Regulation as a tax Part 2

With more that half the population gaining its income from the state, these institutions and various bodies need to generate income in order to sustain their existence. Since obvious tax rises would be unpalatable, this is increasingly being achieved by expensive tightening up of regulatory avoidance or the constant updating of or imposition of changes to those existing regulations. This is to say nothing of the integration into UK law of numerous EU directives, which are often far more strictly interpreted than they were ever intended to be, and implemented more forcefully than in the rest of the EU. Unfortunately these only affect the ‘easy targets’, as we shall see below.

Graham Feakins is a tree surgeon in the Bristol area. A few weeks ago a Health & Safety inspector happened to meet Mr Feakins and informed him that he was working illegally. Mr Feakins had one fully trained climber and one trainee climber, which was as he understood it, standard practice and perfectly lawful. The Inspector told him it was now law to have one qualified climber and one additional climber who had qualified in aerial rescue; he was informed that having a trainee was not acceptable. This left Mr Feakins in an invidious position. If he wanted to continue trading he would have to get his trainee fully assessed and qualified. Therefore, he paid out and had the appropriate training completed; as a consequence he has had to put up his prices in order to cover the costs incurred. These are considerable. Firstly, there is the cost of the actual training and assessment. Secondly, there is any new equipment that may have to be supplied. Thirdly, there is the fact that as this particular team member has received training enabling to carry out an aerial rescue, he could quite credibly ask for a higher salary to reflect this.

Whilst Mr Feakins has no particular objection to training or indeed to having a fully qualified, competent workforce, he finds it grating that the HSE in the Bristol area seem to be targeting legitimate traders. White van chancers, jobbing builders with a few free days, travellers and others operating unlawfully are able to undercut the quotations of himself and others and are taking all the work. The Health and Safety Executive in Bristol agree that everyone should be on a level playing field but they are reluctant to do anything further and claim that they haven’t the resources to, ‘monitor the gypsies and others’. It has to be said that across the country the HSE inspectors are spread thinly and have a heavy workload. It cannot be denied that the idea of these inspectors spending their time following transits around the local council estates or through miles of country lane would not be making the best uses of their scant resources. However, it also unacceptable that legitimate businesses, who are struggling to cope with the regulatory and financial burdens imposed on them should be regarded as an easy target. This may not actually be the case, but it would appear to be so. It should also be made clear that although the HSE inspector involved in this case acted quite appropriately, it doesn’t necessarily mean that their priorities are right.

The situation regarding the number of experienced and trained climbers is actually quite clear; referring to AFAG402 Aerial Tree Rescue it is made plain that:

“A minimum of two people must be present during all tree climbing operations. One of the ground team must be available, competent and equipped to perform an aerial rescue without delay.”

The AFAG series of advice notes are just that, guidelines to best practice. But, and it’s a big but, they cannot simply be ignored as it is assumed that the arborist will use these guidelines to ensure his businesses compliance under the Health and Safety at Work Act. Your HSE inspector will use these guidelines as a benchmark test of compliance. This means that if you are not following them then you need to have a very good reason why not and be prepared to defend that reasoning. If you can’t, it may result in an enforcement notice and possibly court action.

Mr Feakins also raised the issue of licensing for tree work. He is also hoping that we can assist in getting tree surgery licensed as he feels this is the only way that he can avoid going out of business. This is certainly a subject that has been raised before and at first glance it would seem to be a way forward. We will be looking at the issues surrounding this subject in the July issue and any comments, views or suggestions would be most welcome. Licensing may be a contentious issue as it would doubtless entail an element of cost and would only be viable if it were to be made illegal to use the services or an unlicensed arborist. This system (CORGI registration) works in the gas appliance installation sector so it may well work in arboriculture.