As often I am slightly late to this party but I’ll add my contribution anyway. Exploring the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) site leads you to some interesting places.
My reading of the advice is that everyone carries some element of responsibility for others if they organise any sort of event. As volunteers, while we may not be criminally responsible, nothing stops an individual affected in any negative way by activities we have organised suing us individually for damages!!! The decider will be the evidence that we can produce to prove that we have taken all reasonable steps to ensure safe delivery. I suggest that provided we complete all the mandatory RAFAC (paperwork) procedures and then monitor and control activities correctly, we should be safe.
But that is only my opinion.
As of Sep 17 , the Army Cadets and the ATC were deemed to be inside the MOD fold while the CCF and the Sea Cadets outside. Given our change of status, I wonder what the current position is?
My view is that and it would therefore be more than useful for HQAC to issue clarification given the change in status of some uniformed volunteers. It must include all involved with the RAFAC from OC Wgs to CIs and Regional Chairman to Squadron Committee members.
I’m not really sire they know and equally if it meant a loosening of control they wouldn’t say, preferring to keep the status quo for their own reasons. I would suggest we’d still be considered MOD, based on the recent BPSS rubbish.
I get that bit and want to keep everyone safe, my point is If what I say and recommend is not binding to anyone as I have no authority but someone else who does Jane the authority to implement it and is legally required to do it
Then why am I doing it?
We are told we need to have a RA done for entry to the unit for contractors but if they injure themselves on the unit whilst following my RA am I in trouble or is it someone else as it was their responsibility??
Everyone has a responsibility for keeping people safe and every sensible person would do things to keep everyone safe.
My question is around the paperwork burden and legal responsibility that is placed on Commanding Officers, who are now classified totally as volunteers, when there is a employed section of RAFAC and RFCA that could take on these responsibilities.
All your points are well made. What is required is clarity and I would suggest that HQAC need to engage with the H&S Executive either directly, through the RAF legal experts, or perhaps pan-MOD via the Directorate of Reserve Forces and Cadets to clarify 2 straight forward questions:
(1) Given the new status of all our adult volunteers, when they organise and supervise events on our behalf will they be held personally accountable under the civil or criminal law.
(2) Please review our current H&S processes and confirm that they are over prescriptive (details and volume), meet the requirement or are inadequate. ( This would also clarify the " who should fill this in" question).
In my view, without this clarity Comdt RAF Air Cadets leaves herself ( and all of us) exposed.
If , however, they have already carried out this exercise then please let everyone know!!!
You pose two interesting questions but will they be answered or will they be put into the too hard box and a ‘carry on chaps and chapess’s’ attitude prevail.
The only way to force the issue is to ask the question next time an RA is required.
As the new RAFAC/CFC has come to pass which has removed all uniformed CFAV from under the auspices of military law and the requirements and obligations of such, you are now only responsible under civil law. Therefore there is a change.
Nothing has changed, if someone gets killed or seriously injured through negligence or incompetence then they still do run the risk of serving time at her majesties pleasure. The police and/or the courts wont care less whether you have a VRT commission, a Cadet Forces one or are just Joe Bloggs on the street.
All that happens now is that the MOD/RAF/Army Police will call the civi police to come and take you away. Which from a few incidences i know about happened anyway when VRT commissions were still about.
We cant hide under the banner that we are just volunteers and cant therefore be held accountable, that has never stood up in court.
(1). I suggest that if those responsible for RAFAC Policy put this one in the too difficult box then the first time an incident occurs that exposes the H&S structure and processes as incorrect things will hit the fan that will made the glider story look like small beer.
Intruder,
(2). You may well be right but knowing whether our actions (or inactions) will be ruled on under the civil or criminal law needs clarification for all. If we are responsible under the H&S legislation then we appear to be liable under criminal law with all that implies. If we are individually liable under civil law and are sued as an individual ( and loose) will any compensation come out of our own pockets?
As previously stated this needs a formal review by the H&SE not an internal HQAC, RAF or MOD opinion. Opinions are often tested in the courtroom and are often proved to be wrong!!
And for that are individuals covered under MoD (RAFAC) insurance or would CFAVs require personal indemnity insurance, if so yet another cost to the individual not the organisation.
The HSE operate under criminal law whereas if an individual CFAV is sued by parents/guardians for any incident then that would be under civil law.
Health and safety legislation does not, in general, impose duties upon someone who is not an employer, self-employed or an employee.
HSE and local authority health and safety officers have no power to investigate incidents or pursue enforcement action in relation to most purely voluntary activities (subject to limited exceptions such as where a volunteer is in control of non-domestic premises).
So therefore to comply wirh the HSaW Act should it be an employed member of the RAFAC who should write all the individual squadrons RAs for anything and everything? Should an incident occur, who writes the RIDDOR assesment ?
Is a Squadron OC in control of a premisis or the RAFAC but if so what training is given in relation to this?
Surely the whole point of the Regional Commandants being the DDH is that they already carry the risk?
The Organisation then employs Regional Safety Advisors who work directly for the DDH (via the ARC) who go out and check on things like Rosk Assessments and the safety of units.
Volunteers write risk assessments and undertake routine checks as well as requesting repairs as they are local and there are policies in place as well as Risk Assessor Training for those who want it. (Which is written into the promotion matrix to increase uptake).
At the end of it all of it all goes bandy it will be the Regional Commandants and the Organisation who are prosecuted under H&S law.
If you look at the number of times Police forces have been prosecuted under H&S it’s always the Chief Constable who ends up as the one named responsible, not the person who ran the activity or the one who wrote the risk assessment.
The CC is takening responsibility for his/her employee’s and their delegated duty but as volunteers are not employee’s what then?
Members of sports clubs are encouraged to take out personal indemnity insurance or it is within their membership of said organisation, such as British Gymnatics the event of accident or incident.
All who have expressed opinions on this thread as to which post or individual holds the legal responsibility for H&S may well be right…or we could all be wrong.
At my first post on this subject (21) there is a link to an HSE web page (dated Sep 17) which states that the Army Cadet Force and the ATC were within the MOD fold (and their responsibility under H&S legislation) but that the CCF (which I assume includes the RAF and Army sections) and the Sea Cadets are outside the MOD’s H&S reach. For CCFs I can see the logic as staff are employed by schools (although CIs appear to be part time paid by the MOD) but the Sea Cadets are a volunteer organisation.
As we are all now volunteers outside military law and the new commissioning arrangements were introduced to create a level playing field. am just interested to find out if the HSE have revised their position and what implications (if any) here are for all who support the cadet organisations.
Perhaps I’ll drop them a line and ask them directly .
Wouldn’t the H&S responsibility for CCF be through the school, given that CCF is effectively voluntary in name only. The people I know with child relations at schools with CCF, they are told they have to do something and some teachers are employed to take on CCF roles and other expected to do something like the kids, which isn’t really volunteering.
I don’t want to presume but I think that you may have misunderstood the point behind the question I originally posed. Of course what you say above is correct. Anyone can be prosecuted for failing a duty of care and rank, membership of an organisation or employment status are totally irrelevant in the situation you describe.
SNCOs were rarely solely responsible for buildings. I know some of them were OC’s but that should have been temporary arrangements. VRT Officers had the protection of being part of the Military and their vicarious liability structure!
As mentioned in other posts, heads of organisations usually hold vicarious liability for their employees, who holds it for us? Especially as bob states that some clubs encourage their volunteer staff to take out insurance to cover themselves!!
If I am wrong in my misgivings, then could someone please signpost me to the RAFAC policy where the new staff status is considered when looking at our obligations as responsible persons under the H&S Act?
I suspect that you are over thinking this, yes you do monthly checks and write the risk assessments but you aren’t actually the person responsible from a legal standpoint as you aren’t an employee. The responsible person is the Group Captain who is the DDH, (he is after all employed and you are not) hence why ours send you a nice email if you get a Gold astar for Health and Safety.