A ‘competent person’ is not simply the individual with the longest service record, the most certificates, or the most confidence in a meeting. In UK health and safety practice, competence is the demonstrable ability to identify risk, apply relevant knowledge and take appropriate action within the limits of a person’s authority. For employers, dutyholders and principal contractors, appointing the wrong person can leave a risk assessment, inspection, design decision or system of work difficult to defend following an incident.

What is a competent person?

The Health and Safety Executive commonly describes a competent person as someone with sufficient training and experience, or knowledge and other qualities, to assist properly with health and safety measures. This is deliberately broad. The legal test is proportionate to the work, the risk and the consequences of an error.

A person may be competent to carry out a routine workplace inspection but not to develop a DSEAR assessment. A construction supervisor may be competent to brief a workforce on RAMS and monitor site controls, while not being competent to undertake a structural survey, fire engineering assessment or asbestos refurbishment survey. Competence is role-specific, task-specific and context-specific.

In practical terms, a competent person combines relevant technical knowledge with applied experience. They must understand the limits of their own competence, recognise when specialist input is needed and have enough authority to raise concerns or stop unsafe activity. Those final points are often overlooked. An experienced individual cannot provide effective assistance if they are excluded from decision-making, given inadequate information or prevented from challenging unsafe arrangements.

The legal basis for competent persons

Under regulation 7 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, employers must appoint one or more competent persons to assist them in meeting health and safety duties. The appointment does not transfer the employer’s legal responsibility. Directors and employers remain accountable for ensuring suitable arrangements are in place.

The required standard changes across regulations and sectors. Examples include:

• The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 requires the Responsible Person to appoint competent persons to assist with preventive and protective measures.
• CDM 2015 requires dutyholders to have the skills, knowledge, experience and, where relevant, organisational capability necessary for their roles.
• PUWER requires inspections by a competent person where required by the regulations, while LOLER requires thorough examination by a competent person with appropriate practical and theoretical knowledge and experience.
• The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 require persons working on or near electrical systems to be competent or adequately supervised.
• Specialist assessments, including hazardous-area classification, occupational hygiene monitoring, confined-space rescue planning and fire-door inspection, require a level of competence aligned to the technical scope and risk.

There is no universal certificate that makes somebody competent for every health and safety task. Qualifications provide valuable evidence, but they are only one part of the assessment. The appropriate evidence for a low-risk office environment will be very different from that required on a live utilities excavation, a nuclear quality-management programme or a complex higher-risk building.

Competence is more than a qualification

A formal qualification can demonstrate that an individual has completed assessed learning at a particular level. It does not, on its own, show that they can apply that learning on a specific site, interpret changing conditions or make sound decisions under operational pressure.

Equally, years of experience without current knowledge may not be enough. Regulations, guidance, standards, equipment and work methods change. An operative who has installed fire doors for many years may require current product-specific training and inspection knowledge. A safety adviser with a recognised qualification may need additional construction, process-safety or environmental expertise before advising on specialist operations.

A sound competence assessment considers training, qualifications, experience, technical knowledge, supervision needs and recent continuing professional development. It should also consider behavioural capability. Can the person communicate clear controls to the workforce? Do they understand escalation routes? Will they challenge an unsuitable lifting plan, incomplete permit or unsafe excavation even when the programme is under pressure?

For organisations, competence is also an organisational issue. A capable individual working without adequate resource, documented procedures, access to specialist advice or management support cannot compensate for a weak management system. This is particularly relevant under CDM 2015 and ISO management systems, where dutyholders must demonstrate organisational capability as well as individual capability.

How to assess whether a person is competent

The assessment should start with the activity, not the job title. Define exactly what the person is being appointed to do, the hazards involved, the regulatory requirements and the decisions they will be expected to make. A generic statement that someone is ‘the competent person for health and safety’ may be inadequate where work includes lifting operations, work at height, temporary works, legionella, fire safety, hazardous substances or environmental permitting.

Relevant evidence may include vocational qualifications, NEBOSH or IOSH certificates, NVQs, trade cards, manufacturer training, EUSR registration, professional membership, inspection records, previous project experience and references. For higher-risk or specialist work, assess the quality and relevance of that evidence rather than simply collecting certificates.

Experience should be tested against the actual work. A person experienced in domestic construction may not understand the controls needed for rail, utilities, petrochemical, nuclear or occupied commercial premises. Ask how they would identify foreseeable failure points, what guidance or standards apply, and when they would obtain further advice. Their response will often reveal more than a CV.

Where gaps exist, they should be managed rather than ignored. This may mean additional training, direct supervision, a restricted scope of appointment or support from an external specialist. A developing supervisor can be competent for defined duties under suitable supervision; they should not be left to make complex technical decisions beyond their experience.

Appointing a competent person in practice

A defensible appointment is documented, specific and reviewed. The appointment should set out the scope of work, authority, reporting line, resources, competence criteria and escalation arrangements. It should make clear whether the person is advising, inspecting, supervising, approving or carrying out the activity.

For example, appointing a competent person to assist with general health and safety arrangements is not the same as appointing a competent person to conduct a LOLER thorough examination. The latter requires specialist knowledge of the equipment, its likely defects, examination techniques and legal reporting requirements. The organisation must not assume that its general safety adviser can fulfil every specialist appointment.

Records matter. Retain copies of qualifications, training certificates, competency assessments, refresher training, supervision arrangements and appointment letters. For contractors, competence information should form part of pre-construction information, procurement review and mobilisation checks. However, paperwork must be supported by active verification on site. A valid card does not confirm that an individual understands a particular lift plan, exclusion zone or permit-to-work system.

When external competence is the sensible option

Many businesses can manage routine health and safety matters using trained internal staff. External support is appropriate where risks are specialist, internal capacity is limited, independence is needed or the organisation requires formal reports capable of withstanding client, insurer, regulator or enforcement scrutiny.

Examples include fire risk assessments for complex premises, FRAEW work, DSEAR and ATEX assessments, fire-door and compartmentation inspections, environmental impact assessments, drainage and flood-risk studies, occupational exposure monitoring, ISO 45001 audits and ISO 19443 implementation. In these areas, a poorly scoped or technically weak assessment can create a false sense of assurance.

The external provider should be assessed with the same care as an employee. Check the competence of the named assessor, their experience in comparable premises or operations, the methodology they will use, the limitations of the service and the quality assurance arrangements behind the report. A consultancy’s brand or broad service description is not, by itself, evidence that the assigned individual is suitable for the task.

Maintaining competence over time

Competence is not permanently achieved on the date a certificate is issued. It needs review when legislation changes, work methods alter, new plant is introduced, incidents occur or an individual takes on more complex responsibilities. Refresher training may be appropriate, but it must address identifiable needs rather than become a box-ticking exercise.

Supervision, toolbox talks, audits, observations and post-project reviews provide useful evidence of ongoing competence. They also identify where procedures are not understood in practice. A recurring RAMS breach, poor permit quality or repeated close call may indicate a training issue, but it can also point to inadequate planning, weak supervision or unrealistic production pressures.

For higher-risk work, competence matrices are a practical control. They allow organisations to map roles against required qualifications, experience, authorisations, refresher dates and supervision levels. Used properly, they support mobilisation, workforce planning and audit readiness. Used poorly, they become an administrative register detached from the work being carried out.

A competent person is therefore someone who can make the right safety decision for the work in front of them, explain the basis for that decision and recognise when the risk requires further expertise. That standard is worth applying before work begins, not after an incident asks whether the appointment was ever suitable.