Posted By Kenneth Patrick
Does the H&S at Work act apply to voluntary organisations like the scouts with section 2.1 for the leaders and 3.1 for the those taking part in the activities. If so was it always the case since 1974 or did it kick in later?

Posted By Raymond Rapp
Should have added that s2(1) and s3(1) applies to the organisation, but boy scouts themselves would not be considered as workers, only those adults supervising.

Posted By Jack
With regard to the question in the original post, I think the following should not be ignored when considering the link in the post above to the HSE website:


- “Where any organisation has at least one paid employee, it is considered to be an 'employer' for the purposes of the HSW Act and the regulations made under it.”


Of course, when considering standards of h&s in organisations where there is no employer/employee relationship then the following is also relevant.


- “HSE considers it good practice for a volunteer user to provide the same level of health and safety protection as they would in an employer/employee relationship, irrespective of whether there are strict legal duties.”

Posted By SteveD-M
As a assistant Explorer Scout leader..

In a Group environment, section leaders have responsibilities for the activities
they are leading or supervising. They of course, report to the Group Scout Leader. The GSL therefore has responsibilities for safety along with the executive committees.

This has always been the case in most areas.

Posted By Nick Patience
If the voluntary organisation has an employee, then the HSWA applies. In the case of Scouts (btw they stopped being 'Boy' Scouts in 1966)both the unpaid volunteer leaders and the Scouts themselves would be owed a duty under Section 3.
Another voluntary organisation that has full time employees - the St John Ambulance - was prosecuted under HSW Section 3 for a fatal accident during training. They were fined £75,000 + £35,000 costs. On a training day, two boats collided throwing a volunteer into the water where he died. The accident was in 1998 and the prosecution in 2003.
The HSWA has always applied to all employers but this was - I think - the first prosecution of a charity/voluntary organisation.

Posted By Jack
As I said, I think Section 3 will apply to both.

Posted By Roderick Glen
As previous replies have said, it is the leader in charge of an activity whose is responsible for making sure the activity is conducted safely with the Group Scout Leader having overall responsibility.
I would advise you to check both POR (Policy, Organisation & Rules) and the available activity factsheets produced by the Scout Association to ensure that you comply with them. The guidance there is pretty clear cut and easy to follow. These are readily accessible from the Scout Association's website. If you're still in doubt, phone the the helpline at Gilwell for advice.

Rod
("I'm the Group Scout Leader - get me out of here!")

Posted By Roderick Glen
No, it is required that all Scout Groups implement the Scout Association's safety policy as laid out in POR (see message previously).

Posted By DJ
The answer to the original question is not as straightforward as it might appear.

I had a case involving such a body a few years ago.

In most circumstances HSWA will apply to charities because the charity/organisation is an employer.

However, many organisations (and I believe the Scouts is one) may not be employers.

e.g. The Scouting Association is likely to be an employer and it will therefore fall within the scope of HSWA. That said, it is not the Scouting Association that trains scouts (my son being one of them). Each district and area has its own scouting body, which is an unincorporated body run totally by volunteers (therefore no employer or employees) and it is therefore not an employer. As the scout leaders are also not self-employed HSWA cannot apply.

The Local Authority in question found it all too difficult and decided not to proceed with the case and so we never got a court ruling on the matter.

Regards.

DJ

Posted By Jack
I understand (but can only find indirect evidence) that the East Sussex Scout Council was prosecuted and fined £15000 following the death of a child. Wealden District Council brought the prosecution and the court heard there were ‘multiple and continuing breaches of health a safety’.

Therefore in this case the defendant clearly was an employer. However, I agree that may not always be the case if the particular arm of the scouting organisation is not an employer.

Posted By Graham Bullough
Just to add another angle to this thread, I wonder if the Robens Committee and the newly formed HSE back in the 1970s ever really envisaged the application of the 1974 Act to voluntary organisations like the Scout Association which are almost wholly dependent on many people who give their time and effort as leaders and instructors, etc. The fact that the Scout Association has relatively few paid employees means that the 1974 Act does apply to it - with obligations under section 2 to its employees, and under section 3 to everybody else - especially its many volunteers and its 400,000 young members aged between 6 and 25 in the UK - females as well as males these days!

Even if the Association had no paid employees and therefore the 1974 Act did not apply, it has always had civil law obligations as has been pointed out already on this thread. Furthermore, considering the aims of the Scout Movement, the Association naturally has long aimed and had arrangements to try to ensure the safety and well-being of its people and anyone else who might be affected by its activities and the condition of its premises, etc.

It's over 30 years since I left what used to be known as the Venture Scouts (the oldest age group for members) so I've just had a look at the Scout Association's website. Though some of the terminology and organisational aspects have changed/evolved, it appears that the basic aims and purposes established in 1908 continue. The introduction on the website's home page explaining what Scouting is about ends with: "In Scouting, we believe that young people develop most when they are 'learning by doing,' when they are given responsibility, work in teams, take acceptable risks and think for themselves." Crikey - some may think the bit about taking "acceptable risks" is new and radical. However, in my experience and no doubt that of others, that was always a part of what Scouts were about - understanding and putting into practice sensible, practical risk assessment/management for activities and situations in life, all long before the phase "risk assessment" came into common use. I enjoyed most of my time with the Scouts and benefited considerably from it, not least as regards mountaineering activities, so perhaps I'm slightly biased about the Scout Association. Does anyone else have any comments about Scouts "taking acceptable risks"?