HSE Arborist Awareness Day

The Health and Safety Executive together with the Arboricultural Association held a joint awareness day in Manchester on the 14th of March. The idea of the seminar was to underline the importance of compliance awareness when ‘engaging arboricultural contractors’. The day was aimed squarely at local authority, housing association and commercial client officers, but lessons were there to be learned for the whole industry, particularly relating to the true cost of ensuring best practice. The sessions were led by Liam McKeown of Treevolution, assisted by representatives of the Arboricultural Association and with input from the HSE.

Split into two sessions, the day commenced indoors with an overview of the relevant legislation and regulation applicable to arboriculture. The responsibilities of contractors were outlined in respect of the Health and Safety at Work Act, PUWER, LOLER, PPE, risk assessment and method statements and the Work at Height Regulations. Particular attention was paid to the importance of the AFAG series of advisory notes, published by the HSE and available in a downloadable format from their website.
The AFAG guides are regarded as an industry best practice guide and as such have the force of law, which means that they can be used as evidence of non-compliance with the Health and Safety at Work Act in a court of law. This is an important point as the guides are designed to aid compliance, not something to catch you out! They can be used as an onsite safety checklist and their contents should be noted in the compilations of both generic and site specific risk assessments together with method statements. It is worth bearing in mind that risk assessments are deemed as a point-of-reference for all those involved in arboricultural work, but the legal requirement of implementation falls on the employer.

The training and certification that is available to arborists was also outlined, with a special emphasis on keeping those skills up to date, and the importance of skills consolidation prior to assessment in the case of new entrants to the industry. The importance of this was exemplified by the comments of some of those attending. Having done their practical training some years previously, many had subsequently worked their way up the management chain and were now in a position of client of, rather than provider of, arboricultural services. The point was well made that huge changes had occurred in both technique and in equipment in that time, and that the pace of change was quickening rather than slowing down. This is also true for practising arborists as well as those who have moved into administrative or consultancy roles. This raised the question of the re-examination of arborists at regular intervals, quite possibly 5 years, and the general feeling was that this was a sensible route to follow, although a lot of discussion is needed between the various parties before a consensus is reached. It was also very apparent that there is no one body that impartially represents the interests of arborists and general arboriculture in the UK. The regulatory and training bodies are all credibly represented, but arborists are represented by a disparate group of membership organisations which, quite properly, represent the interests of their members. This inevitably leads to a somewhat fragmentary approach in any discussions, on which the opinions of many well-qualified and legitimately trading individuals and businesses go unheard.

This brought the up the subject of the cost of employing, training and retaining good staff. If any contractor, however big or small, commits to his obligations under the law its expensive. A figure of around £15,000 was given as the cost of fully training and assessing an arborist. These costs have to be factored into quotations and they are often ongoing costs as individuals leave and are replaced. Add into this the cost of any downtime, sickness and holidays and the exponential costs of covering these and other eventualities, together with the cost of machinery and vehicles and the use of specialist equipment when required, and it is evident that the cost of the regulatory burden is severe. It is then, a justifiable question to ask; how can legitimate and legally compliant contractors make regulation work for them?

One of the suggestions for making regulation work in favour of the legitimately trading and appropriately qualified arborist was that they should report anyone, either individuals or companies, that they suspected of working illegally. This in itself this sounds a wholly sensible idea - unfortunately it rather fails to stand up to scrutiny. Firstly, to whom should it be reported? If it is to the local offices of the HSE then in most cases the report will not be immediately acted upon. Inspectors are not available to respond on a few minutes notice. The Police would be unlikely to treat such a report with any urgency; they are often reluctant to attend ‘minor’ incidents especially if it is not clear that a criminal offence has been committed. In all likelihood they would most likely refer the complainant (back) to the HSE. Secondly, a culture of denunciation is profoundly ‘unBritish’. It simply doesn’t sit well with us and no such initiative has ever been particularly successful. The recent impositions of hosepipe bans in some areas have been accompanied by hotlines whereby the public can inform on neighbours flouting the ban. These are proving to be spectacularly ineffective and are primarily used to settle old scores with said neighbours. It has to be expected that the same would apply in almost any scenario. Thirdly, as we are by historical fact a largely Christian country, the old biblical adage of ‘do unto others’ is deeply ingrained in the national psyche. If we don’t snitch on others then they won’t snitch on us. No, reporting of those who are not working in compliance with the relevant laws is not the answer, at least not where there is no prescient danger to life and limb. The answer here lies in the persuasion of those that engage arborists - especially in the private and domestic sectors - that they have very real responsibilities, and that the failure to take those responsibilities seriously can have very grave consequences.

After lunch delegates moved outside where a practical demonstration of best practise in aerial tree works had been arranged. This began with an example of risk assessment and an evaluation of various scenarios concerned with the respective options for working at height. This done, a demonstration was given concentrating on the access into the tree, movement around the canopy and upper branches and safe descent with reference to the previously risk assessment procedure. This was followed by a similar demonstration of the use of top-handled chainsaws and handsaws whilst in the tree. These demonstrations reinforced the previous assertions concerning how quickly technique and procedure are changing and the responsibilities of those engaging contractors to be aware of these changes. Following on from the outdoor session, the question of the specification for an ‘Approved Contractor’ was discussed. Unsurprisingly, this could be very closely identified with the Arboricultural Association’s approved contractor scheme. This is only open to members of the Association and as a consequence the subliminal suggestion was that only Arboricultural Association members, who had the approval status should be considered for inclusion on local authority tender lists, or to be asked to quote for commercial contracts. It therefore begs the question as to whether it is time to instigate a system of national recognition of competence, at various skill levels, maintained completely separately of the various membership organisations. It is fundamently unfair that anyone should feel forced to join anything simply to continue working. It is also discriminatory to exclude well qualified arborists from working in fields in which they are competent and experienced, purely on the grounds that they have joined the wrong ‘golly club’, and therefore don’t have the right approved status.

Well thought out and well presented, the day must have produced a lot of food for thought for those attending. The organiser should be congratulated for making the day interesting, informative and enjoyable. It so easily could have been little more that pompous flim-flam! But we need to remember that this was essentially a case of professionals talking to professionals. The interaction from the floor certainly bore this out. How to get the information to filter down the chain to the ordinary man in the street, who perceives arboriculture as little more than pruning on a larger scale to be done as cheaply as possible, is the real challenge. Certainly councils have a part to play, perhaps in making sure that the information that they give out to the public makes plain why they should contract appropriately qualified and insured arborists. Insurers also have a part to play, using qualified professionals for household or structural repairs is often a policy requirement, but it is rare to see this type of endorsement applied to tree-work; perhaps it should be? There is little doubt that regulation will continue and will be tightened up where there is perceived to be a need. The HSE works with the industry to solve the safety problems that are apparent, but if we are to accept ever more stringent regulation there must be an advantage to compliance. Therein lies the challenge.

Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is reminding employers that the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 come into force on the sixth of April. The regulations replace the existing Noise at Work Regulations 1989 for all industries in Great Britain except music and entertainment, which have until April 2008 to comply.

Welcoming the new regulations health and safety minister Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said, “With over one million employees in Great Britain exposed to levels of noise at work which could damage hearing the new regulations will reduce exposure without placing unnecessary burdens on employers.”
It is hoped that full compliance with the regulations will eliminate all new cases of hearing damage caused by work by 2030. The Regulations put the emphasis on identifying measures to eliminate or reduce risks from exposure to noise at work rather than simply relying on hearing protection, although this may also be needed in the short term.

Workplaces, which fell within the scope of the 1989 Regulations, should already have measures in place and the main effect is likely to be a need to review their risk assessments and prioritise their noise-control measures. Employees whose use of hearing protection under the 1989 Regulations was advisory will now have to wear the protection supplied.

Brian Lamb, Director of Communications at RNID, says: “We welcome the new Control of Noise at Work Regulations. Prolonged exposure to loud noise can cause permanent hearing loss and employers have a legal duty to cut down noise and protect their employees from the harmful effects of noise at work. However, employees also have to play their part and use the hearing protection available to them.

“Noise induced hearing loss is often cumulative and not immediately obvious, so its threat is seldom recognised or taken seriously. Whilst the effects of noise are irreversible, noise induced hearing loss is totally preventable.”

Employees newly covered by the Regulations are at relatively lower risk, and the employer will need to put in place proportionate noise reduction measures and provide hearing protection on request.

For more information about the Regulations and simple steps that can be taken to reduce employee noise exposure visit: www.hse.gov.uk/noise