Informa Markets

Author Bio ▼

Safety and Health Practitioner (SHP) is first for independent health and safety news.
August 18, 2014

Get the SHP newsletter

Daily health and safety news, job alerts and resources

Increase in inspections raises concerns over effects of FFI

Concerns have been raised over whether an increase in inspections by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has stemmed from the government’s fee for intervention (FFI) scheme.
 
The number of inspections undertaken by HSE has increased by 6 per cent in the last year, from 22,240 in 2012/13 to 23,472 in 2013/14, according to international law firm Pinsent Masons.
 
Laura Cameron, partner at the law firm, said: “There may be concern that the FFI scheme is an incentive for HSE to boost the number of inspections it undertakes because it knows they can bring in extra revenue – following major budget cuts.”
 
Under the HSE’s FFI scheme companies are only fined if inspectors find there has been a material breach, when in the opinion of the inspector there has been a contravention of health and safety law that requires them to issue a notice in writing.
 
However, Laura Cameron argued that even well-run businesses might be caught “as the test of whether a breach is material is a judgement call for the HSE inspector, and they will have a keen eye on all misdemeanours”.
 
Speaking to SHP, Kevin Hegarty, spokesperson for HSE, said: “There is no evidence that FFI has had any impact on whether we regulate any more or any less. 
 
“The increase in inspections is a natural consequence of how we do things, targeting industries that we feel we can have the most effect on, and predominantly targeting high-risk industries.”
 
Martin Temple’s government-appointed, independent review of the HSE in January this year addressed the issue of FFI saying that the HSE’s planned review of the scheme this year should include stakeholder views of how it’s working as well examining if it should be retained. 
 
In an interview with SHP in May, Martin Temple explained that the perception of FFI is that it is there to fill a gap in the budget. He added: “I know fine well that the money from FFI goes through the treasury but it is structured in a way that some of it comes back to fill that gap in the HSE budget.
 
“I just say there should be a clear distance between the income generated by FFI and the funding of HSE. If you get rid of that, the perception that these fines are there to fund the organisation will change.”
 
A review panel, with an independent chair, is due to report to the HSE board later this month on the operation of FFI and the impact charging has had on the relationship between HSE and business.
Increase in inspections raises concerns over effects of FFI Concerns have been raised over whether an increase in inspections by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has stemmed from the government’s fee for intervention (FFI) scheme.
SHP - Health and Safety News, Legislation, PPE, CPD and Resources
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

6 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rob Slater
Rob Slater
54 years ago

You’ll have to forgive my cynicism when the HSE claims FFI is not there to make money… And as for “… The increase in inspections is a natural consequence of how we do things…” Really?

At a time when budgets have been cut, the HSE suddenly has more inspectors out on the road…

But I have to agree with Laura Cameron when she says the scope of ‘misdemeanors/material breaches’ is so wide ranging that any site no matter how well run could fall foul of something.

Terry ap Hywel
Terry ap Hywel
54 years ago

On a recent NEBOSH Cert I ran one of the delegates told me that their Company had received a visit from the HSE following an anonymous complaint from an Employee. The Inspector found nothing to back up the complaint and, apparently, was even quite complimentary about the standards. The Company then received a FFI invoice! I found it hard to believe in view of the policy that “companies are only fined if inspectors find there has been a material breach, when in the opinion of the inspector there has been a contravention of health and safety law that requires them… Read more »

RayR
RayR
54 years ago

I wonder whether there has also been an increase in prosecutions as a natural consequence how we do things…?

MarkH
MarkH
54 years ago

Everyone completes an F10 for notifiable projects online, so make a charge of £100 per project payable online. Money raised no problem, no need for FFI.

Mark Jewell
Mark Jewell
54 years ago

” Another consequence of FFI is that another delegate, who was a director of a company, said they had been visited by a rep from a consultancy company who told them that the HSE were now issuing “on-the-spot fines” of £1500. They had signed a 5 year contract with the consultant as a result” Simply un true and I suspect a selling point by the consultant? The legislation does not support it. I would say this is an indication of the real story in this country that we have unsafe workplaces and poor systems of work which are being targeted… Read more »

RayR
RayR
54 years ago

The irony (if that is the right word) is that I’m not against pecuniary sanctions, whether they be on the spot fines or FFI.

Health and safety law is generally poorly enforced with many employers getting off too lightly for breaches. Fines via prosecutions are often frugal.

If FFI focuses the minds of non-complying organisations, then all well and good. However, the process must be fair, consistent and transparent. The morality of the method is another matter.