Health and Safety
Total compliance - myth or reality? PDF Print E-mail
Written by Mark Carter, 2007   

Is a healthy and safe work environment the Holy Grail of the modern world, asks Mark Carter, or is it in fact achievable? 

How can facilities managers be more proactive in meeting compliance obligations?

What are some common elements of effective health and safety management systems?

The sobering facts are that Health & Safety Executive statistics for 2006 show that two million people were suffering from an illness they believed was caused or made worse by their current or past work. 523,000 of these were new cases in the last 12 months. 212 workers were killed at work. 1,012 offences were prosecuted by HSE and 332 offences were prosecuted by local authorities. Is it possible to achieve 100 per cent compliance with health and safety objectives? Certainly the results of not achieving it can be substantial and severe.

This is most clearly demonstrated by the recent case in Barrow-in-Furness, where seven people were killed by legionella bacteria spread from a Council-run facility. While Council Architect Gillian Beckingham was unanimously acquitted of manslaughter, both she and the Council were found guilty of breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act etc.1974.

In his summing up, the judge said the failings had not only been at the lowest level of the Council, but all the way to the top in terms of its serving officers. Beckingham was personally fined £15,000, with the Council receiving a £125,000 fine plus £90,000 costs. Adding further weight to the penalties, the judge commented that a commercial organisation acting as negligently as the Council would have been fined at least £1,000,000.

Meanwhile legislation that facilities managers have to contend with continues to increase. The smoking ban in England and the WEEE Directive in July both show the growing diversity, and complexity, of the issues being covered.

Clearly, facilities managers need increasingly to be more proactive in meeting compliance obligations. But is 100 per cent compliance just a modern Holy Grail - always sought but never obtained?

It need not be. The answer does not lie in some obscure hidden code; it just requires a simple but carefully crafted and diligently run management system. Some choose to outsource this function. But legislation is quite clear that you can subcontract the function, but ultimately the responsibility still resides with you. This raises the question of how far you are willing to rely on a third party.

Understanding what you need


Many organisations already have management systems in place. Indeed, this is encouraged by the Health & Safety Executive in their guidance document HS(G)65 Successful Health and Safety Management, which identifies the need to actively manage relevant issues and also highlights the value of independent audits.

All too often, though, formal policies are not backed up by procedures and controls. One of the key principles in operation must be: active commitment and review. This turns the well-intentioned words of a policy into effective and demonstrable action.

Most good management systems include the same basic elements. In general these are:

1.    Policy
You need to have a specific policy detailing what you want to achieve, in what areas and how this will be delivered. This should be regularly reviewed to indicate how well you are performing.

2.    Responsibilities
The person on whom the statutory duty falls should appoint a person or persons to take managerial responsibility and to provide supervision for the implementation of precautions. This will range from in-house managers and maintenance teams through to totally outsourced FM providers. However, as mentioned above, in all these cases fundamental responsibility falls back on the dutyholder.

3.    Risk assessment
The risk assessment should be the foundation on which your management plan is built. It should identify where exposure can be prevented or, alternatively, where it needs to be controlled. It should be specific to your premises and include all systems and services present.

4.    Written scheme
There should be a written scheme for controlling the risk from exposure that should be implemented and properly managed. The scheme should specify measures to be taken to ensure that it remains effective. These should include all the necessary supporting information, such as:
  • Up-to-date plans showing the layout of the plant or system;
  • A full description of the correct and safe operation of the system;
  • The precautions to be taken and checks to be carried out to ensure the scheme remains effective (this should include the frequency of such checks), and the remedial actions needed if the scheme is shown not to be effective.

You should also consider in your written scheme how many of these elements are covered in sufficient detail to identify control.

5.    Implementing controls and checking, inspecting and monitoring

All involved in the process should undertake tasks against the frequency and requirements of the written scheme. They should feed back data on the system's performance. The nominated responsible person should then turn this into information on the system's condition.

6. Training
Levels of competence for assessing 'at risk' systems will vary greatly, as indeed will the systems present. It is not for the responsible person to know and be competent in all aspects. But they must clearly understand the system's management and the data being provided by the more technically competent consultants, specialists, etc.

The judge in the Barrow trial referred to Gillian Beckingham's "repeated and serious failings". However, an architect by profession, she claimed she had been given little training in health and safety. Her fine, in part, was mitigated by the lack of training and support she had received.

7.    Records
There is an absolute requirement upon the responsible person to maintain information about:

  • Person or persons responsible for conducting the risk assessment, and managing and implementing the written scheme;
  • Significant findings of the risk assessment;
  • The written scheme itself;
  • The results of any monitoring, inspection or tests carried out and their dates.

The risk assessment and written scheme information must be kept for a minimum of two years and the results of any monitoring or inspections etc. for five years.

It is imperative that the records you keep are specific to you and your organisation, as ultimately it is you that may require them. Generic documents provided by third party contractors, while being a good home for the data, are not always sufficiently detailed.

Records should also lend themselves to identifying longer-term trends in performance and whether periods exist when the system particularly struggles or regularly loses control. These times can then be targeted for extra activity.

8.    Review
Finally, a formal review process should be built in to the management programme to look, at least annually, at the overall performance of the systems and services. This review is not about what has been done to the system, but more what has been learnt from the process and can be applied to the future management. All parties involved in the control process should be involved with this review, including dutyholders and contractors.

Tailoring the solutionities


By following these steps, a long-term management approach supported by the right policies, procedures and built-in reviews will deliver an effective way to satisfy both safety and compliance needs. All buildings and companies are different and need specific management processes that reflect their uniqueness. If they are not specific, systems failings could ultimately result in serious problems. The consequences could be significant not just for the company but for specific individuals, especially those with building management responsibilities.

However, to help ensure that your management system is effective, and continues to be effective, it has to be right for your organisation. An off-the-shelf solution is only half the solution. A good management system needs to be tailored to your specific needs and requirements.

To achieve a management system that is right for you, a thorough initial review is needed. This should be tailored to your organisation and examine your current compliance with health and safety legislation - everything from COSHH to DSE to lone working. It should also include your own internal compliance issues, such as service providers and security needs.

Once complete, the review will give you the reassurance that your current system is meeting relevant legislative requirements or help you identify where your management system requires improvement.

By ensuring these basic principles are in place, tailored to suit your organisation, it is possible to achieve the goal of 100 per cent compliance. Myth or reality? The decision is often in the hands of the FM.

About the author

Mark Carter is Marketing Manager at ems, one of the UK leading experts for independent environmental workplace management consultancy. Please visit www.ems-online.co.uk/

 
< Prev