The HSE’s controversial cost recovery scheme has come under fire after a survey of contractors concluded that inspectors are fast to identify material breaches but no longer offer the same valuable safety advice.
A client survey by law firm DAC Beachcroft found that many firms were unprepared for the Fees for Intervention (FFI) scheme, under which those in breach of health and safety law must pay charges of £124 an hour to cover the HSE’s time spent in identifying, investigating and resolving the breach. Fees are imposed without prior warning and must be paid within 30 days.
The FFI scheme has now been in operation for a year and is due for review by the HSE in 2014. During the first year, a total 4,079 invoices worth more than £1.5m were issued to the construction sector.
Sally Roff, head of the safety, health & environment team at DAC Beachcroft said: “We have been working closely with clients to understand how FFI is being implemented on the ground …the overwhelming feeling is the dynamic around HSE visits has changed dramatically, with organisations complaining of a ‘double whammy’ in that HSE inspectors are quick to identify a material breach, yet the advice they have provided to organisations in the past is frequently less available,” she said.
“If a material breach is identified then FFI will apply. Those who comply with the law will not pay a fee. FFI should help deter those who would otherwise fail to meet their obligations and provide a level playing field for those who do.”
HSE spokesperson
The scheme aims to shift the burden of costs associated with a breach of health and safety law from the taxpayer to the duty holder, with the threat of potential cost recovery designed to act as a deterrent against those who breach health and safety law.
However, critics of the scheme have warned that it could damage H&S outcomes and the HSE’s relationship with the industry by being used as a means of generating profit.
DAC Beachcroft’s client survey found that many contractors were often unprepared for a visit by inspectors, and less than 50% of employees who oversaw the HSE visit in the workplace had heard of FFI prior to the inspector turning up on site.
Responding to the survey’s findings, an HSE spokesperson commented: “Inspectors continue to use the longstanding and published principles of the Enforcement Policy Statement and the Enforcement Management Model to determine material breaches of health and safety law. If a material breach is identified then FFI will apply …Those who comply with the law will not pay a fee. FFI should help deter those who would otherwise fail to meet their obligations and provide a level playing field for those who do.”
To avoid costly fees, Roff said firms should ensure that those in key positions on sites, not just in the boardroom, “understand the implications of FFI, are given the resources to ensure compliance and knowhow to keep costs to a minimum in the event of a material breach being found.
“The HSE’s 12-month review of the scheme is an opportunity for it to look at balancing its requirement to self-fund with the importance of maintaining an advisory relationship with the organisations it regulates,” she said.
