Hi Folks,
A report which I feel needs to go out is included in the text of this email for your comment before it is circulated and included in the members area of the website.
The Scottish Adventure Activities Working Group met on the 16th April to discuss the 'Options Doc' which I circulated to everyone some time ago.
After a brief introduction the working group was split into two groups and tasked to report back on the preference of our respective constituents and our group opinion.
I did my best to express the view that a modified Option 2 would be the most appealing option to SAPOE which was the response I had from our membership prior to attending the meeting. I have no problem endorsing that position.
It was clear from the debrief after the first session that SG had a preference for Option 1 despite the robust comments made by our group.
The second session focused on the definition of 'Adventure Activity' and the content of the Extended List of activities which would be required to bring the current licensing regime up to date.
During the second session Clare McNicholas (HSE) informed our group that in fact SG were really restricted to doing this form of revision because to change Licensing radically would involve more than a simple revision of the Act which is all that SG is empowered to do under devolution. (However she did go on to explain there is some latitude and it would seem that it might be possible to implement Licensing in a way more akin to the NZ model under the current legislation).
I need to declare my deep disappointment regarding this outcome. I feel that to a certain extent this was not really explained to us as a group and I sent you all a paper with options which could not be implemented under the current legislation. I feel that it would be wrong to say that SG were disingenuous but I don't think the 3 Options were ever on.
Also,
The Scottish Public perception of Licensing is that it covers everything not just a handful of activities.
It is my commitment to try and make that 'perception' a reality for the Scottish Public.
My feeling is that Option 2 - a more generic approach is correct but if it is to be most effective it needs to focus on the statistically know 'dangerous' activities. It is also extremely important to adopt a method of looking at the culture of safety of the provider across its service delivery not a specific list which could by definition ignore glaring risk in provision because some element is not in scope.
The other by product of this approach is a driving up of standards in quality overall as a result of looking at the whole rather than in part.
This unacceptable position was and is a problem for me and I articulated my disappointment to Derek Grieve (Chair of SAAWG) the next day. He has since responded and has conceded that he understands my concerns and has agreed to meet with me to discuss the matter further if I feel this might help.
I also challenged him regarding the iniquitous position we are in regarding funding from SG.
As things stand the activities of SAAF are currently financially supported by SG. I have approached SG to try and gain equity for SAPOE. Derek has acknowledged this issue and has promised to raise the matter internally.
We shall need to wait and see; however after all the good work we have done around 'Going Out There' it would disappoint me greatly if we do not gain some success for my persistence.
This note is intended to keep Panel Members informed I will distribute the formal minute in due course. Some members of the Group have declared that the view they are expressing is their personal one (disassociating themselves with that of their constituents). I have declared my position as that of SAPOE's and will continue to adopt that approach.
I hope this helps inform on the debate I would welcome comment on this important matter.
Best,
Nigel