External Affairs / Policy / Consultations Consultations
Working at Height Regulations
Transitional Arrangements
Q1. Should any industries, groups or provisions relating to specific
items of work equipment be subject to these transitional arrangements?
Yes. You are aware of the alarm within the adventure activities
industry that unsuitable practices and equipment are to be imposed
which are alien and potentially dangerous when used in a mountaineering
and caving situation. Therefore a transitory period would assist
in finding a commensense solution to this bizarre situation. This
would then ensure that our excellent safety record and existing
best practice of our National Governing Bodies are not undermined.
Regulation 2 - Interpretation 'Work at Height'
Q2. Is the definition of 'work at height' clear?
Very unclear. It would appear senseless to remove the previous
definition of six feet mininium to WAHR. This could bring in a whole
range of ridiculous measures which will have to be taken in outdoor
settings. Some simple and perfectly safe activities could become
impossible, particularly when local bureaucrats and officials add
their own interpretations to the rules. If exemption if not to be
granted to adventure activities, then a much clearer defintion of
the term 'at height' is needed that relates to the natural as well
as the man made environment. As the definition stands it appears
to apply to almost every step taken out of doors and we believe
as such is likely to have a very negative effect on adventure activities.
The basis of all activities undertaken by the adventur industry
is in the context of sport and in helping the public improve best
practice while managing rather than avoiding risk. The Industry
already has regulations in the form of the Activity Centres (Young
Persons Safety)Act 1995 and is subject to the Health & Safety at
Work legislation. This protects many of the most vulnerable participants
and reinforces National Governing Body Best Practice.
'Working platform'
Q3. Are the definitions about 'working platforms' set out in the
Work at Height Regulations a) clear and b) workable?
3a) Very unclear
3b) Very unworkable
Climbers and cavers DO NOT USE MOBILE WORKING PLATFORMS. Some ropes
courses may use elevated fixed platforms.
'Fragile Surfaces'
Q4. Do you agree that we have adopted the right approach to fragile
surfaces?
No. This is an addition to the European Directive by the UK HSE
and is entirely inappropriate when applied to the natural environment.
The proposed Regulations fail to allow for fragile surfaces in the
natural encironment, such as snow, ice and scree slopes where they
can form the 'workplace'. It is not feasible, or necessarily desirable
to mark, support or knowingly avoid such surfaces. For example it
is part of the work of a mountaineering instructor to provide experiences
on snow and ice or on friable rock or loose scree. They will have
been trained to identify these hazards and employ appropriate techniques
to manage the atendeant risks while passing on this knowledge to
their students.
'Personal Fall Protection Systems'
Q5. Do you agree that we have adopted the right approach to Personal
Fall Protection Systems?
No. Parts 1 & 2 are standard operating procedures in adventure
activites whereas part 3 is out of step with INDUSTRY AND NATIONAL
GOVERNING BODY BEST PRACTICE. There is an assumption that the number
of ropes used is the critical factor in improving safety and yet
this is not borne out in the very limited number of falls from height
that have occurred to climbing and caving workers. Choice of venue,
equipment, anchor selection and the effective supervision of inexperienced
participants are far more significant considerations. Furthermore
additional ropes add to the hazard in many circumstances by complicating
the system, slowing the party down and putting them in further danger!
Whilst we recognise that it was HSC who ensured that single rope
use was acknowledged in the Directive; the disbanding of the HSC's
Industry Advisory Committee by HSE has removed the opportunity to
receive guidance on this specialist subject from the Industry and
NGBs. The WAHR should not be interpreted to apply to the Adventure
Activities Industry which would give one set of standards for instructors
and another for the participants that they are teaching! It would
be totally inappropriate for instructors teaching a sport to be
forced to use methods different from commonly accepted best practice.
Regulation 3 - Application
Q6. We would welcome your comments on the appropriateness of the
dutyholder application - particularly in relation to any situations
which you feel may not be covered by these proposals or where further
guidance might be required.
IOL raised this issue directly with Dave King of HSE who replied
that "any other person under his or her (the dutyholders's) control
does not apply to those being trained for sporting purposes" (and
presumably for Educational and Development purposes). WAHR means
that an Instructor (who is at work) must use two ropes whilst the
accompanying student (who is learning a sport) will be on one rope
if they are to be taught the sport's best practice - this is unacceptable
and smacks of double standards. Indeed, often the instructor and
student will be on the same rope, so it will not be possible to
both follow the regulations and teach best practice.
Q7. Do you agree that the WAHR should be applied
offshore in the way proposed?
No. The Royal Yachting Association has a parallel training scheme
employing over 16,000 instructors and very clear National Governing
Body guidelines and qualifications which have been brought together
by using the experience and expertise of thousands of sailors. Again
we reiterate that we cannot envisage that the Government and HSE
would want to increase the danger to employees and participants.
Regulation 4 - Organisation and Planning
Q8. We would welcome your views on the requirements in the WAHR
to organise and plan work at height.
All ventures into the outdoors or on the sea or inland waters
by providers involve working to either AALA or NGB best practice
guidelines. Providers plan the ventures with the appropriate staff,
equipment and routes that are suitable for the participants dependent
upon the latters skills, stamina and knowledge. Weather forecasts,
interpretation and knowledge are a significant part of instructor
training (and examination) and a feature of many providers is the
morning link to a weather fax or internet service and the posting
of such forecasts for all staff and participants to see. We are
not aware of such similar in-depth procedures in the construction
industry, and so it is inappropriate to apply the same regulations
to both industries.
Q9. We aim to encourage dutyholders to assess
the 'overall' risk involved in working at height, for example by
considering the risk of installing equipment for work at height
as well as the risks of using it, by taking full account of the
nature and duration of the work, by taking account of emergency
and rescue situations and by taking a full range of technical solutions:
9a) Are our aims understood?
Yes.
9b) could they be made clearer?
Yes.
Our good safety record attests to this understanding. However, the
Regulations and Guidance do not appear to take any regard of the
differences between the man made and natural environments. Even
the operation of activities on constructed facilities such as climbing
walls, ropes courses and abseil towers is within the ethos of the
climbing sport. It is supervised by staff whose expertise has developed
in the natural environment and aims at assisting participants to
enjoy the sport within the hills and mountains. The existing good
practice has grown from the natural environment traditional adventure
sports. Techniques from the construction and window cleaning industry
would be entirely inappropriate and again would put climbers and
cavers and instructors working with students at risk.
'Health and Medical Issues'
Q10. Should we say any more in the Guidance about a person's physical
capability for working at height?
No
Q11. Have we
a) achieved a reasonable balance and
b) gone into the right amount of detail on health and medical issues?
11a) Poor balance
11b) Too much detail
'Appropriate Supervision'
Q12. Should we say more about management of workers and the work
process in the Guidance?
Yes. We are very concerned about interpretations of 'lone working'.
Our workers often lead groups of novices - is this alone, as they
do not operate with other co-workers? The Regulations could be interpreted
as requiring a climbing or caving party to have two instructors,
thus placing an impossible strain on staff and financial resources
and thereby 'killing' the industry, particularly the major part
that deals with schoolchildren and young people. We have our own
good practice which determines procedures if an incident should
occur, and which encourage students to learn to take responsibility
for risk management. Sometimes as part of their work instructors
do need to work work alone in the mountains, they may go out to
reconnoitre an area, rendezvous with a group (such as Duke of Edinburgh
Award expedition groups) and other matters. They are trained to
work alone and carry the appropriate equipment to deal with any
emergency.
'Weather Conditions'
Q13. Have we given enough explanation about weather conditions and
the effect they can have in the Guidance?
No. There is concern that again there is no conception of the
ethos of mountaineering and other adventure activities. This again
demonstrates that WAHR is intended for the construction industry
and should not be applied to the adventure activities sector. Mountaineeding
and caving instructors (and their students) often operate in what
could be interpreted as 'unfavourable' weather. This is an integral
and in some cases unavoidable part of the experience. The provision
of training in the skills required to manage this risk is an essential
element in maintaing the good safety record of the industry and
we would not want any guidance to infer that it was wrong to work
in adverse weather conditions.
Regulation 5 - Competence
Q14. Can or should we attempt to define 'competence' in the Regulations?
Yes. the issue of competence is well defined in HSC's Guidance
to the Adventure Activities Licensing Auhority. (L77)
Q15. Is the Guidance clear in its definition of
'competence'?
No. There is no definition of competence, see question 15 when
YOU ask the question.
Q16. To what extent, if at all, should the definition
of competence encompass consideration of a person's training and
qualifications?
Significantly. See Q 14 and 15.
Regulation 6 - The hierarchy of avoiding and
controlling risks from Work at Height
Q17. Do you agree with the principles set out in the hierarchy in
Reg. 6 - e.g. is there sufficient clarity on what is required of
dutyholders?
Strongly disagree. The Hierarchy fails to recognise the sporting
and educational context of adventure activiy workers who are trying
to relate to the recreational public. We do not believe that 'sport'
or 'education' was consulted in the development of the European
Directive and believe that as such the Regulations cannot be applied
to adventure activities. "So Far as Reasonably Practicable work
at Height should be eliminated" makes no sense to a climbing or
caving instructor, to a youth worker using a ropes course, or even
to the average member of the public when considering our industry.
Q18. In the hierarchy is the meaning of a safe
place of work for work at height, as defined in Schedule 1, clearly
defined?
Very unclear. There is no reference to the natural environment
where the vast majority of adventure activities take place.
Q19. Do we need to say more - without being over-prescriptive
- about the type of equipment that should be used to meet each step
of the hierarchy?
No. HSC's approach is already too prescriptive about the type
of equipment, based on other industries' requirements and not on
those of adventure activities e.g. the specific double rope system
in the Regulations. In our expereince it is preferable to define
the principles and objectives of a system and allow flexibility
in the way in which these are met. The alternative would be to simply
say that in respect of the Adventure Activities Industry that it
should be in accordance with the Best Practice of the National Governing
Bodies. AALA accept this, why not HSC?
Regulation 7 - General principles for selection
of work equipment for Work at Height
Q20. We would welcome your views on the proposed selection criteria
(Regulations and Guidance), in particular:
a) Will it ensure that the safest and most effective measures will
be selected to perform work at height?
No. The Hierachy has no relevance to adventure activities
and relies on presecribed systems that are not always the most appropriate
rather than active dynamic risk management by competent operatives.
b) Is it clear where differing types of work equipment come into
play when considering the hierarchy?
Very unclear. Mountaineering & caving do not use scaffolding,
mobile work platforms or even industrial ladders. A very limited
exception is in the case of ropes courses and similar constructions
see comment Q9
c) Does it address the practicalities of performing work at height
in all cases?
No. Absolutely not in the case of Adventure Activities.
d) Does the supporting Guidance illustrate adequately the various
issues to consider when choosing different work equipment?
Very unclear. 7(2) (ii) expects employers to use equipment
which 'allows passage without risk' yet HSC state that they aim
to manage rather than eliminate risk. How is it possible to eliminate
all risk, other than by stopping all activity? Adventure activities
are sports with great potential to improve the physical and emotional
well being of participants, in part because of the inherent risks.
Learning to manage those risk is as important part of learning the
sport and adventure activity instructors are thee to ensure this
learning process is appropriately managed.
Regulation 9 - Fragile Surfaces
Q21. Are the Regulations too restrictive in insisting on coverings
and other protective measures for fragile surfaces?
Too restrictive. This is another example of the bizarre nature
of these regulations when applied to the Adventure Activities Industry.
When operating in the natural environment it would be impossible
to comply.
Q22. Should duties concerning fragile surfaces
be qualified by SFAIRP?
Yes. 9(i) assumes that an employer can prevent persons falling
through fragile surfaces and does not use SFAIRP. Adventure Activities
can only comply with this by stopping all winter mountaineering
activities. Is that the objective? Currently such activities proceed
safely due to a reliance on the worker's skills and experience of
snow conditions, weather knowledge and the handling propertyies
of the fragile surface. 'So far as is reasonably practicable' should
be applied to 9(1) and 9 (2) b if the Regulations are to avoid looking
even more absurd when applied to the natural environment.
Regulation 12 - Inspection
Q23. Have we succeeded in making it clear what needs to be inspected
and when in the Regulations and the Guidance?
Very unclear. We question whether there is an expectation that
records of 'work site' inspections are kept. For adventue activities
this might include such things as multiple anchor points and if
this is the case then it is not a practical situation and would
not add to the safety of the industry. For example, taking written
notes whilst completing a thousand foot ice climb, or during a wet
caving trip, is nigh on impossible and since such environments change
daily no one could corroborate any notes.
Q24. Is it right that we drop the requirement
in CHSWR for records of inspection of scaffolding to be kept for
3 months?
Do not use scaffolding.
Q25. Is it right that only scaffolding, and not
other working platforms such as MEWPs, should be subject to the
requirement to be inspected every 7 days (as currently required
in the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996)?
Do not use such equipment.
Q26. Should the provisions governing the lifting
of people using rope access and positioning equipment be removed
from LOLER and placed in the WAHR?
Yes. And the Adventure Activities Industry should be removed
from the provisions of WAHR and continue under the requirements
of AALA, NGB best practice and HSC work regulations as now
Regulation 13 - Inspection of places of work
at height
Q27. Do you agree that a duty to inspect visually the surface before
work at height commences should be included in the Regulations?
Is it practicable?
Strongly agree. It is standard practice to visually inspect every
step taken in the outdoors. It is not appropriate or practical to
record such inspections. See Q 23.
Regulation 14 - Duties of persons at work
Q28. Is the proposed approach to the duties on persons at work acceptable?
Yes. Personal responsibility by employees is a key element in
the participation of adventure activities and the duties on persons
at work appear reasonable.
Q29. Is it right that we place specific duties
in the WAHR, rather than relying on the duties as stated in other
legislation?
No. Normal Safety at Work and AALA Regulations are sufficient.
Regulation 15 - Exemption by the Health and
Safety Executive
Q30. Should any group of people, type of premises, type of work
equipment or class of activities be exempted from these Regulations?
Yes. Adventure Activities should be exempt from the Regulations
as they stand for the following reasons:
1 The European Directive was drawn up without any reference to sport
or adventure activities as a consequence the Regulations fail to
reflect current best practice in mountaineering, caving and related
adventure activities.
2 The Adventure Activities industry has an excellent safety record,
so much so that HSC disbanded its own advisory committee.
3 The Regulations do not consider the interface between sport and
industry. The inadvertent application of these innappropriate regulations
will not improve the exisiting safety record and has the potential
to increase the number of accidents by denying participants exposure
to professional coaches who will be prevented from demonstating
and teaching the sports' accepted best practice.
4 The Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety ) Act 1995 and the
associated Licensing Scheme along with well established national
governing body guidance and training schemes are the appropriate
regulators for these activities. AALA appliues NGB qualifiications
in an appropriate manner and we question the compatibility of Adventure
Activity Regulations and the WAH Regulations.
Schedule 1 - requirement for places of Work
at Height
Q31. Are these requirements a) clear and b) appropriate as they
apply to a safe place of work at height?
a) Very unclear.
b) Very inappropriate.
No reference to natural environment
Schedule 2 - Requirements for Guard-rails,
etc
Q32. Is it right that we should increase the minimum height of guard-rails
to at least 950mm?
No. Are you seriously suggesting that guard rails be placed around
the top of mountains and rock faces? Have you consulted with the
National Park Authorities and DEFRA?
Q33. Are other specific measurements in this schedule
necessary or appropriate?
Not applicable.
Schedule 3, Part 2 - Scaffolding
Q34. What would be the impact of having specific requirements for
scaffolds?
n/a
Q35. Should we define 'scaffolding' in order to
make it clear that this is meant to be covered?
n/a
Q36. Does the Guidance explain fully enough what
is required in a scaffolding plan when a plan is necessary?
n/a
Schedule 4 - Collective Fall Protection Systems
Q37 In the requirements for 'collective safeguards for arresting
falls', do we need to include any more technical detail on these,
in the Regulations or Guidance?
n/a
Schedule 5 - Personal Fall Protection Systems
Q38. We would welcome your views on the applicability of the requirements
of Schedule 5, Parts 2 and 3 to all work positioning systems in
various industries such as outdoor activities or arboriculture.
Part 3 is inapplicable to the adventure activity industry. The
impicit doctrine in the Regulations that two ropes are the norm
is at odds with moutaineering and caving's best practice. The industrial
rope access techniques so prescribed were originally derived from
caving and climbing techniques before being adapted to suit specific
industrial applications. It is nonsensical to then insist on applying
these adapted techniques back to the original sports where they
are blatantly inappropriate. The adventure activities sector has
a good system of communication within its industry and has continually
reviewed and made improvements to best practice. It is essential
that coaches of adventure sports use the same techniques as those
that they are training otherwise the WAHR would apply to all people
participating in the sports. The alternative would make coaches
redundant and deny recreational climbers and cavers access to best
practice. One solution to this specific annex is to ensure that
it has a General Requirement sections (almost as at present) which
adventure activities already easily satify. The Special Requirements
that follow would then apply to specific industries such as industrial
rope access (which was developed from the adventure activities industry).
Q39. We have - in close consultation with industry
trade associations - considerably expanded on what the Directive
says about 'rope access'. We have done this in the interests of
accuracy and relevance. We would like to know if these sections
(Schedule 5 and the related Guidance) are accurate and comprehensible.
Should the Guidance give more examples to illustrate the systems
referred to?
Yes. The rope system described in schedule 5 part 3 does not
reflect any system used in adventure activities. If adventure activities
are to be included in the Regulations then suitable examples should
be sought.
Q40. We would welcome your views on the use of
single ropes in circumstances where use of two ropes would be more
dangerous and in particular on any other activities where the use
of single rope working may be justified under the terms of Schedule
5, Part 3 of the WAHR.
Single ropes are used everywhere in adventure activities from
alpine guides to caving instructors and from teachers introducing
young people to first ascents of the hardest rock climbs in the
world. The sector has no experience of single rope failure for anyone
at work. When an activity involves making a journey through challenging
terrain, minimising (within reason) the wight and bulk of equipment
carried and using simple but carefully deployed rope systems are
factors which make positive contributions to safey. Climbing and
caving activities can readily use this argument to justify single
rope use in many situations. The real concern is the the Regulations
insist that workers must demonstrate that a single rope is safer
than two. While in many cases this is possible there are others
where we cannot prove it. For example a climbing wall when someone
is lowered from the top of their climb, there is no limitation on
equipment and no need to do anything with great speed. HSC would
argue that we should suspend a second rope alongside every climb
and that the climber attaches him or herself to this 'safety line'
with a suitable auto-stop device and then descend. Can you imagine
the danger of a young person or novice doing this on their first
climbs? In addition, climbing walls would then not allow climbers
to practice the techiques are normal in the outdoors, thus diminishing
overall safety. There is no evidence of rope failure in such circumstances
(due to the tight records on rope use and replacement policies).
This application of a prescribed safety management system undermines
the essential advice dynamic risk management that outdoor workers
have practised for many years.
Schedule 6 - Ladders
Q41. Have we struck the right balance between deterring inappropriate
use of ladders, and accepting their practicalities and the fact
that they are commonly used in a wide variety of situations?
Not used.
Q42. Regarding the Guidance, should we say more
about when it is appropriate to use, and the usefulness of, ladder
stabilisation and ladder slip devices?
n/a
Q43. Is Schedule 6 of the regulations appropriate
fro all types of ladders, including stepladders and fixed ladders?
n/a
Q44. Are the requirements for rest platforms on
portable and fixed ladders still appropriate?
n/a
Q45. Please make any other comments in the space
provided. These could be about the Regulations, Guidance, Directive
or the Regulatory Impact Assessment. If you make any comments please
make it explicit what you are referring to.
It is noted that in annex C no Regulatory Impact Assessment has
been carried out with regard to our Industry and in particular Small
Businesses
The Regulations will imperil the safety of climbers and cavers and
do nothing to improve the safety record of the adventure activities
industry. They will threaten the dissimination of best practice
amongst millions of cavers, climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers.
They will also reduce the opportunities for development available
to young people. Adventure activites make a significant contribution
to society, its health and well-being and to the personal and social
development of young people. Their contribution to the rural economy
and workforce is more important than farming and other industries.
The Government through HSC should recognise this. A reduction in
service provision will do little to encourage the healthy active
participation of the general public with a further possible increase
in obesity and decline in tourism in rural areas. They will pose
an unnecesary risk to a relatively safe industry that does not need
further regulation. HSC have recognised the safety record of our
sector and observed that the issue is one of public perception and
the flawed assumption that adventure activties are dangerous. Underming
the best practice of of the indusry with inappropriate Regulations
will only increase the likelihood of an accident. We believe in
the management, rather than removal of risk and do not feel that
the current Regulations reflect this view. Adventure activities
should be granted exemption from the Regulations because of the
inappropriate origins of the Directive, rather than because of a
desire to evade government control (which we already have)or unease
about adopting alternative working practices. Furthermore we develop
best practice through close cooperation across the UK and with reference
to colleagues in Europe and the rest of the world. the Adventure
Activities industry could only consider accepting such regulation
if they explicitly endorsed the current best practice of the sector
and enabled this excellent workforce to continue in its acknowledged
role.