Follow the existing guidance

The existing guidance has grown out of the lessons learned from previous tragedies. The DfES and AALA websites are perhaps the most useful. It is likely that the chain of events that led to the Glenridding tragedy would have been interrupted at an early stage had the existing guidance been followed.

• Department for Education and Skills (DfES)
• Adventure Activities Licensing Authority (AALA)
• Health and Safety on Educational Excursions

Take account of the “new” lessons from the Glenridding tragedy

The investigation has helped to clarify thinking in a number of areas. It has also identified areas of good practice which are known to specialists, but deserve wider circulation. These topics are summarised below. Leaders and managers of visits should update their arrangements accordingly:

• There is better recognition of the increasing diversity of possible activities and the need for LEAs and youth organisations to have policies and procedures which cover the eventuality of groups wanting to do activities for which there are no NGB standards or qualifications
• Competence is wider than just holding of qualifications. Competence to lead a particular activity needs to be assessed by a technical expert. The fact that somebody has done an activity before does not necessarily mean that they are competent
• Identifying the correct supervision ratios is not just a matter of applying a simple numerical calculation of adults to children, but must be based on risk assessment
• Generic and site-specific risk assessments should identify “cut-off” points to inform dynamic risk assessments
• There is a need for policies and procedures in respect of leaders and helpers wanting to bring additional children. If these allow people to bring extra children, they need to make clear that the implications must be subject to risk assessment
• Leaders and others should never create unrealistic expectations
• The need for a “Plan B” to provide alternative activities of educational value if the main objective cannot be delivered
• The need to cover, in risk assessments, the foreseeability of the “panicking swimmer” and to provide the necessary precautions
• The value of high levels of participant involvement in decision-making to ensure that risks and control measures are properly discussed and participants learn to be “risk aware” rather than “risk-averse”
• The importance of managers providing clear monitoring arrangements for both administrative procedures and activities in the field.

What about "lower risk" visits?

One of the main lessons we want you to learn from this site is how to ask the right questions and to adopt controls that are proportionate to the risk for any visits that you may be involved in.

The majority of visits probably involve lesser hazards than the outdoor adventurous activity described here. Adopting a sensible approach to health and safety means recognising that no "one size fits all" for visits. Whatever the visit you are involved with, the principles of control outlined in this report will be relevant. These include use of guidance, risk assessment, participant involvement, parental consent, formal approval, leader competence and appropriate supervision. The risk assessment should indicate the appropriate levels of control. Excessively bureaucratic systems for low-risk visits can rapidly undermine respect for the control mechanisms.

What do I do now?

If nothing else, please make sure you ask the 10 vital questions about any proposed visits, including supposedly "low-risk" ones.
However, we hope that you will also look at:

• Conclusions and Recommendations
• Key Points
• Investigation Report

Please take the opportunity to use the Investigation Report as a case-study for training or as a reference for evaluating your procedures.