If the environmental health profession is to survive in the face of diminishing resources and stop the transfer of enforcement duties to other organisations, local authorities must start setting consistent standards and be seen to be actively enforcing the law. Martin Tagg argues the case

When I qualified as an environmental health officer and was appointed to my first district, I was amazed to find that I was treated with reverence by the vast majority of business people whose premises I inspected. I soon discovered that this was because my predecessor had clearly been the "boss". One man I visited had spent a fortune replacing what was probably a perfectly suitable food preparation area with stainless steel units and sheeting, because my predecessor had said he ought to. When I examined the premises file, there was no record of the need for stainless steel. This was simply an example of the power of the inspector at that time.

Today, we should have a fairer and more reasonable class of inspector working in the business field. The modern inspector should be able to determine what is the most effective way of raising the standard and have the ability to liase with the proprietor or business manager in a manner that is not threatening but is gently persuasive. When necessary, however, there is a need to gently turn up the heat and make the proprietor or business manager realise that there are ways of ensuring that the required standards are met and that those methods will be invoked unless there is a positive response. Unfortunately this type of approach to inspection seems to be becoming quite rare.

Having spent 25 years in local government, including 19 years as an enforcement officer employed by five very different local authorities before taking early redundancy and becoming a health and safety/food safety consultant, I have long been under the impression that EHOs and HSE health and safety inspectors are employed to enforce the law.

I have always been a believer in the need to try education before enforcement. During my career, I have found that the enforcement policy in each local authority has been similar, based on the idea that if the person in charge of a business breached requirements of the law, despite good warning and explanation of those requirements, there was a need to use enforcement powers. This would be either by recommendation for prosecution, or the service of appropriate legal notices to achieve the end result of compliance with the law and therefore protection to the public or employees.

While I was a member of the South Yorkshire and Humberside Health and Safety Liaison Group, I drafted the adopted enforcement policy for health and safety law which was intended to be embraced by all of the local authorities in the area. It was closely based on the excellent food enforcement policy adopted by the Humberside Food Liaison Group. I do not take credit for it, simply stating that both policies were good and workable. It seems, however, that these polices and others like them are either not being implemented or are being abandoned altogether by local authorities.

In my current position, I inspect premises, organise health and safety documentation and advise a vast range of clients in a variety of premises, many of which are inspected by the HSE. Several of my clients, including food businesses, residential homes, warehouses, garages and shops are inspected by EHOs. My company takes a serious viewpoint on legal compliance, to the extent that we are strictly informed to contact the enforcement authority directly, with details, in the event of serious breaches of law that would put the company's reputation in jeopardy if they were not resolved. This is a rare event and obviously threatens our future business with that particular company involved. However, we would rather lose a client than our professional reputation.

We also try, wherever possible, to maintain even standards in our approach to inspection work. These standards are always based on the HSE or CIEH recommendations and the requirements of the law. While we do not differentiate between the actual legal requirements and good practice in letters and reports, as most local authorities now do (LACOTS please take note, some authorities still do not differentiate in their letters, as required), we state what is required to provide a good safe system. The company will not do a client's health and safety risk assessments for them or prepare food hazard analysis documentation. We believe that the managers within an organisation are the correct people to carry out risk assessment and to that extent we train managers how to do this. We also provide excellent documentation on the subject of HACCP, where appropriate, to enable effective documentation to be devised by the client to meet EHO requirements.

The problem is that, in my experience, few environmental health departments seem to be actively enforcing the law. For instance, within residential homes, some local authorities do not require that radiator guards are fitted in resident's rooms and common areas. The HSE guidance book "Health and safety in residential homes" (HS[G]104)1 (page 29) states: "It is recommended that heated surfaces of radiators, accessible pipes or panel convectors and other heating devices should not exceed 43ºC when the system is operating at the maximum design output". This is quite clear. Unless low temperature radiators are fitted, there is a need to fit radiator guards. Generally, the HSE is very good at persuading proprietors regarding this requirement, but why can't EHOs do the same?

The same book (page 28) states that: "It is recommended that the temperature should not exceed 43ºC where hot water outlets are accessible to residents and workers". Similarly, the HSE guidance on Legionella2 states that they "strongly advise the fitting of thermostatic mixing valves that prevent water from being discharged at more than 43ºC". That also seems fairly clear. Local authorities have the power to adopt their own standards and should be setting a good example.

In spite of this, I have clients in one local authority area who have not required either the fitting of radiator guards or thermostatic valves. Some of these clients have other premises in the neighbouring authority's area who do require them. These authorities are part of the same liaison group area, yet they have different standards.

In some areas the standard of health and safety enforcement is very strict and clients get away with very little during enforcement officer inspections. This is good and we welcome it. However, in other areas, commercial sector EHOs may be committed to food safety but never mention risk assessments or, in fact, anything else about health and safety standards. There is no doubt some concern about the lack of available funding for health and safety enforcement in local authorities. But employing a "soft touch" approach to health and safety puts employees and the public at risk.

It is a legal requirement to carry out documented risk assessment where five or more people are employed. All EHOs should ask about the risk assessments that have been carried out during all commercial premises inspections, without exception. They should ascertain that somebody within the organisation is acting as the competent person to deal with health and safety management. While a business may appoint consultants, they should have appointed someone internally to deal with risk assessments and maintenance of records. I would even suggest that in authorities that have a split function, of food inspectors, health and safety inspectors and in many cases trading standards inspectors from the same department visiting a particular premises, that they be trained and instructed to ascertain general compliance with legal requirements and pass on the details where non-compliance is apparent.

In some areas, and particularly in some very high risk food businesses, EHOs have, amazingly, not yet asked about food hazard analysis. This flies in the face of LACOTS requirements. I would strongly appeal to commercial sector environmental health managers to make sure that their enforcement teams are asking the right questions and taking action when they do not get the right answers. Competence is earned by hard work and a guided approach to the work, not by the numbers of premises on the "score" sheets at the end of the month.

This is extremely critical in its content. It is meant to be. To be fair, there are a large number of professional and very competent inspectors out there who carry out their functions professionally and expertly. There are, unfortunately, some authorities who are lapse, some inspectors who are incompetent and some environmental health managers who are not managing their people at all. Quite possibly, these people do not read the Environmental Health Journal, so I may be wasting my efforts!

Environmental health officers must be competent and professional with the need to ensure that they remain so. If they are not they should be re-trained, re-deployed or removed, whichever is the most effective. Managers must be competent and, therefore, adequately trained as managers. As a profession we cannot afford to be lapse, to be unprofessional or to be incompetent. Most importantly, if the profession is to survive in this world of shrinking enforcement opportunities, departments must be managed correctly. I left local government because I grew tired of poor environmental health management. Many of my EHO colleagues have done the same. It is up to those within local government to stop the rot before the Government steps in and transfers all health and safety enforcement to the HSE and food safety to the Food Standards Agency.

Let us find the enforcers, give them the encouragement and backup that they need and put them to work to do what they are trained to do. Even though I represent the "escapees" from local government, you, them and I are all trying to achieve the same good standards. I'll help you to do your job if you'll help me to do mine.

Martin Tagg is a full-time consultant with Peninsula Business Services Ltd, an independent health and safety consultancy.

References:
1. Health and Safety in Residential Care Homes, HSE, HS(G)104. ISBN 0 7176 06732
2. The Control of Legionellosis including Legionaire's Disease, HSE, ISBN 0 7176 04519