ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

The threat of being maimed or killed while earning your living is an everyday fact of life for construction workers.

With employment levels in the industry rising and set to climb further with the advent of huge Olympics-related projects, it is even more important for this problem to be addressed as early as possible within the project life cycle and with the buy-in of all parties involved.

Construction union UCATT has called for stiffer penalties for company directors of businesses that breach health and safety rules and the union has pressed ministers to include prison sentences for directors in the draft bill on corporate manslaughter.

But prison sentences are only relevant when knowing negligence can be proved and it is inherently difficult to apportion blame on one individual operating on behalf of a corporate body, as is evidenced by accidents within the railway industry. Meanwhile the process of placing a penalty on a corporate body needs to be reviewed to take into account the size and financial well being of the guilty party.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is tackling the problem by supporting the Strategic Forum for Construction, which is taking forward the actions agreed at the Construction Health and Safety Summit in February this year, and calling for the ownership of management of risks to health and safety.

Yet such health and safety legislation is leading inexorably into a quasi self-regulated regime. Perhaps this hasn’t been grasped by the industry.

The most important method of tackling this tragic problem is not to be found during the later stages, when the project is under construction, but much sooner, at the design stage.

Designers are certainly now demonstrating an increased awareness of the impact of their decisions on ‘buildability’ and safety during construction and its ongoing maintenance.

Yet unfortunately design decisions are still being made under the pressure of client programme deadlines and budget.

It is notoriously difficult to assess the financial benefits of investing in a ‘safer’ design

It is notoriously difficult to assess the financial benefits of investing in a ‘safer’ design. That’s why, until all parties are in a better position to appreciate the potential for direct and consequential loss on a project, there will always be resistance to further investment in health and safety. This is something which needs further work and I do not believe that the industry is fulfilling its obligations in this respect.

Ask any office worker whether they consider themselves to be risking their lives by performing daily tasks at work and they are likely to think it a strange question. Yet the facts tell another story.

Figures from the HSE show that the fatality rate in the industry was 3.5 per 100,000 construction workers last year.

Although this marked a fall of 3% and was the lowest rate for 13 years, it does little to ease the mind. The fact is that 72 UK workers still died. All parties agree this is unacceptable, yet tragedies still occur.

The cause of many of the accidents can be traced to the high number of hazards that are present in the average construction project. These range across working at a height or with heavy plant machinery, chemical hazards, demolition risks and dangerous site transport. The potential for accident and injury in this industry is therefore higher, perhaps the highest of all industries, and the appalling effect of this is the likelihood of excessive numbers of deaths.

Whatever the size or type of project, there is always the potential for accidents and fatalities. So from the design stage to completion, we all have to take ownership of the problem.

Tony Hendle is head of health and safety at construction and property consultancy RLF