Between a quarter and a third of
inspections carried out by the HSE since its cost-recovery scheme came into
force in October last year found a material breach of health and safety law,
resulting in a fee for intervention (FFI) on the duty-holders involved.
This was revealed by the
regulator’s head of field operations, David Ashton, in his presentation on the
new scheme to delegates at the IOSH Conference on 26 February. The first run of
invoices, which was initiated last month, has so far seen 1400 bills sent out
to errant duty-holders, meaning, said Ashton, “the money is really coming in”.
But he was keen to emphasise that
FFI is not only – or even mainly – about the money. It has, he said, myriad
other advantages for the improvement of health and safety management and
compliance.
He explained: “The 35-per-cent
cut to our budget announced in 2010 will take us up to the General Election in
2014, so resources are a significant element of the cost-recovery scheme.
If we ask, what is best for our customers, the answer is: an adequately
resourced regulator. Thanks to FFI, we should be able to start recruiting new
inspectors soon.”
Mr Ashton also highlighted what
he called “the multiplying effect” of the scheme: “From the cases we take and
the information we publish, companies realise that they really don’t want to
experience ‘the knock’ from the HSE, followed by a bill. I don’t want to call
it a deterrent – I see it as more of a spur to good behaviour, and this is a
definite advantage of the scheme.”
Briefly explaining how the scheme
works, Mr Ashton said that for companies that comply with the law in all
significant respects, the HSE’s advice is free, while those who don’t will be
charged for its time to put things right.
He reassured delegates: “We won’t
go looking for breaches, easy targets, or deep pockets. And there are no
financial targets for inspectors. We won’t change what we do, which is look at
sites, see what’s wrong, assess the significance of that and act accordingly.
If there is a material breach, it will trigger a bill for our time.”
The FFI procedure, once it has
been trigged by determining a material breach – which, Mr Ashton emphasised
several times, is clearly explained in the myriad guidance on FFI available on
the HSE’s website – works as follows.
The company will get a formal
notice of contravention, which will include details of what is wrong (i.e the
contravention itself), what action is required, and information about FFI. This
covers the entirety of the inspection process and the time necessary afterwards
to report on that work – all of which is charged at £124 per hour.
Mr Ashton explained: “FFI may
apply where an enforcement notice or prosecution is not appropriate, so they
are not triggers for FFI. But FFI almost always applies where formal
enforcement action is taken in relation to a material breach.”
Invoices are sent after two
months, and the duty-holder has 30 days to pay. There is a formal disputes and
queries mechanism, though Mr Ashton revealed that of the 1400 invoices sent so
far, the number of appeals has been “in single figures”.
He also touched on the impact of
the scheme on his staff – the HSE field inspectors who must implement it on the
front line. “It has been difficult,” he said. “Some have said they didn’t join
the HSE to be a revenue collector but I ask them to turn around and look at
what is best for our customers, and that is an adequately-resourced regulator.”
He argued that FFI is actually a
spur to consistency and efficiency and that the pressure it puts on HSE staff
to do their job well is “good pressure”. He added: “I worry about privatising
regulation but I also worry about leaving it totally at the mercy of government
funding. So, this system could be a happy medium – we will find out!”
Consistency
of approach by individual inspectors was raised as a question by a delegate, to
which Mr Ashton responded: “We follow the Enforcement Management Model, and our
thought processes and internal guidance are all available to everyone to view,
so there is total transparency. We also have a peer-review process, which,
professionally, is extremely valuable. And there are 100-per-cent quality
checks on all invoices we issue.”
He concluded: “I think FFI is
here to stay and, some years from now, we will be glad we did it.”
Source:
SHP 28 Feb. 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment