LAC 67/2 (rev4.1) - Targeting local authority interventions Local authority circular

LAC 67/2 (rev4.1) - Targeting local
authority interventions
Local authority circular

Subject: Setting Priorities and Targeting Interventions

Open government status: Fully open

Target audience: Local authority health and safety regulators (practitioners and managers)

Summary

Background

Introduction

Action

Further references

Printable version
Annexes

Annex A - Summary of national planning priorities 2015-2016

Annex B - Information sources to assist development of LA intervention plans

Annex C - Examples of Intervention Types

Annex D - Intervention plan summary table

Annex E - Example Case Studies

Annex F - Risk Rating System

Annex G - Recording Local Authority Activity and Enforcement Data (the LAE1)
Summary
This Local Authority Circular (LAC 67/2 (rev4.1) is guidance under Section 18 Health and Safety at
Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA) and replaces LAC 67/2 (rev4) and all earlier versions.
The LAC provides LAs with guidance and tools for priority planning and targeting their
interventions to enable them to meet the requirements of the National Local Authority Enforcement
Code
(the Code).
Background
In May 2013 HSE published the National Local Authority Enforcement Code (the Code). The Code
was developed in response to the recommendation in “Reclaiming health & safety for all: an
independent review of health & safety legislation” by Professor Ragnar Löfstedt for HSE to be
given a stronger role in directing Local Authority (LA) health and safety inspection and
enforcement activity and as an outcome of the Red Tape Challenge on health and safety.
The Code is designed to ensure that LA health and safety regulators take a more consistent and
proportionate approach to their regulatory interventions. It sets out the Government expectations
of a risk based approach to targeting. Whilst the primary responsibility for managing health and
safety risks lies with the business who creates the risk, LA health and safety regulators have an
important role in ensuring the effective and proportionate management of risks, supporting
business, protecting their communities and contributing to the wider public health agenda.
To assist LAs understand and implement the Code, supplementary guidance was published on 29
June 2013.
Introduction
The Code provides LAs with a principles based framework that focuses regulatory resources on
the basis of risk.
The Code requires LAs to consider a range of regulatory techniques (interventions) to influence
the management of risk by a business. LAs are responsible for regulating 1.6 million workplaces
and it is neither proportionate nor effective to deliver a regulatory function based on inspection of
individual workplaces – particularly since many of those workplaces will already be managing their
risks effectively.
Inspection can be very effective in the right circumstances – where individual face-to-face contact
with a dutyholder is necessary to influence their management of risk. However, it is the most
resource intensive and should be limited to the highest risk premises; conversely it may not be
considered to be the best use of public resource to inspect comparatively lower risk premises.
To assist LA targeting, alongside the Code HSE has published a list of national priorities, and a list
of specific activities in defined sectors that are suitable for targeting for proactive
inspection. Following the principles of the Code, proactive inspection should only be used for
2
premises on the list or where there is local evidence that risks are not being effectively
managed. LAs should also maintain a strong deterrent against those businesses who fail to meet
their health and safety obligations.
Implementing and complying with the Code will ensure that LA regulatory resource is used
consistently and to best effect. Using risk based targeting should free up resources and facilitate
the provision of advisory visits and support to deliver the growth agenda particularly with new
business start-ups.
The LAC provides LAs with guidance and tools for setting their health and safety priorities and
targeting their interventions to enable them to meet the requirements of the Code.
Action
1. Setting Priorities

In delivering their priorities LAs should ensure their planned regulatory activity is focussed on
outcomes. The Code provides flexibility for LAs to address local priorities alongside the national
priorities set by HSE.

LA’s should construct their work plan for a given year to deliver specific outcomes. The plan is
likely to consist of work to deliver those national priorities set by HSE, work to deliver local
priorities and be accompanied by an inspection programme that meets the requirements of the
Code.
National Priorities

To inform LA regulatory interventions, HSE commits within the Code to providing specific sector
strategies with associated national planning priorities. The national priorities are drawn from
HSE’s sectors strategies and can be sector and/or topic based. HSE will review the national
priorities annually (in September/October) in time to inform LA planning (See Sector Strategies
and Annex A – Summary of National Priorities).
Local priorities

Local information can also be used by LAs to determine the key risks of serious workplace
accidents, injuries and ill-health to identify their priorities

(See Annex B - Information sources to assist development of LA intervention plans).
3

Matters of Evident Concern (MECs) are defined as those that create a risk of serious personal
injury or ill-health and which are observed (i.e. self-evident) or brought to the inspector’s
attention. Matters of Potential Major Concern (MPMCs) are those which have a realistic
potential to cause either multiple fatalities or multiple cases of acute or chronic ill-health.

LAs should monitor MECs or MPMCs dealt with during advisory or other regulatory visits as well
as complaints and incidents to identify any matters that may present a potential significant local
issue.

Where LAs, individually, or through their Liaison groups, become aware of an issue that may be
novel or an emerging problem they should alert HSE (via the dedicated area on HELex or via
[email protected] ). This will allow the issue to be considered further and a decision
taken as to whether national action may be appropriate e.g. issuing a safety bulletin/alert or a
centralised intervention is necessary.
Primary Authority inspection plans

Primary Authority (PA) inspection plans should be focussed on outcomes related to specific
priorities. The inspection plan should follow the principles of the Code with proactive inspection
consistent with the list of activities/sectors published by HSE. If issues are identified with a PA
business as a result of local intelligence (RIDDORS, AIRS etc.) contact should be made with
the Primary Authority to check and share each other’s information. This will help determine a
proportionate and consistent response and ensure that any national implications can be
considered.
2. Targeting interventions

LAs should use the range of techniques (interventions) available to increase their impact and
reach to influence behaviours and improve the management of risk. LAs should decide, plan
and target their health and safety interventions based on the outcomes and priorities that they
are trying to address.
Focussing on priorities and outcomes

To assist LAs to target their resources HSE has published a list of higher risk activities falling
into specific LA enforced sectors appropriate for targeting for proactive inspection
4
. Under the
Code proactive inspection should be used only for the activities on this list or where there is
intelligence that risks are not being effectively managed.

Not all national priorities are on the list of activities/sectors suitable for targeting for proactive
inspection. This is because some priorities are better suited to other interventions e.g. LAs
should not specifically inspect premises for the presence of asbestos but can seek to raise
awareness of the requirement to manage asbestos. (For information on the range of
intervention types see Annex C - Examples of Intervention Types; Annex D - Intervention
Planning Summary Table; Annex E - Case Studies)

LAs should expect to explain to the business why they are being inspected. A business can
complain to the Independent Regulatory Challenge Panel when they consider that they operate
in a lower risk sector and have been unreasonably subject to a proactive health and safety
inspection by an LA. Where the Panel upholds a complaint, HSE will work with the LA in
question to assist the LAs implementation and compliance with the Code.

HSE has developed a risk-based approach to complaint handling and incident selection criteria,
which LAs should adopt to help target their reactive interventions and make best use of
resources.
Risk ratings

Risk rating premises based on their health and safety performance provides useful information
for an LA to assist the determination of relative intervention priorities. The Code supersedes all
previous guidance and risk ratings alone should not be used to determine the use of a particular
intervention or to decide an intervention frequency. However, whilst it is likely that premises
rated Category A have been rated such because they have been judged as not managing their
risks effectively, you should ensure that you have evidence to justify the risk rating. Confidence
in management considered in isolation is not sufficient to justify an A rating.

The means of risk rating premises using the four Category (A, B1, B2 and C) premises riskrating system based on a business’s health and safety performance can be found at Annex F Risk Rating)

Advisory visits or reactive regulatory interventions such as dealing with complaints and incident
and ill health investigations provide a good opportunity to consider how businesses manage
health and safety.
3. Reporting performance
5

Under the Code, LAs should ensure they have a means of monitoring, capturing and sharing
health and safety intervention, enforcement and prosecution activity. LAs must make this
information available and share it with HSE via the LAE1 return to allow the preparation of
national data. This national data will be on the HSE website to assist LAs to benchmark and
peer review their work with other LAs.

The LAE1 is limited to the capture of occupational health and safety regulatory activity required
by HSE. LAs are however at liberty to report to their LAs or members a greater set of activity or
information than that required by HSE on the LAE1. (See Annex G - Recording Local Authority
Activity and Enforcement Data (the LAE1)
Application to Petroleum Certification and Explosives Licensing
Regimes
The Code applies to all LA enforcement under the Health & Safety at Work etc Act. This includes
the requirement to follow a risk-based approach to regulation for petroleum certification and
petroleum and explosives licensing and the enforcement of relevant health and safety legislation at
petrol filling, non-workplaces in relation to petroleum storage and licenced explosives sites e.g.
Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 (DSEAR) and the
explosives/petroleum regulations.
The requirement on regulators, however, for recording activity and enforcement data via the LAE1
under the Code; the national priorities, the risk rating scheme under this LAC and the List of
activities/sectors for proactive inspection by LAs
do not apply.
In practice, enforcing authorities for petroleum and explosives sites will need to ensure, by riskbased proactive inspection visits, that site operators are complying with the goal setting duties set
out in the relevant health and safety legislation or for domestic and non-workplace petrol is stored
in accordance with the petroleum storage regulations and any applicable licence conditions.
The application to petroleum and explosives in this way is because the requirements for recording
via the LAE1, the national priorities, the risk rating scheme and the List of activities/sectors for
proactive inspection by LAs were developed to address conventional health and safety issues and
not the potential for high hazard/low frequency major incidents with the potential for substantial offsite effects that petroleum and explosives sites can pose.
6
For further information on addressing the risks posed, regulators warranted to enforce the relevant
legislation at certificated petroleum sites or licenced explosive sites should consult:
For certificated petroleum sites-
http://www.hse.gov.uk/fireandexplosion/petroleum.htm
For licensed explosives sites General Information: http://www.hse.gov.uk/explosives/index.htm
Explosives Regulations 2014 Guidance: Safety provisions http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/l150.htm
Explosives Regulations 2014 Guidance: Security provisions http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/l151.htm
Explosives Regulations 2014 sub sector guidance - http://www.hse.gov.uk/explosives/new-regssubsector.htm
Further References

The National Local Authority Enforcement Code

The National Local Authority Enforcement Code – supplementary guidance

List of activities/sectors for proactive inspection by LAs

Sector Strategies

Independent Regulatory Challenge Panel
7
LAC 67/2 (rev4.1) - Targeting local
authority interventions
Annex A - Summary of national planning priorities
2015 - 2016
This annex sets out the 2015-16 local authority national planning priorities. Note: Not all
national priorities have a proactive inspection component.
Over-arching principles
LAs should use the full range of interventions available to influence behaviours and the
management of risk with proactive inspection utilised only for premises with higher risks or where
intelligence shows that risks are not being effectively managed.
Proactive inspections
Proactive inspection should only be used:
a) For high risk activities within the specific LA enforced sectors published by HSE (See List of
activities/sectors for proactive inspection by LAs
); or
b) Where there is intelligence showing that risks are not being effectively managed
In both circumstances, LAs have the discretion as to whether or not proactive inspection is
the most appropriate intervention. (See Annex C - Examples of Intervention Types; Annex D –
Intervention Plan Summary Table and Annex E - Example Case Studies).
LAs risk ratings should be used to help formulate relative intervention priorities i.e. to allow better
targeting of their other interventions on the basis of risk but proactive inspection interventions
should only be determined by a) and b) above.
Primary Authority inspection plans should follow the principles of the Code and be developed
taking into account the national priorities (see below) and the list of activities/sectors considered
suitable for proactive inspection.
8
National Priorities1
Although most construction work is regulated by HSE, LA health and safety regulators can make a
significant contribution to addressing construction health and safety risks. Where the
owners/occupiers of commercial premises at general visits appear likely to be clients for
construction work, LAs should draw their attention to the Construction (Design and Management)
Regulations (CDM) 2015 and the duties they have as CDM clients, referring them to advice
available2. In addition, there are a number of specific topic areas LAs should address during the
course of their visits, as outlined below. These concur with priorities in the HSE Construction
Division Plan of Work 2015-16.

Falls from height – work on/adjacent to fragile roofs/materials - Fragile roofs/skylights etc.,
can be found at many premises that fall to LAs for enforcement. Where they are identified
during visits , LAs should discuss the associated risks, to ensure that prospective clients for
repair and maintenance work (owner or building user) is aware of their duties under CDM 2015
and the precautions needed, referring them to the appropriate guidance3. On occasions, LA
health and safety regulators may come across work on a fragile roof that is underway at the
premises being visited (typically, small-scale repairs/maintenance such as gutter cleaning). The
risks may give rise to a matter of evident concern (MEC), in which case, poor standards should
be addressed with all duty holders – client, designers and contractors, and any enforcement
action taken in accordance with the Enforcing Authority (EA) Regulations 19984 and in
collaboration with HSE, where appropriate and using normal channels.

Health risks - respirable silica dust - Dust, containing harmful respirable crystalline silica
(RCS), can be generated during common operations such as block cutting, chasing brickwork
and cutting concrete floors. The standards for controlling this dust are detailed in HSE
guidance5 6. During visits, LAs may come across minor construction work that is generating
1
The legionella intervention programme and the campaign to visit high priority LPG underground pipework in
specified premises, have now concluded and are no longer considered national priorities. However, the list of high
risk sectors/activities suitable for proactive inspection will continue to include legionella in premises with cooling
towers/evaporative condensers, and LPG in premises with buried metallic pipework to allow proactive inspection
where it is appropriate. The LPG trade association and LPG suppliers are currently dealing with lower priority
premises, and there is no intention to allocate these to LAs for visits. There may however be a small number of
premises where issues remain and which will require a visit during 2015/16 and any such premises will be notified
directly to the relevant LA.
2
http://www.citb.co.uk/documents/cdm%20regs/industry-guidance-clients.pdf.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/geis5.htm
4
http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/internalops/ocs/100-199/124_11/index.htm
5
http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/healthrisks/hazardous-substances/construction-dust.htm
3
9
significant quantities of silica dust that give rise to a MEC. Poor standards should be addressed
with dutyholders, and any enforcement action taken in accordance with the EA Regulations
1998, collaborating with HSE where appropriate, using normal channels. See operational
guidance on silica used by HSE Inspectors7.

Duty to manage asbestos - In premises likely to contain asbestos (i.e. built before 2000) LA
health and safety regulators should draw dutyholders’ attention to their duty to manage and the
relevant HSE guidance/webpages8 On occasions, failure to manage the risks from asbestos
(e.g. failure to maintain in a safe condition or minor construction work that breaches the fabric of
the building without proper surveys, controls or planning) may need to be dealt with as a MEC
during general visits. Where management of asbestos risks arises as an MEC and standards
are particularly poor, LAs should take appropriate enforcement action, in accordance with the
EA Regulations 1998, collaborating with HSE where necessary and using normal channels.

Visitor attractions to prevent or control ill health arising from animal contact - select the most
appropriate intervention (See Preventing or controlling ill-health from animal contact at visitor
attractions – guidance on inspection and enforcement and List of activities/sectors for proactive
inspection by LAs

);
Investigation of incidents and complaints - LAs should use HSEs incident selection criteria and
complaint handling to select relevant incidents and complaints;

Reactive work including the monitoring of RIDDOR reports and complaints to identify reports of
ill health, accidents, incidents, poor performance, trends and local issues which may require
further interventions or issues which may need to be taken forward nationally
6
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/cis36.pdf
http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/internalops/og/og-00017.htm
8
http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/duty.htm
7
10
LAC 67/2 (rev4.1) - Targeting local
authority interventions
Annex B – Information sources to assist
development of LA intervention plans
Although not exhaustive the following summarises the potential information sources that may be
available to assist LAs when developing intervention plans - data protection issues may need
addressing when sharing information of this type.
Sources within your Local Authority

LA Inspection/complaints database - risk ratings, past performance, local trends.

Food Safety Officer observations – confidence in management, M.E.C.

Trading standards - confidence in management, M.E.C.

Building control - changes in business activity, M.E.C.

Business rates - new businesses.

Registration/Licensing schemes - new businesses, changes in business activity, confidence in
management.

Adverse Insurance Reports (AIRs) - may indicate poor management, maintenance.

Local knowledge - local sector changes, poor performers.

Community protection teams - issues identified by multi-regulatory working.
Sources within your local community and region

Local health and safety Liaison Groups - Local trends, sharing good regulatory practice,
methods of effective engagement, poor performing companies that operate in more than one
LA.
11

Clinical Commissioning Groups - anonymised local work related ill health statistics, issues that
span the health and safety/ public health boundary.

GPs - reportable cases of work related ill health, reports disclosed by patients.

CQC and County Councils - identification of establishments with poor or failing management
systems, issues that span the health and safety/ public health boundary.

Safety representatives/local Trade Union contacts - worker complaints.

Local Trade Association contacts - issues of poor practice, requests for advice.

Information from Local Enterprise Partnerships and their associated structures. Local
Media/Press - reported near misses.

Police - information regarding violence in workplace or issues from the local community safety
scheme.

Local training establishments - requests for advice, joint activity, changes in local business
profiles.

Information within the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment.
HSE sources

RIDDOR data - reported ill health and accidents, statistically comparisons and trends.

Labour Force Survey - societal trends may include otherwise unreported trends.

National planning priorities - issues identified and analysed by HSE policy teams as having a
national priority.

Prosecutions database.

Local HSE office contacts - shared local knowledge, issues crossing the HSE/LA regulatory
boundaries.

Asbestos (ASB5) Database - Priority Visit Status (PVC) and requests for asbestos license
deferments - if unjustified they may indicate deficiencies in competence or poor practice.

Industry sector updates via HSE email bulletins 9.5
12

Information provided to all LA Health and safety regulatory staff via HELEX system.
LAC 67/2 (rev4.1) - Targeting local
authority interventions
Annex C – Examples of Intervention Types
This Annex sets out the range of intervention types available for the Regulation of Health and
Safety at Work with examples of their use. Further example case studies are also provided to help
develop the principles of intervention use at Annex E. LAs are invited to share further examples on
HELex.
Type
Description
Examples
Intervention types:
Influencing and Engaging with Stakeholders, Others in Industry and Large Employers
Developing new relationships between
Strategic relationships
between organisations or
groups who are convinced
that improving health and
safety will help them achieve
Partnerships
their own objectives. This
may involve duty holders or
trade unions, regulators,
businesses and regulatory services to reduce the
regulatory burden on businesses; promote two
way communication between businesses and
regulatory services; supporting regulators to find
the right balance between encouragement,
education and enforcement and offering support
from regulatory services for businesses e.g. Local
Enterprise Partnerships.
other Government
Working with a range of agencies e.g. work
departments, trade bodies,
experience co-ordinators, secondary school
investors.
students and other regulators/enforcement
organisations from the coast guard to school
wardens to raise awareness on sensible health
13
and safety, tattooing, road and fire safety, and
workplace safety use a variety of techniques e.g.
supporting website and Facebook pages.
Estates Excellence type projects use a range of
organisations (e.g. LAs, Fire and Rescue Service,
the Federation of Small Businesses, EEF, service
providers, trade unions and local business
groups) to set up/fulfil the need for advice and
training for businesses and workers. Uses
specially-trained staff to visit SMEs on targeted
industrial estates to offer advice to managers and
workers and provide free workshops, training,
advice and guidance specifically targeted to a
business' individual needs.
Encouraging the most senior
managers to enlist their
commitment to achieving
Business engagement partnerships (e.g. Local
continuous improvement in
Enterprise Partnerships) can link a range of local
Motivating
health and safety
Senior
performance as part of good
Managers
corporate governance, and
partners including representatives from the
Federation of Small business and Chamber of
Commerce to get manager buy-in on effective
to ensure that lessons learnt
management of health and safety risks.
in one part of the
organisation are applied
throughout it (and beyond).
Encouraging those at the top
of the supply chain (who are
usually large organisations,
Supply Chain
often with relatively high
standards) to use their
influence to raise standards
further down the chain, e.g.
Given an LA’s local focus, national supply chain
activity is often outside of their remit (although
large Primary Authority Schemes may help
develop this).
However, there can be opportunities for LAs to
get local supply chains to improve health and
safety e.g. office cleaning suppliers, builders
14
by inclusion of suitable
merchants.
conditions in purchasing
contracts.
LAs can also be involved in helping to collect
intelligence that feeds into supply chain
monitoring e.g. linking in with trading standards or
public health work on sunbeds, tattoo inks.
Violence at Work/Retail Violence/Safe Bet
Working with those who can
Alliance schemes have been adopted by LAs.
improve health and safety by Engagement and education have led to outlets
Design and
improving the design of
adopting a number of design and procedural
processes or products.
changes to improve safety/stress of employees
Supply
and the handling of incidents and their aftermath.
Initiative to reduce workplace violence in
“Gearing” achieved by
takeaways – the LA working with the Police and
stimulating a whole sector or
local takeaways to pledge and commit to certain
an industry to sign up to an
activities e.g. takeaways prohibiting customers
Sector and
Industry-wide
initiative to combat key risks, possessing alcohol from entering the premises;
Initiatives
preferably taking ownership
the Police and the LA providing specific guidance,
of improvement targets.
training, promotion and publicity.
Enhancing the work done
with people and
organisations that can
influence duty holders.
Using local HABIA and training college contacts to
These may be trade bodies,
Intermediaries
influence hair dressers and managers to take up
their insurance companies,
published materials and working practices.
their investors or other parts
of government who perhaps
are providing money or
training to duty holders.
Engaging with the Workforce
Working with safety
Migrant Workers - Using the local community
representatives, trade unions structures and support groups to educate and
15
Working with
and other organisations that
communicate health and safety messages to
Those At Risk
represent people put at risk
vulnerable migrant workers.
by work activities to support
them in their roles.
Working with Other Regulators and Government Departments
Where appropriate work with
other regulators (including
Working with relevant signatories of the WorkHSE, other LA regulators,
Related Death Protocol.
the Police etc.) to clarify and
Working with
set demarcation
other
arrangements; promote
regulators etc.
cooperation; coordinate and
Working with the Care Quality Commission during
the period of transition to aid handover and
ensure continued protection of employees and
undertake joint activities
non –employees.
where proportionate and
appropriate; share
information and intelligence.
Creating Knowledge and Awareness of Health and Safety Risks and Encouraging
Behaviour Change
Using awareness days and targeted information
to promote health and safety messages at take
Seeking further ways of
away establishments.
getting messages and
advice across early to key
Working with educational establishments that
target groups, particularly
operate work experience placements to raise
those who are difficult to
safety awareness of students.
Education and
reach, using channels such
Awareness
as small business groups,
chambers of commerce etc.
Promoting risk education as
a curriculum item at all levels
of the education system.
Gas safety in catering premises – having
evaluated intelligence that highlighted local
catering premises were not managing significant
risks effectively including gas engineers working
out of scope - food safety officers, health and
safety officers and representatives from Gas Safe
Register developed and organised a training day
16
for the local businesses and enforcement officers.
Talks to local Technical College students e.g. to
construction students on asbestos awareness, to
student hospitality managers – on legionella
control, to hair dressing students – on dermatitis.
Offering advice and support visits to new business
start-ups.
Promoting Proportionate and Sensible Health and Safety
Encouraging the
development of examples
with those organisations that
Promoting and sharing compliant practice through
are committed to
campaigns, local business forums, large business
performance and then using
mentoring small businesses etc. to improve the
these examples to show
management of health and safety risks.
Encouraging
Compliance
others the practicality and
value of improving their own
standards.
Business Awards to give public recognition to
“Where proper management
of risks can be assured, HSE
workplaces that have taken positive action to
improve employee’s health and wellbeing.
and LAs will not intervene
Recognising the use of third party inspections and
proactively. This means we
audits for large events (formalised in license
Recognising
will discourage HSE and LAs agreements) by LAs who then only need to
Compliance
from putting resources into
oversee/check the process – thus freeing up LA
issues where the risks are of
resources for other purposes.
low significance, well
understood and properly
Directing regulatory resources away from
managed.”
compliant businesses and low risk activities, and
a more direct focus on non-compliant businesses.
17
Inspection and Investigation
Alongside the National LA
Enforcement Code (the
Code), HSE has published a
list of higher risk activities
falling into specific LA
enforced sectors. Under the
Code, proactive inspection
should only be used for the
activities on this list and
within the sectors or types of
organisations listed, or
where there is intelligence
showing that risks are not
being effectively managed.
Proactive inspection of industrial retail/wholesale
The list is not a list of
Inspection
premises to ensure adequate control of work at
national priorities but rather
height and work place transport.
a list of specific activities in
defined sectors to govern
when proactive inspection
can be used. However, if a
business carries out an
activity on this higher risk
list, it does not mean that it
must be proactively
inspected: LAs still have
discretion as to whether or
not proactive inspection is
the right intervention for
businesses in these higher
risk categories.
Incident and Ill
Making sure that the
Using HSE Accident selection criteria and HSE’s
Health
immediate and underlying
risk based approach to complaints handling
18
Investigation
causes are identified, taking
When there is only limited information regarding
the necessary enforcement
the potential need for a more involved intervention
action, learning and applying it may be prudent to maintain an active ‘watching
the lessons.
brief’ to see if there is cumulative evidence that
identifies poor performance.
Encouraging duty holders to
Dealing with
be active and making sure
Adoption of the HSE complaints handling
Issues of
that significant concerns and
procedures to ensure that resources are targeted
Concern and
complaints from
on complaints that indicate the poor management
Complaints
stakeholders are dealt with
of risk.
appropriately.
Enforcement
Ensuring that adequate arrangements are
Inspection and investigation
made for enforcement.
provides the basis for
enforcement action to
Taking proportionate enforcement action in line
prevent harm, to secure
with HSE’s Enforcement Policy Statement
sustained improvement in
(EPS) (www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse41.pdf) and
the management of health
Enforcement Management Model
and safety risks and to hold
(www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/emm.pdf).
those who fail to meet their
Enforcement
health and safety obligations
When taking enforcement action, making it
to account. Enforcement
clear to the dutyholder which matters are
also provides a strong
subject to enforcement, where compliance has
deterrent against those
not been achieved, what measures are needed
businesses who fail to meet
to achieve compliance (including timescales)
these obligations and
and their right to challenge/appeal.
thereby derive an unfair
Following up on enforcement action taken to
competitive advantage.
check that the necessary improvements have
been made.
Other forms of proactive
19
activity that are distinctly
different to the other types of
intervention outlined
elsewhere on this list. Such
Other
interventions should be
interventions
clearly described and named
E.g. Test purchasing of services.
within your own recording
systems to aid any future
analysis and to prevent this
classification being used as
a ‘catch-all’.
20
LAC 67/2 (rev4.1) - Targeting local
authority interventions
Annex D - Intervention plan summary table
What are
Where to
How to
intervene?
intervene?
When to
Who should
Consider the
Consider the
intervene?
intervene?
sectors and
range of
Time your
Determine
activities to
interventions4
interventions5.
resources6.
be targeted3.
available.
Why
your
intervene?
priorities?
Evaluate
Decide your
your
intervention
evidence2.
priorities1
Intervention Title:
Partnerships
Motivating Senior
Managers
Supply Chain
Design and
Supply
Sector wide
Initiatives
Intermediaries
Working with
Those At Risk
Working with
Other Regulators
etc.
Education and
Awareness
Encouraging
21
Compliance
Recognising
Compliance
Inspection
Incident and Ill
Health
Investigation
Dealing with
Issues of
Concern and
Complaints
Other
interventions
………………..
Signed off by Senior Manager:
The Intervention Planning Summary Table above and guidance below is to help LAs consider the
whole range of interventions available when planning and recording their intervention plans. The
Table helps LAs provide a consistent approach and may prove useful in defending the use of any
particular intervention type if challenged.
1 Decide your priorities – What are your priorities for
intervention?
Your priorities should be based on the principles contained within the National Local Authority
Enforcement Code - targeting your resources on your highest risks or where there is evidence to
show poor performance; tackling national and local priorities; dealing with matters of evident
concern; using the range of interventions available; encouraging business growth e.g. offering
advice and support to new business start-ups.
22
2 Evaluate your evidence - Why intervene?
Evaluate the evidence you have to intervene such as: National Priorities- see Annex A; local
priorities – derived from known local issues see Annex BCan you justify intervening? Have you
got sufficient evidence to show there is an issue that requires an intervention? Are you able to
identify poor performance?
3 Consider the sectors and activities to be targeted - Where to
intervene?
Have you got information on the potential sectors/activities and risks you should target? Are you
able to identify those sectors and high risk activities where proactive inspection would be
appropriate? Do you know the key stakeholders you may wish to influence or work in partnership
with? Are there potential intermediaries or supply chains you could target to help manage risk
more effectively? Can you work with other regulators for greater impact? Are your outcomes
measurable?
4 Consider the range of interventions available - How to
intervene?
What interventions have you considered? What was the rationale for using a particular
intervention? Does the intervention fit in with previous actions to address an issue? Does your
intervention complement/support other interventions? If your intervention is a proactive inspection
at a premise - would you be able to justify this to the business, Peer Review Group or the
Independent Regulatory Challenge Panel on the basis of risk or poor performance? If a business
carries out an activity on the high risk list published by HSE, LAs have the discretion as to whether
or not proactive inspection is the right intervention for the business. Also, consider how to evaluate
the outcomes of your interventions.
5 Time your interventions - When to intervene?
Why is it appropriate to address this issue at this time? Does the intervention ‘chime in’ with other
national or local priority interventions?
6 Determine resources - Who should intervene?
Consider if others are better placed to intervene e.g. use of other training providers, industry best
practice forums, other more appropriate regulators or regulation, larger businesses acting as local
mentors, etc.
23
LAC 67/2 (rev4.1) - Targeting local
authority interventions
Annex E - Example Case Studies
This Annex provides examples of LA interventions that illustrate the principles and philosophy in
intervention planning. In each case the LA considered the evidence available for an intervention
and then considered the most appropriate intervention type available to achieve its outcome. The
numbers in the text (e.g. 1, 2, 3 etc.) relate to the notes at the bottom of the page and indicate where
these types of intervention would be recorded on the LAE1.
a) Legionella
Intended Outcome – improve standards in legionella management.
Following a Health and Safety Laboratory review of Legionnaires’ disease outbreaks over 10 years
and formal HSE enforcement action on legionella risk control over 5 years, HSE developed a
programme to cover the range of legionella risk systems, involving stakeholder engagement,
promotion of best practice, education, advice, the publication of safety notices and targeted
proactive inspection.
The type of intervention(s) undertaken for different systems was dictated by the level of associated
risk. Evaporative cooling systems (cooling towers and evaporative condensers) were identified as
posing the highest risk and suitable for targeted proactive inspection. Questionnaires were sent to
businesses which allowed HSE to provide LAs with lists of premises for visits prioritised by relative
risk. The lists were available on a LA accessible database (LEPID) that allowed LAs to record
details of their visits.
Other water systems (hot and cold water supplies and spa pools) were classified as medium risk
and required intervention strategies other than proactive inspection.
Nationally, HSE:

Undertook targeted inspections at HSE enforced premises with cooling towers/evaporative
condensers.
24

Worked with the Legionella Control Association (LCA) representing service providers,
manufacturers, installers and consultancies that offered products and services associated with
the control of legionella in water systems.

Held events in collaboration with the LCA for duty holders from industries involved in legionella
risk systems.

Targeted trade organisations representing specific industries to provide advice and promote
good ways of working.

Identified national conferences e.g. Royal Society for Public Health conference 9and the
Institute for Healthcare Engineers and Estates Management Conference where they provided
an update on Legionella-related matters in the healthcare sector.

Issued safety bulletin to national industry stakeholders.

Commenced a review of the guidance material on the safe operation of spa pools with Public
Health England.
Locally, the LA:

Checked the LEPID database for details of premises with cooling towers/evaporative
1
condensers, and undertook targeted proactive inspections at these LA enforced premises,
bringing attention to HSE safety alerts and the guidance available to help manage risks.

Identified other premises e.g. spa pools (in hotels, private leisure centres, retail premises, at a
local spa pool distributor) and hot & cold water systems (in private residential care homes),and
undertook intelligence checks on:

o
any previous visit record and premises rating
o
the complaint history
o
RIDDOR records
o
HELex prosecution database
Checked whether any premises had Primary Authority arrangements with other LAs. Then
contacted the PA3 to check what information they held, to help determine a proportionate and
consistent response and to check any inspection plan for any proposed actions.
1 Proactive Inspection
2 Other visits/face to face contact
3 Other contact/interventions
4 LPG visits
5 Visits to investigate incidents
6 Visits to investigate complaints
7 Visits following requests from business
8 Revisits
9 Not recorded
25

Used this intelligence, to target comparatively lower risks premises, using a range of
interventions to influence the management of risk. Planned to:
o
target the supply chain and arrange to discuss legionella management with the local spa
pool distributor2
o
run an education and awareness campaign3 using press articles & mail shots which they
evaluate
o
run a training day2 for spa pool and/or care home managers on managing legionella risks
o
offer to provide advisory visits2, breakfast briefings2 and ‘toolbox’ talks2 on legionella
o
offer one-off spa pool water quality sampling visits with advice and support based on the
result2
o
include spa pool maintenance in a wider ‘safety and health awareness day’ 3
o
use opportunity to raise education and awareness when doing visits for other reasons e.g.
food hygiene, nuisance, licensing9
o
identify other partners to work with to promote the importance of legionella management e.g.
Health Protection Agency, County Liaison Groups(2-if visits; 3-if other contacts)
b) Moving and handling in the residential care sector
Intended Outcome – better management of risk to staff within care home sector.
An LA was actively engaged in the wider public health agenda that links with issues around staff
musculoskeletal disorders (MSD’s). They noticed a number of RIDDOR notifications reporting
MSD’s to staff in care homes within their authority.
The LA:

Evaluated the available evidence by:
o
working with their local A&E unit to get a better picture of the situation locally(2-if visits; 3-if other
contacts)
o
assessing other related evidence e.g. from other incidents, interventions and other regulatory
visits

Found that no individual business was reporting substantially more than the others; this led
them to conclude there were no specific poor performers.

Found the majority of incidents notified were caused by a lack of suitable training.
The LA determined a course of action that included:
26

Developing a protocol for the sharing of intelligence between other agencies to best inform each
other of relevant concerns on any poor performance in the care setting.

Undertaking education and awareness to inform care providers on what should and should not
be reported under RIDDOR (See RIDDOR in health and social care) (2-if visits; 3-if other contacts).

Working in partnership with other agencies (County Council social services, Care Quality
Commission and NHS) to develop and deliver a training programme on moving and handling
and other key health and safety at work topics e.g. Legionella control in their care homes(2-if visits;
3-if other contacts)
.
c) Gas safety in Indian restaurants
Intended outcome: better gas safety within food sector.
An LA’s food team were reporting a number of ‘Matters of Evident Concern’9 at Indian restaurants
that were illegally adapting gas equipment to char chapattis. This practise had also been noted
during reactive visits to investigate other health and safety incidents 5/complaints6.
The LA:


Undertook some training for their food team to cover
o
what the legal requirements were
o
what they should do if they discovered this activity as a matter of evident concern
o
how to identify premises where it may be necessary to combine inspection activity
Undertook a programme of education and awareness which included a campaign using
appropriate formats for the target audience, working in partnership with local ethnic restaurant
groups and Gas Safe Register to deliver the message and working with the supply chain to
ensure that there were suitable and sufficient alternatives available(2-if visits; 3-if other contacts).

Offered new business start-ups an advisory visit3 or7 at the businesses’ convenience to provide
advice and support to manage their risks effectively.

Tested the efficacy of the education/awareness campaign9 using the LA food team during their
programmed hygiene inspections.

Proactively inspected where there was evidence that the business was not managing their gas
safety risks effectively1.
d) Working with local supply chain following national safety
alert
Intended outcome – better management of risks associated with the installation of stone fireplaces.
27
There were several instances where heavy stone components forming part of a modern fireplace
surround had failed causing damage and injury. These incidents happened because the fireplaces
were not securely, mechanically fixed in place. In two separate accidents, this type of incident
resulted in the death of two young children. Due to particular local circumstances, this issue was
recognised as a local priority for the LA.
HSE:

Issued a national safety alert aimed at dutyholders to highlight the risks and what they should
do to address the problem.

Worked with the Stone Federation of Great Britain to revise its guidance on safe installation of
fireplace surrounds.

Alerted relevant stakeholders, including Gas Safe Register so they could pass key messages
on to the duty holders they work with.
The LA:

Publicised the alert in the local media, and via local trade groups (2-if visits; 3-if other contacts).

Worked with other Liaison Group colleagues to undertake supply chain research to identify
suppliers and retailers within their districts (2-if visits; 3-if other contacts).

Undertook a number of advisory visits3 to the suppliers to provide material to advise them about
the issue, the safety alert and the updated guidance and also encouraged them to use their
local supply chain to promulgate this information to dutyholders, retailers and suppliers.
e) Duty to manage asbestos
Intended outcome – the better management of asbestos within retail/wholesale premises.
A Primary Authority reviews their health and safety at work priorities for action with a multi-site
retailer and uses this opportunity to discuss the duty to manage asbestos. (2-if visits; 3-if other contacts)
They choose this topic for a number of reasons - raising awareness on the duty to manage
asbestos is a HSE national priority for LAs; the business had been prosecuted after failing to
manage asbestos risks at one site; there was national and local scrutiny on how multi-site retailers
dealt with asbestos; and the company understood the effect this might have on their reputation.
During a series of meetings2 it was agreed that:
28

The multi-site retailer would, using HSE guidance (www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/buildingowner.htm), review and reissue their guidance to their contractors and store managers to
ensure that asbestos was managed safely and effectively in their stores;

The Primary Authority would build check visits7 within their work programme to assess
progress against the reviewed and re-issued guidance.

The multi-site retailer would use its influence with other retailers and work with the Primary
Authority and other LAs to reinforce the key message that when having construction work
done in stores, they need to set expectations of the project and provide information and select
contractors with the right skills, knowledge and experience.

The Primary Authority would encourage LAs to arrange briefings2 on the duty to manage
asbestos where they were providing SHADs2 to the retail/wholesale industry especially where
their multi-site retailer also had a presence within those areas.
This approach had an additional benefit of improving inspector competency. LAs could use the
experience gained to raise awareness of this issue when targeting visits e.g. when providing other
advice and support2 or when visiting for other regulatory reasons9 premises where asbestos was
likely to be an issue; when carrying out proactive inspections1 against the high risk activities
sectors on the List or where there was evidence that a business was not managing their risks
effectively1.
f) Work at height in retail /wholesale sector
Intended outcome – better management of work at height risks associated with fragile roofs in
retail/wholesale premises.
During an LA investigation5 in to a high profile incident involving serious injuries to a warehouse
worker, who had fallen 3m through a fragile roof whilst cleaning gutters for his employer, the LA
became aware that nationally falls through fragile roofs occurred frequently and often led to
fatalities or serious injuries. Due to this local/national dimension the LA decided to raise awareness
on the control measures required when working at height especially in relation to fragile roofs.
They decided to use a range of interventions to raise awareness of this issue including:

Raising the issue with Primary Authorities3 with multi-site retailers/wholesalers within their area
to find out what, if any, advice or guidance had been given on this subject;
29

Ensuring that when the LA awarded contracts or undertook similar work in-house this subject
was covered adequately9;

Raising awareness of the issue during proactive inspections 1 of work at height at high volume
warehousing and industrial retail/wholesale premises; during visits to provide advice and
support2 or when visiting for other regulatory reasons premises9 where work at height may be
an issue;

Used HSE and industry guidance to raise awareness with cleaning companies, window
cleaners, scaffold and ladder suppliers etc. (2-if visits; 3-if other contacts);

Developed a fragile roof/work at height road show for use around their industrial/trading
estates and shared the details with other LAs via HELex 2.
g) Swimming pool safety
Intended Outcome – Improvements in swimming pool safety
Over a number of years Liaison groups in a particular region had a number of swimming pool
issues. These included two fatalities- one due to insufficient life guard cover/training, the other due
to an electrical incident to a worker; public health issues due to poor swimming pool water quality
including a Cryptosporidium outbreak; an incident of gas release arising from poor dosing practice
and numerous low level slips and trips incidents. A number of these incidents had generated local
media interest to such an extent that the Strategic Regional Liaison Group within the region agreed
that swimming pools would be a local priority in their region.
Dividing the work load between the Liaison Groups:

They agreed to develop a training/awareness raising package for swimming pool operators
using the latest swimming pool guidance provided by HSE to deal with the health and safety
issues as well as covering other wider environmental/public health concerns on water quality9.

LA regulators used their influence to ensure that LA managed and operated pools acted in
such a way that they clearly demonstrated compliance with their legal responsibilities and
willingness to share this approach with others9

LA regulators developed a regional source of expertise which other LA regulators and pool
operators were actively encouraged to use if they had questions or wanted further advice or
support on safe swimming pool operations(2-if visits; 3-if other contacts or 7-if invited.
30

After a period the Liaison Groups undertook a follow up survey2 with swimming pool operators
who had received the training/awareness raising package to determine whether or not key
messages had been embedded in practice. Further check visits were targeted where
intelligence (incidents5, complaints6, secret shopping (2-if visits; 3-if other contacts), observations during
other regulatory visits9, pool water quality checks9 etc) suggested risks were not being
effectively managed in order to help develop further interventions in the future.

Proactive inspections were undertaken where there was evidence that the business was not
managing their safety risks effectively1.
h) Work place violence in retail premises
Intended outcome – to reduce the incidence and effects of violence in takeaways.
Crime and anti-social behaviour statistics within an LA indicated that takeaways and takeaway
deliveries were increasingly a focus for violence and/or robbery. This picture was confirmed in
discussions with the police2 who offered to be a partner in any initiatives to reduce the incidence or
effects of violence related to takeaways. Given that premises with vulnerable working conditions
(risks are not effectively managed/ lack of suitable security measures) were suitable for proactive
inspection (see the List) the LA considered this issue worthy of further investigation. However, the
LA, in discussions with the police, thought they would secure longer term improvements if they
partnered with the police and the takeaway businesses themselves to deliver an alternative
intervention.
The intervention involved working with the police to:

Set up a scheme whereby takeaways made a pledge and commitment to meet certain
essential and desirable criteria e.g. prohibiting customers possessing alcohol from entering the
premises and the adoption of sensible money handling procedures. The police and the LA
also committed to support the scheme in various ways e.g. providing specific guidance,
training, promotion and publicity.

Develop a takeaway forum to discuss crime etc2 following the introduction of the
pledge/commitment to a ‘Business Takeaway Watch Scheme’.
31

Link the scheme in with several other related issues/initiatives e.g. safeguarding (posters
promoting the scheme had a telephone number for reporting safeguarding concerns); food
safety (only premises with a Food Hygiene Rating greater than 3 were eligible to participate);
night time economy; licencing; etc.

Monitor the success of the scheme by check visits2 to see whether or not the takeaways were
meeting their pledges and commitments; on the use of the ‘Business Takeaway Watch
Scheme’ and forum; and on the changes in reported antisocial behaviour/ violence/robberies
statistics.
i) Electrical safety in retail food premises
Intended outcome: better electrical safety in food retail premises.
An LA’s food team were reporting a number of ‘Matters of Evident Concern’9 at food retail
premises including damaged electrical sockets (including evidence of overheating), damaged
plugs, cables, inappropriate joins, poorly positioned sockets, unprotected cables/poor positioning
including trailing etc. Poor practise had also been noted during reactive visits to investigate other
health and safety incidents5/complaints6. In addition there had been a number of local incidents
connected with poor electrical safety in food premises including a major fire and an electric shock
to an employee.
The LA:

Trained their food team to cover:
o
the legal requirements
o
what they should do if they discovered a matter of evident concern
o
how to identify premises where it may be necessary to combine food safety and health and
safety inspection activity

Used a programme of education and awareness raising, which included a campaign using
appropriate formats for the target audience and links to HSE guidance(2-if visits; 3-if other contacts),

Offered to visit2 or 7 all new business start-ups, at the businesses’ convenience, to provide advice
and support to the businesses in managing their risks effectively.

Tested the efficacy of the education/awareness campaign during the LA’s food team’s
programmed food hygiene inspections9 and during reactive visits to investigate other health and
safety incidents5/complaints6.
32
LAC 67/2 (rev4.1) - Targeting local
authority interventions
Annex F – Risk Rating System
This Annex provides a simple four Category (A – high risk; B1 and B2 - medium risk and C – low
risk) premises risk rating system based on a business’ health and safety performance (See Table
1).
The risk rating should not be used to determine proactive inspection interventions – the choice of
proactive inspections should follow the principles within the National Local Authority Enforcement
Code – it will however help LAs to formulate their relative intervention priorities i.e. allow them to
better target their other interventions on the basis of risk.
N.B. The risk rating system below closely followed that used by HSE’s Field Operations
Directorate (FOD). During 2015 FOD plans to introduce a new rating system. LAU will maintain a
watching brief to assess whether or not this new risk rating system would benefit LA regulators.
Any new risk rating system is unlikely to be introduced before 2016/17 at the earliest.
Table 1 – 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
Where appropriate, the rating process can be used to evaluate and give a value to four different
elements of a business’s health and safety performance (i.e. how effective is the business at
managing any risks it creates.):

Confidence in management

Safety performance
33

Health performance

Welfare compliance gap
Inspectors should give ratings based on what they find during an intervention, using the guidance
below to select the most appropriate value for each of the four elements. Inspectors should rate at
the level of the site and not the company and when allocating a rating for the relevant element,
bear in mind the relevant group at risk, not just the employees.
Whilst risk rating should not determine proactive inspection interventions - the choice of proactive
inspections should follow the principles within the National LA Enforcement Code - it will help LAs
to formulate their relative intervention priorities i.e. allow them to better target their other
interventions on the basis of risk.
LAs can assign a Category to a premise following an intervention or by undertaking a desktop
assessment using the available national and local knowledge of the premises. For example local
knowledge of individual business poor performance, particular building hazards, knowledge of the
likely inherent risks within a particular business sector, any known significant sector hazards or
incidents including national safety alerts. The inspector's assessment should represent a
proportionate balance of their findings, knowledge and professional judgement.
Should you need to revisit, e.g. to check on a Notice, and conditions have changed, then it is
entirely appropriate to re-rate any or all of the four elements and carry forward the ratings of the
others (as, generally, little time will have elapsed).
Confidence in management
This is a numerical rating (see Table 2) reflecting an inspector's level of confidence in
management's ability to attain or maintain a low level of health and safety risk, at the workplace or
in relation to work activities, in the foreseeable future.
When rating premises LA inspectors should have regard to the necessary level of management
required to control the risks inherent within the particular premises under consideration. Inspectors
should make their judgements in relation to management standards required for that type of site
and not the standard that may be more relevant to a site with potentially higher inherent risks.
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 is evident in the way
companies deal with health and safety issues given the inherent risks. Inspectors should refer to
34
any relevant guidance. See Managing for health and safety at
http://www.hse.gov.uk/managing/index.htm
The following example may help: Following a complaint about inadequate health and safety, an
inspector visits a small family run newsagent and although the owner has little health and safety
knowledge or awareness there are no significant safety or health related performance issues. The
inspector does not rate their confidence in Management as ‘5’ ‘Management are not up to the task’
because they consider the inherent risks of the business to be low, meaning that a proportionately
lower level of management is required for the task. For this reason the inspector gives a rating of
‘4’ and also decides that follow up inspection action is not warranted. Later that day, following an
accident report, the inspector finds a similar management approach at a builder’s yard and gives it
a rating of ‘5’ because this management approach is insufficient to successfully control the
inherent risks of such a business. The inspector writes to the builder’s yard outlining the actions
they consider management should take, directing them to suitable published guidance.
Table 2 – Confidence in Management Rating
Rating Descriptor
Full compliance. Management know the relevant health and safety standards have put
1
them into effect and check they are applied correctly. There is clear evidence of effective
self-regulation with standards being monitored and refined.
Strong Evidence that management are up to the task. Management generally
enthusiastic and competent with either:
2

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.
Some evidence that management are up to the task. Management are knowledgeable
about relevant health and safety standards but there has been little effort to adopt a
3
proactive approach to health and safety management. However, senior managers
volunteer their thoughts as the intervention progresses and appear to be committed to
adopting a more proactive approach. There is general confidence that the
35
recommendations resulting from the intervention will be put into place.
Management are ambivalent about health and safety. Management have only a
patchy 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
4
managers recognise the need to satisfy explicit statutory requirements and there is some
prospect that a more proactive approach may be adopted. There is some confidence that
the recommendations resulting from the intervention will be put in place.
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
5
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 intervention.
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
6
recognised benchmark standards. Totally ineffective in the management of health and
safety. The findings from the intervention are likely to be ignored.
Safety or Health Performance
This is a numerical rating (see Table 3) reflecting the inspector's judgment of the overall level of
compliance of safety risks (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) and 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) at the workplace.
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 (MECs - defined as those that create a risk of serious personal injury or ill-health
and which are observed (i.e. self-evident) or brought to the inspector’s attention.) and matters of
36
potential major concern (MPMCs - are those which have a realistic potential to cause either
multiple fatalities or multiple cases of acute or chronic ill-health).
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 3. 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.
6. Repeat steps 1 to 5 for the aspects of health covered during the inspection.
The checks outlined above are a way of ensuring that the rating process is in line with scoring
criteria set out for the six-point scale. If any aspect of a visit meets the criteria for scoring ‘5’ (a
score which should be assigned in situations where there is a discernible risk gap) or ‘6’ (a score
which should be assigned when standards are unacceptable and may necessitate a notice being
issued) this would be incompatible with an overall score of ‘3’ or better. The latter score should
only be assigned if the general picture is one of only minor shortcomings that can be dealt with
informally with oral advice.
These criteria are 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.
The following example may help: At a visit to industrial wholesale premises, an inspector focuses
on work place transport and work at height activities to assess the company’s health and safety
performance. Compliance was found to be good, but enquiries into a matter of evident concern
relating to lifting equipment revealed unacceptable compliance in this area. On their own, these
shortcomings would have warranted a score of ‘5’ on the six-point scale. However, taking into
account the good compliance in work place transport and work at height, the appropriate safety
rating is likely to be ‘4’.
37
Table 3 - Safety or Health Performance Rating
Rating Descriptor
1
High standards. Some aspects exceed the minimum legal requirements.
2
Good standards. Minimum legal requirements have been met.
One or more minor shortcomings. Since these shortcomings are not serious, they can
3
be dealt with informally with verbal advice.
Standards are variable. It is necessary to address one or more shortcomings (which are
4
not minor) by giving formal instructions for remedial action to be taken e.g. sending a
letter.
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
5
required to achieve improvement in standards e.g. Improvement Notices. Risks are not
being adequately controlled.
Standards unacceptable. A disregard for expected standards and/or significant
breaches has been observed and/or could be expected. Extreme risk gap present as
6
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.
Welfare compliance
This is a numerical rating (See Table 4) that reflects the inspector’s judgment on the overall level
of compliance regarding welfare standards at a workplace.
The descriptors in the welfare compliance gap table have been written mainly in terms of toilet and
washing facilities, as these are likely to be the main indicators you will use during inspections. This
does not mean, however, that you cannot consider other welfare issues when rating the overall
welfare provision.
38
Table 4 – Welfare Compliance Gap
State of
Score
Descriptor
Compliance
1
Compliance
Good, clean, suitable and sufficient provision of welfare facilities.
Minor non-
Welfare facilities need cleaning, temporary absence of consumables
compliance
such as soap or towels.
Inadequate
Inadequate or dirty welfare facilities. Inadequate rest facilities. No
provision
heated water or too few toilets.
Major non-
Welfare facilities not present or so poor as to be unfit for use. No
compliance
toilet or washing facilities.
2
3
4
39
LAC 67/2 (rev4.1) - Targeting local
authority interventions
Annex G – Recording Local Authority Activity and
Enforcement Data (the LAE1)
This annex is aimed at helping LAs, especially managers; ensure data is being reported accurately
and correctly. The information from the LAE1 is shared with the Chartered Institute of Public
Finance & Accountancy (CIPFA).
Before planning their activity and enforcement and attempting to complete the LAE1 LAs should
ensure they are familiar with the contents of this LAC and the following guidance:

National LA Enforcement Code

List of higher risk activities in specific sectors suitable for proactive inspection

Supplementary Guidance to the LA National Code

Guidance on Combining H&S and Food Inspections

Blank Version LAE1 Proforma
Regulatory interventions - principles and recording
practices
Proactive Inspections
Principles

A proactive inspection may be considered as a visit to premises to examine and assess the
business’ management of occupational health and safety risk. The business is unaware that
the visit will take place10, has not been offered the opportunity to freely decline the visit and if
entry is denied or the visit declined the inspector is prepared to gain entry using their HSWA
Section 20 “powers of entry”. LAs sometimes refer to such visits under the guise of “local
projects”, “survey visits”, “programmed inspections”, or “intelligence gathering for a specific
purpose” but they are fundamentally proactive inspections.

“No inspection without a reason” – reserve proactive inspections for higher risk activities in the
sectors specified by HSE (See List of higher risk activities in specific sectors suitable for
proactive inspection
), or where there is intelligence showing that risks are not being
effectively managed.
10
A proactive inspection carried out by making a prior appointment is still classed as a proactive inspection.
40

Risk ratings alone should not be used to determine interventions or intervention
frequency. Where premises have been rated Category A because the business has not
managed their risks effectively LAs should have evidence to justify this risk rating before
undertaking a proactive inspection. Confidence in management considered in isolation is
not sufficient to justify an A rating. Similarly LAs should not give a whole class of premises
an A rating e.g. making all Care Homes A rated without assessing a premises individual
performance.

Be prepared to explain to the business why a proactive inspection is appropriate. A business
may refer to the Independent Regulatory Challenge Panel where they consider that they
operate in a lower risk sector and have been unreasonably subject to a proactive health and
safety inspection by an LA.

Proactive inspection should not be used simply as a means of gathering intelligence [e.g. to
maintain currency of a database].
Recording

Only record proactive inspections where the primary reason the premises was targeted was for
occupational health and safety. If the primary purpose was for another reason, (e.g.
entertainment licensing purposes, food safety inspection etc.) do not record as a proactive
health and safety inspection on the LAE1.

If premises were targeted for more than one LA regulatory purposes (e.g. food premises
identified as a priority for both health and safety and food safety) then combine the inspection
visit where possible and record as a proactive inspection on the LAE1.

Record proactive inspections at premises against the relevant rating prior to the visit than the
rating after (e.g. if premises is A-rated prior to an inspection and re-rated to a B after – record
as Risk Category A Proactive Inspection). Where the rating is unknown prior to a visit – record
the rating found at the time of the proactive inspection.
Non-proactive inspection interventions
Principles

Make the best use of resources by using the range of other available and permitted risk-based
regulatory interventions (See Annex A - Examples of Intervention Types and Case Studies).

Such interventions are an efficient and effective mechanism to reach a wider population than
can be achieved by individual inspection contacts e.g. awareness and education via business
41
seminars, training course etc. reach a much wider audience with the benefit of allowing
business to share good practice.

LA advisory visits, (made at the convenience of the business to provide helpful advice and
support especially to new business start-ups and without recourse to section 20 powers of
entry),
Recording

Record other non-inspection interventions as either “visit/other face-to-face contact” (e.g. talk to
trainee hairdressers at college or advisory visit to a new hairdressing business), or “other
contact/interventions” (e.g. sending targeted campaign materials to hairdressing salons).

Do not record non-targeted general newsletters, service magazines or record the number of
website hits as “other contact/interventions”.
Reactive Visits
Principles

LAs undertake reactive visits for various reasons e.g. in response to incidents or complaints to
investigate cases of actual harm or concern or requests to visit by dutyholders.

The targeting of reactive visits should be proportionate and risk-based e.g. use incident
selection criteria/complaint handling techniques/professional judgement.

Matters of Evident Concern (MECs – those that create a risk of serious injury or ill-health and
which are observed (i.e. self-evident or brought to the attention of LA staff)) during an
inspection, non-inspection interventions or other regulatory visits should normally be addressed
at that time using enforcement powers if necessary.

If MECs cannot be dealt with during the original visit then consider whether a follow up visit is
required.

MECs provide useful background intelligence on the health and safety performance by a duty
holder or for local projects using education/awareness raising or targeted risk based inspections
e.g. use of targeted information campaigns to raise awareness and follow this up with targeted
risk based inspections to assess standards, effect of campaign and determine next steps.
Recording

Record the reactive visit as directed by the LAE1 – LPG, investigation, complaint or service
request.
42

Do not record MECs dealt with during interventions or visits for other regulatory
purposes. Premises targeted for other regulatory purposes should be reported to the relevant
regulatory agencies (e.g. Food Standards Agency in relation to food hygiene inspections) and
should not be double counted.

If a further visit is necessary to address a MEC, record this either as a reactive visit to
investigate health and safety complaints on the LAE1 or as a proactive inspection if the MEC
indicates evidence that the business is not effectively managing its risks.
43