A consultation is now available on the above. The HSE has not published the actual text of the proposed Regulations, merely it's intent. I'm not sure if this even constitutes proper "consultation". The intent is to introduce a law allowing the HSE to charge employers any amount, for anything, at any time, anywhere and in any circumstances, with no limits. There appear to be no effective rights of appeal to any independent body, or even a court of law. The HSE then propose a "policy" of only activating this power in certain circumstances of their (or the DWP's) choosing, currently proposed to be based on the need to write a letter, email or serve a notice etc. .... at the moment. This seems to have implications far beyond the questionable intent of Chris Greyling's original statement, and in fact I question whether as a principle, this would be acceptable at all. Imagine if HMRC did the same for Vat and Tax inspections. Regards Dave

The level of "fee" is high. If the intention is to introduce a system of "spot fines" then there is a more honest way to go about things. At the high end of the scale, the "fees" effectively amount to being found guilty without trial! Given that HSE Inspectors are somewhat thin on the ground anyway, this is rather like an "Inverse Lottery" for employers! Yet another case of the HSE having to knee-jerk to political masters without any proper consideration as to whether the idea is a good one or not. When things get properly serious, the HSE already has the ability to recover costs after successful prosecution in England and Wales. With just a little legal effort, that could be extended to cover all of the UK - but that's not on the radar at all? I do hope that employers will rally against this one. How on earth do Messrs Cameron & Clegg square this with their "Red Tape" challenge approach? Given the most recent Corporate Manslaughter prosecution, how can there be a jusitifcation for exclusion of "micro-businesses"? On that same basis, where is the (safety) logic in proposing to exclude new business start-ups when the risk to life and limb is no different from any other circumstance? A farcical fait accompli, I fear.

KeiranD: I bow to your experience of HMRC systems. It is my understanding that penalties are charged for tax errors but these take the form of a fixed penalty, and you are not charged over and above the tax calculation on a "time and effort" basis, as the HSE propose. I am not an expert in this field and hope I never have to become one! I would dispute your assertions about the HSE's intent. They are currently happy to serve notices and prosecute in many situations where the evidence is highly questionable. I know this because I've been involved in such cases. They rely on S40 to avoid challenges. Irrespective of the justification of these "fees", the absence of any form of appeal appears to me to defy normal justice and set the HSE on course for a major fall when an inevitable challenge arises.

Ridiculous, This will only increase the distance between companies and enforcing authorities. I have never been one for voluntarily inviting HSE / EHO's into the workplace but I do understand its benefits in creating a good 'working' relationship. If such a system were introduced most businesses will keep the HSE at arms length - more so than ever before - and under-reporting of accidents etc. will become endemic. Ian

....and the examples of what are and are not "material" breaches leave room for plenty of debate on a real case by case basis. I think we'll probably see many more appeals against Notices.

ClaireL - I can only speak as I find. in the past 5 years: The last prosecution I was involved in, the company got a "not guilty" verdict after even the court complained about the HSE inspector's unpreparedness and absence of evidence. The last fatal I was involved in was a fork truck accident where the driver tipped over his truck with blatant disregard for safe operation. The barrister advised that because of S40, the company couldn't run a "not guilty" plea because one employee statement said the workplace was congested, and so not all that was reasonably practicable had been done, even though it had no bearing ont he accident. They reluctantly did and received a £3,000 fine, which perhaps indicates their innocence rather than guilt. The last prohibition notice I dealt with was served by an EHO. When I asked "where is the serious risk of personal injury?" (because I couldn't even see a minor risk) I was told she was not qualified to say but had been told by a fork lift truck instructor that the practice in question was "unsafe" because it did not exactly follow the "industry standard". The last improvement notice I dealt with was served by a pair of HSE inspectors and again on investigation, there was no basis to their allegations. This is pretty typical of the last 35 years of my experience of the HSE/EHO A few years ago I visited a factory full of unskilled labour where the safeguards on every machine had been defeated, the place was a fire safety deathtrap and later the owners were prosecuted for employing illegal immigrants. Since then the place has moved and was destroyed in a fire. A HSE inspector had visited, walked past everything and served a notice on a pothole in the yard....... Oh yes, there is plenty of room for improvement. These are the people who are going to be told to charge employers arbitrarily and decide there is a material breach...........

Ah, but they may well be spending time knocking on doors - to attempt to collect monies from those who refuse to stump up! I seem to recall we have legislation on the statute book covering unsolicited goods and services...........