This is black hole and nobody really knows what is going g to happen until the HSE actually start applying and people start objecting. Basically my problem is the lack of transparency in what the inspectors actually do and how do we now that they are not ‘racking up the meter’ to enable them to charge more. Last time we had the HSE visit for what we thought would be a short follow up to a RIDDOR dangerous occurrence which we reported. He spent all day with us (about 6 hours) he then went away and came about a couple of weeks later with a friend and asked the same questions again and spent about 5 hours with us. He then made (verbally) some recommendations which we said were not practical and what we had put in place dealt with the issue adequate and completely complied with the legislation. And then nothing, no letter, not feedback and certainly no action. The question I ask is what would have happened if this new regime was in place- would he have found a ‘material breach’, would he have charged us for the 6 hours he was on site and then the subsequent visit with his friend (am not sure what this person contributed to the process and what they learned on the second visit which they did not see on the first visit)
A visit in the past from a inspector was often a chance to chat about H&S issues etc now there is the feeling it might be a fishing expedition looking for the golden ‘material breach’ that they can charge for.

If you read all the documentation carefully you will see that the proposed charge for sending a letter dealing with a 'material breach' of the regulations is suggested as £750, and for an Improvement Notice it will be £1500. For an investigation they state it may run to many thousands of Pounds. In another document they state that they estimate the cost recover in the first year will be around £43,6 million!

My calculator suggests that if this were recovered purely from Improvement Notices at £1500 each this would mean some 30,000 such Notices or around 150 per working day!

My concern is that although the documentation states that there will be no change in their inspectors' approach to his dealings with the client can we really expect employers to regard inspectors in the same way as many do now, or will there be an undercurrent of suspicion about the inspector's need to meet a cost recovery target?

Given the reduced numbers of inspectors, will there be increased pressure on those that are left to 'meet a recovery target"?

Chris

A cynic writes...
There is no doubt in my mind that the HSE will now adopt this system to their own benefit. They will be directed to find cost recovery at every available opportunity. The motives of all inspectors good and bad won't hide the fact that the financial angle is now what is imperative. Finance people rule the world even if we don't want to think it or believe it.
I work for a licensed asbestos contractor and we can now expect some hefty bills whenever our licensing visits are due, we can also expect them to 'will' material breaches to happen whenever they come calling to our sites.
And don't get me started on the LA approach. They, more than the HSE will be aggressive in their 'cost recovery initiatives'.

Gerry

I think this has been flagged by ARCA...... because of the licensing process it becomes more or less inevitable that HSE record issues and then licensed contractor write to put their side of the argument which frequently results in more correspondence.

I had a discussion yesterday with a contractor who historically turned a high reach demolition rig over - no injury - FOD would be unlikely to have the knowledge to carry out the investigation and therefore would bring HSL or others in - these rates would be considerably higher and ........ I think that this cost would not be insurable as the EL policy which can cover criminal investigation costs is not triggered as there is no injury!

All good fun

Being a SHE adviser for a distillers on a lower tier COMAH site we have been hit with charges for the last few years. The CA (HSE & SEPA) who oversee the COMAH regulations have put in place an intervention program for COMAH sites as well as investigating any DO reported under RIDDOR. So far this year our charges have totalled £10k for the intervention visit and the investigation of 2 LOC's of a flammable liquid (whisky). A break down of charges include time for requesting and reading reports, telephone calls and emails as well as faxing information between the HSE and SEPA !

As part of the intervention visiting they have planned 12 days for 2011-12 looking at ageing plant, PSPI's, environmental RA and follow up from previous visits. All visist include 1 HSE Inspector and 1 SEPA Officer.

An exercise by the Scotch Whisky Association estimated the total cost to our industry for 2010/11 to be just short of £0.5 million.

Its just a a way of funding for the HSE.

We have had 2 over three day injury accidents rported via RIDDOR this year and no contact from the HSE, report a LOC of 100kgs of whisky and they are all over us like a rash

I think the HSE will end up like speed cameras, won't reduce the risk but will provide a revenue.

Anyone noticed the presence of more police with cameras since the riots. We must be paying all the overtime.

I think most employers (if not all) will be cynical towards this. This Government has made cut backs which forces someone to come up with this sort of idea.
we have had visits before where minor issues have been agreed verbally (with the Inspector), I have no doubt that these will now result in £750 inspection letter.

Will the expected £43m income become a target, I have already received calls from a cynical few who have almost compared it to KPI's.

Small businesses will struggle while large companies may become an easy target.