Good idea in my view - might get some companies to discharge their health and safety responsibilities. And before someone mentions this as being a license to print money - if you don't think you should have the improvement notice you can always challenge it.

Flawed in my opinion - turning safety compliance into a revenue stream - come on? It should be correctly funded in the first place. If this initiative is passed on to local authorities and the councils cotton on to a nice earner in these current times!

35% cut in budget; 700 + jobs to go . . the remaining staff will have to issue some notices to get any significant funds back!

Another bizarre outcome (or rumour ?) following the Lord Young "fait accompli". Why would an employer choose to pay for a formal Notice? I don't think I would! As with most bureacratic charging systems, the cost of administering this would far outweigh any revenue gained. A far more honest approach would be to charge for impartial advice - but then the HSE aren't in any position to do that, are they?

You can read the full transcript of Judith Hackitts speech here. http://www.hse.gov.uk/ab...cripts/hackitt071210.htm The idea of HSE charging for services is not new (licensing work for example) and the need to look for other opportunities to charge is obviously very topical. I am not against the principle of HSE charging for services where they are undertaking their key objective of preventing injury and/or harm and thus avoiding both those losses and any need to take expensive enforcement actions. However, I do not think it is acceptable to suggest that the HSE should charge for enforcement actions. Formal cautions, improvement notices, prohibition notices are all enforcement action taken as a result of a breach. So if charges are to be applied, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be, then it would have to be through a system of fixed penalties in my opinion. x for an IP, x+50% for a PN and so on. It works for traffic offences so why not for H&S offences? That would be equitable, transparent and place the costs on the offenders where they should belong. p48

Alternatively, they could attend an improvement training day - similar to the driving 'points on licence' alternative, currently in action. This training could be financed by the non-compliant companies but in pursuit of education / refresher training, rather than a cost benefit to the HSE! Simon

When it is stated 'Health and Safety leaders are considering plans to charge contractors for issuing them with improvement notices following site visits' - does this mean the plan is only to charge contractors? Will other organisations be exempt or will anybody subject to HSE authority be included if they are served?

Like you, I will have to wait and see what (if any) changes appear. However, any change will require a change in the law to allow the HSE to recover costs beyond those it can already recover. If the proposal comes to fruition, it is likely the HSE will be given the power to invoice organisations for a range of "consultancy" and/or enforcement services and non-payment could be recovered through the courts. It is unlikely that the scheme will become a 'licence to print money' or a way for the HSE to increas its revenue generally, as any invoice could only be levied once the organisation has pleaded, or been found guilty of an offence and invoices could be challenged (through an agreed mechanism or in the courts). Again if the proposals are accepted, HSE inspectors are likely to still continue to do pro-active visits and provide general health and safety advice, but they may be able to charge for e.g. input into industry guidance, or for providing specialist advice, as well as recovering the cost of them undertaking investigations (e.g. following fatalities and serious incidents). I cannot see the HSE issuing Notices in situations where it does not currently do so and they will not be legally able to. It is of course a personal view but if adopted, I think these proposals will be a change for the good. Apart from anything else, the risk of an organisation receiving an invoice for the full cost of a HSE investigation, together with any penalty awarded (be it a prosecution or otherwise) is likely to require more employers to give due consideration to health and safety and in particular, make them seek appropriate, competent advice, or face the costs. DJ

Please read the HSE Chair's transcript rather than the secondhand news from the Construction Enquirer. she has also said that:- "I emphasise that at the moment these ideas are in their early stages of development. But I do think that it is important that we give some indication of the thinking which is taking place. Given that we do already have a substantial level of cost recovery in HSE it seems both logical and fair to all dutyholders that we look at ways of extending this approach to increase consistency and place any increased burden on those who are found to be at fault"

Pesky system went down just as I was to post a reply, so trying again. The comment is as follows: We are working on a proposal to charge those who create risks. A so-called: “fee for fault” principle. The idea being that those who are found not to be compliant with the law during an inspection should be charged for the work that HSE does following the issuing of a notice or other requirement for action to rectify the fault. We believe that this approach is fair and equitable and will be welcomed by the vast majority of businesses who are compliant and who see those who take short cuts as getting away with an unfair competitive advantage. Such an approach should be seen by business as a way of levelling the playing field. We do recognise that there will need to be safeguards built in to the process to ensure that such a scheme is transparent and open to scrutiny. On the basis of what is said it seems fair that after an improvement notice has been issued any cost to certify it as closed out is chargable to the person who the notice was issued to. However, there could be an increase in the number of notices issued (and a reduction of the point of them because they become a means of getting money in) which is a cause for concern.

Ron, Sorry to get on my soap box again but, I think the clue is in the name "fee for fault". The whole purpose of the proposed scheme is that only those who are in breach of health and safety laws will be charged. Therefore there can be no charge for e.g. notification of construction projects, reporting under RIDDOR, etc. As there is no money in the government pot and costs have to be slashed, the alternative is we abolish the HSE, LA enforcement authorities, EA, etc. altogether, or cut them down so far that they are ineffective. What would happen to the 'elf & safety' industry (which I understand is worth £ billions a year) then? Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world and as such, the 'polluter pays' (or in this case "fee for fault" principal seems a good one to be a good compromise. If you comply with the law you will be fine, if not, well you pay. As an aside, Judith Hackett's speech was made a couple of weeks ago and you may find things have moved on a pace in relation to this proposal since that time. Watch this space. Regards. DJ

And to quote Judith Hackett: "Whilst we already cost recover from businesses which are deemed to be major hazard sites under our permissioning regimes,we are looking at the possibility of extending charging to businesses with comparable regulatory oversight where we currently do not charge."