Health and Safety Executive / Local Authorities Enforcement Liaison Committee (HELA)
Local Authority Circular
- Subject: Priority Planning
- Open Government Status:Open
- LAC Number: 67/1 (rev3)
- Keywords: Inspection, Enforcement, Section 18 HSWA
- Revised:July 2004
- Review date: September 2006
This circular is currently under review. (Expected Autumn 2009)
To: Directors of Environmental Health/ Chief Environmental Health Officers of London, Metropolitan, District and Unitary Authorities and Chief Executives of County Councils.
For the attention of: Environmental Services/Trading Standards/Other
This circular gives advice to local authority enforcement officers
Advice to local authorities on intervention programmes and an inspection rating system
Introduction
1 This HELA circular, LAC 67/1(rev.3), updates, clarifies and replaces the guidance previously contained in HELA LAC 67/2(revised) and supports annual HELA workplanning circulars. The LAC requires a shift of focus and reflects the HSC's new strategy and new approaches to develop more effective interventions.
2 This interim LAC will be subject to a further review by HELA which will take account of developments arising from the Local Authorities and HSE Working Together Strategic Programme and in the Lead Authority Partnership Scheme, the use of the Enforcement Management Model (EMM) and the development of a joint LA/HSE intervention strategy, following its implementation during 2005/6. In due course, the HSC's guidance issued to LAs under Section 18 HSWA will also be revised to reflect these changes.
Background
3 Revised guidance on inspection programmes and an inspection rating system was issued to all LAs by HELA in 1997, LAC 67/1(revised). That guidance in a revised form (LAC 67/1 rev2) came into full effect from December 2000.
4 LAC 67/1 rev2 provided a nationally consistent framework for inspection and rating of all premises where local authorities enforce health and safety. It was, however, recognised that the system might need to be further adjusted in the light of operational experience.
Health and safety enforcement and the components of an inspection programme
5 This further revised LAC gives advice on arrangements for implementing an interventions programme which is a key part in demonstrating that 'adequate arrangements' have been made by a local authority (LA) for enforcement of health and safety. It supports and clarifies the current HSC's section 18 Guidance in respect of inspection programmes and preparation of service plans, which was last revised in September 2001.
6 An interventions programme comprises a number of components and a description of each is set out at Annex 1. The main components are: planned general inspections; planned enforcement initiatives; investigation of accidents; investigation of complaints; advice; visits to new premises; revisits to check and the allocation of total resources to each component. This, in turn, will determine the amount of work that can be planned within that component.
7 Priority should be given to Topic based inspection (see LAC 40/7); Partnership projects; contributions to local and national policy development; the planning and implementation of a regular programme of visits to the highest hazard/risk premises and ensuring that a capacity exists to react to and investigate a sample of workplace accidents and complaints about health and safety standards. (See LAC 22/13 INCIDENT INVESTIGATION SELECTION PROCEDURES)
Inspection rating system
8 Annex 2 gives details of the HELA inspection rating system, which enables LAs, both to prioritise and determine the frequency of their planned inspections.
9 This inspection rating system: enables LA inspectors to identify clearly the contributions made by hazard and risk to their overall health and safety assessment of a workplace; separates the consideration of safety hazard/risk from health hazard/risk; categorises premises into group A (the highest hazard/risk group), through B1-4, to C (the lowest hazard/risk group).
10 By applying the scoring system at Annex 2, HELA believes LAs should review at 3 and 5 year periods respectively the need for inspecting premises in Groups B3 and B4 whilst category C premises should not normally be a part of the planned inspection cycle. Local authorities are not expected to keep these Categories of premises under constant review to ensure their risk rating but should, review the appropriateness of the category rating from time to time. LAs will use local knowledge, and triggers such as planning applications to inform their views. Other intervention strategies such as those outlined below can be effectively used for these groups of premises. The decision not to include a particular premise in the planned inspection cycle can be reviewed at any time, e.g. as a result of a Topic inspection, Partnership project, accident or complaint investigation.
11 Annex 3 shows a worked example 'Calculating Inspection Ratings'.
12 Annex 4 is a blank 'Inspection Rating Calculation Sheet'.
13 Annex 5 is a listing of the nine National Accident Data (NAD) categories with examples of premises within each NAD category.
14 In summary, premises will be rated into three broad categories (A, B, or C) made up of 6 groups as follows:
| Description | LAC Group | Score | Visit Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Highest hazard/risk | A | >=186 | Not less than once per year |
| Intermediate hazard/risk | B1 | 171-185 | Not less than once per 18 months |
| B2 | 156-170 | Not less than once per two years | |
| B3 | 141-155 | Use other intervention strategies but review rating after 3 years | |
| B4 | 126-140 | Use other intervention strategies but review rating after 5 years | |
| Lowest hazard/risk | C | <=125 | Use other intervention strategies |
Note 'Use other intervention strategies ' - the type of intervention is left to authorities to decide the most suitable method. . Types of intervention include monitoring of incident reports, seminars, questionnaires and considering Planning, Licensing and other formal applications NB: HELA recommends discussing the options for other intervention strategies with your ELO.
15 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.
Effect of other Environmental Health Considerations
16 LAs should exclude consideration of other Environmental Health functions when rating premises for health and safety risks. A health and safety at work inspection (including any topic inspection) should normally only take place at intervals determined by the HELA inspection rating system. An enforcement officer should of course deal with any significant health or safety at work matters that may become evident during a visit made for another purpose.
Unitisation
17 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. The more hazardous activity could then form one (or more) unit(s) to be inspected on a more frequent basis than the remaining parts of the premises.
Further Advice and Guidance
18 Further advice and guidance can be obtained from HSE's Local Authority Unit
Deletion of circulars
19 This circular deletes and replaces LAC 67/1(rev2).
Annex 1
Components of an inspection system
Planned General Inspection
1 Planned general inspections should not necessarily take up the largest proportion of resources. When such inspections are undertaken they should involve an examination of an employer's activity in relation to the duties and requirements of the HSW Act and related legislation with particular focus where relevant on any of the priority areas for topic inspection. Enforcement officers should use professional judgement to assess the employer's performance, in relation to the hazards and risk to both employees and the public. This should be based on the standards of safety, health and welfare observed during the inspection, and the capacity of management to maintain high standards. The HELA numerical rating system (see Annex 2) should be applied to allocate priority ratings to premises for which the LA is responsible; the inspection programme is then based on this.
2 The hazards and risks to both safety and health present in a particular sector may vary considerably from one premises to another, as may standards of health and safety and management performance. A rating should be determined for each individual premises based on the following criteria:
- safety hazard
- health hazard
- safety risk
- health risk
- welfare
- public risk
- confidence in management
3 These terms, together with the HELA rating system, are fully explained in Annex 2.
Planned Special Interventions, Surveys or Enforcement Initiatives
4 These visits should make up the largest part of a LAs enforcement activity. Premises to be visited in support of initiatives within the HELA Strategy should be selected on the basis of priority from those on the planned inspection programme. Initiatives of this sort will normally be directed at Revitalising Health and Safety Strategy Topic inspection areas. Premises should be selected where the hazard is known or expected to be present. Additionally Partnership Projects and joint working between Local Authorities and HSE or between groups of Authorities feature under this heading.
Following an inspection within this category, premises should be re-rated using the HELA rating system based upon the information gathered from that visit.
Investigation of Incidents
5 It is not possible or appropriate to investigate all incidents and a systematic approach should be adopted to ensure that the more serious incidents are investigated. LAC 22/13 INCIDENT INVESTIGATION SELECTION PROCEDURES gives more detailed advice on the selection and management of accident investigations. In summary, priority should be given to the investigation of accidents or incidents which demonstrate the following features: fatalities, serious injuries or cases of ill health or dangerous occurrences, potentially serious events; public concern investigations in support of initiatives within the HELA Strategy; incidents giving rise to a complaint; incidents where there appears to be a serious breach of the law; incidents which recur in a particular trade or premises; incidents involving young persons, children, or other vulnerable groups; incidents which indicate a general management failure; incidents involving a new process, technique, or item of plant.
Investigations of complaints by employees or others concerning existing health and safety standards in a place of work
6 LAs should record all complaints made by employees or others about health and safety standards in a place of work and establish their background. This will enable them to distinguish between those which require an on site investigation and others which may be resolved by telephone or written advice.
Advice
7 Advice is a crucial element of the inspection process. Many LAs have set up separate advisory initiatives outside of the normal inspection system. In dealing with low hazard/low risk activities it will, in most cases, be sufficient to give telephone advice or send a leaflet, rather than visit the premises.
Visits to new or previously unregistered premises
8 LAs should include a time allowance for initial inspection of new premises within the overall time allowance they allocate to planned general inspections. This allowance might be based on the LA's experience of likely turnover and types of premises. Although initially such premises will be outside the numerical priority planning system, they should be included in the overall general inspection programme, and be given a rating once a visit has been made.
Revisits to Check
9 In general revisits should not be necessary, as any significant non-compliance should be dealt with at the time of the initial visit. When an enforcement officer writes confirming minor regulatory breaches or offers good practice advice then, in the majority of cases, the subsequent planned inspection offers sufficient opportunity to see the effects of this action and there should not be the need to carry out revisits to check an employer's compliance. Exceptions to the general rule however, include instances where the inspection has not been completed or where a visit is necessary to gather evidence or to check compliance with an enforcement notice or other enforcement action. If an enforcement officer serves an Improvement or Prohibition Notice, a revisit should normally be made to check that the notice has been complied with. In the case of an Improvement Notice this revisit should be paid as soon as practicable after the expiry of the notice.
Enforcement
10 LAs must follow the Health and Safety Commission's Guidance on Enforcement Practice (See LACS 22/18: ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT MODEL (EMM) and 22/20: NEW ENFORCEMENT GUIDE (ENGLAND AND WALES) AND ENFORCEMENT HANDBOOK SCOTLAND). Following a visit, enforcement officers will have a clear view of what enforcement action, if any, they propose to take since they may be asked to confirm such action in writing.
11 Where a Formal Caution is being considered, additional guidance is provided in LAC 22/19.
Annex 2
Overview of the Inspection Rating System
1 This guidance emphasises the role of risk assessment in enabling resources to be targeted at those employers and activities which pose the greatest risk to health and safety. Key features of the system are: a clear distinction between hazard and risk; and guidance on making hazard and risk judgements about occupational health issues; the automatic calculation of overall rating by a computer.
The Rating System
2 Rating should be completed by enforcement officers at all planned inspections including Topic based inspections and partnership project visits (and related revisits to check that the necessary action has been taken). Exceptionally, ratings can be completed at other contacts where sufficient information has been obtained to make a judgement about overall health and safety standards, as indicated above.
3 The rating system contains seven elements each of which should be rated on a scale of 1-6 (where 6 represents the worst situation). The elements are: safety hazard; health hazard; safety risk; health risk; welfare; public risk (note: a zero score can be applied for this element); confidence in management.
Weighting of the Ratings
4 Each element is weighted and Annex 3 provides a simple explanation of how the weighting process works.
5 The system applies weighting factors (multipliers) to each rating element which reflect their relative significance. Greater weighting is applied to the health and safety risks to employees, public hazard and confidence in management elements with less emphasis given to hazard and welfare. The current weighting factors are:
| Rating Element | Weighting |
| Safety hazard | 6 |
| Health hazard | 6 |
| Safety risk | 9 |
| Health risk | 9 |
| Welfare | 5 |
| Public risk | 10 |
| Confidence in Management | 10 |
Elapsed Years Factor
6/7 This need not now feature as a factor in calculating inspection risk ratings unless LAs find its use helpful
National Accident Data Factor
8 The scoring system also includes an element, which takes account national risks in each of the main sectors where LAs enforce health and safety. This is based on the RIDDOR accident report information sent voluntarily by LAs to the Local Authority Unit (LAU). The results will be reported annually in the Local Authorities Report on Health and Safety in the Service Industries using the broad premises categories from the annual LAE1 return. The main premises types in each of LAE1 premises categories are listed in Annex 4. Since this factor is determined by the annual accident/incident data the size of the increment will vary but it will normally be within a range 0 - 10.
Revising the rating at revisit
9 Enforcement officers should review (and revise if appropriate) their rating at any check visit to follow up on significant matters identified as requiring attention at the planned preventive inspection. Re-rating of premises should not normally be undertaken at a reactive visit to the premises.
Scoring
10 The sections that follow provide guidance for completing the inspection rating. They are intended as guidance only and enforcement officers will need to use their judgement in assessing each place of work.
Safety Hazard
Definition: The potential of a machine, activity or method of work etc. to cause harm.
Description: A numerical rating to indicate the level of safety hazard at the workplace. It is an enforcing officer's opinion of the level of harm to persons at that workplace, including contractors but not including members of the public, if the most serious single incident was to occur there, whether those involved are employees or not.
Additional considerations:
If one occurrence can lead to others, then the whole sequence of occurrences will be treated as one incident e.g. a group of flammable liquid storage vessels may be ignited from a single fire. No account is taken of the standard to which the hazard(s) are controlled nor of the number of people who may be exposed to the hazard. These factors are assessed under 'safety risk'. Only hazard(s) under the control of the occupying business within a particular location or unit are considered.
In assessing the safety hazard present in work premises enforcement officers should not automatically award the highest rating because of the mere presence of electricity, gas or any other safety hazards, which can be found in an average domestic premise. The rating requires the enforcement officers to make an objective judgement based on the actual circumstances they face. This should be based on specific workplace hazards such as the use of portable electrical equipment in adverse or hazardous environments.
Safety Hazard Reference Table
| RATING SCORE | OUTPUT NAME | INDICATIVE EXAMPLES |
| 1 | NEGLIGIBLE | Minor injuries requiring only first aid treatment. |
| 2 | LOW | Other injuries unlikely to lead to permanent disability but likely to lead to time off work or hospital treatment. |
| 3 | MEDIUM TO LOW | Injuries unlikely to cause permanent disability which are likely to require more than 3 days off work and/or more than 24 hours in hospital. |
| 4 | MEDIUM TO HIGH | Fractures (other than fingers or toes), amputations, serious eye injuries, electric shocks/burns. Long term or permanent disability likely. |
| 5 | HIGH | Extremely serious injuries / single fatality. |
| 6 | MAJOR | Multiple fatalities. |
Health Hazard
Definition: The potential of a substance, noise, method of work etc to cause harm.
Description: A numerical rating to indicate the level of health hazard at the workplace. It is an enforcing officer's opinion of the level of harm to persons at that workplace, including employees, contractors but not including members of the public, if the most serious chronic or acute cases were to occur there.
Additional considerations
Health hazards are not always cumulative (though they may be) and cover a wide range of causative agents. The rating value allocated should be representative of the single most serious hazard present. No account is taken of the standard to which the health hazard is controlled. This is assessed under 'health risk'. Equally no account is taken of the number of people who may be exposed to the different health hazards at a workplace.
Only the hazards under the control of the occupying business within a particular location or unit should be considered; hazards presented by other locations, units or business are ignored.
Health Hazard Reference Table
| RATING SCORE | OUTPUT NAME | INDICATIVE EXAMPLES |
| 1 | NEGLIGIBLE | Non hazardous substances; Noise levels <80 dbA. |
| 2 | LOW | Noise levels <85dbA. Use of irritant substances (e.g. bleach) Some types of manual handling work. |
| 3 | MEDIUM TO LOW | Noise levels >100 dbA for short duration, or 90 dbA usually. Use of harmful or corrosive substances (if not carcinogenic). (e.g. some cleaning chemicals such as types of oven cleaner) Potential for upper limb disorders. |
| 4 | MEDIUM TO HIGH | Use of toxic substances, use of respiratory or skin sensitisers (e.g. some cleaning chemicals and some water treatment chemicals used in swimming pools; and some hairdressing products). |
| 5 | HIGH | Very toxic substances, (e.g. CO2 used in confined spaces or ammonia from refrigerants used on a large scale) Carcinogens (e.g. asbestos) Legionella |
| 6 | MAJOR | This category is reserved for premises which are not enforced by LAs, e.g. CIMAH sites |
Safety Risk
Definition: The likelihood that the harm from a single particular hazard will be realised. Whilst harm from the single most serious hazard should be the primary consideration, enforcement officers may wish to increase the risk rating certain cases to reflect any cumulative effect of a number of significant hazards.
Description: A numerical rating to indicate the level of risk at the workplace.
Additional Considerations:
Risk reflects both the likelihood that harm will result and its severity in terms of the degree of harm and the number of people potentially affected. This depends on: the hazards present; the extent to which the hazards are controlled; and the number of people exposed to the hazards and frequency of the hazards.
Each of these factors is considered below:
The Hazards Present
The hazard rating previously determined is an important factor in deciding on the risk rating. A low hazard would not justify a high risk rating irrespective of e.g. the standards of control or numbers exposed. However, a high hazard may warrant a low risk rating e.g. if it is very well controlled or if no-one is exposed to it. Therefore for hazard ratings 'negligible' or 'low' only risk ratings 'negligible' or 'low' should be applied.
Standard of Control
Good standards of control may result in lower risks. Poor standards should be reflected in a correspondingly higher risk rating. Standard of control extends beyond solely physical standards but assessment should be limited to considering the adequacy of control of immediate risks i.e. it should reflect the conditions found at the inspection. Broader issues covering the management of health and safety risks are included under 'confidence' - see below.
Exposure to the Hazard
This depends on the frequency of occurrence of the hazard and the number of people exposed. The risk rating should be based on the numbers exposed to the hazard and the period of the exposure. Thus large groups justify a higher risk rating than individuals. Risk also increases as the period of exposure to the hazard increases. A supermarket loading bay area involving many vehicle movements and the exposure of pedestrians such as other drivers or security staff presents a higher risk than a single fork lift truck used occasionally in a warehouse where few staff are present.
Safety Risk Rating Reference Table
| RATING SCORE | OUTPUT NAME | INDICATIVE EXAMPLES |
| 1 | NEGLIGIBLE | Effective, well documented safe systems of work. Good supervision/monitoring. Excellent housekeeping. Few people exposed to hazards.Infrequent use of hazardous article. Employees aware of risks and how to control them. |
| 2 | LOW | Adequate safe systems of work. Adequate supervision. Good standard of physical controls. Good standard of housekeeping. Some people exposed to hazards. Regular, but not continuous use of hazardous articles. Employees aware of significant risks and important control measures |
| 3 | MEDIUM TO LOW | Some adequate safe systems of work but evidence of unsafe systems too. Ad-hoc supervision. Adequate physical controls. Housekeeping acceptable.Several people exposed to hazards. Frequent use of hazardous articles.Limited awareness of risks/control measures by employees. |
| 4 | MEDIUM TO HIGH | Unsafe systems of work for dealing with serious hazards. Poor supervision. Evidence of in adequate physical controls. Poor housekeeping. Several people exposed to hazards. Frequent use of hazardous substances. Employees unaware of significant risks/controls. |
| 5 | HIGH | Unsafe systems of work for dealing with serious hazards. Lack of supervision. Poor physical controls; immediate improvements needed. Bad housekeeping e.g. in adequate working space around machinery. Several people exposed to hazards. Frequent use of hazardous articles. Deliberate non-compliance. |
| 6 | MAJOR | As for HIGH but dependent on scale. Many people exposed to hazards. |
Note: the safety risk score should not exceed the safety hazard score
Health Risk
Definition: The likelihood that the harm from the single most serious hazard will be realised. Whilst harm from the single most serious hazard should be the primary consideration, enforcement officers may wish to increase the risk rating certain cases to reflect any cumulative effect of a number of significant hazards.
Description A numerical rating to indicate the level of risk at the workplace.
Additional Considerations
Risk reflects both the likelihood that harm will result and its severity in terms of the degree of harm and the number of people potentially affected. This depends on: the hazards present; the extent to which the hazards are controlled; and the number of people exposed to the hazards and frequency of the hazards.
Each of these factors is considered below:
The Hazards Present
The hazard rating previously determined is an important factor in deciding on the risk rating. As a rule, the hazard(s) that leads to the highest risk rating should be taken. This may not necessarily be the highest rating previously determined.
A low hazard would not justify a high risk rating irrespective of e.g. the standards of control or numbers exposed. However, a high hazard may warrant a low risk rating e.g. if it is very well controlled or if no-one is exposed to it. Therefore for hazard ratings 'negligible' or 'low' only risk ratings 'negligible' or 'low' should be applied.
Standard of Control
Good standards of control may result in lower risks. Poor standards should be reflected in a correspondingly higher risk rating. Standard of control extends beyond solely physical standards but assessment should be limited to considering the adequacy of control of immediate risks i.e.. it should reflect the conditions found at the inspection. Broader issues covering the management of health and safety risks are included under 'confidence' - see below.
Exposure to the Hazard
This depends on the frequency of occurrence of the hazard and the number of people exposed. The risk rating should be based on the numbers exposed to the hazard and the period of the exposure. Thus large groups justify a higher risk rating than individuals. Risk also increases as the period of exposure to the hazard increases. A large hairdressing salon, where staff frequently handle perming solutions, toners etc. is likely to present higher health risks than a small barbers shop where a self employed person occasionally uses perming lotion. Ultimately the risk rating relies on professional judgement but some further advice is set out below which enforcers officers may find helpful:
Health Risk Rating Reference Table
| RATING SCORE | OUTPUT NAME | INDICATIVE EXAMPLES |
| 1 | NEGLIGIBLE | Effective, well documented safe systems of work. Good supervision/monitoring. High standard of physical controls. Excellent housekeeping. Few people exposed to hazards. Infrequent use of hazardous substances. Employees aware of risks and how to control them. |
| 2 | LOW | Adequate safe systems of work. Adequate supervision. Good standard of physical controls. Good standard of housekeeping. Some people exposed to hazards. Regular, but not continuous use of hazardous substances. Employees aware of significant risks and important control measures. |
| 3 | MEDIUM LOW | Some adequate safe systems of work but evidence unsafe systems too. Ad-hoc supervision. Adequate physical controls. Housekeeping acceptable.Several people exposed to hazards. Frequent use of hazardous substances.Limited awareness of risks/control measures by employees. |
| 4 | MEDIUM HIGH | Unsafe systems of work for dealing with serious hazards. Poor supervision. Evidence of inadequate physical controls. Poor housekeeping. Several people exposed to hazards. Frequent use of hazardous substances. Employees unaware of significant risks/controls. |
| 5 | HIGH | Unsafe systems of work for dealing with serious hazards. Lack of supervision. Poor physical controls; immediate improvements needed. Bad housekeeping e.g. inadequate working space around machinery. Several people exposed to hazards. Frequent use of hazardous substances. Deliberate non-compliance |
| 6 | MAJOR | This category is not used by LAs as the highest health hazard rating score is 5 and the risk rating score should not exceed the hazard rating score. |
Note: health risk score should not exceed the health hazard score.
Welfare Provision
Definition: Quantifies the standard of welfare provision
Description It is a numerical rating to indicate the standard of welfare facilities provided by the occupying client at the workplace.
Additional Considerations
The facilities provided should be commensurate to the needs of people in the workplace i.e. suitable and sufficient sanitary conveniences, washing facilities (including showers if necessary), facilities for changing clothing and clothing accommodation, facilities for pregnant women/nursing mothers and provision for the prevention of discomfort caused by tobacco smoke. The rating should reflect the enforcing officer's opinion of the adequacy and standard of facilities provided.
WELFARE PROVISION RATING REFERENCE TABLE
| RATING SCORE | OUTPUT NAME | INDICATIVE EXAMPLES |
| 1 | VERY GOOD | Excellent welfare provision, no deficiencies noted. |
| 2 | GOOD | Good standard of welfare provision, only minor deficiencies noted |
| 3 | FAIR TO GOOD | Reasonable standard of welfare provision, some deficiencies noted but none serious. |
| 4 | FAIR TO BAD | Reasonable standard of welfare provision, but some serious deficiencies noted. |
| 5 | BAD | Poor standard of welfare provision. |
| 6 | VERY BAD | Absence or very poor standard of welfare provision. |
Public Risk
Definition: The likelihood that the public will be harmed by activities at a workplace.
Description A numerical rating to indicate the level of risk to the health and safety of members of the public from the workplace. Members of the public means people not employed in connection with the activities of the occupying business and includes, for example, customers in shops and residents of residential care homes as well as those who live, work or pass by such that they could be affect by workplace hazards, e.g. Legionella from water cooling towers. It would also include participants in commercially available leisure activities (but not private leisure clubs - see HSC(G)1). Contractors working on the client's site though are not classed as members of the public.
Additional Considerations
As with safety and health risk public risk depends on:
1. the hazards present;
2. the extent to which the hazards are controlled;
3. the number of people exposed to the hazards and frequency of hazards; and
4. Enforcement officers should take account of any particularly vulnerable group, e.g. children and the elderly.
Common hazards such as electric shocks from mains voltage installations, and slips and falls that are widespread both in and out of workplaces should be ignored. Ultimately the public risk rating relies on professional judgement although the following guidance may help to inform that judgement.
Public Risk Rating Reference Table
| RATING SCORE | OUTPUT NAME | INDICATIVE EXAMPLES |
| 1 | NEGLIGIBLE | Effective, well documented safe systems of work. Good supervision/monitoring. High standard of physical controls. Excellent housekeeping. Few people exposed to hazards. Infrequent use of hazardous articles/substances. Employees aware of risks and how to control them. |
| 2 | LOW | Adequate safe systems of work. Adequate supervision. Good standard of physical controls. Good standard of housekeeping. Some people exposed to hazards. Regular, but not continuous use of hazardous articles/substances. Employees aware of significant risks and important control measures. |
| 3 | MEDIUM LOW | Some adequate safe systems of work but evidence of unsafe systems too. Ad-hoc supervision. Adequate physical controls. Housekeeping acceptable. Several people exposed to hazards. Frequent use of hazardous articles/substances. Limited employee awareness of risks/control measures. |
| 4 | MEDIUM HIGH | Unsafe systems of work for dealing with serious hazards. Poor supervision. Evidence of inadequate physical controls. Poor housekeeping. Several people exposed to hazards. Frequent use of hazardous articles/substances. Employees unaware of significant risks/controls. |
| 5 | HIGH | Unsafe systems of work for dealing with serious hazards. Lack of supervision. Poor physical controls; immediate improvements needed. Bad housekeeping e.g. inadequate working space around machinery. Several people exposed to hazards. Frequent use of hazardous articles/substances Deliberate non-compliance |
| 6 | MAJOR | As for HIGH but dependent on scale. Poorly controlled risks from Legionnella or Asbestos removal where there is potential for the wider public to be affected. |
Confidence in Management
Definition: Quantifies the enforcement officer's confidence in management.
Description A numerical rating to indicate the enforcement officer's confidence in management's ability to maintain or attain a low level of health and safety risk, at the workplace, in the foreseeable future.
Additional Considerations
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 attitude of the present management towards health and safety;
-
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.
Enforcement officers will recognise that some of these factors may apply less easily to small or medium size companies where all or most management functions may rest with one person. In applying the scoring system to small firms enforcement officers should bear in mind that in many cases procedures may not be documented. In such cases enforcement officers will be looking to identify how far the spirit and practice of these examples is evident in the way company deals with health and safety issues.
Assessment should be based on the following nine key issues:
(1) an effective health and safety policy and an effective management system to make it work;
(2) an adequate management structure, according to the size of the undertaking to implement the policy;
(3) adequate and appropriate arrangements to secure the trust, participation and involvement of all employees;
(4) adequate arrangements to secure information flows into, within and from the organisation;
(5) systems and arrangements to secure the competence of all working on the site;
(6) adequate processes to generate plans, risk assessments and performance standards to implement the policy;
(7) adequate and sufficient measurement of performance both before and after accidents and incidents;
(8) adequate and sufficient performance review to ensure that the lessons learned are effectively put into practice to improve performance throughout the organisation; and
(9) adequate auditing of the health and safety system.
Some indicative examples of each of the categories of confidence in management are given below. Not all systems will be equally effective and not all aspects of management will inspire the same degree of confidence. In lower risk establishments it may be the case that not all aspects of management need to be present. The factor chosen will be a compromise which most accurately summarises the inspector's opinion. The examples are intended to assist that professional judgement.
Confidence in Management Reference Table
| RATING SCORE | OUTPUT NAME | INDICATIVE EXAMPLES |
| 1 | EXTREMELY CONFIDENT |
|
| 2 | VERY CONFIDENT |
|
| 3 | REASONABLY CONFIDENT |
|
| 4 | A LITTLE CONFIDENT |
|
| 5 | ALMOST NO CONFIDENCE |
|
| 6 | NO CONFIDENCE |
|
Annex 3
Calculating Inspection Ratings
| Inspector's Observation/Judgement | (1)Rating Score = 1=>6 | (2)Weighting (given) |
(3)[=(1)x(2)] Product |
| Safety Hazard:"Injuries unlikely to cause permanent disability ..." | Medium to Low = 3 | 6 | 18 |
| Health Hazard:"Use of irritant substances..." | Low = 2 | 6 | 12 |
| Safety Risks:"Adequate safe systems of work.." | Low = 2 | 9 | 18 |
| Health Risk:"Some people exposed to hazards..." | Low = 2 | 9 | 18 |
| Welfare:"Fair to bad" | = 4 | 5 | 20 |
| Public Risk" Unsafe systems of work for dealing with serious hazards..." | Medium/High = 4 | 10 | 40 |
| Confidence in Management:"..the health and safety policy covers most major areas.." | ReasonablyConfident = 3 | 10 | 30 |
| TOTAL | 156 | ||
| National Accident Data [re-rated annually, see LAs Annual Report] Examples only: Offices +2Catering +5Retail +5(Based on 1998/99 injury data) | |||
| Assuming all 'Group A' premises are planned to be visited annually i.e. score >= 186, the premises in this example would be not be due for a planned inspection for two years. The result of this example is a score of 156.Even if the premises were retail (+5 NAD) the score following inspection would be 161 (156+5)and so a revisit would still not be due until year 2. | 156(+NAD)(GROUP 'B') | ||
Annex 4
LAC 67/1(rev.2) Inspection Rating Calculation Sheet
| Inspector's Observation/Judgement | (1)Rating Score = 1=>6 | (2)Weighting (given) |
(3)[=(1)x(2)] Product |
| Safety Hazard: | 6 | ||
| Health Hazard: | 6 | ||
| Safety Risks: | 9 | ||
| Health Risk: | 9 | ||
| Welfare: | 5 | ||
| Public Risk | 10 | ||
| Confidence in Management: | 10 | ||
| TOTAL | |||
| National Accident Data (NAD) addition | |||
| Grand TotalNext Inspection Due | |||
Annex 5
Examples of premises in each of the nine National Accident/Incident Data Categories
| 1. Retail Shops | Food retailers, confectioners, tobacconists, newsagents and off-licensesDispensing and other chemistsRetailers of clothes, footwear and leather goodsRetailers of furnishing fabrics and household textilesRetailers of household goods, hardware and ironmongeryRetailers of motor vehicles & parts, tyre & exhaust fitters and filling stationsRetailers of books, stationery and office suppliesPet shops, second-hand goods shops and market stallsMixed retail businesses (e.g. department stores, mail order houses)Garden centres; repair of personal & household goods |
| 2. Wholesale shops, warehouses and fuel storage depots | Warehouses and/or wholesale distributors of:
timber and building materialsmachinery, industrial equipment, vehicles, fuels
and petroleum productshousehold goods, hardware and ironmongery, construction materialstextiles,
clothing, footwear and leather goodsfood, drink and tobacco; flowers and plantspharmaceutical,
medical and other chemists' goods
Dealers in scrap and waste material |
| 3. Offices | Banks, building societies, finance houses and insurance & pension brokers (except benefit offices), security dealers/brokers, mortgage brokersEstate agents, lawyers, accountants, auditors, tax experts, market researchers, management consultantsArchitects, surveyors and consulting engineers, auctioneers, industrial cleaning (includes window cleaners), security servicesAdvertising agencies, employment agencies, hardware/software consultants, data processing, technical testing and analysis |
| 4. Catering, restaurants & bars | Restaurants, snack bars, cafes, take-aways, fast food outlets & other eating places (inc. mobile vendors); catering services, preparation of in-flight mealsPublic houses & bars; Night clubs & licensed clubs (exc. sports clubs) |
| 5. Hotels, camp sites and other short-stay accommodation | Hotels, motels, B&Bs and guest housesYouth hostels, mountain refugesCamping and caravan sites, holiday camps |
| 6. Residential care homes | Residential care homes for the elderlyChildren's homes |
| 7. Leisure and cultural services | Theatres, libraries, museums & art galleries , concert halls, cinemas, dancing schools (if not attached to a school), ticket agenciesSporting establishments (e.g. health clubs, golf clubs, racecourses, riding schools etc.), bungee jumpingMotor sports, quad biking & go-karting; pleasure boat hireBookmakers, casinos, bingo halls & amusement arcadesZoos and circuses; stately homes/grounds (National Trust or similar) |
| 8. Consumer services and membership organisations | Coin-operated laundries and dry cleanersHairdressers and beauty parlours; therapeutic treatmentPre-school child care (if child care is the main activity at the premise)Undertakers, photographic studios, heel bars, opticiansChurches and religious establishments; trade unions, political organisations, professional organisations, youth/student associations, community/social associations |
| 9. Other premises | Car parks, vehicle hire, hire shops (to consumers not trade)Travel agents, postal sorting officesAnimal boarding |
Recent additions and changes
Making a difference - Judith Hackitt
/ Arabic
/ Bengali
/ Chinese
/ Farsi
/ Gujarati
/ Hindi
/ Kurdish
/ Pashto
/ Punjabi
/ Tamil
/ Urdu