Health and Safety Policy and Practice - Competency

Health and Safety Policy and Practice

BSc (Hons) Health and Environment

Arguably, the concept of ‘competence’ is embedded in all Health and Safety Statute and associated guidance. However, presently, there is no formal definition of this concept and the onus is placed on the relevant duty holder to define competence against the Health and Safety issues and activities managed in their organisations. Consequently, define and discuss the aspect of ‘competence’ within the Health and Safety arena, using examples and case studies as appropriate to support your submission.

Contents

Introduction Page 3

The history of health and safety Page 3

Robens report Page 4

The role of the European Union Page 6

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 Page 6

Safe systems of Work - Figure 1 Page 8

Case law and competency Page 9

External accreditation Page 9

Competency within the health and safety arena Page 10

Factors affecting competency Page 10

Promoting a positive safety culture – Figure 2 Page 13

Conclusion Page 14

Appendix Page 15

Bibliography Page 22

References Page 24

Introduction

The aim of this report is to appreciate the diverse issues associating the link between Health and Safety, and organisations that manage this, in essence, effectively controlling risks and harm that could occur to individuals within the work place. The report will also consider competency, within the Health and Safety arena, and examine factors that may influence its efficacy. The concept of competence is inferred throughout current health and safety legislation; however, this is of a non-specific comportment, furthermore, the term ‘incompetent’ is more widely recognised, however when researching the definition of competent or competency the precincts are less easily defined.

Every person who works needs some level of competence, conversely, as to how much is required, is dependant on their role and responsibility within an organisation. However, there are limits to the performance that an organisation can achieve, without addressing the contributions that human factors have to play in eliminating occupational accidents and ill health.

The history of health and safety

Historically, health and safety laws in the United Kingdom (UK), for example, The Factories Act 1961, and The Offices, Shops and Railways Premises Act 1963, were applied to specific operations, and were designed prescriptively to correct acknowledged wrongs. (Ridley and Channing, 2008: 42) Health and safety legislation traditionally developed a section at a time, and each section covered an exacting class of person and was not of a consistent manner. (Ridley and Channing, 2008: 42) Legislation only applied to those workers who were on site, thus if the job required working away from their designated area, as a contractor, there was no legislation in place to cover these employees. Separate legislation with variations and methods of enforcement would apply to a factory, an office, a mine, or a quarry. There was indubitably a need for change within the legislation in order to offer protection to employees.

In May 1970, Labour Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, Barbara Castle, appointed a Committee of Inquiry to undertake a wide-ranging review of health and safety within the UK. Lord Robens chaired the committee and its remit was to examine critically ‘the provision made for the health and safety of persons in the course of their employment,’ furthermore to consider whether changes were needed and, if so, of what type. Three main factors prompted this enquiry:

There had not been a comprehensive review of health and safety as a whole. (Hutter, 2004: 21)
There were disturbing levels of accident and disease at work, which were felt to be in need of scrutiny. (Hutter, 2004: 21)
The ‘traditional regulatory approach’ that is, an approach based on an extensive system of detailed statutory provisions administered and enforced by government departments and local authorities, was considered to be in need of examination. (Hutter, 2004: 22)

The main criticism levelled by the committee was that administrative jurisdictions were fragmented; there were too many incongruent agencies responsible to government departments, enforcing excessive legislation. It was proposed that a more integrated system needed to be created ‘to increase the effectiveness of the state’s contribution to safety and health at work’. Moreover, it was argued that ‘[r]eform should be aimed at creating the conditions for more effective self regulation by employers and employees jointly’ (Hutter, 2004: 22). The intentions being to make those involved understand that health and safety matters are their own concerns and not just the remit of external agencies. In essence, Health and Safety was moving forward from a regulatory process to a self-regulating process.

The recommendations of the Robens Committee subsequently led to the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Act (HASWA) 1974, which is the principal enabling legislation for the UK; it imposes duties on employers, employees, and manufactures. Training is specifically mentioned within section 2 (2) HASWA 1974 and states that

This is a preview of the whole essay

‘ In addition to other requirements it is the employers duty to ensure the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees.’ (Tolley’s, 2009: 1467) This does not place a duty on an employer to provide training, however, it recognises that having carried out generic and specific risk assessments of the working area; an employer may well believe that training would be an effective measure of control of skills, knowledge, and competency.

Competence is not specifically identified within HASWA 1974 with exception to an allusion in section 19 (1) which refers to the appointment of inspectors of health and safety. This relates to ‘such person having suitable qualifications as it thinks necessary for carrying into effect the relevant statutory provisions within its field of responsibility’ (Tolley’s, 2009: 1466).

The Role of the European Union

Since 1988, the approach adopted to regulate health and safety at work has been via the ratification of the framework directive (89/391/EEC), which introduced measures to improve the safety and health of workers. Under this framework directive, several daughter directives have been adopted. The daughter directives are of fundamental significance within the UK as they have led to the development of a multiplicity of regulations referred to as the ‘six pack’, or the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (MHSWR) 1992 these being:

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992
The Work Place (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
The Provision and use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992
Manual Handling Operation Regulations 1992
The Health and Safety (Display screen equipment) 1992
The use of Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 1992

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (MHSWR) 1992

The underlying principle behind the MHSWR is the need to carry out risk assessments. The requirements for training are given in Regulation 11 and are based around situations where new or increased risks are likely to occur. These can include:

Recruitment
Transfer or on taking up new responsibilities
The introduction of new technology
The introduction of new or changed systems of work

The need for programmes of training and development go beyond induction training. Regulation 11 (3) (c) specifies that training must be:

Repeated periodically.
Adapted to take account of any new or changed risks.
Take place during working hours.

The author would suggest that there are many instances where individuals receive comprehensive training at the induction stage however, it can be argued that there is limited, or no provision for updating training, this regulation addresses this issue.

A safe system of work (SSW) is paramount for the prevention of ill health and accidents within the work place. The implementations of safe systems at work are often the outcome of risk assessments. (Stranks, 2005: 46). Essentially a SSW is written down, and chronologically lists the methods of performing a particular job, in such a way to avoid or minimise risk within the work place. A SSW is shown in Figure 1. The key elements of a safe system of work are:

Adequate plant and equipment are available, the right tools for the job, and that the plant is designed for safe access and isolation.
Competent staff who are appropriately trained and experienced in the work that they do, instructed clearly in the work to be done, and provided with the necessary information on substances and the safe use of equipment.
There is appropriate supervision, that the work is monitored, audited, and that the safe system of work is adhered to.

Case Law and competency

The components of a safe system of work comprise of case law and statute law, the need for a safe system of work can be traced back to 1905 when Lord McLaren in: Bett v Dalmey Oil Company (1905) 7F (Ct of Sess) 787 judged that: the obligation is threefold: the provision of a competent staff of men, adequate material, and a proper system and effective supervision. In 1938 the common law duty of care was highlighted in the case of Wilsons and Clyde Coal Company Limited v English (1938 AC 57) where Lord Wright said that: the whole course of authority consistently recognises a duty which rests on the employer, and which is personal to the employer, to take reasonable care for the safety of his workmen, whether the employer be an individual, a firm or a company, and whether or not the employer takes any share in the conduct of the operations. This duty of care implies the need for a SSW and that the delegation does not remove the employer’s duty to provide a SSW.

External accreditation

It could be questioned as to whether competence schemes should be externally accredited, giving the scheme a recognised mark of approval with the implied confidence that this gives to the public, customers and regulators. However, the risk is that the accreditation authority may well concentrate more on the administrative procedures rather than achieving effective competence and that the responsibility for ensuring competence may become distorted. It is a controversial point as to how much liability would be taken on by a third party in the event of an accident.

Competence within the Health and Safety arena

Competence plays an exceptionally important role in controlling health and safety risks. Risk control systems rely on a multifaceted mix of:

Hardware, for example automatic guards and cut offs on machinery.
Software, for example planned maintenance, competent employees, adequate supervision, safety rules, training and information.
Human factors, for example safety culture.
Safety management systems.

The role of people in controlling is central to present guidance, whilst this is important in normal situations, it is essential in abnormal and emergency situations. The Hazard Forum Guidelines (2007) state that for a person to be competent, they require ‘qualifications, experience, and qualities appropriate to their duties’ these include:

Training as would ensure acquisition of the necessary knowledge of the field for the tasks that they are required to perform.
Knowledge and understanding of the working practices used within the organisation for which they work.
Adequate knowledge of the hazards and failures of the equipment for which they are responsible.
Has the ability to communicate effectively with their peers, and with any staff member who is working under their supervision, and with their supervisors.

In addition, the HSE states that, ‘for a person to be competent, they need qualifications, experience, and qualities appropriate to their duties.’ (HSE, 2007) In essence, competence can only be determined by assessing the individual against the activities being managed, thus it is something that employers can only do within their organisations. However, for certain industries, there are more specific prerequisite of competency, for example within the health and safety of electricity, Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. (Table 1, Appendix: 16)

Electricity has become fundamental to our way of life, however, treated with complacency it can result in serious injury or even death. Although the numbers of accidents at work involving electricity are small by comparison with the total for all causes (less than 0.5 per cent) (Tolley’s, 2009: 413). Arguably, (author, 2009) using accident data as a primary measure of performance can highlight inadequacies, for example, failure and not success is being measured, there maybe under reporting of accidents, evidence of previous failures may not predict future ones, and there are limitations in high consequence, low probability situations.

Factors affecting competency

In industry, if all employees are to make a maximum contribution to health and safety there must be appropriate arrangements in place to ensure that they are competent. In addition to training, employees will require to gain experience of being able to apply skills and knowledge gained under sufficient supervision. (HSG65: 26). Human error and safety culture are one of the largest causes of accidents within the health and safety arena, (HSE, 2007) the following are some factors which can affect this:

Lack of training and experience
Skills and knowledge
Personality and attitudes to work and management
Existing culture within the work place
Time pressures inflicted by management
Work loads and competing interests

Worker Complacency

Concurrent with the increase of regulations came worker complacency, an example of this within the mining industry ‘never before had mine workers ‘enjoyed’ such high levels of safety protection’, increased numbers of high visibility systems and new technology. Nevertheless, the negative effect of this situation highlighted that despite these measures being put into place there was still capacity for complacency. Indeed it could be argued that increasing over confidence and complacency brought about incompetence within the work place.

Promoting a positive health and safety culture

Communication

Control Framework

Figure 2 Source: Harrison, T. Paddock, P. Lecture presentation (2008)

Conclusion

In conclusion, risks do not take care of themselves; they have to be managed with effective management systems. From the research undertaken for this report, it would appear that competence is often open to neglect and criticism, and there are numerous definitions presented on competency, ultimately may lead to confusion and misinterpretation of competency and the law. Furthermore, it may well lead to the position where employers believe that they have the appropriate competent advice although they may in fact be exposing themselves to both criminal and civil actions should there be an accident. Conversely, it can be suggested that competency cannot be argued, the risk of significant or serious injury, whether to an employee, contractor, or customer has to be pivotal, therefore if employees and employers adhere to legislation, the risks involved at work will be minimised.

Word Count - 2096

Appendix

Competence within Health and Safety legislation Table 1 Page 16

Competent stages for an individual Figure 3 Page 18

Human failure and accidents Table 2 Page 19

Scaffolding collapse in Cardiff Figure 4 Page 20

Competence within health and safety legislation

Competence is not in general defined in law except in the examples shown below; therefore, the onus is on the employer or duty holder to decide who is sufficiently competent to perform particular duties (Stranks, 2005: 149). The following pieces of health and safety legislation relate to the competence or the appointment of a competent person.

Table 1 - Competence within health and safety legislation

Source: Stranks, 2005/2006 and Penn 2005

These regulations are further supported by an Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) which has been produced by the Health and Safety Executive.

Human failure and accidents

Table 2 - Some illustrative major accidents due to human failure

Source: Reducing Error, Influencing behaviour (HSG48)

Figure 4 - Scaffolding collapse, Cardiff.

Source: HSE (2007)

Two building companies were fined a total of £320 000 after twelve storeys of scaffolding partially collapsed onto a road and railway in Cardiff. Nobody was hurt as the incident occurred late at night. The collapse, which happened in December 2000, caused major disruption as the road and railway were closed for five days. An HSE investigation identified a catalogue of errors, which contributed to the collapse:

The scaffold design was defective in certain areas. In particular, the design drawing for the scaffolders did not provide adequate information on the number, location, and make-up of the ties.
A decision was taken at site level by the contracts manager and scaffolder to change the design, without checking with the designer. This was because the design drawing supplied was poorly prepared and ambiguous.
Ninety-one anchor ties were installed, rather than the required 300. There were no drilled fixings in the topmost six meters of the scaffolding.
The principal contractor did not carry out checks on either the design of the scaffolding or the adequacy of the installation. A scaffolding register was not completed, nor was there a system for carrying out weekly inspections of the scaffolding. The number of ties installed was not checked at hand-over, nor had any been tested.
HSE inspector who led the investigation, said: ‘This is the worst scaffold collapse I have investigated. It is only a matter of good fortune that nobody was injured. Had the incident happened during the daytime, the consequences could have been catastrophic.’
Since the incident, the principal contractor has re trained over forty engineers in the competency of scaffold inspection, and the scaffolding contractor has carried out a company wide retraining programme.

On reflection, there are areas which can be criticised where human competency, coupled with a lack of knowledge, taking shortcuts and cutting costs, maybe responsible for the delude of this accident.

Bibliography

Bohne, E. (2006), The Quest for Environmental Regulatory Integration in the European Union: IPPC, EIA, and Major Accident Prevention (Comparative Environmental Law and Policy) (Comparative Environmental Law and Policy), Kluwer Law International.

Building student safety habits: Barriers and recommendations, (2003), Chemical Health and Safety, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 10.

Clay, H. (1999), Clay's handbook of environmental health, E and FN Spon, London, United Kingdom.

Codes of Professional Responsibility 2nd Ed. (1991), Ethics and Behaviour, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 203.

Concepts of competence, (1998), Journal of Inter professional Care, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 127.

Defining and Assessing Professional Competence, (2002), JAMA the Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 287, no. 2, pp. 226.

Eraut, M.R. (1994), Developing professional knowledge, and competence, Falmer Press, London .

Garton, M. (1997), Health and Safety Enforcement, Chadwick House Group Ltd.

General Issues about Assessment of Competence, (1994), Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 3.

Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety, (2007), Wiley-AIChE.

Human factors in large-scale technological systems' accidents: Three Mile Island, Bhopal, Chernobyl, (1991), Organisation and Environment, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 133.

Integrating training systems for occupational health and safety, quality and environmental management. (1999), Quality Assurance Good Practice Regulation and Law, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 127.

Karwowski, W. (2006), International Encyclopaedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors, Second Edition - 3 Volume Set, CRC.

Knief, R.A. (1991), Risk Management: Expanding Horizons in Nuclear Power and Other Industries, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

Major hazards onshore and offshore, (1992), Rugby, United Kingdom : Institution of Chemical Engineers.

Mény, Y., Muller, P. and Quermonne, J. (1996), adjusting to Europe: the impact of the European Union on national institutions and policies, Routledge, London .

Moran, T. (1997), Legal competence in environmental health, E and FN Spon, London .

Penn, C.N. (2005), Local Authority Health and Safety Enforcement. London, United Kingdom.

Policy issues on the control of major accident hazards and the new Seveso II directive", (1999), Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 65, no. 1-2, pp. 1.

Railways (Safety Case) Regulations (2000) Including 2001 and 2003 Amendments: Guidance on Regulations (Legal), Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

Risk management: role of social factors in major industrial accidents, (1998), Safety Science, vol. 30, no. 1-2, pp. 173.

Safety culture enhancement and safety leadership, (2007) , pp. 70.

Stranks, J.W. (2003), a Manager's Guide to Health and Safety at Work, Kogan Page Ltd.

Sullivan, T. J. and Frank, J. (2003), Preventing and managing disabling injury at work, Taylor and Francis, London, United Kingdom.

Waring, A.J. (1996), Safety management systems, Chapman and Hall, London, United Kingdom.

Wilpert, B. and Qvale, T. (1993), Reliability and safety in hazardous work systems: approaches to analysis and design, Hove : Lawrence Elbaum, c1993.

Working Safe: How to Help People Actively Care for Health and Safety, Second Edition, 2001, CRC Press.

References

Bamber, L., Banfield, P., Barber, D., Barrowcliffe, R., Bateman, M. and Beaver, G., (2009), "Case law competency" in Tolley's Health and Safety at Work 2009, First ed. LexisNexis, First edn, LexisNexis;, London, United Kingdom., pp. 1432-1438.

Bamber, L., Banfield, P., Barber, D., Barrowcliffe, R., Bateman, M. and Beaver, G., (2009), "Health and Safety at work act 1974" in Tolley's Health and Safety at Work Handbook 2009
, ed. LexisNexis, First edn, LexisNexis;, London, United Kingdom., pp. 1467-1469.

Bamber, L., Banfield, P., Barber, D., Barrowcliffe, R., Bateman, M. and Beaver, G., (2009), "The management of health and safety regulations 1992" in Tolley's Health and Safety at work handbook 2009, ed. LexisNexis, First edn, LexisNexis;, London, United Kingdom., pp. 1423-1429.

Bamber, L., Banfield, P., Barber, D., Bateman, M. and Beaver, G., (2009), "Electricity within the working environment" in Tolley's Health and Safety at Work Handbook 2009, ed. LexisNexis, First edn, LexisNexis;, London, United Kingdom., pp. 413-415.

Bamber, L., Banfield, P., Barrowcliffe, R., Bateman, M., Beaver, G., (2009), "Competence" in Tolley's Health and Safety at Work Handbook (2009), ed. LexisNexis, First edn, LexisNexis;, London, United Kingdom., pp. 1466-1467 and pp. 413-418.

Bamber, L., Barber, D., Barrowcliffe, R., Bentley, R. and Bateman, M. (2009), "the structure of UK health and safety law" in Tolley's Health and Safety at Work Handbook, 2009, ed. LexisNexis, first edn, LexisNexis, London, United Kingdom., pp. 11-21.

Banfield, P., Jennigs, P., and Beaver, G., (1996), "Competence based training for small firms - an expensive failure?", Long Range Planning, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 94-102.

Bassettt, W.H. (2009), "Health and Safety at work Act with associated regulations" in Environmental Health Procedures, Seventh edn, Clay's Library of Health and Environment, London, United Kingdom., pp. 250-288.

Channing, J. and Ridley, J. (2008), "Criminal and Civil Law" in Safety at Work, ed. Elesevier, Seventh edn, Butter Heinmann, London, United Kingdom., pp. 4-6 and pp. 42.

Competency-based on-the-job training for aviation maintenance and inspection – a human factors approach, (2000), International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 249.

Cooper, M. (1998), "Journal of European Industrial training", JEI, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 254-361.

Elliot, A. and Dweck, C. (2008), Handbook of competence and motivation, First edn, The Guilford Press, London, United Kingdom.

Harrison, T. and Paddock, P. (2008), Promoting a positive health and safety culture, First edn, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, United Kingdom.

Health and Safety Executive (2006), Successful health and safety managment, Thirteen edn, HSE HSG68 London, United Kingdom.

Health and Safety Executive (2007), Competence, HSE, London, United Kingdom.

Health and Safety Executive (2007), Reducing Error and influencing behaviour, Sixth edn, HSE HSG48, London, United Kingdom.

Hopkins, A., (1999), "For whom does safety pay? The case of major accidents", Safety Science, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 143-153.

Hutter, B. (2004), "The Health and Safety Executive" in Compliance, Regulation and Environment, ed. K. Hawkins, Third edn, Clarendon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, pp. 20-25.

Maguire, R. (2006), Safety cases and safety reports: Meaning, motivation and management, Third edn, MPG Books, Bodmin, Cornwall, United Kingdom.

Pitzer, C.J. (2004), "Ergonomics within industry ", no. 3, pp. 258-272.

Ridley, J. and Channing, J. (2008), "Competency" in Safety at Work, Seventh edn, Elsevier, London, United Kingdom., pp. 68-69.

Stranks, J. (2005), Health and Safety Law, Fifth edn, Pearson Prentice Hall, Harlow, United Kingdom.