Useful reference:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd235.htm

This is happening because the Government of the day wants it - the HSE have to do as they are told. The idealogy is that those who don't comply have to pay (for the issue of Notices, formal letters, follow-up visits etc.) Best of luck to the HSE in trying to balance the books on potential income via the bureacracy required to administer this and chaseup thosewho choose not to pay.

There is an interesting article about this topic in this month's SHP.

As has already been said, this is because the Coalition Government has demanded that HSE recover costs in the effort to reduce it's public funding requirement. It is not welcomed by HSE itself and is sure to be a big headache to administer. The inspectors know it will not be liked by industry and will only increase hostility to them. Appeals will go through the roof! Time management for them will increasingly be monitored by efforts to generate income. The alternative will be further shrinking of the organisation if no further public funding is granted. Only time will tell if this strategy is achievable.
Meanwhile, this has raised the status of all health and safety professionals overnight. This is the opportunity to prove your worth by saving your business from any and such charges. Good and positive health and safety management is readily recognisable by an HSE inspector! You are less likely to get visited if no infringements are likely to be unearthed. Thorough in-house accident investigations will require less time by an inspector to follow through. Again, speedy remedial action will require less of an inspector's time. Conversely, it will be very embarrassing if, and when, you are called before your MD to explain why a 'material defect' was never identified and rectified, such that it has now possibly cost them a £750 letter!

A crucial issue in this matter surely is what situations constitute material, alias significant, breaches of the law enforced by HSE. From a quick skim through the 50+ page document cited above by pete48 I couldn't readily find any clear examples or definitions, but perhaps I was skimming too fast.

Also, as farmsafety suggests, the forthcoming charging system might well raise the status of OS&H professionals among employers - and also self-employed people - involved in work with significant risks. Time will tell.

When I first got involved in the h&s industry we were taught about the tripartite system ie the regulator, employer and employee's representatives. The premise was that the regulator was an advisory body first and foremost, and an enforcement authority second. This new initiative appears to tip the scales in favour of enforcement as opposed to advice.

The pay for intervention principle is fairly sound - if you don't run your business safely then you will pay for it. I also take the view that far too many employers escape prosecution and are penalised only with an EN. Prosecution is time consuming and expensive, moreover prosecutions by the regulators have been on a steady decline over the last decade or so. Therefore pay for intervention could be seen as pseudo fixed penalty fine as well as one step away from a prosecution.

I really believe it is about time apathetic and amoral employers paid the penalty for their lack of health and safety awareness. I really don't care how sanctions are applied as long as they are effective, I will have no sympathy for those who complain. Okay, the Devil is in the detail. Therefore I hope enforcement officers are sensible, consistent and proportionate in how they apply this pay for intervention initiative. The only shadow I can see is with the coincidence of the HSE's 30% cut in budget - which does leave a nasty taste in the mouth.

Stephen,
The proposals are quite clear about the start and stop point of fee for intervention. See para 2.1.6 and 2.1.8 of the consultation document referenced in my previous post. Section 4.12 outlines what a dutyholder may have to pay for.

I wonder whether it is the fact that many companies today are in breach of duty and if visited fear that they would likely find themselves with fee for intervention process invoked and it is this that is concerning many. Simple opportunity to fill the exchequers coffers type of comment maybe?
However, in the examples given there is one that relates to the HASAW poster not being displayed. A material breach but the example goes on to state that, subject to no other matters being found, then such a breach could be dealt with verbally as it does not pose additional risk to employees or members of the public. No cost charge would be made in such a matter.
Common sense clearly integrated into the proposals and an indication that the HSE recognise the need for a measured approach?

p48

'It's all very well to say that employers that break the law deserve what they get but the reality is that most employers aren't deliberately breaking the law. Ignorance is no excuse maybe but wow what a hard line to take.'

Claire, as a consultant you will be acutely aware that many employers are disregarding the law, some as a result of ignorance, but in many cases it is apathy and wilful disregard. Most of these only come to light when there is a serious accident - through prosecution. Too late for the poor soul who has been seriously injured or worse. Yes, I agree it will hit SMEs the hardest, but most large organisations do their best to ensure compliance, whereas the same cannot be said for SMEs.

If pay for intervention results in driving up standards by ensuring those that don't run their businesses properly are penalised, then it must be good for the protection of workers. Complying with health and safety laws should not be seen as a 'nice to do' - but a legal requirement. Employers that fall foul of the HRMC are not treated with any mercy, why should it be so different for h&s laws?

I'm not comparing the two like for like, but the principle of non-compliance. True, some h&s laws can be quite complex...but most are quite basic and simple to understand.

Pete48 - thanks for pointing out that the examples of material breaches were at the end of the HSE document.

It's intriguing to see that the first example given in the document is non-display of the Health & Safety at Work Law poster. During my decade in HSE if my colleagues or I noted that any workplaces were not displaying any of the posters then required by law (re Factories Act 1961, Abrasive Wheels Regulations, etc) we would give verbal advice if no other shortcomings were noted. If letters were sent about several matters noted we would mention the posters for good measure. However, we would never pay return visits regarding such posters. Furthermore, I don't recall any employer ever being prosecuted for not displaying an official poster, even to boost numbers when pursuing prosecution about a number of different matters.

When compared with matters which threatened life or limb, the non-display of official posters was generally regarded by inspectors as a trivial matter. Part of this stance stemmed from the fact that few if any people were likely to read and heed the posters. For example when visiting premises with woodworking machines we would look at the machinery guarding standards, watch machines being used to see if the adjustable guards were correctly set, and talk with operators to discern their level of (compulsory) training and understanding of the practical elements of the Woodworking Machines Regulations 1974 which were then in force. Therefore, if we were satisfied that the operators were competent and machines could be used safely, the absence of the poster regarding the regulations didn't matter. It's possible that inspectors have changed their stance regarding posters since my time in HSE, but I very much doubt it.

I wonder what HSE inspectors themselves think of the drastic proposals for "extending cost recovery" by HSE and how they will affect them in their work. Perhaps some of them (including those who are members of IOSH) will see this forum topic and respond, especially if they can use pseudonyms.