‘‘Should the HSE fall short in delivering the revenue from FFI now built into its spending plans, it will be left with no choice but to make a compensating reduction in its expenditure’.

Whilst I sincerely hope that none of my clients will be contributing, the sum of £43.7M PA seems gigantic to me. Does anybody have any idea of the number of HSE Inspectors so that we can then know what their individual targets will be?

David

http://www.hse.gov.uk/ab.../reports/1112/ar1112.pdf - page 30

1302 front line inspectors, 130 other inspectors (some of whom are wasting time and money drafting Condocs to revoke Norwegian Blue Parrot regs).

So that's an average of £3356 per inspector, or 27 hours @ £124 per year + whatever they get back from other chargeable activities (e.g. COMAH) + whatever they get back in costs from prosecutions.

Given the policy see-saw from the emphasis being on proactive inspection to one that is investigations led, presumably likely to see an increase in the number of inspections resulting in prosecution.

FIF is probably a freudian slip. Means FFI of course.

Peter's figures are exactly what HSE have stated themselves in the budget report and do not include visiting officers.

What site is the original article on?

Each HSE inspector or region will have targets to hit.

I don't think anyone will be immune. Whatever the resources put into h&s there will always be non-compliances of varying degrees of gravity. Large complex activities are arguably the most vulnerable and for an assiduous inspector it will be a veritable candy shop.

I absolutely think inspectors will have targets.

1300 front line inspectors? I don't think so. Warranted perhaps (though that still seems high) but many warranted inspectors are no longer frontline, instead working in the likes of Sector. Also take out the figure for HID inspectors (who have been charging for years anyway).

To say 'stay compliant' to me is a nonsense. Sorry, but it is. All businesses are breaking the law to some extent or other. That's why inspectors use discretion. The worry about adding targets into the mix is then that discretion becomes less flexible.

That's why I disagree with FFI. I think the smaller businesses with less money, less competent advice etc are going to be hit hardest.

It's the same as with speed cameras in my opinion. No evidence they actually reduce accidents, just a money making exercise. At least the HSE are being honest about it being a money making exercise but it still doesn't make it right.

ooohh. Interesting, You're counting!! Does that mean you have alittle chart with everyone's names on and little ticks next to them??? Am I top / bottom of the list with only 2 ticks??? lol (...that means laugh out loud for you non-text speak types).

It's not just the paperwork side of things. All sorts are ignored. Inspectors take a judgement call on the business as a whole and it's considered extremely bad for to go in and put enforcement notices on everything. But where they may have relied on goodwill in the past that goodwill may now be withdrawn in the interests of meeting targets. What they may start also doing is writing more 'advice' letters or instant visit rpeorts when they would have previously just given verbal advice. I can also see lots more targetted inspection campaigns, intense work on single issues with a high income generation.

Ray is spot on # 16 - its will be easy for them



Anyone thinking I'm ok I have everything coved and we are fully compliant - pick up a copy of the Welfare Regs - have a glace - are you sure? Enforcement could be funded from these alone for the keener inspectors - especially if it trickles down to Local Authorities! Oh dear help us then eh??

If our concerns come to fruition then there are both positives and negatives - negatives we have discussed.

Positives - the jobs market will get much better.

DP

Time and again on this forum people are "advised" to carry out a risk assessment and tackle the big things first ... ...
So, except for those of us living and working in the perfect world, there will always be something on the to-do list waiting to get done. Especially if you also have to deal with a lot of reactive stuff as well, for whatever reason.
Hopefully, (and I think we all hope this) most of the items on the top-do list are not "seriously life-threatening". Nevertheless I would expect most us of work for organisations that are less than minimally compliant. Take manual handling risk assessments: have you really assessed every "task", "individual", "load" and "environment" in your workplace?

Please take note of what I said. I do my best to ensure my employer meets at least minimum requirements. It is then up to my employer, and staff, that is the case. I never said anything about being 'fully compliant'

I agree with Clairel. In my particular field - prevention of damage to health due to workplace skin exposure - would not know how to define 'compliant'. COSHH requires the employer to eliminate or if this is not reasonably practicable adequately control exposure. Note that the reasonably practicable only applies to eliminate and not to adequately control. So if the employer cannot eliminate exposure to all chemicals capable of causing damage to health (and this would include water) then they must adequately control. However, nowhere will you find a definition of what 'adequate control' means, particularly for skin. So how can you state that you are compliant? One single case of occupational dermatitis and the inspector would have a watertight case for charging!
Chris

Forgive me if I have mentioned this before but, I find it perverse that a government which is hell bent on protecting businesses from the 'burden of health and safety regulations' are now driving the HSE to charge these same businesses for advice and enforcement. Hypocrisy or what?

Not i don't think so. All politicians these days have so little experience of the real world they are basically clueless.

They might be in their 40s, but mentally they are still teenagers through lack of experience.

I am not sure what we can do apart from making sure that there money in the budget to cover the cost of any fees.
we have no idea what areas they will be looking at and what they will be expecting. All will know is that it is possible we will need to have our cheque books ready.

I just posted a very long reply with a lot of detail that was lost when the connection failed.

At least I've spared you all from that so to paraphrase what I was going to post without all the detail:

1. There are no financial targets. This may change but it would be very hard to justify without changing HSE's enforcement policy.

2. It's the extent of the breach that defines whether the interaction is chargeable. The Inspector has no control over this and any decision to charge is entirely transparent under the EMM. The Inspector has very little discretion on whether to charge or not and only in a narrow range of circumstances. Discretion still applies to all enforcement decisions but FFI may still apply.

So despite what some may think, really nothing has changed. If an inspector uses discretion and decides not to issue a notice, this will still be chargeable under the Fees regulations.

My advice is to read and understand the FFI guidance and if you have time, the EMM guidance. If there are grounds for appealing any charge made under FFI you will only do it by understanding the process.

3. The only targets are the same as they've been for at least a decade with no distinction between chargeable and non chargeable work. These 'targets' are really only expectations anyway as there has never been any penalty for not reaching them.

4. The EMM allows for discretion but this will still be down to individual inspectors in the same way that it has always been. A moderate breach which could result in injury and where a notice is issued will be chargeable even if no letter is written. Inspectors have little discretion these days as to whether to issue a notice for anything other than minor breaches. This is down to the current social climate rather than diktat or expectations from HSE.

5. Inspectors will be the first to protest should the above change. They are more worried about the inevitable decrease in inspections (yes - there will be even fewer as the paperwork has increased dramatically), inceased risk of violence and aggression and the change in the relationship between dutyholders and Inspectors which in some situations will inevitably hinder their effectiveness in protecting vulnerable people.

Dean,
I would beg to differ with some of the points you make, please read my original posting and the HSE’s recently released business plan, which detailed that the budget from central government will be reduced and that they will offset some of the central government budget reduction with money derived from fee for intervention (FFI)’. Furthermore, the FFI consultation document did suggest that the HSE will recover approximately £43.7m per year from the scheme’.

There is also an added incentive for inspectors to identify material breaches and to recoup the £124 per hour, this being that should the HSE fall short in delivering the revenue from FFI now built into its spending plans, it will be left with no choice but to make a compensating reduction in its expenditure (staff cuts). Turkeys and Christmas come to mind.

The HSE are going to have to get it right where FFI is concerned. I think it is reasonable to expect a consistent approach from inspectors.