Be careful what you wish for!
Regulation as a Tax – Part 3

In the last couple of issues we have discussed the issue of regulation being used as a revenue earner and the fact that it will only ever affect the legitimate traders. This has brought a range of responses some of which we have published and some, the personal experiences of readers have formed threads in the articles. The one response that we have had that has been overwhelming though, has been the feeling that that regulation should have tangible benefits for those who comply. One of the ways that this could possibly be achieved is by a licensing scheme for tree-workers and, on the face of it, such a scheme has much to recommend it. But we should also be cautious as other schemes that operate in other not dissimilar industries have not always lived up to their expectations, in fact some have proved to be a disaster.

Back in the mid nineties they was a flurry of complaints about the activities of ‘rogue builders’. Not, you understand, the big companies involved in major construction projects or civil engineering but the jobbing builder involved in the repair and maintenance of property. Horror stories abounded in which hapless householders had been fleeced of hundreds or even thousands of pounds and been left with half completed shoddy work, dangerous structures or even had to contend with the collapse of a part of their property. In most cases the protagonists were unqualified, uninsured and untraceable. Sound familiar?

At the time the construction industry proposed there should be a compulsory registration scheme that small business and the self-employed would be required to belong to. This, they argued, was the only way that the public could be protected from the rogue element.

Put simply, if they’re not registered, don’t do business with them. It’s a system that does have a proven and successful model, but we’ll come to that later.

The government ignored the wishes of the industry and decided to set up the Quality Mark, a voluntary scheme, which lasted for 8 years, cost millions of pounds, (of taxpayers money), and then collapsed. It was temporarily replaced by the Quality scheme, before its replacement the TrustMark was rolled out earlier this year.

TrustMark would appear to be little more than an umbrella grouping for the various trade associations operating in the repair and maintenance sector. The problem here being that trade associations usually exist to serve the interests of their members, who of course pay for the privilege, not the consumer. The TrustMark then has all the evidence of becoming a pointless, money hungry, talking shop which will ultimately achieve precisely nothing.

But there is a registration body, which demonstrates that this type of scheme if compulsory has benefits both for consumers and for contractors….. CORGI.

From the CORGI website I pulled the following facts, and they make some interesting reading;
Initially, gas installers could become affiliated to CORGI on a voluntary basis. In 1991, however, the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) asked CORGI to maintain a register of competent gas installers in the UK. CORGI became the ‘Council for Registered Gas Installers’. Registration is now a legal requirement for businesses and self-employed people working on gas fittings or appliances. It is illegal for people to work with gas unless they are CORGI Registered. [Italics mine]

Applicants from gas installer businesses need to be competent in order to carry out gas work and will need to be in possession of certificates of competence in the areas of gas work they intend to undertake before they can become CORGI registered. Gas operatives are required to demonstrate gas safety competence by successfully completing nationally agreed assessments, carried out at an approved assessment centre.

CORGI will only accept Certificates of Competence that have been issued through [approved] certification schemes that conform to European Standard EN45013 and have been accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS). ACS Certificates are valid for a maximum of 5 years.

• Given an identification card which should be shown upon request
• Required to obtain competency certificates in areas of gas work they carry out
• Required to update their proof of competence regularly
• Subject to regular work inspections carried out by CORGI Inspectors

Virtually every element that is required to become CORGI registered has a direct counterpart within arboriculture, so there would be very little that needs to be added to the current training and assessment regime currently overseen by LANTRA. In fact there is very little that the working arborist would have to submit to that he does not already, except perhaps the regular competency checks and training updates. This type of ongoing testing, training and assessment have been hinted at anyway and we have to assume it likely that they will happen.

The ‘missing link’ here is that which is italicised above, the fact that it is illegal to work on gas installations unless registered. But it cannot be denied that tree work has similar or even equal propensity for damage or loss of life as a dodgy gas installation – think of an 80’ Beech on a railway track or tree felling on public roads or indeed domestic premises.

If the Government and its various agencies and departments that involve themselves in arboriculture wish to safeguard the interests of the consumer and to the promote the use of professional arborists then they would to well to follow the model of CORGI and insist that a similar scheme be applied to arboriculture. Of course, we have to remember that CORGI came into being after the 22-storey Ronan Point apartment block in Canning Town, London, was devastated by a massive gas blast in 1968, that claimed five lives.

Do we have to wait until a family is wiped out by 200 tonnes of oak landing on their conservatory or will anybody take up the call for a compulsory registration scheme, and to emphasise the illegality of carrying out tree-work if not a part of the scheme.

If nothing else, registration would make it difficult for the cowboys to operate and it would build the public perception or arborists, which is currently quite poor. One added benefit would be the maintenance of pricing levels, as everyone would be playing to the same set of rules.

On a cautionary note it has to be said that this sort of registration scheme is that it would cost money and be another level of regulation to bear. However, this just might the way to make all the other regulations bearable, or even justifiable.