It is coming up to five years since the Work at Height Regulations came into force amid a storm of controversy. But have they had the desired effect in improving standards of safety? Mike Battman believes they have albeit with some retuning required.
The Work at Height Regulations have certainly raised the profile of work at height and encouraged manufacturers to develop and supply a variety of new designs of access equipment. Moreover, the decision to go beyond the requirements of the European Council Directive, concerning minimum safety and health requirements for the use of equipment for work at height, appears to have been the correct one.
It is also worth acknowledging that the Regulations have taken many old health and safety regulations relating to aspects of work at height in construction and made them pan-industry — a great example of the sector contributing to wider society.
However, the primary unintended consequence of this legislation is the tendency by some clients to misapply the Regulations and adopt excessively-cautious measures. In no way was this better illustrated than by reported cases of organisations forbidding the use of ladders and stepladders on some sites, and scaffolds being used when not necessarily required.
This, of course, provides ammunition for the many dissenting voices who are quick to highlight the absurdity of over-enthusiastic health and safety measures being enforced.
Fear of the unknown
While decisions in some cases to do away with ladders were well-intentioned, they seemed to arise out of a fear of the unknown, i.e. how the Regulations would be enforced. More specifically, this fear may have resulted from:
Work at height also requires the installation, use, and dismantling of any fall-protection system/equipment to be taken into account. This may create additional risks and therefore legitimise the use of protective means lower down the ‘hierarchy of control measures’.
For example, in the case of podium towers, there are arguably more manual-handling issues associated with moving them to where they are needed compared to, say, a stepladder. So, the ‘global risks’, and consequences of moving to an alternative system, are not always considered.
Small difficulties
It is generally considered that at the larger end of the industry, the Work at Height Regulations have forced many to take action to control and minimise the risk of serious injury and death, so there may be little scope for significant improvement in this area. However, there is anecdotal evidence that compliance with the Regulations is too often ignored at smaller construction sites.
Likewise, for smaller undertakings and smaller jobs, which may not always be a clear-cut working-at-height activity — for example, unloading wagons — the response may be more erratic, ranging from little or no compliance to excessive reaction. This may reflect a misunderstanding of what is required under the Regulations at this level and, in turn, explain why workplace accidents have failed to decline significantly as a result. For some high-level work — for example, painting soffits and windows — the HSE advises that ladders should be used in a leaning position for no more than 30 minutes. However, this is difficult to achieve at reasonable cost because of site and other practical constraints, and is therefore often ignored.
It is also noticeable that equipment selection on smaller jobs, among smaller contractors, and particularly in the maintenance sector, often appears to be done with scant regard for the hierarchy of risk management contained within the Work at Height Regulations. Indeed, there are many clients who fail to understand why working tasks that may have been carried out for many years via the use of ladders should need to be re-assessed, or why the method of work might need to change. Examples include gutter cleaning, roof repairs, etc.
This lack of understanding continues to apply a ‘brake’ to the effectiveness of the Regulations, as clients are either not prepared to reflect such changes in rates, or they accept lower rates from less-aware or unscrupulous contractors. The cost barrier is really about breaking custom and practice; there are clear efficiency savings and quality benefits to be gained, but these will not be realised unless inertia is eroded and work practices change.
Further problems and solutions
The Regulations also contain some poor terminology, typified by the use of the term ‘mobile fall prevention system’. This may have resulted from a poor understanding of industrial rope access, by those drafting the Directive’s proposals at the time. Although the Regulations attempted to resolve some of the lack of clarity, they have not been entirely successful.
Greater use of rope access should be encouraged, and the HSE should reconsider its attitude to rope-access techniques. Currently, it sticks rigidly to the hierarchy of risk-control measures, which grades rope access as a higher risk because it is individual protection rather than group protection. It would, however, be interesting to learn how many cradle accidents there have been compared with the number of accidents using abseiling techniques.
It would be difficult to suggest an exact method for how the Regulations could be simplified, or give a ‘one size fits all’ recommendation. Greater emphasis and more resource should be devoted to educating small and medium-sized organisations on the requirements of the Regulations, and to promote the message that the rules do not require a blanket ban on ladders and stepladders. Additionally, more resource needs to be given to HSE inspection teams — both in terms of staff and money — and greater policing on a more ‘practicable’ basis should be evident.
Good regulation must recognise the balance between doing the job efficiently and safely and protecting workers and others — but there is a sense that the HSE’s approach and guidance may be causing excessive caution in the industry. One possible solution, which is a common observation, is that the HSE needs to improve its communication on issues such as these.
Summary
In summary, the Work at Height Regulations, although not perfect, have made a real difference to the safety of those who work at height. However, greater publicity is needed on the sections of the legislation that some parts of the industry have had trouble understanding and have, at times, misinterpreted.
Alongside the work of many organisations, including the HSE, to disseminate best practice and reinforce the message that everyone has the right to a safe work environment, there should be a structured follow-up evaluation into the effectiveness of the Regulations. Only then will it be possible to judge whether the legislation has been truly effective.
Mike Battmann is chair of the Institution of Civil Engineers’ (ICE) health and safety panel.
The Safety Conversation with SHP (previously the Safety and Health Podcast) aims to bring you the latest news, insights and legislation updates in the form of interviews, discussions and panel debates from leading figures within the profession.
Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Google Podcasts, subscribe and join the conversation today!
