Just had a call from one of the clients I look after....they've had an ad hoc visit from two HSE Inspectors. One of them mentioned that as of next April onwards, that the cost of the three hour visit and a follow up letter would be £750 approx........ Oh and there wasn't anything major they could find wrong - hhhmmmm nice earner.

Well we'll see won't we......? Can't believe all we read in the 'papers'. I remember some years ago when my work involved working with Civil Servants, an elderly learned Gentleman answered a query I had with the statement "....never believe anything until it is officially denied". That statement has held me in good stead where Civil Servants and Politicians are concerned.

Dear All

In 2010 there were 533 Enforcement Notices issued where asbestos was included in the summary on the HSE database. So at the proposed pricing, asbestos enforcement notices would net around £799,500.

In 2009/10, there were 9,734 enforcement notices issued by the HSE; 6,110 issued by the Local Authorities. At £1,500 each the estimated net value to HSE would be £14,601,000: LAs £9,165,000.

Given that proactive inspections will be reduced by 33% (11,000) this should free up some time to do the more cost effective inspections and allow the HSE to concentrate on ensuring that 'those organisations that gain competitive advantage by flouting the rules pay for the costs of putting things right.' [Good Health and Safety, Good for Everyone]

Thus reducing the so called 'unecessary bureacratic burdens' on business, of course.

It will be interesting to see it work in practice.

Cheers.

Nigel

It is also my understanding the cost recovery scheme and the so-called consultation is in fact a fait accompli.

In principle I see nothing wrong with charging those who do not manage their business properly and safely. It should in theory drive up standards, perhaps even more than the frugal rate of prosecutions? As always the Devil is in the detail.

Hmmmm?

All very well intended until somebody decides further down the line to introduce targets and KPI's. Or worse still, privatises the HSE.

Victor - a quick thought: did your client already know the 2 visitors to be HSE inspectors? If not, just how certain was it that the visitors were genuine?!!

As a general piece of advice, surely most or perhaps all enforcement officials, e.g. from HSE, Environment Agency, HMRC, etc., have to prove who they are if requested to do so. Therefore, though there is a reluctance to challenge unknown people who arrive and simply state that they are, e.g. an inspector from HSE, surely there's no harm in politely asking for proof. Those who feel uncomfortable doing this could add that it's standard procedure for every new visitor.

Every HSE inspector has a warrant which contains their full name plus mugshot photo embossed with a crest, and should carry it on their person to produce it if requested to do so. (Mind you, from recollection of my decade with HSE I was rarely asked for identification. This tended to be at the premises of small firms visited during 'on spec' night inspections as some of their people were reluctant to believe that inspectors ventured out at night. By contrast, some larger firms where I would have expected a higher degree of security seemed surprisingly lax and took me at my word!)

Surely enforcement people shouldn't be offended at being asked for identification. If they don't like it or refuse, it could stem from several or more possibilities: They are i) being pompous, ii) embarrassed to say that they have forgotten to carry their identification with them or iii) not genuine! It's an offence to impersonate an HSE inspector and presumably there are laws about impersonating other types of enforcement officers.

With matters like commercial secrecy and people thinking of new ways to defraud, especially if the HSE charging regime goes ahead, it makes sense to check that enforcers are who they say they are.

One example of fraudulent audacity, though not involving enforcers, was shown on BBC TV's "Motorway Cops" last night. Thieves arrived with a tanker at a filling station which had closed for the night, somehow opened the hatches over the underground fuel tanks and started pumping diesel up into their tanker. Most passers-by would pay little or no attention and just assume that a delivery was being made. Fortunately, the filling station's CCTV system was being monitored remotely and the police were notified. No doubt other forum users who saw the programme noted that when the thieves scarpered as the police suddenly arrived, they left their pump running. As a result the tanker compartment became full and started to overflow and spread over the forecourt and down the adjacent road. Fortunately the fuel being stolen was diesel and not petrol which could easily have been ignited and caused a major explosion and fire!

A few apologies for deviating somewhat from topic. Hopefully forum users, retailers, fuel distributors and security firms involved with vehicle filling stations will be aware of the various risks from this type of theft and therefore have appropriate counter-measures in place.

OMG!!!!

They never even went into the factory?????

Were they Inspectors or other HSE staff?

I am so glad I don't work for the HSE anymore. If they were inspectors then I don't see how they could ever justify not going into the workplace. Disgraceful.

They could be HSE contact officers - I met one the other day and they go round estates updating HSE's databases and doing just what you said - identifying those companies that need to be inspected. Not ideal I grant you and hunting in pairs??? Not cheap but doubt its a service likely to continue!!!

The quip about charging for tea and biscuits set me thinking.

If HSE charge for their inspectors time it could lead to the inspected organisation charging for their management time, surely much more valuable than a civil servant's.

You can never trust what someone says, especially when you're an inspector. If I had a pound for every time I had been left waiting in reception whilst all the guards were put back on etc.

If an inspector is going to to save time and resources by asking questions only then why even bother going there at all. Just ring up or write a letter! For that matter why even bother training inspectors up to spot hazards at all, just brief them on the legislation and be done with it.

If as an inspector I was asked to just talk to a company but not at least step foot inside the factory then I would quit - in fact one of the things I had issue with about the time I left was the fact that inspectors were no longer supposed to look at machinery guarding becuase it was not a priority topic. Trainees were no longer being trained up in industry becuase theoretically the priority topics are the same in each industry. Absolute nonsense.

I stand by what I say thaty if an inspector is not stepping foot in the factory but just relying on a chat with the owner then that is an absolute disgrace.

Graham once DPA came in everyone had to be a lot more careful about what they put on file...and there were some large industrial shredders turning up repeatedly!!

You take a bit of both on board, what they say but backed up with what you can see. If I was short of time I would have been talking and walking round the factory not sat in the office talking. That was what I was trained to do; go and see for myself what was actually happening.

I tried not to create confrontational situations as an inspector (although I had one meorable one) so I wouldn't have barged out of reception and into the factory uninvited. Perhaps by the time I was in the HSE they had adopted a more cautious approach. You could often tell if guards were little used when walking round. A menatl note of the fact that you were kep 'waiting' in reception can still be useful.

Regardless of what managers told me it was what I saw that counted. Watching quietly it was amazing to see what people actually did. Besides it was drilled into me to go and talk to the employees, the managers oft just tell you want you want to hear or sat in their offices too often themslves and didn't realise how things actually were on the shop floor.

Hands on every time. If the factory is as good as the manager claims then a walk round will take no time at all. I have a conscience and I like to sleep well atnight. No way would I sit an office and not step foot onto the shop floor. MY PI would have had me shot!

Clairel
I have to say they were not inspectors. I believe their title was officers, one held a Nebosh certificate and the other was not as qualified. I think they were just looking for companies who were blatantly disregarding health and safety and actually wanted to offer help and advise. I believe they would then judge the way the advise was received before they called in the big guns "inspectors". The offer to walk around our site was made to them, but to be honest on our estate I am sure they could find many more worthy companies who could do with some words of wisdom.
MG

That's reassuring, thanks for clearing that up.

It seems like a false economy though. Inspectors aren't paid that much money and so two 'officers' who haven't even carried out an inspection seems like a waste of resources to me. It would be cheaper just to send in one inspector than two officers and possibly another visit afterwards by an inspector.

As it’s Friday:
I have heard of inspectors quoting “Health and Safety at Work Act Section 20(2) (l)...require any person to afford him such facilities and assistance ... to enable the inspector to exercise any of the powers conferred on him by this section; “and demanding a room to interview people. Could they also demand cup of tea under this section?