Will they need to be on the 'register' of competent consultants then? Not a bad day rate at over £1k based upon 8 hours work!

I was at a BSC conference last week. A chap from the HSE presented these proposals and how they see it working, though there is a consultation imminent. The consultation is not about whether charging will happen - that has already been decided - it's about how the mechanism of charging will work. In response to the questions in this thread: yes they do intend to charge for the time back at the office, and the time travelling to and fro between their office and your location. I don't think they will charge you for helping remedy minor breaches, because they won't be helping remedy minor breaches - the role will be simply enforcing statute. Help will not be forthcoming. Education and promoting best practice and so on is no longer the HSE's job - just enforcing the letter of the law. My cynical assumption would be that more minor breaches will be noted. If an inspector visits and finds nothing, you won't be charged. But if he finds the smallest technical breach which requires a letter or notification of his findings, then suddenly the planning, the travelling, the inspection time, the returning, the writing the letter and doing the filing will all be chargeable time at £133 per hour. On the other hand, fewer inspectors probably means fewer inspections, if you don't do anything to draw attention.

HSE already cost recovers in a range of industries. The decision to extend cost recovery was taken by the relevant minister (Chris Grayling) and announced in the report "Good health and safety, good for everyone". Cost recovery will only apply where there is a 'serious material breach' of legislation. Bottom line - if you are not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about.

If "recovery of costs" subsequent to a visit from an Inspector removes the potential or prospect of serious illness, injury and or death then I believe it is justified. What is not justified is the nice little earner for the Treasury. As far as I am aware all fees recovered are not for the exclusive coffers of the HSE. I will also impact heavily on the provison of certain "services" from consultants. This has to be a step forward I am also aware of a number of former HSE Inspectors registered on the OHSCR. The Old Pals Act 1898 (as amended) springs to mind. Jon

A client cannot go direct to a Barrister or QC and must go via a Solicitor or via an approved professional. Direct access to the Bar is availible to Chartered Suvreyors on property matters however I do not think the right of direct access has, as yet, been granted by the Bar to Chartered Members of IOSH.

See page 10 of this link for the actual statement made in April http://www.dwp.gov.uk/do...od-health-and-safety.pdf and also note that the formal consultation looks like it is starting on 15 July http://consultations.hse...listConsultations?type=P Phrases such as "a serious, material breach in standards is diagnosed and a requirement to rectify is formally made, together with the cost of any follow-up work." This is a world away from charging all and sundry for every visit or acting as consultants to all and sundry. “There will be no recovery in relation to purely technical breaches.” A pretty clear and explicit statement. "where it provides initial advice to large development projects AT THE REQUEST OF (my caps as no underline) of developers." Hardly the state demanding payment for services. One area that is beyond my knowledge is the aspect of charging for services where the HSE is a statutory consultee for land use planning. Is this an extension of cost recovery or not? Cost recovery in permissioning regimes have by and large worked successfully despite the ever present reviews of charges etc so why not extend the principle? If cost recovery is successful then surely there must be some natural justice in the principles that are enshrined in the changes? p48

That, I think, depends upon how it is applied. I am uncomfortable with the concept that a breach results in a higher charge the more difficult it was for an inspector to find. Suppose he turns up, finds something wrong very quick, goes away - you get what is effectively a fine. OK so far. Now suppose he turns up, hunts all day and eventually finds a breach - you get a bigger fine, because the size of the fine is not about how serious the breach was, it's about how long he spent searching for it. Is that 'natural justice'? I am even more uncomfortable with the notion that travelling time is chargeable. Suppose two organisations have similar activities and commit a similar breach. The one that's just round the corner from the inspector's normal place of work gets a much smaller 'fine' than the one that's two hours travelling away. Is that justice?

Ray You have got to the point. HSE Inspector and a Consultant in conflict. The employer in the middle. The HSE Inspector will not back down or give way - he is a superior beast than that of a "consultant" and what he says is how it is going to be. There is potential here for more prosecutions of Consultants - which may or may not be a bad thing. If they (consultants) are successfully prosecuted and just happen to be on the "register" what then for the OSHCR? The Robens Report provided for a tripart discussion on such matter as those proposed. Will the Trades Unions and employers be represented in these discussions. I fear not - we have an extreme right wing government that hasn't got a clue and will ride rough shod over any positive developments made over the past 25 years. Jon Jon

Ray, By way of an update, I have just been informed that: • The term “Fee for Fault” mentioned by Judith Hackett in her speech last December has not been changed to “Fee For Intervention (“FeeFI”); • The public consultation is due to published at the end of July/beginning of August 2011 and it is expected to run for three months; • FeeFI will be piloted in Yorkshire without any charges being levied but with all the relevant HSE systems being tested; • Subject to any required changes in legislation needed to allow the HSE to charge, FeeFI will be introduced from April 2012; • There will be a scale of HSE charges (as yet unpublished), but figures mentioned so far include hourly cost of a HMI £133.00, hourly cost of a Principal HMI £150. There are also likely to be fixed administration and travelling rates. It is worth noting that charges under FeeFI cannot be levied for minor or purely technical breaches but for “significant” breaches of health and safety law that fall short of prosecution (e.g. serving of an Enforcement Notice). My view is that this is potentially the biggest change to health and safety enforcement since the introduction of the HSWA. FeeFI should be seen in the light of recent changes to the HSE’s enforcement guidance that expands the costs that the HSE will ask to recover from a defendant in a prosecution, which could significantly increase future awards for prosecution costs. Regards. DJ

Thanks for the heads-up Ray. This sounds a complete Dog's breakfast! Typically for the HSE, they were pressed to join the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 when it was introduced, which would have given them the ability to link enforcement notices to a fixed penalty notice, which at least provides an appeal mechanism and certainty over costs. They chose not to do so and now seem to have re-invented the wheel, albeit a square one with no axle! Without any controls in place, the proposal sets out a framework for unpopular "carte blanche" arbitrary charges with no consistency. What happens when you dispute their time calculations or the time it took them to carry out a simple job? Perhaps directing them to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 offers a better and more carefully-considered mechanism to achieve their objective, and one which other agencies have chosen to adopt. I wonder what IOSH's take is? Personally I feel that this proposal should be challenged with a view to having it scrapped, or at least heavily amended. I'll be reading this with interest when it emerges from it's hole tomorrow.

According to the HSE website today, "consultation" will now only start on 15th September and run for 3 weeks, finishing the first week in October. Anyone who wants to make a comment will have to be very quick off the mark. This hardly consultation! If enough adverse comments are made, the HSE would be forced to scrap these proposals. If the Coalition's plans for the NHS can be changed, then so can these. It does however need those in the public eye to stand up and say "no". Unfortunately IOSH's stance historically seems to have been to support anything that comes along without raising any questions (see OSHCR as an example)

John M wrote: "You have got to the point. HSE Inspector and a Consultant in conflict. The employer in the middle. The HSE Inspector will not back down or give way - he is a superior beast than that of a "consultant" and what he says is how it is going to be." - I'm continually perplexed with the concept that what a HSE inspector says is gospel and must be obeyed. When I was Group Safety Adviser in Rover Group back in the 1980's , we regularly challenged HSE inspectors where their advice was inappropriate or overstepped the mark. HSE inspectors can be made to back down but only if you stand up to them. I continue to do so when necessary.

Very interesting thread, I am aghast at these HSE proposals, it seems to me to go in the opposite direction of making the workplace a safer place. Direct Government charging is a rip-off -- in my opinion. It would be cheaper and legally safer to employ a safety advisor / consultant than it would be to contact the H.S.E in the near future. As for the 'consultation' - it has been my experience that this term has been is only waffle, 'they' will be introducing this quango, no matter what anybody says.

Rich77 I forgot to mention that I have been a member of a Union for all of my working life (38 years) starting with the MNAOA. Jon