Anybody undertaking a study to ID how the HSE Fee's regs will affect their business?

Quote : in the grand scheme of things the fees are neither here nor there". I wish I could take you to meet some of our clients to whom any extra "fees" are a severe burden at a time when the country is apparently fighting its way out of a recession. I'm sure it wasn't meant but it came across to me as being a bit pompous and out of touch with reality. I feel that attitudes like the one expressed here are at the heart of the matter-we've already seen the difference-I rang an inspector yesterday to ask about a notice he'd served, only to be told that our conversation would be chargeable to the client-no chance of any constructive advice there then. A couple of weeks ago we would have had a reasonable conversation, been able to exchange ideas regarding a way forward and solved most problems. Now there is not only no flexibility in the system, but we are actively discouraged from seeking advice. Of course, as the fees are neither here nor there, that won't matter, will it. After all, its a perfectly simple matter for employers to be 100% compliant 100% of the time, isn't it? And everyone knows that all consultancies are cowboys who don't have their clients best interests at heart, don't they? Friday rant over

This is great news for all consultants who charge less than the HSE's rates.

Yes Gordon, I agree, Ron has come across as very pompous in his statement. The fees will be a huge burden on small businesses. Personally I think the HSE charging for giving advice on compliance with the Notice is legally correct but IMO harsh and a worrying sign of things to come. If the inspector wasn't clear enough at the time of the visit on how to comply then it seems unfair to charge again for having to explain it better.

What an appalling attitude towards others you have.

I fear some misconstrue the meaning of my post at #2. The cost to any business arising from FFI is small when considered against the costs arising from and accident. Many organisations have responded positively to intervention and reaped immense benefit in reduced costs, increased productivity and better orders - particularly SMEs An analysis of costs requires a consideration of benefits in the longer term - thus my intended meaning that 'in the grand scheme of things' the costs of FFI are neither here nor there. Yes, it's an additional burden, but then it isn't going to go away. Maybe (just maybe) it might act as an additional incentive for some to get it right in the first place.

Hello Ron-I didn't misconstrue your original post-but I don't quite understand this one-are you saying that there is now evidence that FFI is affecting H&S culture within SME's in a positive way-if so what evidence you have as its only been in operation for a month? Or are you saying that intervention in the past was beneficial? If the latter, then that's irrelevant now as FFI has replaced the earlier system. I suppose the analogy is this: We exchange views and ideas freely on this and other forums (fora) and the process is often mutually beneficial. However, if you had to pay from the first Oct to reply to me and others, would you do so, particularly when the costs were quite high? (Even if small in the great scheme of things) Hello Walker-I didn't make any accusations...what is Ron guilty of? Do we need to be told?

Gordon, I'm at pains to say at #11 that only time will tell whether FFI reaps additional side benefits in increased self- compliance (i.e. without intervention). Nice to know there are some accessible Inspectors out there (I know some too). Sadly that's not universal. With some (in my experience) it wouldn't be worth the call. Ah well, we still have this free Forum to bounce ideas around on! Would I be here if this Forum cost money? No. But then I doubt this Forum would last long on a PTP (pay-to-post) basis!

Fees; neither here or there I have just costed an actual historic event as part of a formal impact analysis Old system = HSE charges were £0.0 New system = HSE charges would be £60K [I repeat £60K!] so much for the gov wanting to help business H&S has gone from the governments worst nightmare to their best revenue earner overnight!

Bob The exercise is a valuable one yet the validity of your methodology is critically important (as it is for anyone). In order to be able to understand and evaluate your claim about a formal impact analysis, would you indicate the scope in terms of a. number of employees b. class/classes of risk/s c. the nature of material breach/es d. the number of sites e. the timescale(s) f. what the formal impact assesment now enables you to propose to your senior management/colleagues that you weren't in a positon to propose before your assessment.

Gordon: It's a game changer, no doubt. Any communication in relation to the rectification of a material breach will be chargeable, no way of getting away from it. Might not be exactly overnight, it took about 18 months to come in with an extension from April, but I take your general point. The reason somethings weren't clear in the past is probably either because the inspector didn't explain the issue properly, or your customer didn't listen properly and you then had to reinvent the wheel in discussing it with HSE to get to the root of the issue. This will be expensive from now on! It will come down to communication - both ways. Material breaches will need to be clearly explained and outlined and not left fuzzy. If that's the case and you don't think it's a material breach, challenge it and if you're successful no charges occur. If you think it is a material breach, then the quicker your customer understands it, and fixes it, the cheaper it is going to be. Not perhaps pleasant, but that's the reality.

Ref the point: "£60K at HSE charge of £124/hr equates to 484 hrs of HSE time. Sorry, but not realistic". This related to rail incident and was costed by me very carefully using records of time spend by staff with the HSE and not the full HSE's time. This overall case lasted >two years and visits to people homes after they had retired before it went to court and I can assure U that the £60K quoted is not far fetched but it is an eye opener. The £60K does not include time spent by employees Another case that has not been costed involved the use of the HSE labs at Buxton. If that happened today we would have to pay the day rate for the labs as well as the day to day inspectors time plus 'back office' time - an expensive situation I really do think that people need to get to grips with what a HSE fee situation could cost them KD: This was one case, one site, employees time has not been added in [the actual event involved members of the public], lasted over two years - nothing new to senior people except the fact that such things will cost us money from now on in - this 'cost us money' situation focuses the mind!

KieranD, I think you over estimate the insurance industries approach to risk - I assume you are talking about Liability insurers. For SMEs their premium is based on book rates calculated from all the claims from all policyholders in the same sector. Adjusted to allow for anything that we think might improve i.e. reduce the risk. For larger firms their premium is based on their past/historic claims expeirience -how many and what cost is involved. This is then adjusted to allow for any planned risk management activities that should reduce claims in the year ahead. As for FFI - insurers aren't really bothered.. most (all?) do not intend to pay FFIs under Employers' or Public Liability policy. We expect our policyholders to be legally compliant... why should we pay FFI if they get caught out? Phil

KieranD, Basic principle of insurance is thus.... "Contributions of the many pay for the losses of the few" And that is certainly how it works for small policyholders, whether PI or Employers' Liability etc. Only the very largest of firms can enjoy the linking of their own premium to their claims experience. As for "schemes" type prices... These may be as much related to the deal that has been agreed as the actual risk. Insurers allow a discount for getting in big chunks of business. So if a society can guarantee all members will sign up then the insurer has some certainy about matters such as the quality of the firms underwritten/insured, the total premium etc. This is worth a discount! Phil

To add to Bob's comment about prospective costs, it will depend on the incident. Without naming names I have been advised by those in the know that had some of the big recent cases happened after 1st October, those involved would have faced a bill of upwards of £half a million!!! In those cases HSE inspectors were embedded in an investigation full time for at least two years.

Top tier COMAH sites are charged for everthing to do with HSE, well short of material breach. I wonder if it might be cheaper to hurt somebody, plead guilt early and let the courts award costs?

What is that rate set against per business in the UK?

Clairel at #32 is making a very valid point. Many of those on this site are practitioners working for large employers, often in a relatively high risk environment. However, the world has moved on since 1974 and a majority of employees now do not work in traditional sectors but in retail, leisure and service sectors. Such employees will still have accidents and there will still be complaints about where and how they work - so they will still get visits and 'material breaches' will still be found thus entering them into the world of FFI. Those small and micro businesses in this unfortunate position will be unable to cope with such costs and fold (or at the least growth will be restricted). I have no issue with those that flout the law being heavily punished but many small and new businesses have never has any formal health and safety training, cannot employ a H&S officer, will now not receive proactive inspections from regulators (designed to help and sign post good practice) and will be at the mercy of consultants!!

I've no doubt that N Burrows is well-intentioned in writing: many small and new businesses have never has any formal health and safety training, cannot employ a H&S officer, will now not receive proactive inspections from regulators (designed to help and sign post good practice) and will be at the mercy of consultants!! I wonder what exactly the problem of 'being at the mercy of consultants!!' amounts to, such that it is emphasised with two exclamation marks. These businesses are already obliged by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regs to appoint a safety/health adviser. Whether they are 'at the mercy of' such an adviser any more than they are when they enter a contract with an accountant or other supplier of services is surely a matter for the discretion of the proprietors. One might just as well assert that I'm at the mercy of a small family shop where I buy stationery and print supplies locally rather than travel a few miles to a superstore; I often pay 5-10% more to deal with a local supplier because it's quicker and often a pleasant interlude in a stressful day. Neither of us are at each other's 'mercy' any more than any of the other small firms are at my 'mercy', when I dovetail leadership coaching and the elements of employment law with safety ergonomics. FFI now operates in a context which includes OSHCR to which such proprietors have ready access. Small ones can negotiate with candidates from this database or go to professional societies or rely on friends in the competitive capitalist system. While FFI is a tough innovation, it's not really much different in essence than VAT was some fifty years ago. The end of the world as we know it was predicted then yet many small enterprises have lived longer, often in new form, than large corporations despite the ravages of HMRC: this can be extremely unfair when officialdom makes elementary calculating or admin errors - I myself had 18 letters from HMRC and one from their bailiffs last year before they eventually acknolwedged their error and refunded me over £100. Unjust on me, yes; an enormous waste of my time, yes; stressful to me and my family, very much so; yet better than a system where there's no pressure on business people to fulfil legal responsibilities.

But there are plenty of small businesses that are enforced by the HSE.