School employers in Great Britain must arrange competent health and safety assistance. This is a statutory requirement under regulation 7 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. The practical question for leadership is whether that assistance is suitable, available and used when decisions are made.
But what does “competent” actually mean? And what does this legal duty require of school leaders?
What the Law Requires
Regulation 7 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 requires employers in Great Britain to appoint one or more competent persons to assist with the measures needed to comply with health and safety law. The arrangement must include sufficient time and resources for the organisation’s risks.
In practice, this means:
- Knowledge — Someone who understands health and safety law and its application to schools
- Experience — Someone who has demonstrated, through practical experience, an understanding of school-specific hazards
- Authority — Someone with the seniority and access to resources needed to act on their advice
- Accessibility — Access to competent support when needed, not just once a year
Many schools meet this requirement by employing an experienced health and safety manager. Others use an external consultant providing retained support. What matters is that they can demonstrate the competence exists and is accessible.
Why Schools Struggle
Many school leaders aren’t aware of this requirement in its full form. They assume that having policies or attending training is sufficient. It’s not.
The requirement is specifically about having access to competent advice. A policy written by someone without expertise is less defensible than a policy co-created with a competent person. Training delivered by someone without credibility is less effective.
Competence is about credibility and knowledge, not just good intentions.
What Competence Looks Like
A truly competent person for schools has:
- Health and safety qualifications — Often IOSH or equivalent certification
- Education sector experience — Understanding of schools as unique environments with specific hazards
- Broader perspective — Experience in multiple school settings or environments similar to schools
- Technical knowledge — Understanding of fire safety, asbestos management, chemical handling, contractor control, etc.
- Enforcement awareness — Understanding how enforcement bodies assess schools following incidents
External support can provide additional perspective and specialist expertise where internal capability needs supplementing. Where a competent employee is available, regulation 7 gives preference to appointing that employee. The priority is a suitable arrangement that covers the risks and is used in practice.
The Governance Implication
From a governance perspective, the competent person requirement means:
- Trustees and governors should know who provides competent advice — Can they name them?
- They should understand their qualifications and experience — Why are they competent?
- They should evidence regular access — Is advice sought and documented?
- They should evaluate the advice — Are recommendations considered and acted upon?
If leaders cannot answer these questions, that is a reason to review the arrangements. It may reveal a gap between the support assumed to be in place and the advice people can actually access.
What Schools Often Miss
Many schools have a “health and safety competent person” — usually someone with safety qualifications. But they miss the requirement for competence in specific areas:
- Fire safety — Fire risk assessment and fire safety strategy require specific competence
- CDM regulations — Construction projects require someone competent in CDM
- Asbestos management — Asbestos awareness isn’t the same as asbestos management competence
- Contractor control — Vetting and managing contractors requires specific knowledge
A single person is unlikely to be competent across all these areas. Schools often need access to specialist competence in addition to general health and safety competence.
The Defensibility Angle
From an enforcement perspective, when an incident occurs, one of the first questions is: “Did this school have access to competent advice?”
A lack of suitable competent assistance may itself be a breach and can leave important risks inadequately managed. Any enforcement response depends on the facts, applicable duties and evidence.
Schools that can evidence they sought competent advice, considered it, and acted upon it have much stronger defensibility.
Building Competent Capacity
For many schools, building competent capacity means:
- Identifying gaps — Where are you currently lacking competent advice?
- Accessing support — Whether internal or external, ensuring competence is available
- Creating systems — Building processes that regularly access and evidence competent decision-making
- Building understanding — Ensuring governors and leaders understand why this matters
The Reality
The competent person requirement isn’t bureaucracy. It’s recognition that health and safety decisions should be made by people who understand the consequences.
Schools that have genuine, accessible competent support are safer. They’re also more defensible when enforcement scrutiny arises.
The School Safety People provide named competent person support for schools, combining statutory compliance with genuine risk reduction and leadership protection.