Speaking personally as a consultant the first thing I purchased after my insurance was a black hat and cape so I could terrorise the small businesses around Whitechapel.

I must be so careful when expressing an opinion!! (two exclamations)? However, I see part of such a useful discussion forum is to provoke discussion. There are many threads on this site with critical comments about H&S inspectors - is it not reasonable to suggest there might be issues with consultants? Please be assured that is not meant to be a general statement and my first message could/should have read "..... at the mercy of THE FEW BAD consultants". To be balanced and fair and relating my experiences with small businesses - some get very good advice from consultants that is proportionate and reasonably priced. However, many with good intent think that by paying 100s or 1000s of pounds to a 'H&S expert' they comply with the law. I have seen too many 'cut and paste' risk assessments from consultants that bear no relation to the needs of the client not to feel there is a problem with (a minority) of consultants. Let me illustrate with an example: On dozens of occasions I have visited nursing/care homes where the owners have proudly produced a set of folders marked 'health & safety' with page after page of laminated guidance. I always take them to the section(s) on workplace equipment and ask what use is a section on Fork Lift Truck Safety? I am not looking for an argument about the merits of consultants and I have previously agree many are excellent but some are poor. I do not agree that the OSHCR adds anything worthwhile or provides that much reassurance. How to consultants prosecuted as part of investigations lose their registration?

Ron, Reggie and I have been out preying on our poor unsuspecting clients for the past few days so have only just caught up with this thread-and it's very interesting...We do believe, correctly or not, that there has recently grown up an anti-consultancy bias within some areas of the regulatory system-this may or may not be down to the government going on about cutting red tape and making H&S simple etc...but it does appear to be the case. This is a pity-we don't dispute that some consultants are poor, but stigmatising all of us as rapacious, amoral vampires doesn't help firms who fit our typical client profile-the SME which can't afford an in house adviser. This attitude is actually off-putting for them, meaning they are less likely than before to obtain sensible, practical advice. This is a pity, since the HSE is currently offering conflicting advice-on the one hand telling everyone not to worry about H&S and that its fairly simple (Judith Hackett); then on the other hand more than trebling the rate of prosecutions over the last 2 years. In addition, they give examples of generic risk assessments on their site and then prosecute because risk assessments aren't suitable and sufficient-too generic in many cases! (I had a discussion about this with a principal inspector and he agreed with me-but he was leaving to be a consultant so was quite happy to be open). I suspect that the furore over FFI will die down, but it will be interesting to see how the H&S landscape has changed when we look back in a couple of years time. I'm of the opinion that, far from driving standards up, FFI runs the risk of alienating both employers and those trying to help them; and that inspectors will therefore find their jobs much more difficult at a time of shrinking resources (Clairel's description of the work involved in prosecutions was most illuminating)

Chris No doubt the HSE would trot out that familiar rubric 'reasonably practical'. It's a catch-all phrase which no one can clearly explain, not even the HSE, and of course covers a multitude of sins.

This is another tax that will further alienate the public from enforcement bodies. Meanwhile there are no road markings / street lighting and overgrown verges forcing HGVs into the opposite traffic lanes. Hypocrisy is creeping in a tad too much for my liking.

To be fair that's quite any easy one for government to argue against. They'd say they are committed to reducing red tape for law abiding companies doing the "right thing" and would say that those companies who are non-abiding (and therefore subject to FFI costs) deserve to be burdened... That's not to say those companies subject to FFI costs are actually any different from those that have not etc. etc.

Its not too difficult to spot a "material breach" in all industries and therfore in my opinion you would be hard pressed not to get some form of a FFI notice from the HSE during anyone of there visits - if the HSE so wished it to be that way. I am of the opinion that a hell of a lot of good will that has been developed over the years between companies and their local HSE inspector is going to go out of the window.

Couldn't agree more with Graham-the system prior to FFI had flaws but worked pretty well, had some flexibility built in and was normally non-confrontational. My earlier post made the point that this flexibility and ability to solve things quickly, efficiently and cheaply has, at a stroke, been almost totally lost...The system wasn't broken, didn't need fixing, and has now been messed up because politicians wanted to be seen to be tough on Government spending but also saw a way to make money. The HSE aren't going to receive the FFI income-half goes to the Treasury (so its a tax by another name).

I have watched this post with interest but I have not contributed in knowing I would be attending this event yesterday - FFI obviously raised a few questions. http://www.westminsterfo...safety-review-agenda.pdf Judith Hackitt was asked directly to confirm that inspectors were not going to be target driven - she answered with conviction stating absolutely this is not the case.

Railways are no longer regulated by HSE but by ORR, and the ORR safety inspectorate is funded through the Railway Safety Levy- basically rather than charging fees, the payment to fund the safety regulator is decoupled from the specific intervention. The actual levels are on ORR's website, to quote what they say about it: "Railway service providers are required to pay a levy to cover the costs of our activities as the health and safety regulator and enforcement body for the railway industry. The levy is based on relevant turnover. Those railway service providers with a relevant turnover below £1 million are not liable to pay the levy, and those railway service providers with a relevant turnover between £1 million and £5 million are liable only to pay a flat rate fee currently set at £1,000. Those railway service providers with a relevant turnover between £5 million and £10 million are liable only to pay a flat rate fee currently set at £5,000" (see here: http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1238).

Each field inspector has a target of a minimum of 8 hours per week with regards to FFI. I have seen this on a HSE power point slide show that was delivered by the HSE to the National Federation of Demolition Contractors (NFDC) which if i remember rightly is on youtube.

I remember when Councils stated unequivocally that their new Enforcement Oficers were not going to be target driven but they very soon were. This will be just another Tax justified on the back of safety.

Shineon55 Thanks for your answer at #56 to my query about the source of your information about non-charging under FFI for work done by procurators fiscal on behalf of HSE in Scotland. Evidently I hadn't properly read the HSE guidance about FFI. As for HSE inspectors having no time limit nowadays within which they should complete prosecution reports (PRs), your information accords with what generally seems to be the case. I guess that former inspectors who were accustomed and expected to generate around 10 PRs per year - and complete them within 6 months - would be far from impressed with the apparent average tally of 2-3 PRs per inspector and no time limit. However, if HSE inspectors become subject to an expectation from their bosses about how much money they should for the Treasury generate via FFI, perhaps there'll be a return to what prevailed in the past! As regards time to complete PRs, I know of one scenario where HSE took some 4 years to complete or nearly complete a PR. Apparently this helped the organisation which faced prosecuted to successfully persuade HSE to abandon the case. In addition to the fact that people likely to be called as witnesses (for the prosecution or defence) at any court hearing might have difficulty remembering details of the circumstances involved after over 4 years, it's likely that any lawyer representing the organisation would have drawn attention to the undue time taken by HSE to get the case to court!

Clairel, most certainly not taken that way at all. Ha, I spent a few years working for the Government myself - I know that feeling too.