the assessors costs and the administration of the licence etc...

 

[johnboy]

Its ok to quote acts but it still leaves a big hole were the school or teacher are not covered, which makes my point. I understand the act and understand that one reason they are not covered is because they cover the commercial side.

I pay my kids school when they go to do outdoor activities. Sounds commercial to me.

Im all for reform if it brings schools/teachers onto the fold. At the moment the aala seem to think the best way to keep people safe is to only regulate the commercial side of the business, ie those they can get £750 from.

You have to quote the act and regulation as they are the documents and legal basis which the AALA operate within.

Reform of the AALA will not bring teachers etc into the fold it will remove the audit of the Commercial providers and replace it with a voluntary code of practice. So is the system better?

In an ideal world from a specific view point what you'd want is all organisations that are providing any form of outdoor activity to u18's to have some form of independant audit of their capability to deliver safe activities and an audit of their safety systems.

This would include all voluntary organisations such as Scouts, Schools, Cadets, youth groups etc.. What effect would that have on provision of activities for young people?

If you have concerns or questions about provisions you school is making for your children with EOTC you can ask for qualification info from your school principle or write to your board of govenors.

Ultimately you as a parent have to be happy that your children are being taken care of.

 

[Faz]

When i said reform i meant as a whole and not just the aala.

Im just not comfortable with the way it is now and the aala in its present form is not fit for purpose as it misses a large group of people out of the equation.

 

[Wayland]

The AALA do not provide a 'training service' they audit commercial providers and if the commercial provider meets the standard they licence the provider as competent.

Standards are improved by the fact the audit is carried out by generally well respected folk in the outdoor industry. Who provide ample feedback to the organisation being audited.

If you want training there are a host of providers to do that from MLTE and the various schemes they run to the BCU etc...

The fee covers the assessors costs and the administration of the licence etc...

OK but £1000 still sounds excessive for some thing that is supposed to monitor standards. If it is there to protect the public then it should be funded by the public IMO.

Just sounds like another excuse to part hard working people from their money to me.

 

[timboggle]

From my experience and understanding the licence costs £715 and lasts for 3 years.

Additional costs arise when providers use independent consultants to advise or represent them through the application process.

I think replacing the AALA with a voluntary code will take us back to the dark days of the Lyme Bay incident era - people do need to be trained and moderated in Health and safety measures especially where the welfare of young people are concerned and if providers are in it for profit then I believe it's only reasonable for it to come from those profits.

I would fully support a government grant scheme to assist non-commercial providers in licensing.

 

[Will Bowden]

A company holding a license is one thing, doing what the license says they do is an entirely different matter. I know loads of people who have chainsaw licenses and still use them in cut off jeans and t-shirts all summer.

I don't agree with being Nannied in any way shape or form, if it was down to me I'd abolish all sorts, especially Building Regulations. I'm all for the Government providing the information individuals and companies need to keep themselves and their clients safe though through codes of conduct. That way a contract can be drawn up between client and supplier to provide services that meet that code, no argument and blame is where it should be.

Will

 

[demographic]

I don't agree with being Nannied in any way shape or form, if it was down to me I'd abolish all sorts, especially Building Regulations. )

Oh dear, are you quite sure you mean building regs (which are generally in place to ensure that really heavy stuff like houses don't fall on peoples heads or rot away in no time) or do you mean Planning Permission?

If you spent any time at all on a building site with your eyes open and your brain switched on you would realise the need for building regs.

 

[ged]

I don't agree with being Nannied in any way shape or form, if it was down to me I'd abolish all sorts, especially Building Regulations. I'm all for the Government providing the information individuals and companies need to keep themselves and their clients safe though through codes of conduct. That way a contract can be drawn up between client and supplier to provide services that meet that code, no argument and blame is where it should be.

That's insane. It's a lot better if there's no need to blame anybody because things were done right in the first place.

I have a lot of experience with building work, both in the UK and in France. The contrast is stark.

In the UK, it's difficult to get a building seriously wrong if you pay attention to what the building inspectors say. Contrary to popular belief, they are not there to stop you getting on with the job. They just want the job done right, so that the building works and it is safe. I have met many a building inspector and without exception they have been helpful and understanding. Even when Paddy dug a 200 tonne hole in the wrong place, the inspectors helped me sort it out.

In France, on the other hand, there are indeed building regulations ("les Normes") but there are no building inspectors for private work. As a result I am still trying to get builders in the south of France to stop a roof leaking and make the toilets work properly -- five years into what the architect said would be a six month project.

 

[Will Bowden]

Just for the record I've spent 26years designing and building buildings and have no problem with Building Regulations as a recommendation, I don't see why we should HAVE to build to those standards though. My only REAL gripe is with insulation standards (although some others are plain daft at times), if you want to live in a cold house you should be allowed to.

Planning is a whole different ball game, we need some means of regulating it but it needs more leway for interpretation than the blanket policies the Planners have to work to at present. I don't know what the answer is but the new Local Planning trials which we are now part of may go some way to sorting it.

Will

 

[mrcharly]

Oh dear, are you quite sure you mean building regs (which are generally in place to ensure that really heavy stuff like houses don't fall on peoples heads or rot away in no time) or do you mean Planning Permission?

If you spent any time at all on a building site with your eyes open and your brain switched on you would realise the need for building regs.

I've worked as a laborer on a site that ran without any regard for building regs or H&S. A complete bunch of cowbows.

How we didn't end up with people dead or injured I'll never know, pure blind luck. One electrocution (Live mains cable in a wall that was being cut with a stihlsaw "You'll be alright, get up and get on with work"). A wall fell on two blokes - they jumped just in time, one had a bruised leg. No helmets, could so easily have been two fatalities.

Do I want my kids to go to climbing centres where the centres don't have to replace worn gear? Where they can employ any jerk to do instruction? No bloody way.

 

[johnboy]

My only REAL gripe is with insulation standards (although some others are plain daft at times), if you want to live in a cold house you should be allowed to.

The insulation standard is easy to understand.

1. The efficent use of energy. So when you use 1kw of energy to heat your home insualtion enables the majority of it to remain in the home. If the home is efficently insulated you'll use less energy to heat it.

2. Cold houses and damp houses make people sick. Numerous studies have proven this to be the case. Sick folk have more Doctor visits and more hospital visits..

 

[Will Bowden]

I agree on both points and I could happily debate this all day but its a matter for another forum I suspect

Will