Triennial review raises serious concerns over FFI
The eagerly awaited triennial review, which was published by the Department for Work and Pensions yesterday, has raised questions about the future of the Health & Safety Executive’s controversial fee for intervention (FFI) scheme.
Led by Martin Temple, chair of EEF, the first triennial review of the HSE includes a number of recommendations for the health and safety watchdog in its planned review of the cost recovery scheme.
The wider remit of Temple’s triennial review was to consider the continuing need for HSE functions. He has concluded that they are still required and that the HSE should be retained as a non-departmental public body.
However, in his executive summary of the report, Temple said that he was compelled to address the issue of FFI in his report due to the large number of comments he received from stakeholders on the scheme.
He expressed concern at the strength of feeling from stakeholders that “FFI has damaged HSE’s reputation for acting impartially and independently, and thereby its integrity as a regulator”.
Temple added: “While few stakeholders disagreed with the principle of charging, concerns centered around two areas:
-
firstly, that FFI is a penalty or fine regime, but without any of the usual safeguards for such statutory schemes;
-
secondly, that the introduction of FFI is linked to the need for HSE to fill the gap in its budget created by the reduction in government funding, creating the impression that HSE has an income target to achieve.”
The HSE is planning to review FFI now the first year of operation has passed. Temple has recommended that the review should include stakeholder views of how FFI is working, as well as examining whether the threshold for FFI, if it is to be retained, has been set at the right level.
He also sets out a recommendation that alternative sources of income for the HSE should be considered.
“Unless the link between ‘fines’ and funding can be removed, or if the benefits can be shown to outweigh the detrimental effects, and it is not possible to minimise those effects, FFI should be phased out,” he urged in the report.
A more in-depth look at the triennial review will be featured in the February issue of SHP magazine.
Triennial review raises serious concerns over FFI
The eagerly awaited triennial review, which was published by the Department for Work and Pensions yesterday, has raised questions about the future of the Health & Safety Executive's controversial fee for intervention (FFI) scheme.
Safety & Health Practitioner
SHP - Health and Safety News, Legislation, PPE, CPD and Resources Related Topics
New flexible working legislation – what does it mean?
Vetting the vets – can a new study help the sector get the right treatment?
Amazon’s global head of safety to step down
Paul, the HSE are not there to be a free advice service. That is not their remit. The HSE will still do it, but, if an employer, construction of otherwise, needs advice they should be getting it from their competent advisor. There isn’t normally a shortage of those around the average construction site these days. FFI may have issues, like whether or not cost recovery targets are set (my belief is they are) but losing a free advice service is not one of them.
Sounds reasonable Paul, but..
The HSE are not there to provide a free consultancy and advice service. That is not their remit. If an employer, construction or otherwise, needs advice, they should be getting that from their competent safety advisor. There are normally plenty of those around on an average construction project these days. The HSE will do that; provide free advice, most of it’s in the ACOPS and guidance that are all available free on-line.
FFI has faults, but that’s not one.
The one element that wasn’t mentioned in Martin Temple’s review is the damaging effects that the Fee for Intervention has had in dissuading companies from looking for help and support; the FFI is actually increasing the risk of accidents rather than diminishing them because construction firms are fearful to turn to HSE for advice in case they are fined, thereby potentially risking the health of workers rather than preventing them. We absolutely feel that the FFI charges should be abolished, but think it should go further and define what it is that the HSE stands for and then for the… Read more »