Would it matter what HSE did? - The press would still have a go

Just a thought on this. If HSE are charging for advice, does that not place them in the same position as independent consultants in health and safety? What are the legal implications of this and, in effect, HSE competing with the open market? Has IOSH considered this? With HSE able to 'force themselves' on the employer does this give them an unfair advantage? Chris

I am very concerned that the Courts are being removed for breaches of the HSWA 74. Also will there not be pressure to raise revenue rather than issue notices ?

Why do you think the Courts are not going to be used??? Nothing will change operationally, except that companies get 'charged' per hour for HSE time when there are significant breaches requiring their attention. The use of 'formal advice' notes and letters has always been used alongside enforcment action. It only ever went to court for the more serious stuff. That won't change. I'm not sure why people think how the HSE will operate will change, it won't. It's just you'll be charged for their time where appropriate. The whole point is that it is being used to raise revenue. What is a worry is that they may have targets. Scary stuff!

Some interesting ‘takes’ on the various perceptions of Fees For Intervention. No, the HSE are not charging for visits per se. I would like to think that FFI will only apply for those significant rather than minor breaches i.e. where formal intervention is necessary. I really don’t see the HSE are likely to be knocking on too many doors and asking for a First aid RA or charging a FFI is there isn’t one. However, time will ultimately tell, but I share Claire’s view at #8 i.e. that little is likely to change in the operational work of the HSE due to FFI although I also agree that this might not be the case if there are targets. I am ‘confused’ by the post at #6! I don’t see that FFI will have any bearing at all on the use of the courts, where necessary for breaches of HASAWA. Of course the courts aren’t currently used for every breach anyway and rightly so. I would have thought that court time is better used for the more serious breaches of the law (not just H&S) and allow for the minor breaches to be dealt with by other means already available, such as, in the case of H&S, IN’s and PNs.

The HSE was already "charging" for work being undertaken by HSE inspectors for "safetycases"--this is an extension to charge for HSE's time for "interventions", i.e. when there has been a material breach, i.e a formal letter, or an improvement or prohibition notice. There was a detailed consultation on this:- http://consultations.hse...393957.1/pdf/-/CD235.pdf IOSH response to the consultation. http://www.iosh.co.uk/Co...ecovery%20Oct'11.pdf

Whether you thought the advice 'unecessary' was irrelavnt. The fact that you thought the advice unecessary was perhaps why the inspector felt it needed to be put in a letter.......then again it could have been a rubbish inspector, plenty of them about!!!

If anything I suspect that HSE charging will lead to further under reporting for RIDDOR purposes especially among smaller companies as there are certain things that mandate the HSE carry out an inspection - struck by a vehicle (RTA on site) or case of dermatitis being just 2 examples I know of. Dermatitis will involve EMAS so is that a double bubble? And presumably report writing time as well? So probably 4+ hours chargeable? Charges are already levied under the COMAH scheme and as I understand things, companies covered by Comah are now being "graded" and scored on safety performance in the same way as the Environment Agency does on Environmental performance - if so ii can see every company being routinely inspected either by their local EHO or HSE and getting charged handsomely for the privilege.

The guys (and gals) in the HSE are never happy with any of the management schemes that get thrust upon them...however, they do like thier pensions and working conditions and so generally put up with anything they have to do!