Health and Safety Executive/Local Authorities Enforcement Liaison Committee (HELA)

Advice/Guidance to Local Authorities on Priority Planning

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The information gathered during proactive work is vital to our ability to assess health and safety standards, evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention strategy, inform the targeting of future work and record activity on key topics where a rating is not currently required. This guidance is issued to LAs under Section 18 HSWA and provides the necessary detail to help LAs to comply with the S18 Standard on Priorities and Planning. It is consistent with priority planning guidance used by HSE’s Field Operations staff (FOD) and replaces HELA circular, LAC 67/1(rev.3).  Inspectors should use this guidance following an intervention at a premises within their jurisdiction in order to generate a risk rating.

1.2 The guidance is divided in to two parts: Part One – Risk Rating and Part Two – Frequency of Intervention. The guidance requires a shift of focus in terms of interventions planning by LAs and their officers. It reflects the HSE Board’s new strategy “The Health and Safety of Great Britain\\ Be part of the solution” and sets out a new approach to developing effective health and safety regulatory interventions justified by risk. This is also mirrored through the reactive intervention approach via the Incident Selection Criteria (LAC 22/13). The two systems should be used in conjunction to enable enforcing authorities to focus and optimise impact in areas of greatest risk. To enable effective operation of interventions the EA should provide sufficient resources to deliver an efficient and effective service in line with the Section 18 Capacity Toolkit (to be added).

2.0 Part I – Risk Rating

2.1 The guidance provides a simple rating system for inspectors scoring premises based on four factors:

• Confidence in management
• Health performance
• Safety performance
• Welfare standards 

2.2 The guidance also provides a way to categorise the risk premises pose (high, medium or low), with low risk premises being subject to non-inspection intervention techniques. LA’s may determine that an inspection is the most appropriate approach in these circumstances, but other suitable interventions may be considered appropriate e.g. invites to seminars, followed by a visit should the business fail to attend. This approach, although consistent with FOD, is quite a radical departure from the previous LAC 67/1 (rev. 3). There is no longer any cumulative adding of various factors which produces a single overall numerical score.  Instead, stand-alone scoring against 4 criteria is used to measure what controls an employer has in place and, using this, to determine a risk rating. Public risk is now incorporated within the overall context of the rating system and no national accident data (NADs) weightings are applied. In addition, to simplify the rating system, there are now only 4 risk categories of premises instead of 6.  

2.3 Background

The basis of this new approach is a review, conducted by HSL in 2008, which looked at the systems and methods used by other regulatory bodies. The report recommended that premises should be categorised into high, medium and low risk levels for the determination of inspection frequency. It also recommended that criteria should be specified for inspection and non-inspection intervention strategies.  The revised guidance must abide by the five principles of better regulation as proposed by the Hampton Review (published in 2005) – targeting, consistency, transparency, proportionality and accountability. 

Feedback from the consultation conducted at the beginning of 2009 showed general support for the changes that have been made. There was a recognised need for change to a transparent and flexible system that provided consistency with HSE and amongst LAs.

2.4 Aims & Objectives

• To maximise and target resources in order to achieve the greatest impact.
• To create a complementary framework for both proactive and reactive interventions.
• To provide a coherent approach to interventions which is consistent between LAs and HSE (FOD).

2.5 Transfer Arrangements from previous LAC 67/1 (rev 3) rating system. 

2.5.1 The new risk based system reduces the number of categories into which premises can be classified from six to four. Premises should be transferred en-bloc in order to minimise the need to evaluate cases individually within a short space of time.  This also makes data handling easier. Subject to the devised intervention plan (including both proactive and reactive interventions) premises should be re-rated individually over time using this new scoring system. It is important that re-rating takes place appropriately adopting the new approach of stand-alone as opposed to cumulative criteria.

2.5.2 HELA recognises that introducing a new risk rating system to aid priority planning will require LAs to change internal management and work recording systems. It is recommended that this guidance should be introduced into LA planning cycles from October 2009 and to risk rate LA enforced premises under this new regime from April 2010. Cascade materials will be provided in order to facilitate these changes via regional Partnership Teams when this document is published in September 2009. The materials will also be available from the Extranet.

2.5.3 All ratings made under the previous LAC 67/1 (rev. 3) rating system should be transferred to the new rating system as per table 1.

Table 1 - Category Conversion from LAC 67/1 (rev 3) Rating System To Priority Planning Guidance

Old LAC 67/1 Categorisation	New Category	Description
A	A	Highest Risk
B1	B1	Medium Risk -1
B2 & B3	B2	Medium Risk - 2
B4 & C	C	Lowest Risk

2.5.4 Inspection dates for LAC 67/1 (rev 3) A and B1 category premises should be carried over. Although under this new system premises rated as either a B2 or C will not be subject to a rigid inspection regime, previous inspection dates should still be transferred over for these premises so as to inform decision making.

2.6. New Approach

2.6.1. For proactive work, priority should be given to the inspection of those premises and activities that, after assessment, are rated as category ‘A’. The aim of the inspection must be to improve compliance and, where significant breaches continue to exist, enforcement actions should be considered. Topic based interventions, partnership projects, joint working with other regulators, contributions to local and national policy development and other non-inspection interventions can be undertaken with premises that fall into any category. It is expected that category “C” premises would normally fall outside of any inspection-based intervention.

2.6.2. The new rating process consists of evaluating 4 different elements as they relate to a work activity. A rating value is then assigned to each of these 4 elements: 

• Confidence in management
• Safety performance
• Health performance
• Welfare compliance gap.

2.6.3. After reviewing all the findings from the inspection or intervention, these separate ratings should be assigned to the premises and recorded appropriately.  There is no longer any cumulative addition of individual question scores as was adopted by LAC 67/1. The inspector’s assessment should represent a balance of the findings from all of the issues discussed. Inspectors should take into account that some topics may be more important than others at particular premises. Thus, if a company performed badly in a key area, the overall safety and health performance ratings should be heavily influenced by this, even if standards are good in more minor topic areas. 

Table 2 - New Category Rating Criteria

Category	Rating Score
A	Score of 5 or 6 on any risk
B1	Score of 4 on any risk
B2	Score of 3 on any risk
C	No score greater than 2

2.7. Risk Rating Elements

The following paragraphs describe the 4 criteria which form part of the new rating system. Worked examples are provided in order to illustrate how each of these criteria can be applied in practice. 

2.7.1. Confidence in management

Description: A numerical rating, as shown in table 3, to indicate an inspector’s level of confidence in management’s ability to maintain or attain a low level of health and  safety risk, at the workplace or in relation to work activities, in the foreseeable future. 

This relates to both employees and those affected, or potentially affected, by work activities e.g. members of the public.

Factors to consider

In assessing an organisation's management systems, enforcement officers should consider the factors set out below:

• the track record of the organisation, its willingness to carry out previous advice and enforcement, together with the accident history of the company;
• the likelihood of a management change taking place and the possible effects on health and safety, including, for example, the support given to the new incoming management by senior management off-site;
• the technical knowledge held within the organisation on health and safety matters and whether the hazards present require innovation or merely the application of standard answers to known problems; and
• the extent to which management carry out regular appraisals of their performance, and then modify their approach if they identify failings.

Inspectors will recognise that some of these factors may apply less easily to small or medium size enterprises (SMEs), particularly where many, or even all, management functions might rest with one person. In applying the scoring system to small businesses, inspectors should bear in mind that in many cases procedures may not be documented. In such cases, inspectors will be looking to identify how far the spirit and practice ofthese examples is evident in the way companies deal with health and safety issues and MAST 4SME’s. For businesses which could not be classified as an SME, inspectors should refer to HSG 65 “Successful Health and Safety Management”. 

Regardless of the size of the business or undertaking, inspectors may also wish to refer to Institute of Directors/HSE guidance document “Leading health and safety at work” (INDG 417).

Bearing in mind the points above regarding SMEs, assessment should be based on the following nine key issues:

• an effective health and safety policy and an effective management system to make it work;
• an adequate management structure, according to the size of the undertaking to implement the policy;
• adequate and appropriate arrangements to secure the trust, participation and involvement of all employees;
• adequate arrangements to secure information flows into, within and from the organisation;
• systems and arrangements to secure the competence of all working on the site;
• adequate processes to generate plans, risk assessments and performance standards to implement the policy;
• adequate and sufficient measurement of performance both before and after accidents and incidents;
• adequate and sufficient performance review to ensure that the lessons learned are effectively put into practice to improve performance throughout the organisation; and
• adequate auditing of the health and safety system.

Table 3 – Confidence in management rating table

Rating	Descriptor
1	Best Practice: Management know the relevant health and safety standards, have put them into effect and check they are applied correctly. There is clear evidence of effective self-regulation with standards being monitored and refined. Full compliance with the approach listed in HS(G)65 and/or MAST 4SME’s.
2	Strong evidence that management are up to the task: Management generally enthusiastic and competent with either: effective systems in place for other business processes (e.g. quality assurance) but with knowledge gaps for health and safety requirements, or good health and safety knowledge with systems requiring improvement. There is potential for good performance and reasonable compliance with the HS(G)65 approach and/or MAST 4SME’s.
3	Some evidence management are up to the task: Management are knowledgeable about relevant health and safety standards but there has been little effort to adopt a proactive approach to health and safety management. However, senior managers volunteer their thoughts as the inspection progresses and appear to be committed to adopting a more proactive approach. There is general confidence that the recommendations resulting from the inspection will be put into place.
4	Management are ambivalent about health and safety: Management have only a certain amount of knowledge of relevant standards and there is little or no evidence that a proactive approach to ongoing health and safety management has been adopted. However, senior managers recognise the need to satisfy explicit statutory requirements and there is some prospect that a more proactive approach may be adopted in future. Limited involvement of workers in health and safety management. There is some confidence that the recommendations resulting from the inspection will be put into place.
5	Management are not up to the task: Management have significant shortcomings in their knowledge of relevant standards. Management do not appear to be willing to instigate a proactive approach and have not recognised that health and safety is an issue where they need to be personally involved. There is uncertainty as to how they will respond to the findings from the inspection.
6	Management avoid the task and\or connive in cutting corners: There is a negative approach to accepting legal duties and management dispute the relevance or validity of recognised benchmark standards. Totally ineffective in the management of health and safety. The findings from the inspection are likely to be ignored.

Example 1 – Confidence in Management rating at a small greengrocer 

Background

During a visit to a small greengrocer, who employs six part time staff, an inspector discovers a damaged set of stepladders in use. Further investigation reveals an accident had occurred to a member of staff the previous week. When using the stepladders they tried to retrieve stock from a high shelf in the storeroom and fell. The accident had not been reported as required by RIDDOR even though the member of staff had been seriously injured. The inspector uses their powers to remove the ladder from use. The shopkeeper’s attitude throughout the visit has been indifferent and awkward. Looking at safety, health and welfare throughout the store the inspector rates them 4, 4 and 1 respectively.   

Rating

The shopkeeper acts indifferently to the inspector’s actions and has been awkward throughout the inspection. He shows no signs of interest or regard for health and safety or willingness to improve. The inspector feels no action will be taken so rates confidence in management as 6.

Example 2 – Confidence in Management rating at a small-scale outdoor festival

Background

An arranged visit is organised to a small-scale, outdoor festival (300-330 visitors) which is held on an annual basis. The inspector viewed risk assessments prior to the current event and judged them to be acceptable, but felt that a visit was still in order to ascertain how controls are being implemented because of a justified complaint made the year before. During inspection the inspector notices a number of trailing leads behind the main stage and on the floor of the portacabin, which is being used by the sound technicians. The inspector expresses concern over their observations to the stage manager and suggests that the cables could be moved and secured in place with a mat or strong tape. The stage manager apologises for the oversight and quickly arranges for the cables to be securely moved out of the way of technicians and musicians moving about behind the stage.

Further inspection reveals no other significant health, safety welfare breaches and the inspector rates safety and health as good (2) and welfare compliant (1).

Rating

With no other significant findings, the inspector rates the confidence in management score as 2. The manger showed a willingness to comply and rectified the situation quickly.

Example 3 – Confidence in Management rating at a newsagent’s shop

Background

An inspector investigates a complaint at a paper shop involving a member of the public who had tripped on a badly damaged piece of lino flooring. The member of the public was a little shaken but did suffer a major injury. The shop had previously been rated as low risk. During the visit the inspector noticed various areas of the floor, both in the storeroom and in the main shop front, which were dented and badly damaged. The shop also appeared rather cramped and grubby (though these issues were not directly taken into account). The attitude of the shopkeeper to health and safety is good and discussions reveal that they have some sound knowledge about risk assessments. The shopkeeper, who has no employees, promises that the floor repairs will be done very soon and produces a letter from a reputable shop fitting company who have estimated the cost to replace the flooring. The inspector rates the health and safety performance as 3 because the trip hazard is a minor shortcoming.

Confidence rating

As the paper shop poses a very low risk and the inspector is confident that the repairs will be undertaken, the inspector rates the confidence in management score as 3.

2.7.2. Safety Performance 

Description: A numerical rating, as shown in table 5, to indicate the inspector’s judgment of the overall level of compliance of safety risks at the workplace. This must be based on a whole-scale review of all the findings from an inspection or other significant intervention.

This relates to both employees and those affected, or potentially affected, by work activities e.g. members of the public.

Definition of safety: the potential of an item of work equipment, procedure or method of work to cause an undesirable injury of any nature. Inspectors should not automatically award the highest rating because of the mere presence of electricity, gas or any other safety hazards when the risk is effectively controlled or minimised so far as is reasonably practicable.

Factors to Consider

Inspectors have discretion when assigning these overall ratings. However, inspectors should apply the following checks, as a way of ensuring consistency -

1. Undertake a review of all aspects of safety covered during the inspection, including matters of evident concern and matters of potential major concern (such as the risk for large-scale incidents).
2. Identify the issue or topic where compliance was poorest.
3. Assess how this issue would score, if it were to be scored in isolation on the six point scale.
4. Consider the outcome of step c. If there is a single issue that would, in itself, warrant a score of 5 or 6, the overall safety rating should not be less than 5 because the duty-holder is clearly not managing the risk.
5. If a notice is to be issued on a matter relating to safety, the overall safety performance rating should be 4 or greater.

A score of 3 or less should only be assigned if the general picture is one of only minor shortcomings that can be dealt with informally with oral advice or other informal intervention. If a company performed badly in a key area, the overall safety performance rating should be heavily influenced by this, even if standards are good in some more minor topic areas. 

This criteria is a matter of professional judgment on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, inspectors may need to balance aspects of the visit where compliance was poor against other aspects where compliance was good in order to come up with their overall judgment. Moreover, some aspects may be more important than others in the context of the particular premises visited. Inspectors should remember that the overall safety performance rating will have a key role in identifying the priority that should be attached to future interventions

Table 5 – Performance rating table for assessing safety performance

Rating	Descriptor
1	High standards of compliance.  Some aspects meet best practice as outlined in industry standards, ACOP’s etc
2	Good standards. Minimum legal requirements have been met but little evidence that elements of best practice have been adopted.
3	One or more minor shortcomings. Minimum legal requirements could be met with a little more effort. Since these shortcomings are not serious, they can be dealt with informally via a verbal warning and/or provision of advice.
4	Standards are variable but lower than the benchmark standard. It is necessary to address one or more shortcomings (which are not minor) by giving formal instructions for remedial action to be taken e.g. sending a letter.
5	Standards generally unsatisfactory. There is at least one contravention that gives rise to either a substantial or extreme risk gap (as defined by EMM). Formal intervention is required to achieve improvement in standards e.g. Improvement Notices. Risks are not being adequately controlled.
6	Standards unacceptable.  A disregard for expected standards and/or significant breaches has been observed and/or could be expected. Extreme risk gap present as defined by EMM. Unless application of the EMM identifies duty holder factors that provide strong mitigation, issuing a notice or prosecution is likely to be appropriate.

Example 4 – Safety rating at a warehouse

Background

As part of a local campaign covering workplace transport, an operational forklift truck (FLT) in a warehouse was found to have hydraulic fluid leaking from it. No daily check sheet could be found. Further investigation revealed a generally unacceptable standard: inadequate training had been provided to drivers and ‘thorough examinations’ as required by LOLER (Regulation 9) were not being undertaken. Several FLT’s were used daily providing a vital part to business operations. On further inspection the inspector rates health with some shortcomings (3) and welfare compliant (1). Management could be more proactive and are rated 3.     

Safety rating

As FLTs were used daily at the warehouse, the inspector took enforcement action and rated the premises as having a safety performance score of 6.

Example 5 – Safety rating and confidence in management rating at a hotel

Background

During a routine inspection of a popular hotel, an inspector found a damaged mobile phone charger in use in the kitchen. The inspector deemed that the extent of the damage to the cable and outer casing was minor. Further investigation revealed that one of the porters brought the phone charger into the kitchen from home earlier that week. The inspector has already noted that the hotel operated a rigid regime of Portable Appliance Testing within the kitchen each year (even though their risk assessment acknowledges that this is not a legal requirement). The hotel is part of a large group who have a good reputation and operate within a Lead Authority Partnership. The inspector is satisfied that the relevant risk assessments have been reviewed recently and that the manager of the hotel is committed to maintaining high levels of safety and consults staff during regular team meetings. As the hotel had adopted elements of best practise, the inspector awarded a confidence in management score of 1. Health standards were good and rated 2 accordingly. Welfare standards were good and rated 1.   

Safety rating

Overall, the inspector was content to assign a score of 1 for the overall safety rating. Best practice had been adopted, with risk assessments conducted and reviewed when needed and periodically.    

Example 6 – Safety rating and confidence in management rating at a care home

Background

A visit to a residential care home (which looks after some 35 service users) is conducted in order to investigate a serious scalding incident of a service user that resulted in an overnight stay in hospital. During the investigation, it is revealed that there is no procedure in place to check water temperatures prior to whole-body immersion. There are thermostatic mixing valves in only a small number of the bathrooms and discussions with relevant staff identify serious knowledge gaps. The risk assessment is inadequate and has not been revised since a similar incident that occurred some 3 months ago. The home employs 18 people and is part of a larger group that own 5 properties in total. After taking appropriate action in line with EMM, the inspector awards a confidence in management score of 5. 

Safety rating

Below benchmark standards in safety are present so the premises are rated as 5.  There is little evidence of a proactive approach being taken to health and safety and the inspector is unsure how the managers will respond to the investigation

2.7.3. Health performance

Description: A numerical rating, as shown in table 6, to indicate the inspector’s judgment of the overall level of compliance regarding health risks at the workplace in question. This is based on a whole-scale review of all the findings from an inspection or other significant intervention.

This relates to both employees and those affected, or potentially affected, by work activities e.g. members of the public.

Definition of health risks: the potential of a substance, chemical, force (e.g. noise), event (e.g. commercial robbery) or method of work to cause harm or ill health.  Aspects related to both physical health and mental health (e.g. stress) are covered by this criteria. Health hazards are not always cumulative (though they may be) and there are a wide range of causative agents.

Table 6 – Performance rating table for assessing health performance

Rating	Descriptor
1	High standards of compliance.  Some aspects meet best practice as outlined in industry standards, ACOP’s etc
2	Good standards. Minimum legal requirements have been met but little evidence that elements of best practice have been adopted.
3	One or more minor shortcomings. Minimum legal requirements could be met with a little more effort. Since these shortcomings are not serious, they can be dealt with informally via a verbal warning and/or provision of advice.
4	Standards are variable but lower than the benchmark standard. It is necessary to address one or more shortcomings (which are not minor) by giving formal instructions for remedial action to be taken .e.g. sending a warning letter.
5	Standards generally unsatisfactory. There is at least one contravention that gives rise to either a substantial or extreme risk gap and formal intervention (i.e. Notice) is required to achieve improvement in standards.  Risks are not being adequately controlled.
6	Standards unacceptable. Issuing a notice or prosecution likely to be appropriate. Extreme Risk gap. A disregard for expected standards and/or significant breaches has been observed and/or could be expected. Unless application of the EMM identifies duty holder factors that provide strong mitigation.

Factors to Consider

Inspectors have discretion when assigning these overall ratings. However, inspectors should apply the following checks, as a way of ensuring consistency -

1. Undertake a review of all aspects of health covered during the inspection, including matters of evident concern and matters of potential major concern (such as the risk for large-scale incidents).
2. Identify the issue or topic where compliance was poorest.
3. Assess how this issue would score, if it were to be scored in isolation on the six point scale.
4. Consider the outcome of step c. If there is a single issue that would, in itself, warrant a score of 5 or 6, the overall health rating should not be less than 5 because the duty-holder is clearly not managing the risk.
5. If a notice is to be issued on a matter relating to health, the overall health performance rating should be 4 or greater.

Example 7 - Health rating at a pub with live music

Background

During a routine inspection of a town centre pub it becomes apparent that local bands play on stage at the premises at least 4 times per week (for 3 hours or more).  In discussion, several members of staff report that it is very difficult to hear customers ordering drinks when the band is playing and that they have not been given any earplugs to wear. The pub owner employs 8 staff but has not conducted a risk assessment regarding noise at work, although a brief risk assessment has been conducted regarding manual handling. The owner is positive about his duties and recalls receiving a leaflet from the Council in a mail-shot conducted some 6 months ago. The inspector rates the confidence in management score as 4 as there is some evidence to suggest that the owner will respond to the findings of the inspection. Safety standards are good and rated 2 with welfare rated as compliant (2).

Health rating

As noise-induced hearing loss is a significant hazard, the inspector takes enforcement action in line with EMM and scores the health rating as 5. Staff concerns and a lack of risk assessment provide evidence for the inspectors rating. 

Example 8 – Health rating at a hairdressing salon

Background

An inspector conducts an arranged visit at a hairdressing salon to look at dermatitis risks. The inspector finds that the owner is familiar with the problem and has read some of the recently published articles in trade magazines and the HABIA guidance.  Observed control measures include encouraging staff to use gloves and a poster on the wall of the rest room regarding skin checks. All 3 employees report having no problems with their skin or the controls that the owner has put in place. The owner’s management rating is scored 2 with high safety and welfare standards, scoring 2 and 1 respectively.

Health rating

The inspector is content to award a health performance score of 1. The salon is aware of the problem and has in place measures to ensure staff are protected from dermatitis. 

Example 9 – Management of asbestos in a golf club

Background

A visit is conducted to a golf club after a decorator calls the Local Authority for advice. The club building dates back to the 1880’s but has had various extensions added to it over the years. The inspector finds that there is very good compliance in this area. An asbestos register is in place, which was produced by a reputable local firm of surveyors 2 years ago, and those areas where asbestos has been found are clearly labelled. Reception and security staff are aware of where the asbestos register lives and know that the duty manager has to be informed when contractors arrive in order that a work permit can be issued. In addition, the club risk assessment states that the asbestos management plan must be reviewed annually. The inspector awards a confidence in management score of 1 because of the other systems in place that are observed during the visit.

Health rating

The inspector is content to award a health performance score of 1. The golf club is aware of the dangers of exposure and has put in place measures to protect contractors (such as electricians) who may visit the club to undertake work. 

2.7.4 Welfare Compliance

Description: A numerical rating, as shown in table 7, to indicate the inspector’s judgment of the overall level of compliance regarding welfare standards at the workplace in question based on a review of all the findings from an inspection or other significant intervention.

Factors to consider

The descriptors for determining the welfare compliance gap are shown in the table below. You should consider all welfare issues when rating the overall welfare provision; this would include ventilation, lighting levels, ambient and working temperatures, changing facilities (if required), rest areas, etc.

 Table 7 – Performance rating table for assessing welfare compliance. 

Score	State of compliance	Descriptor
1	Compliance	Good, clean, suitable and sufficient provision of welfare facilities. Would be content to use them yourself.
2	Minor non-compliance	Welfare facilities need cleaning, temporary absence of consumables such as soap or towels.
3	Inadequate provision	Inadequate or dirty welfare facilities. Inadequate rest facilities. No heated water or too few toilets.
4	Major non-compliance	Welfare facilities not present or so poor as to be unfit for use. No toilet or washing facilities.

Example 10 - Welfare Compliance Rating at a Nail Bar

Background

During an inspection of a nail bar an inspector finds the toilets used by employees are in need of cleaning and there are no soap or towels. Following conversations with employees the inspector discovers the facilities are generally kept clean. Management are motivated and are rated as 2 with good safety and health standards rated 2 also.       

Welfare rating

The inspector rates welfare at the nail bar as 2 as there is a temporary absence of soap and towels.

2.8 Principles of Risk Rating

It is standard practice to rate safety and health performance and welfare at the level of the site and not the company. This is because conditions at the site are likely to create risks regardless of the quality of the management systems employed by the company and because the conditions witnessed at the time of a visit or inspection should be taken as the evidence on which to base a judgment. However, the confidence in management score can be used to reflect overall how effective the management of health and safety is and this can include corporate controls as well as more localised controls. 

The over-riding principle is to reduce risk ratings. Where significant breaches continue to exist, enforcement actions should be strongly considered. The Enforcement Policy Statement (EPS) and Enforcement Management Model (EMM) should be taken into account at all relevant times. Local enforcement procedures and policies must also be considered. Your professional judgment and discretion should be utilised to assess each situation on a case-by-case basis.

When allocating an inspection rating for the relevant element, inspectors must bear in mind the relevant group at risk. This includes members of the public and not just employees. The benchmark standards used in the EMM are written in relation to whoever might be at risk from a given activity, irrespective of their status. Key factors to consider when prioritising planned inspections are the standards being achieved and the management competence demonstrated during the last intervention.

In all circumstances, LA’s must consider any Primary Authority or Lead Authority relationship. LAs should also work in conjunction with regional partnership teams and county liaison groups.

2.9 When not to rate

This rating system may not be appropriate for transient activities such as some entertainment events etc. Individual local authorities are encouraged to coordinate their efforts with those of other authorities to establish the general confidence level in the ability of these employers to maintain standards. 

• The rating of premises should not normally be undertaken at a reactive visit to the premises (e.g. accident investigation visit) unless an inspector has made sufficient observations in order to justify re-rating of relevant risk topics.

2.10 Re-Rating

Should a revisit be necessary (e.g. to check on a notice) and conditions are witnessed to have changed, it may be appropriate to re-rate any or all of the four elements. It is acceptable to carry forward the ratings of the other factors without re-evaluation of those factors if only a short length of time has elapsed and the inspector is satisfied that any application which lowers the risk rating beyond an A or B1 will not lead to a deterioration in standards.

The decision to re-rate during a revisit is entirely down to an inspector’s judgment however. It is recommended that each LA discuss/decide this locally to agree a common approach. When considering changes to ‘confidence in management’, however, you will need to consider broader issues. For example, an employer who only grudgingly complies with a notice would still merit a numerically high rating (e.g. a rating of 5 or 6) after a revisit. Regardless of the size of the business or undertaking, inspectors may wish to refer to the Institute of Directors/HSE guidance document “Leading health and safety at work” (INDG 417).

2.11 Rating new or previously unregistered premises

LAs should include in their service plans capacity for the initial inspection of new premises. Inspectors should make a judgement as to which new premises require inspection based on the type of activity, numbers of employees, risks to the public, past history of the company etc. For lower risk premises, the provision of information and advice or a self-assessment questionnaire may be more appropriate. Although initially such premises will be outside the priority planning system, they should be included in the overall general inspection programme, and be given a rating following a visit or a desktop assessment.

2.12 Primary Authority

• LAs should be mindful of the existence of PA and agreed work programmes.

3.0 Part II - Frequency of Intervention

3.1 Introduction

This section describes how LA’s should conduct their activities with duty-holders in line with the rating scores derived. A range of interventions are encouraged. The term “intervention” is taken here to mean any activity, taken from amongst the range of options available, which is used to influence activities within the premises being targeted or aimed at the duty-holder(s) in question with a view to securing compliance.

Table 8 - Frequency of Intervention Table

Description	New Category	Rating Score	Intervention Frequency
Highest Risk	A	Score of 5 or 6 on any risk	Inspection not less than once per year
	B1	Score of 4 on any risk	Premises for inspection (e.g. programme directed; new employers/premises; local priority programmes Those premises without an intervention contact within 18 months to be reviewed (see Para  3.2)
	B2	Score of 3 on any risk	Premises for intervention (e.g. programme directed; new employers/premises; local priority programmes)
Lowest Risk	C	No score greater than 2	Use non-inspection intervention methods\techniques

3.2 Higher Risk Premises

All “A” rated premises should be visited at least once every 12 months; this may be part of a programme directed approach or in accordance with any reactive work and the Incident Selection Criteria (LAC 22/13). If at an “A” rated premises conditions have either deteriorated or not improved since the last visit, enforcement action should be strongly considered to achieve improvements in conditions and systems, thereby enabling the premises to re-rated to a lower category.   

If a premise that was previously rated 'B1' is re-rated as an “A”, the chosen intervention(s) should aim to reduce the risk profile of the business or duty-holder.  There is an expectation that enforcement action will be taken in these circumstances in accordance with the EPS and EMM.  It is not acceptable for a premise to be rated at a higher risk level with no relevant intervention-taking place before a revisit is made.  This also applies if a premises moves from “B2” to “B1”.

It is expected that LA’s will undertake appropriate interventions with premises rated as a “B1” as part of a national priority programmes, local priority programmes or individually during the work year. LA’s may determine that an inspection is the most appropriate approach in these circumstances, but other suitable interventions may be considered appropriate e.g. invites to seminars, followed by a visit should the business fail to attend. There is obviously no expectation that all “B1” premises will be inspected within a single work year. “B1” premises due for inspection outside of year 1 are therefore expected to be inspected in the first half of year 2.

Transition Arrangements

During the first year of transition (2010/2011), it is expected that the majority of “B1” premises transferred from the previous LAC 67/1 (rev 3) system will be inspected following an appropriate intervention programme. For those “B1” premises that have not been inspected, activity should be scheduled for the first half of year 2 if an inspection programme has not identified the premises as a priority. Inspection of any “B1” premises in the first half of year 2 should rate the premises to enable a correct reflection of the new risk profile categories contained within the new priority planning guidance. “B1” premises due for inspection in year 2 are therefore expected to be inspected in year 2.

For following work years any “B1” premises that have not had an intervention programme in that work year should be reviewed in the first half of the next work year in accordance with the above paragraph alongside the “B1” premises now due in that new work year.

3.3 Lower Risk Premises

For “B2” premises and “C” premises not included within any other proactive or programme directed work, non-inspection interventions are considered acceptable.  LAs should decide upon the most suitable type(s) of intervention(s) taking into account a number of factors. These include:

1. monitoring of accident reports
2. provision of seminars or awareness days
3. self-assessment questionnaires
4. provision of information or mail-shots specific to particular risks associated with the main work activity

This guidance does not seek to establish any specific intervention frequency for lower risk premises but a pragmatic approach is required to ensure that records are kept up to date. “C” premises may well be visited through reactive interventions e.g. a mandatory accident investigation or complaint. Ignoring low-risk premises is not an option.

3.3 Effect of other Environmental Health Considerations

LAs must exclude consideration of other Environmental Health functions when rating premises for health and safety risks. A health and safety inspection should normally only take place at intervals determined by this rating system (as informed by HSE strategic programmes and local priorities). 

An inspector should deal with any significant health or safety matters that may become evident during a visit made for another purpose or refer the matter to an authorised inspector as appropriate.

3.4 Unitisation

LAs may wish to "unitise" some of their larger premises.  Unitisation enables sub-divisions (units) of larger premises to be separately rated and inspected. Units can be based on geographical considerations, (e.g. first floor being one unit) or on activities (e.g. Fork Lift Truck operation). This approach offers the advantage that the more hazardous activities could form one (or more) unit(s) to be inspected on a more frequent basis than the remaining parts of the premises. Unitisation should not be used to create more premises however.

For example, in a large supermarket there will be a number of different units which are under the direct control of a single company. However, if the company is constantly failing to maintain safety issues within certain parts of the premises (e.g. the bakery), an inspector may wish to unitise and focus on those areas of concern e.g. due to several recent accidents in that particular unit. Alternatively, if certain units, which are not under the control of the site operator, are considered to be of greater risk, there may be merit in unitising these individual units in order to prioritise them.

4.0 Further Sources of Information

• HSE (2009). The Health and Safety of Great Britain: Be part of the solution
• Institute of Directors/HSE (2004). Leading health and safety at work (INDG 417)
• Hampton review on regulatory inspections and enforcement (2005)
• HSE Enforcement Policy Statement
• Enforcement Management Model (2002)