The HSE has launched a three-month consultation on how it plans to recover costs for its interventions from businesses that fail to comply with health and safety laws.
As agreed with the Government earlier this year, the regulator will impose fees on companies where a material breach of the laws is discovered during an inspection or investigation. Those fees would apply up to the point where the HSE’s intervention in supporting the company in rectifying matters has concluded.
Under the proposals currently up for consultation, the HSE will charge for its time at a rate of £133 per hour. The cost of any supplementary specialist support required by the regulator will also be passed on, and invoices will be required to be paid within 30 days. An appeal system will be operated in the case of any disputes over cost recovery.
To implement the new system, which is planned to be operational by April 2012, the HSE is proposing to replace the Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations 2010 with new regulations. As well as carrying over the existing cost-recovery arrangements – such as those relating to offshore oil and gas installations, some chemical and petrochemical sites, and licensed nuclear installations – the new regulations would place a legal duty on the HSE to recover the costs of its interventions, i.e. the regulator would not have discretion on whether or not to apply the fee.
The proposals in the consultation, which runs until 14 October, only apply to the HSE and not to equivalent work undertaken by Local Authorities. However, this is one of the issues on which the views of consultees are being sought, and the proposals could be amended in the future to enable Local Authorities to recover the costs of their interventions, also.
Gordon MacDonald, the HSE’s programme director, said: “The Government has agreed that it is right that those who break the law should pay their fair share of the costs to put things right – and not the public purse. These proposals provide a further incentive for people to operate within the law, levelling the playing field between those who comply and those who don’t. Compliant firms will not pay a penny in intervention fees.
“We want to hear from as many people as possible about how we plan to operate the scheme, to help make its introduction as successful as possible.”
To find out more and to take part in the consultation, click here.
Fire Safety in 2023 eBook
SHP's sister site, IFSEC Insider has released its annual Fire Safety Report for 2023, keeping you up to date with the biggest news and prosecution stories from around the industry.
Chapters include important updates such as the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 and an overview of the new British Standard for the digital management of fire safety information.
Plus, explore the growing risks of lithium-ion battery fires and hear from experts in disability evacuation and social housing.
Call me cynical but under this scheme visiting Inspectors be under pressure to find something/anything to warrant at least writing a letter and companies will pay up rather than contest in case they face even steeper bills from HSE. “Compliant firms won’t pay a penny”? In the REAL world we know there’s always something if you dig deep enough.
If we desperately need income generation to fund HSE, wouldn’t it be simpler to impose an annual fee payable by all companies based on numbers employed?
As a forma Inspector I always contacted every company that I had inspected, regardless of failings or not. Good practice and poor adhearence to duty holder complaince is/should be aknowledged.
However, on all occations there were failings, but advice given was free, but the same advice was generally available free if they had bothered to go online.
On some occasions I issued many Notices on others none at all.
No one ever appealed against a Notice that I issued.
The document defines a material breach as one that in the opinion of the inspector requires a “formal intervention”. A formal intervention is defined as one involving written communication including email. A little concerned that it is defined as “the opinion of the inspector”, since any definition relying on opinion is unchallengeable. Also concerned that email is classed as a formal intervention so if in an inspectors opinion an email is required after a visit and automatic £750 fee is charged
Can we assume that there is an openly explained validation of the charge rate?
The next step will be an invitation for commercial organisations to undertake enforcement work. I have no objection with privatising enforcement if a market is created. However, the charging regime should not be based on non-compliance.
Until then the HSE has a monopoly for the levy of charges for breaches against a legislative regime that is nuanced. This is not a good system and should be objected to on principle.
This is a seriously bad idea: The authorites have not learned from the speed camera fiasco and this will completely destroy the HSE’s image and credibility. The devil is in the detail – charges will be levied for everything including travel, follow up phone calls, etc and I can easily envisage small companies being closed down by the cost of an HSE visit.
How long before HSE managers give their inspectors financial targets to meet and performance bonuses are awarded based on income generated?
We were promised great things from the introduction Speed Cameras and they simply have become a revenue earner for cash strapped police…will we see HSE Inspectors given monthly sales targets?
Could someone tell me what is the definition of a ‘material breach of the law discovered during an inspection or investigation’.
Left as it is that could range from minor trip and fall hazards in offices to serious deficiencies in risk assessments for working at heights in construction etc.
Andew Miller
I’ve encouraged clients in the past to ask an inspector to visit and give an opinion on problems that might be described as “grey issues”. This has proved very helpful. If an inspector visits under the proposed scheme, doesn’t like what he sees which results in a letter being sent, it will be charged at £750 (para 4.13.3in the consultation), then I won’t give that advice again.
This will discourage businesses from being open with the HSE.
Companies who * break the law ” , when found guilty by the appropriate authority, are fined or otherwise dealt with. There is no justification for another tier of penalty. It strikes me that this is just another method of raising revenues à la speeding fines.
If we want to improve Health and Safety standards in industry then the law(s) must be less complex, compliance cheaper and implementation simple and practical. Fees such as those suggeted would cause serious issues in some SME’s.