If, as everyone believes on this forum, inspectors will be looking for charging opportunities, this will not happen.

If an inspector decides not to issue a notice they are now duty bound to write. The fear of not at least writing a letter and a further incident happening again means that if it is serious enough for a notice the inspector would (even before FFI) either write a letter or get the duty holder to write one. The latter has now stopped and the guidance is that a letter is sent which is chargeable. This is closely monitored and will be monitored even more closely if there was a missed charging opportunity.

And to return to a previous point, the remaining staff at HSE, on the whole, do give a damn, some are looking for work and most of those that are not (from my discussions with colleagues in offices throughout the uk, so you know - based on evidence) are not happy with FFI but have no choice but to see that it is carried out to the best of their ability and as professionally as they can.

The principle of the 'polluter pays' has underpinned environmental legislation for many years. In effect, FFI is an extension of that principle but for health and safety. Those who don't run a safe ship and expose employees and others to serious health and safety issues will be charged for their indiscretions.

If FFI is applied sensibly and proportionately by HSE inspectors it will be a fair and just method of ensuring compliance with the law. Indeed, it could be a better system that we have at present where very few duty holders are prosecuted and the courts often apply frugal sanctions when convicted. Crack on.

Well if you articulate why it is NOT fair I will respond?

I think you will find that things have moved on since ancient Greek times.

But are they moving in a direction guided by a moral compass I suspect not.

This view tends to suggest that all HSE does is prosecute. That is the only time that a fine would potentially be issued, and that by the Courts not HSE. I would suggest that a great deal more than that is achieved through regulation.

This is a simple question of who should pay for HSE. The government have formed a view that some of that burden should fall to those employers (or others...) who present their employees (or others...) with risks from working practices which fall within the meaning of 'material breach'. For details see HSG47.

I (obviously) dislike the myth that HSE is taking the law into its' own hands to make a fast buck... far from it. If you have formed that view then you have not been talking to staff from HSE on the matter.

As for Inspections soon after the implementation then I have more sympathy, it is potentially unlucky and I do not like to say that, however I suppose the new rules had to start at some time. I hope it all went OK and there was no need to implement FFI.

Regards,

David

Clairel, my views are not always entirely 'corporate' although I try not to air dirty linen in public - I have to reign myself in on occasion as I see some of the opinions which are liberally sprinkled into some of these discussions. I do however take quite personally the possibility that HSE would be seeking to generate income just for the sake of it. At the moment the decisions are based around what can we afford to keep doing, not about what else can we do. That means that we accept certain activities need to be stopped as these are unaffordable and by implication the regulation of certain activities will reduce.

I have seen regulation from both sides of the table, having come to HSE via the military and then 8 years in a hard industry I am very well aware that we are all humans, and unless we feel at least some weight of an 'eye over the shoulder' then some of us will cut corners (to some exent or other) and we will keep doing so until it goes badly wrong. The bottom line here should be about how much the country can afford to invest in regulation. Reduction in the regulation of financial transactions between 2005 and 2008 is exactly the same as reduction of regulation in workplace safety and health - the only difference is the likely event at the end of it.

What I am willing to write on a public forum is also only a version of what I would quite happily say in conversation but I do derive a certain pleasure in choosing my words carefully, sad I know.

Generally I agree with most of the views that you express but I disagree with your final point, FFI has been and continues to be a very thorny issue and it is not my opinion that it would have been considered other than in the circumstances that we faced which were (rightly or wrongly) a significant reduction in funding. The funding has still been significantly reduced, but the FFI income might help to offset some of that, and if too much is brought in it goes straight to the treasury. A point which is always missed in this debate.

Regards,

David

I know it has been said before, but I just struggle with the idea of an enforcing body being able to charge an alleged offender for the 'privilege' of being investigated for a criminal offence they may have commited.
There really is no difference legally between this and the police being able to charge an alleged burglar a fee for their time when they lock him up.
Hopefully the new overseeing body will be able to stop abuses creeping in should the 'Expectations' lead to Inspectors feeling pressured into producing results. If such pressure does happen, could it lead to only those with the money to pay being targetted?
No doubt more information will emerge over time, and after a few legal challenges.

Clive

My partner is a NHS consultant and she echoes your views... very very loudly whenever I mention this

With regard to the slagging of HSE that seems to be a bit of an undercurrent - as far as I can tell there are three ex and one current inspector on this thread and as one of them my view is very much that the front line inspectors are not in agreement as they are the ones who have to face clients ... however they are also the ones who draw pay without having to consider the overall running of the organisation. Ironically they are also probably one of the most important parts of the organisation as the people who decide about FFI etc not only in the main can no longer do their job (if they ever could) but the way that HSE is set up is quite militaristic and requires requires lots of (grunts) field inspectors to do the work. Oh well all we need to do now is wait for the really really slim ACOPS and we know that the cynics were correct

Still no one admitting to a FFI intervention but then letters always take time to arrive don't they....

Digruntlement amongst HSE, employers and H&S professionals over FFI. Meanwhile, the man who hacked back on the HSE and introduced FFI, instigator Chris Greyling slides away in the cabinet reshuffle without being answerable to the aftermath of his decisions.

Perhaps an unsuitably stocked First Aid box or perhaps a missing COSHH assessment for bleach ?

I suggest that practically a material breach is something that warrants a letter as a minimum. ie something that you as an inspector are unhappy enough about that you think requires a formal written record about. The purpose of that being twofold - one hopefully it formally gets it dealt with and the second is that it leaves traceability for future.
And obviously the issue is not bad enough for a notice and too much to just leave it as verbal advice


There seems to be a lot of bad vibes re HSE currently - I was not aware that they had suddenly taken on the status of enemy? Or is it Green on Blue action between safety people?

Bruce #64. HSE will most certainly be the enemy if they start to cost employers money as has been predicted here and other threads. The previous "helpful and supportive" inspector will become the equivalent of the evil taxman and find co-operation has all but vanished.

Redken - As nobody else has yet responded to your queries at #65 "Are the HSE inspectors safety people? I wonder if many of them actually have experience as safety practioners." I'll have a go with my thoughts and hopefully provoke some more responses:

Experienced HSE inspectors certainly can be described as safety professionals, albeit with a specialised role in OS&H. Though I don't have any statistics, I understand that quite a number of them are members of IOSH. Presumably they had to satisfy the necessary requirements to gain membership and then subsequently maintain CPD just as other members do.

Some inspectors remain with HSE throughout their working lives while others decide to leave after a few years or longer for other roles in OS&H as advisers, managers or consultants. (However, I don't have statistics regarding the ratio of stayers/leavers and after what lengths of time with HSE.) Also, it's highly likely that those who have left HSE for other roles will think that their training and experience as inspectors proved to be very useful. For example most of them (including me) will probably have investigated notably more fatal and/or serious accidents than OS&H professionals without HSE experience.

Also, though you seem to have a perception that safety practitioners fit a fairly standard 'mould', surely there's quite a variety in the types of work different practitioners do and certainly in the vast range of work activities and companies/organisations with or for whom they work.

Back to FFI: IOSH members will have seen that a recent "Connect" e-mail includes a link to an IOSH webpage at http://www.iosh.co.uk/ne...seeks_panel_members.aspx It advises that HSE seeks "independent volunteers for its intervention (FFI) disputes panel and has invited IOSH members to apply....To enable businesses who received an invoice under FFI to query or dispute all or part of the invoice, the regulatory body will operate a ‘query and disputes procedure’....Part of the disputes procedure will involve a panel comprising two senior HSE managers and a non-HSE independent panel member to review and make decisions on disputes received from business. It is anticipated that HSE will initially hold monthly panels, starting in April/May 2013 and will review the frequency as the scheme beds in...."

Time will tell if HSE is overwhelmed by a rush of people applying to become independent members of panels. When the panels first meet next April/May will they face a significant backlog of disputes waiting to be resolved, and how soon might they need to meet on a more frequent basis than once a month?!!!