Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Enforcement Management Model (EMM)
Enforcement Management Model (EMM)
The EMM:
3
It can also assist others (eg those directly affected) in their
understanding of the principles inspectors follow when deciding on a particular
course of action.
7
The EMM is a straightforward linear model and so cannot truly capture
all the nuances and complexities of discretionary decision making in all
circumstances. While the EMM provides a framework for driving consistency,
it is crucial that inspectors discretion is not fettered by artificially constraining
all decisions to the EMM.
8
The EMM is therefore supported by a review process that requires
inspectors and line managers to consider whether the proposed enforcement
action meets HSEs EPS, the Code for Crown Prosecutors in England and
Wales (CPS Code) and the Prosecutors Code in Scotland. Occasionally, the
review may reach an alternative enforcement conclusion. When this occurs,
Inspectors will record the final decision and the reasons. (All references to the
CPS Code throughout this document should be read as including the
Prosecutors Code in Scotland.)
Review arrangements
9
EMM overview
Purpose of enforcement
10 HSE believes in firm but fair enforcement of health and safety legislation.
The purpose of enforcement is to:
Process of enforcement
11 Inspectors use various enforcement techniques to deal with risks and
secure compliance with the law, ranging from the provision of advice to
enforcement notices. They can also initiate or recommend prosecution where
the circumstances warrant punitive action. Making decisions about
appropriate enforcement is fundamental to the role of an inspector. Crown
bodies are exempt from statutory enforcement but HSE can issue nonstatutory improvement and prohibition notices, and censure Crown bodies in
circumstances where, but for Crown immunity, prosecution would have been
justified.
12 The process of making enforcement decisions is complex. Each
dutyholder is unique, and inspectors must have a thorough understanding of
the hazards and control measures associated with each dutyholders
activities. It is vital that inspectors have wide discretion to exercise their
professional judgement so that action, appropriate to each situation, can be
taken. Further guidance may be found in the Treasury Solicitors document,
The Judge Over Your Shoulder
(www.tsol.gov.uk/Publications/Scheme_Publications/judge.pdf).
13 Enforcement decisions must be impartial, justified and procedurally
correct. HSEs EPS sets out the approach that enforcing authorities should
follow. Enforcement action must also be taken in accordance with the aims of
the Enforcement Concordat of the Better Regulation Executive part of the
Department for Business Innovation and Skills. As public regulators, HSE and
local authorities (LAs) are accountable for managing the enforcement
process.
14 The EMM provides HSE and LAs with a framework for making
enforcement decisions that meet the principles in the EPS. It captures the
issues inspectors consider when exercising their professional judgement and
reflects the process by which enforcement decisions are reached.
16 The EMM and its associated procedures aides review of the decisionmaking process and inspectors enforcement actions to ensure the purpose
and expectations of the EPS have been met.
EMM in detail
18 Figure 1 provides an overview of the EMM and refers to a detailed
explanation of each element.
Permissioning
Health and safety
risks
Enforcement conclusion
(Step 7)
Permissioning
25 In some circumstances, dutyholders are legally required to seek HSEs
permission as a condition of undertaking specific work activities. Some health
and safety legislation for high hazard industries require dutyholders to apply
for licenses, approvals or certificates or to submit safety cases.
Yes
No
issues
Once this standard is met, the likelihood of contact with a rotating stock
bar is nil.
The danger from the stock bar rotating still remains.
Descriptor
Definition
Serious
personal
injury/
serious health
effect
Significant
injury/
significant
health effect
Minor injury/
minor health
effect
Note: From 6 April 2012, only injuries that lead to a worker being incapacitated for more than seven
consecutive days (not counting the day of the accident but including weekends and rest days) must
be reported within 15 days of the accident. Incapacitation means that the worker is absent, or is
unable to do work that they would reasonably be expected to do as part of their normal work. A
record must be kept of the accident if the worker has been incapacitated for more than three
consecutive days.
Risk tables
58 The risk gap is determined by plotting the consequence and likelihood of
the actual risk against the consequence and likelihood of the benchmark risk
(see Table 2.1). The point of intersection represents the risk gap.
59 The size of the risk gap can be extreme, substantial, moderate or
nominal. The area on the risk tables above the coloured squares represents
Amended to accommodate changes in RIDDOR October 2013
Risk gaps for the other examples can be determined in a similar fashion.
Consequence
Likelihood
Nil
Nil
Minor injury
Remote
Possible
Dutyholder
complies with or
exceeds legal
standard
Dutyholder complies
with or exceeds legal
standard
Dutyholder complies
with or exceeds legal
standard
Probable
Significant
injury
Remote
Possible
Probable
Serious
personal
injury
Likelihood
Consequence
Remote
Possible
Probable
Possible
Remote
Nil/neg
Probable
Possible
Remote
Nil/neg
Significant injury
Risk gap:
Extreme
Substantial
Moderate
Nominal
Probable
Possible
Remote
Minor injury/ Nil
Nil/neg
Consequence
Nil
Likelihood
Nil
Minor injury
Remote
Possible
Dutyholder
complies with or
exceeds legal
standard
Dutyholder complies
with or exceeds legal
standard
Probable
Dutyholder complies
with or exceeds legal
standard
Probable
Significant
injury
Remote
Possible
Probable
Serious
personal
injury
Likelihood
Consequence
Remote
Possible
Probable
Possible
Remote
Significant injury
Nil/neg
Risk gap:
Extreme
Substantial
Moderate
Nominal
Probable
Possible
Remote
Minor injury/ Nil
Nil/neg
Permissioning
63 Gap analysis is also used when considering possible enforcement action
where a dutyholder has failed to adhere to conditions set out in permissioning
documents relevant to their activities. The actual risk created by deviations
from the permissioning document is compared to the benchmark risk set by
the permissioning document and associated guidance.
Standards
67 Standards, i.e. where a dutyholder has to go to determine what needs to
be done to comply with the law come from various sources. They have
differing authorities, e.g. they could be specified in law, or may be a
reasoned description of what the law seeks to achieve set down in guidance.
This influences the decision about the proportionate level of enforcement. A
higher level of enforcement is expected where a dutyholder has failed to meet
well known and established standards compared to situations where there is
very little information or guidance available.
Note The standards referred to here are linked to the specific
requirements of health and safety legislation. They should not be
confused with other standards such as customer service or
product quality.
68 Standards are divided into three categories to capture their broad range
of authority, as explained in the table below.
Table 3 Standards table
Descriptor
Definition
Defined
standard
Established
standard
Interpretative
standard
69 The appropriate standard is the one that best describes what the
dutyholder needs to do to address the priorities for action. If an ACoP
provides sufficient information then that is the standard that provides the level
of authority (i.e. defined). If the dutyholder needs to turn to industry guidance
documents they would be the standards that provide the level of authority (i.e.
established).
70 Where multiple issues are being considered, different standards may be
relevant to each issue (see Step 3: Determining the risk gap benchmarking).
Descriptor
Definition
Absent
Inadequate
Minor
Prosecution
76 The EMM captures the principles of the EPS by providing a framework in
which enforcement action is proportional to the breach of the law or
permissioning documents and the associated risks. Where the circumstances
warrant it, the EPS states that prosecution may go ahead without recourse to
previous advice or alternative sanctions.
77 In practice, this will involve a combination of high risk and extreme failure
to meet an explicit or clearly defined standard, which is well known and
obvious. This is not affected by factors such as the dutyholders previous
record, or other moderating dutyholder factors specific to the circumstances of
a case.
78 The EMM reflects this in the Health and safety risks Initial Enforcement
Expectation table and the Permissioning Initial Enforcement Expectation
Tables 5.1 and 5.3. Reference to the term prosecution in these tables
means that HSE or the local authority would normally prosecute, subject to
the tests set down in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and in Scotland
recommend prosecution to the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service
(COPFS) taking account of the Prosecution Code.
79 The EPS identifies specific circumstances when HSE expects enforcing
authorities to normally prosecute or recommend prosecution. Inspectors
should be particularly careful when considering cases where:
death results from a breach of the legislation;
there has been a failure to comply with an Improvement or
Prohibition Notice, or there has been a repetition of a breach
that was subject to a formal caution;
false information has been supplied wilfully, or with an intent to
deceive, in a matter that gives rise to significant risk; and
inspectors have been intentionally obstructed in the lawful
course of their duties.
80 In addition to the above, prosecution should normally be considered
where it is appropriate in the circumstances, as a way to draw general
attention to the need for compliance with the law, or a conviction may deter
others from similar failures to comply with the law.
81 Sometimes, the EMM may not indicate prosecution in these
circumstances because of the emphasis it gives to the seriousness of the
breach and the risk arising from it. In these cases, inspectors should review
their decision against the EPS before reaching any final conclusion. Although
the initial enforcement expectation might not indicate prosecution, there may
Amended to accommodate changes in RIDDOR October 2013
Prosecution of individuals
82 The above applies to all principal dutyholders under health and safety
legislation, including individuals such as individual employers, directors,
managers, self-employed persons and employees. Inspectors should apply
the principles of EMM as far as possible to the prosecution of individuals.
83 When considering the prosecution of employees, inspectors should also
take account of the role that the individual employees played in the
commission of the offence, and any relevant actions by their employer.
84 Directors or managers may only be prosecuted under HSW Act, section
37, if the body corporate has committed an offence. Prosecutors must then be
able to prove the offence was committed through the consent, connivance or
neglect of the director or manager in question. When considering the
prosecution of such persons, inspectors should seek to apply the principles in
the EMM wherever possible and, in particular, should consider the
management chain and the role played by individual directors and managers.
These additional elements are addressed in guidance, not the EMM itself.
Formal cautions
85 There may be rare instances where, due to the exceptional
circumstances of a case, a formal caution is an appropriate alternative to
prosecution. This option is outside the framework of EMM. Reference should
be made to the relevant guidance on use of formal cautions.
Extreme
Standards
Nominal
Consider
prosecution?
Defined
Improvement Notice
Yes
Established
Improvement Notice
Yes
Interpretative
Improvement Notice
Substantial Defined
Moderate
Initial enforcement
expectation
(to secure compliance with
the law)
Improvement Notice
Established
Improvement Notice
Interpretative
Letter/inspection form
Defined
Improvement Notice
Established
Letter/inspection form
Interpretative
Letter/inspection form
Defined
Verbal warning
Established
Verbal warning
Interpretative
Verbal warning
Immediate risk of serious personal injury has already been considered and
dealt with where appropriate.
Inadequate
Minor
Standard
Defined
Established
Interpretative
Defined
Established
Interpretative
Defined
Established
Interpretative
Initial enforcement
expectation
Improvement Notice
Improvement Notice
Letter
Improvement Notice
Letter
Verbal warning
Verbal warning
Verbal warning
Verbal warning
Permissioning
89 The enforcement action to secure compliance, in respect of issues
subject to permissioning regimes, is usually achieved through the
permissioning document. This may be through formal directions, eg its
modification including re-issue, its revocation/refusal, or the use of a specific
enforcement power provided by the permissioning regime. The extent of
deviation from the permissioning document is considered along with the risk
gap it generates in order to identify an initial enforcement expectation (see
Table 5.3 below).
Risk gap
Nominal
Permissioning
Document
Revocation/refusal/
direction
Revocation/refusal/
direction
Amendment/refusal/
variation
Amendment
Nil/negligible
Amendment
Extreme
Moderate
Amendment/refusal/
variation
Amendment/refusal/
variation
Amendment
Nominal
Letter
Nil/negligible
Letter/verbal warning
Any
Nil**
Extreme
Substantial
Moderate
Irregularities
Substantial
None
Yes
*Immediate risk of serious personal injury has already been considered and
dealt with where appropriate.
** This is included because it is possible to have full compliance with the
permissioning requirements but still identify a risk gap that may require
action to rectify. However, although the EMM predicts a nil action through the
permissioning regime, it may be that the permissioning document should be
reviewed.
90 In some circumstances there may be risk arising out of the dutyholders
activity, which cannot be dealt with through the permissioning document. In
these cases, Table 5.1 the Health and safety risks initial enforcement
expectation table should be used to indicate the appropriate level of
enforcement.
91 There may also be compliance or administrative matters associated with
permissioning, for example the requirement to notify the relevant authority of a
permissioned activity. The Compliance and administrative arrangements initial
enforcement expectation table can be used where the matter cannot be dealt
with adequately through the permissioning regime.
92 In some circumstances, for example where new applicants, new
proposals or modifications are being considered, there is no actual risk
because the activity has yet to take place. In such cases, the potential risk
should be considered, based upon the information made available to
inspectors, and compared to the relevant benchmark risk, to compute the risk
gap in the usual way. This can be used to arrive at an initial enforcement
expectation.
93 More detailed considerations are contained in HSEs Policy Statement
Our approach to permissioning regimes
(www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/permissioning.pdf).
Dutyholder factors
98 Dutyholder factors are, on the whole, specific to the dutyholder and their
activities, and usually confirm the initial enforcement expectation or alter the
action up or down the hierarchy by one level, eg from an Improvement Notice
to an Improvement Notice plus prosecution, or from an Improvement Notice to
a letter.
99 Table 6 lists a series of dutyholder factors that may influence the
enforcement decision.
Descriptor
Definition
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Serious
Not serious
Poor
Reasonable
Good
Poor
Reasonable
Good general
compliance
no notable omissions.
Confident
Some
confidence
Little or no
confidence
100 The way these elements are applied to the Initial enforcement
expectation is represented in flowcharts. The elements in each flowchart vary
because different enforcement expectations have different dutyholder factors
influencing them.
101 Flowcharts are provided for a:
Prohibition Notice/deferred
Prohibition Notice
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Serious
Not serious
Inspection history
Poor
Reasonable or good
Poor
Prohibition Notice/deferred
Prohibition Notice
and
Prosecution
Improvement Notice
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Serious
Not serious
Good
Inspection history
Standard of general
conditions
Reasonable
Poor
Standard of general
conditions
Good
Poor
Reasonable or poor
Letter
Reasonable
Reasonable or good
Improvement Notice
and
Prosecution
Letter
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Poor
Poor
Good or reasonable
Confident
Little or no
confidence
Some confidence
Verbal warning
Letter
Notice
Verbal warning
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Poor
Poor
Good or reasonable
Little or no
confidence
Verbal warning
Letter
Public interest
105 As well as providing guidance on the evidential tests, the Code for
Crown Prosecutors also applies a public interest test to prosecution decisions.
In Scotland, HSE applies the principles of the EPS and the COPFS
Prosecution Code in deciding whether to report offences to the Crown. The
same principles of evidential sufficiency and public interest apply to all
inspector enforcement activities.
106 There are competing demands on the finite resources available to HSE,
and a balance has to be achieved based upon risk, potential outcomes and
public expectations. When considering public interest, inspectors are looking
to satisfy themselves that the proposed action will produce a net benefit to the
wider community in terms of reducing risks, targeting public resources on the
most serious risks and the costs of pursuing a particular course of action.
107 Certain issues may have a significant bearing on public expectation, for
example fatal accidents, and accidents involving vulnerable groups such as
children or customers of leisure activities. While public expectation must be
carefully considered, it should not determine the action taken. The public will
not have possession of all the facts in any particular case, or indeed the
professional training, experience or organisational support that inspectors
draw upon when making decisions.
108 Public interest is a difficult issue to assess. Inspectors should ask
themselves what a reasonable person would expect from HSE in the
circumstances. A further test is whether the particular decision could be
justified in any public forum or inquiry.
Process
109 Table 7 lists a series of factors which may influence the final outcome of
the process.
Table 7 Strategic factors
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Positive
Negative
Yes
No
The action does not secure full compliance with the benchmark.
Yes
No
Yes
No
110 The proposed enforcement actions are tested against the strategic
factors by following the Strategic factors flowchart (Figure 7).
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Negative
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Action confirmed
Review of action
Review of action
113 Where the action stems from an inspection intervention, the Inspector
should review and record reasons why the action taken is different from that
indicated by the Strategic factors flowchart and/or EPS, in accordance with
current instructions.
114 Where the action stems from an investigation, the inspector should
review with input from their line manager. Again, a record should be made of
the reasons why the action taken is different from that indicated by the EMM
and/or EPS, in accordance with current instructions.
115 In both cases the sufficient detail should be recorded to make it clear
how the final enforcement decision was reached.
Timescales
119 Do the timescales for action reflect:
The nature of the risk gap, and the imminence of risk?
The resource impact to the dutyholder?
The resource impact on the operational unit?
Concluding factors
120 For the enforcement decision to be appropriate, the inspector will need
to consider whether:
the enforcement action will deal with all the serious risks;
it is likely to secure sustained compliance;
the principles and expectations of the EPS have been met; and
evidence can be obtained to support the enforcement action.