FFI: dirty money?
Fee For Intervention (FFI) has been in place since Oct 2012 and most folks involved in health and safety will have a view on whether it’s a good scheme or not; whether it improves health and safety compliance or it goes against your views on how the HSE/ Government should be funded.
But how much of this is based on fact? A closer look reveals that Fee For Intervention isn’t as terrible as it’s made out to be. In fact, it has been beneficial in improving enforcement.
1. It wasn’t really ground breaking
The principle of cost recovery is used elsewhere; think COMAH in the Health and Safety world but also the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ which has been around for a couple of decades. Most people have a fundamental agreement that those who cause a problem should pay for it. There are also debates about who should pay for treatments on the NHS/ road safety (speed cameras).
2. It hasn’t been a licence to print money
In fact HSE are behind on their targets – in June 2014 the HSE released figures showing it had generated £9.6 million in the 2013/14 financial year; well below the £17 million it had budgeted to recover. It has not been the ‘cash cow’ that was muted. The average invoice is for £501.42- dividing this by the hourly rate of £124 we achieve a time of just over four hours. An inspector visit plus a letter/ uncomplicated notice. The monies raised has not significantly plugged the gap in the HSE budget. The money also goes to the Treasury not direct to HSE (but of course is then distributed).
With respect to the invoices, only a small number 2.5% of invoices have been queried. The querying of invoices is not recharged & these queries include why the charge was made. However if this turns into a dispute is charged at the FFI rate. This low rate of query could mean the business was resigned to the fact that it’s wrong, didn’t want any more HSE involvement or indeed that the scheme has ‘embedded effectively & has been applied consistently & fairly’ quoting the recent review!
3. Priority actions; the HSE undertook some 22,000 visits last year
There is a shift due to staff resources on to their priority campaigns but also more RIDDOR’s are being inspected- is this a direct result of FFI – there was a fear that some business would be targeted as those who were non-compliant and therefore bring in the greatest revenue; The HSE has also been target driven – surely we want the inspectorate to visit those premises of greatest risk and apply the Enforcement Management Model; I do not see this has having changed with the new charging regime ( see also point 2). The key to any business who wants to reduce the risk of a FFI cost is to comply! To be proactive and be prepared i.e. have their Health and Safety Management system in order.
4. Is our grumpiness with the scheme really saying more about our view on the HSE overall?
Comments such as inspectors not living in the real world/ not understanding the pressures businesses are under, Inspections & investigations taking too long. It was great when the HSE was also an advisory service. It was indeed a sad day when the Help Line was switched off- as it was a great resource especially for smaller businesses. But any service/ function comes at a cost to the UK taxpayer as a whole. I hear the words ‘no viable alternative’ to stopping the Help Line or for charging businesses who are not compliant.
5. It has opened the gates for other enforcement bodies to charge
It has levelled the playing field. For example, the Fire Service, Environmental Health and Trading Standards are all charging for services. Fairness is a good thing; the key to not paying is complying and not having any of those material breaches.
I do believe that the scheme does provide an additional incentive for businesses to comply but think the next couple of years are going to be interesting for UK PLC and for the FFI scheme.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I totally disagree with comments made above. I have spoken to HSE inspectors who have stated “The treasury has set targets for us to self fund, 5 million goes to the HSE the rest to the treasury, one inspector said they had been told to up inspections to gain more FFI cash. Most HSE inspectors do not like the FFI and have either been abused or attacked in the course of doing their job, I would like to see the stats for attacks and abuse on HSE inspectors,do a comparison before FFI was introduced and now. Another reason I do not believe what is said above, the new Legionella ACoP was issued in November 2013, no transitional period was given for companies to comply, yet the HSE was issuing FFI notices right away based on this new legislation. Yes it is a cash cow exercise. I do agree with other regulatory bodies charging for services, i.e. fire service false alarms, NHS treatment for drunken injuries, abuse of ambulance services, etc. These are blatant breaches and abuse of the system and should rightly be charged. FFI since its introduction has driven a wedge between industry and the HSE.
Freddie thank you for your comments; firstly you can disagree; but i do not believe that you totally disagree we me- after all you do say that you agree with other regulatory bodies charging for services.- so my inference you do agree that the HSE should charge for blatant (Material Breaches) contraventions of the law.
With respect to Inspectors being abused- i am myself from an enforcement background; and whilst i was not regularly abused there were incidents of both physical and verbal abuse both to myself and colleagues; and some visits were joint visits, and police officers were also used as accompanying officers. There is also the means of legally dealing with this (it is an offence to obstruct an inspector) – I agree a survey would be interesting to check whether there was an increase; what gauls me most is when I read of ambulance crews etc being abused whilst offering assistance.
To answer your comment on Legionella; how much did the requirements actually change in November- but my understanding (it is not my area o specialism) is that the new ACOP did not fundamentally charge the duty holders requirements – so I wonder if the companies you mention were not compliant with the legislative requirements before the new ACOP?
With respect to the Cash Cow comment- what would be your viable alternative? From my knowledge of the inspecting regime inspectors have to comply with the Enforcement Management Model- they can’t go off on frolics of their own; their interventions must be justified. There is also an appeal & dispute procedure. this has not been hugely used.
My final comment is that some Inspectors may not feel comfortable with the scheme hence their general comments to you; How many inspectors have you spoken to. I am not sure there has been research on the inspectors perception of the scheme- perhaps you know if there has been?
Hi Sarah
My concerns revolve around the fact that surely this creates a more adversarial system rather than one in which enforcer and company work together to solve a particular issue. And with targets in place HSE are motivated to find a problem come what may… I have had reports of the smallest issues being turned into an excuse for a bill… However I would say the suns are small in general and that as an industry the bigger issue we should be aligning on to fight is that if deregulation for small businesses
Thanks for your provocative report
Heather
Sarah, some really valid points well made and some great fresh data which supports the scheme. However it is a real challenge to engage organisations in H&S and the FFI scheme is seen as an additional barrier. In his the Triennial review of the HSE, Martin Temple raised some real drawbacks stating “I am very concerned at the strength of feeling from stakeholders that FFI has damaged the HSE’s reputation for acting impartially and independently, and therefore its integrity as a regulator.” I wonder also if the HSE should look at the Primary Authority Model operated by the EHO and FA to improve partnership and professionalism?
Some very valid points and arguments on this thread.
At the time of its implementation many industry leaders questioned the long-term effect of FFI. Some believed that the charge would result in increased HSE action as a way to boost earnings. Others, such as EEF chairman Martin Temple (as Simon Mentioned earlier), suggested that imposing FFI could damage the generally positive relationship between the HSE and employers if they suspected the charge was being levied unfairly, or purely to create new revenue for the cash-strapped executive.
FFI – Certainly helping to generate HSE revenue
FFI recovery is obviously unpopular with firms who have been fined. A recent independent review found that FFI had raised almost £10.7 million pounds between October 2012 and January 2014. Around 40% of FFI fees were levied on manufacturers (£4.2 million), with another £2.8 million paid out by construction firms.
I have taken the above from my post “FFI – Unpopular But Effective” here – http://vrtas.co/1qBLlon
As it has been reported that there is no evidence of greater compliance with HS law as a result of FFI it has to be concluded that the prime purpose is to raise funds. The triennial review recommended abandoning FFI unless fund raising could be separated from enforcement.