Implementing the falls from height Directive in the UK

Chris Dyer examines the HSC's consultation on its proposed Work at Height Regulations.

Falls from height is the biggest single cause of fatal injuries at work, and the second biggest cause of major injuries - 50 to 60 deaths and 4,000 major injuries every year. A major reduction in falls from height would make a significant contribution to the government's target of reducing the incidence of fatal and major injuries by 10% by 2009/10, set out in the Revitalising health and safety strategy (Employers face major health and safety at work shake-up ). A 10% reduction in falls from height would lead to 3% fewer fatal injuries and 2% fewer major injuries. Falls from height is one of the HSC's priority programmes1 set out in its Strategic plan 2001/2004 (HSC strategic plan 2001/04 ).

The gravity of the problem is similar throughout the EU. In June 2001, the European Council adopted Directive 2001/45/EC on temporary work at height - the second amendment to the use of work equipment Directive (89/655/EEC). Member states must implement the requirements of the Directive by 19 July 2004.

Implementation in the UK

The HSC has proposed implementing the Directive through new Work at Height Regulations and guidance2. Consultation ends on 2 April. The Regulations will affect most organisations in the UK; virtually all perform some work at height, from large construction projects to simple tasks such as climbing a ladder to replace a lightbulb. Because of the wide application of the Regulations, the HSC is seeking as much information as possible to make them workable and relevant to the real risks.

Although work at height has been traditionally defined in the UK as any work above 2m, research carried out for the falls from height priority programme showed that around 60% of all major injuries sustained in a fall involve heights below 2m (Stop falling for it ). The HSC intends the Regulations to cover all work at height where there is a risk of personal injury. The extent of what an employer will have to do to address the risks will depend on the duty-holder's risk assessment.

Organisation and planning

The majority of falls from height result from failures of organisation or planning: for example, in selecting inappropriate and poorly maintained work equipment. Draft reg. 4 requires that work at height is properly planned, organised and supervised by competent people.

The HSC says that the starting point for any work at height must be an assessment of the risks under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. This should take into account factors set out in the Directive, including the "frequency of passage, the height to be negotiated and the duration of use". It must also permit "evacuation in the event of imminent danger". This links to a requirement in the Lifting Equipment and Lifting Operations Regulations 1998 that lifts are properly planned.

Other factors that are likely to be relevant include the physical health of workers and, when considering work at height outdoors, the effects of the weather.

The hierarchy

The guiding principle behind the Regulations is that work at height, if it is necessary, should be performed from a safe place of work. The HSC states that this can be achieved by working from a place of work at height that complies with safety criteria or by selecting suitable work equipment. Draft reg. 6 makes it clear that the duty-holder must, so far as is reasonably practicable, prevent anyone from falling a distance liable to cause personal injury.

Central to the Directive and the Regulations is that work at height should be undertaken according to a hierarchy of protection measures so that safe systems of work are established, proper planning and organisation takes place and appropriate equipment is chosen and used correctly. But in its proposals, the HSC has gone beyond the hierarchy in the Directive, which it believes to be flawed.

The Directive omits elimination of the hazard, which the HSC believes should be at the top of any health and safety hierarchy. For example, it may be possible to design out the need to work at height by installing a lighting system that does not rely on ladder work to replace bulbs.

The Directive also fails to distinguish between fall prevention and fall arrest. The HSC believes that fall prevention measures, such as guard rails and toe boards, should be placed above fall arrest measures, such as safety nets, in the staged process of risk management.

As a result, the HSC's proposals exceed the minimum requirements in the Directive in stipulating that, so far as is reasonably practicable, work at height should be eliminated, and in providing a distinction between fall prevention and fall arrest.

Draft reg. 6 sets out the principles that should be adopted in planning work at height and selecting and using equipment for work at height. These are:

  • avoid work at height - "if you don't have to go up there, then don't";
    •

  • prevent falls - work safely if it is possible to do so from an existing place of work at height, adopt the most suitable method of working and select the most suitable equipment; and then
    •

  • mitigate the consequences of a fall - have measures in place to arrest a fall should one occur
    • .

    The Directive requires that: "Collective protection measures must be given priority over personal protection measures." The HSC proposes that this principle is applied at each step in reg. 6. For example, where reasonably practicable, guardrails must take priority over personal fall protection systems; and in mitigating the consequences of falls, nets - which will provide collective fall protection - must take priority over individual fall arrest, such as lanyards.

    The protection hierarchy is a fundamental part of the overall risk assessment that should be carried out before any work at height takes place. It should give flexibility in the choice of work equipment or other methods to protect against falls, or to mitigate the effects of falls. At the same time, the HSC has tried to ensure that it is not so open-ended that duty-holders could too easily justify the use of equipment at the lower end of the hierarchy.

    No "ladder ban"

    The HSC notes that there has been some public and media concern and misunderstandings about what the Regulations would require: the Regulations do not, for example, set out to "ban ladders"; nor will they ban anyone from performing a two-handed task on a step-ladder. The HSC intends that, as far as possible, it will be sufficient to comply with the law if people follow existing good practice as embodied in industries' own codes of practice or guidance. Risk assessments will then essentially consist of comparing what is being done with what is accepted as good practice and, if necessary, taking action to meet the standard. The HSC believes that its proposed Regulations will require little more of organisations that already comply fully with existing laws (see box 1) that apply to safe work at height.

    1 www.hse.gov.uk/falls/index.htm.

    2 "Proposals for Work at Height Regulations", CD192, HSE Books or www.hse.gov.uk/condocs, free. Comments should be sent to: David King or Jason Cole, HSE, 5NW Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London SE1 9HS, tel: 020 7717 6349, email: work.at.height.consultation@hse.gsi.gov.uk, by 2 April 2004.

    Chris Dyer is editor of HSB and a freelance journalist


    BOX 1: CONSOLIDATING EXISTING LEGISLATION

    Many of the requirements of the draft Regulations are not new and reflect existing good practice in the construction and other industry sectors. Existing legislation to control the risks from working at height includes:

  • the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992;
    •

  • the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996;
    •

  • the Ship Building and Ship Repairing Regulations 1960;
    •

  • the Loading and Unloading of Fishing Vessels Regulations 1988;
    •

  • the Offshore Installations and Wells (Design, etc) Regulations 1995;
    •

  • the Docks Regulations 1988; and
    •

  • the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994.
    •

    The proposed Regulations will consolidate the existing requirements into one place, and will reiterate some parts of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. This should make the requirements easier for employers and workers to understand.

    The new Regulations will also extend several of the existing provisions beyond "construction" work to other sectors and activities. For example, window cleaning, other industrial cleaning and maintenance, container-top working in docks, working on the back of a lorry, erecting bill posters, and arboricultural activities.

    The HSC believes that the Regulations, alongside the general duties in the HSW Act and other legislation that applies across all sectors, will provide sufficient coverage to allow the repeal or amendment of existing sector-specific law, while at the same time maintaining and improving existing legal standards of protection for people who work at height.

     


    BOX 2: FALLS FROM HEIGHT

  • In 2001/02, falls from height killed 69 workers in Britain and caused major injuries to a further 3,996.
    •

  • The problem is Europe-wide and led to two inspection blitzes throughout Europe in June and September 2003.
    •

  • The September blitz confirmed that the HSE's "Don't fall for it" initiative has had little effect, at least in the short term. For example, inspectors served 47 enforcement notices to improve work at height practice at 494 London workplaces visited, including schools, bus garages, factories and hospitals (these figures exclude construction sites).

  • The situation in the construction industry is worse still: falls from height killed 33 construction workers in 2002/03 and a further 17 in the first half of 2003/04. The September blitz saw HSE inspectors visit 1,429 construction sites, serving 414 enforcement notices.
    •

  • In late 2003, the HSE published research that identified the underlying organisational and human factors behind the falls and set out potential risk control measures (Stop falling for it ).

    •