How far is reasonable, in the health and safety legal arena of school compliance?
NASPM Operations Director Stuart McGregor discusses the importance of this question with refence to the legal requirements of ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’
The health and safety executive state that schools should be sensible and proportionate when it comes to health and safety management. Hse.sensible-leadership-schools
The core standards set out in Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 is that the school (duty holder) is required to ensure the health, safety and welfare of those affected by its undertaking subject to the qualification of SFARP.
This has to be done by considering the specific circumstances identifying and eliminating hazards, and then, if this is not possible (So far as is reasonably practicable) by reducing the risks from any remaining hazards.
A number of questions then arise on the meaning of SFARP and how does the school (duty holder) know if this has been completed?
The answers to these questions are not generally provided by legislation or by the enforcing authority other than in general terms. On this basis it is generally understood that SFARP means that the school completed all that was necessary to manage the risk, generally speaking no additional actions were required to control that risk any further. As is the practice under UK law, case law has assisted with the interpretation of the Act. On this basis it is generally understood that SFARP means that efforts should continue to be made to eliminate hazards.
So how do you ensure the school is compliant with this core legal requirement? Does the school’s health and safety management system include the governance and assurance of legal compliance, specifically the Health and Safety at Work Act in ensuring the health, safety and welfare of staff and others subject to the SFARP requirements?
Being an active lead school auditor in addition to lead accident investigator I would say that there is a common theme finding that the school’s internal assurance systems and external audits often miss the in-depth review of the school’s risk management standards.
Typically, a section within the audit document has questions on risk assessments and has a yes or no response that offers little or no assurance that the school has a full risk profile, or identification of all hazards. Concluding that the audit review often lacks in the confirmation and assurance that the risk assessments are deemed suitable and sufficient with an active risk control system.
Often the internal and external audit process skims over the schools compliance information and risk assessment standards which often gives false assurance.
Also the assurance of the school health and safety policy arrangements is also often weak and lacking, and not tested either internally by the schools monitoring systems or sufficiently by the school’s external auditing programme. The point being that these are the school’s health and safety management systems that should adhere to the SFARP legal standards. Stressing the need for governance and assurance mechanisms to give the employer assurance of SFARP standards.
Unfortunately over the 25 plus years I have investigated fatal accidents including school environments and have been involved with the process of court proceedings (criminal law) including the analysis of whether there was a breach of the duty ‘to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health, safety and welfare at work of employees and others’ (Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 Regulation 2 and 3). In some cases the failure to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable duties of the employer is clear cut due to the findings such as lacking in risk assessments for certain activities or areas, lack of suitable and sufficient risk assessments, lacking in hazard identification, lack of sharing vital health and safety information, poor health and safety culture at management level that has including a disregard for building health and safety compliance.
The core message and key requirements in all health and safety management systems is risk identification and control with risk assessments being both a legal requirement and a vital control measure.
The risk management framework should set out how safety risks are effectively managed within the school, by making sure:
- suitable and sufficient risk assessments are conducted and they are proportionate to the School activity that is being undertaken;
- appropriate procedures for safe systems of work and training are in place; competency requirements are defined for specific roles; including estates and building compliance, and there is an appropriate elevation process with ownership and acceptance, including reasonably foreseeable risks to life
- In terms of what they require of duty-holders, HSE considers that duties to ensure health and safety so far as is reasonably practicable ("SFAIRP") and duties to reduce risks as low as is reasonably practicable ("ALARP") call for the same set of tests to be applied. The key words “reasonably practicable” permits the employer to weigh a risk against the trouble, time and money needed to control it.
Do you have a risk profile?
The risk profile is the examination of the hazards faced by the school and informs all aspects of the school’s approach to leading and managing its safety risks. A risk profile examines the nature and level of the hazards the likelihood of harm occurring, the severity of the harm associated with each type of hazard and the effectiveness of control measures in place. This is the starting point for the creation and development of your risk assessments.
A risk assessment is focussed on the hazards arising from a specific activity and considers the likelihood of an event happening, and the severity of any potential harm or damage. It is about identifying foreseeable risks in the school and making sure that suitable and proportionate control measures are in place to mitigate them. Risk assessments and their associated control measures must be regularly reviewed at a frequency proportionate to the risk.
What looks good, in ensuring health and safety ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’?
Having a policy or policies together with risk assessments doesn’t automatically give assurance of compliance. Lacking in policies and procedures, and lacking in risk assessments does automatically give indication that the school has not completed measures to provide a safe working environment so far as is reasonably practicable. Having software in place for example estates management software does sometimes give false assurance. There must be a process of ‘testing and challenging’ the school’s current risk management, whether this is the estates compliance, premises risk assessments or whole school health and safety standards.
Often the estates management isn’t detailed enough within the school health and safety policy. I review, test and challenge the arrangements within the school health and safety policy whenever completing school audits to see if the school are actually doing what the H&S policy states and if there are any weak areas that could be improved such as additional specific processes, procedures, safe systems of work to control higher risks.
Likewise a review of the school risk assessments to consider if these are suitable and sufficient, that they practically detail the hazards and manage them with relevant risk control measures. Compliance management review including how the school achieves full assurance of compliance, and how this is evidenced.
Remember ‘Your Defense starts today’ do it the NASPM way! NASPM
Blog post written by Stuart McGregor, Director of Operations (CMIOSH MIIRSM MIIAI RRP RSP AFAAM AFOH MIFSM),
NASPM – National Alliance of School Premises Managers (Official Partner of The Schools & Academies Show)
Contact NASPM: admin@naspm.co.uk
