Partner Article

Health and safety model could be detrimental

Plans to get small businesses to pay for their own health and safety inspections have been criticised by the Forum of Private Business.

Under the ‘Fee for Intervention’ proposals, set for October 2012, firms deemed to be in ‘material breach’ of health and safety regulations by the HSE, would be forced to pay inspectors’ hourly rates.

The Forum has submitted its concerns to a House of Lords committee, suggesting the move could lead to inconsistency from individual inspectors over what constitutes a breach in the first place.

Chief executive of the Forum, Phil Orford, said: “Businesses which deliberately flout health and safety rules should be brought to task but this is not how the vast majority operate - clearly it is not in their best interests to allow lax health and safety procedures to exist. Our members want help, guidance and support - not ever more threats of financial penalties.

“The delicate balance of trust between small business and regulators, which has shown tentative signs of improving recently, could be further complicated by what subjectively constitutes a ‘material breach’ according to different inspectors, creating in all likelihood a postcode lottery for businesses concerning health and safety compliance and enforcement.

“We want every government department to understand the significant financial demands on business at present, in this case from consultants and the HSE itself.

“There needs to be greater understanding shown by enforcement officers that firms face a number of inspections from multiple agencies across all aspects of their business.”

62% of a Forum member panel felt that recovery costs should be scaled according to the size of a business.

Overall 87% of the panel agreed with the aims of the Government’s recent Lofstedt review, and 42% felt the HSE should be given authority over local enforcement activity.

This was posted in Bdaily's Members' News section by Tom Keighley .