What a plonker. He won't get far if challenged. An awful attitude but I am not surprised. The HSE are going to have to get FFI right otherwise with inspectors like this around it will provide more opportunity to discredit health and safety.

Most likely there is no point in reporting to HSE
I percieve that this is exactly how "they" want the inspectors to behave
The "quality" has been falling for the past 10 years, alas.

I'm willing to believe that Inpector's tongue was firmly in their cheek and you're all acting like tabloid journalists.

Unfortunately it was said with utter glee; I believe this scheme may well be abused to raise revenue tacitly encouraged by those on high.

To quote from the HSE website "These Regulations will put a duty on HSE to recover its costs for carrying out its regulatory functions from those found to be in material breach of health and safety law." So if you have done nothing wrong and can prove this then there should be no need for a charge to be incurred.

This site offers advice, why would the HSE officers want anything to do with such a novel approach?

Oh dear you missed the 'discussion' thread on that one then......don't think I can get into that debate again.

I understand that Road Deaths have not been lowered by the introduction of fixed Speed Cameras which incidently removed the right of silence and raised millions for the Exchequer.

Some HSE Inspectors do keep up to date on the discussion threads and I am one of them, usually however I try not to get too involved in discussions. This is going to be an exception, although I am severely limited for time and I need to be extremely careful in what I say.

I currently work within a charging regime (COMAH) so am not necessarily at the forefront of the FFI implementation, although it will apply to my non-COMAH work, where a material breach becomes evident.

To address the principal points of this discussion, the thought that any Inspector faces FFI with 'glee' is entirely alien to me and any colleague that I am aware of. It is almost inconceivable to me that any Inspector would use the word 'fine' in the context described, as we are always careful when discussing any legal matters. Any 'fine' is a matter for a Court, not for HSE and every Inspector should be absolutely clear on this.

I would not wish to make any comment on the incident or communications described as I deal in evidence and form my opinions on this but if any person, who might represent HSE in whatever capacity, were to issue any type of threat then it is my opinion that you should be encouraged to discuss the matter. Every Inspectors business card has the contact details of their boss, we work on the very principle of transparency!

If I may I would like to close with a couple of questions. Is there a perception in industry that HSE would choose to operate on the FFI basis if it had a choice? Is anyone aware of where the money which comes in will go?

Regards,

David

Not sure that many inspectors are looking forward to the new dawn. It is a major cultural shift and therefore like any change I suspect they are very suspicious of it. HSE has been going through change since formation Factory and Ag Inspectorate merged... albeit very slowly! Construction Inspectors ( twice with the first lot not on short term contracts ) CHID/ HID rail in and out and now FFI - by and large they will probably deliver a well balanced service and we will only rant at the poor decisions. I am thinking it may be time to look at the OHSCR again as the poor decisions will certainly create work.

I think the biggest problem is that it is easy to find fault and therefore for people advising clients you can have been on site and not seen the issue and then HSE find it and that will perhaps be a difficult position commercially.

Anyway look forward to hearing about the " First" probably sometime tommorrow afternoon?.

Many experienced inspectors have left over the years, often as a result of the latest initiative. The ones that stay are the ones that generally don't give a damn as along as they have a job and a pension. Sadly the HSE doesn't care if experienced inspectors leave as their salaries are higher therefore costing them more.

I don't think anyone should be deluded into the thinking that this all about what is right, this is about politics. There's always a new initiative and every time the vast majority of inspectors groan and mutter about what another waste of time and money this is (don't forget all the inspectors have had to be trained in this new scheme, IT systems implemented, new forms generated, new admin systems put in place....and proabably a fancy new brochure to persuade inspectors what a good idea it is, costing a fortune in external management consultant fees and printing.)

I think the vast majority of inspectors will use the system wisely but ther are always those on a power trip. However, I still think it's going to hit the small businesses harder as they are the ones without the in-house expertise and without the money to throw at health and safety in the same way large companies can. If FFI removes discrretion then inspectors hands will be tied and many small businesses will struggle to cope with a £1000 'fee' that has to be paid within 28 days just because they haven't put guard rails around a little used storage area above an office (a prime candicate for a bit of verbal advice previously but perhaps now will require 'intervention') .

On the one hand they are supposedly cutting red tape for small businesses but with the other hand they are going to try and finacially cripple them.

I'm all for health and safety but I'm all for a thriving economy too.

Following the good points made by Clairel at #22 and Stephen25053 at #23 it’s worth adding that HSE almost certainly maintains records about each operational inspector’s work including numbers and outcomes of prosecutions initiated, plus enforcement notices and types of visits paid. During my decade with HSE until 1987 it seemed that inspectors were kept updated from time to time, notably during annual appraisals, about their tallies. Also there was an unwritten expectation (either throughout HSE generally or perhaps just in one or more geographical HSE Areas) that inspectors should initiate between 10 and 12 prosecutions per year. It was suspected that a few inspectors tried to meet this expectation - “playing the numbers game” - by initiating one or more ‘easy’ prosecutions which they probably would not have done under the usual criteria about deciding to pursue prosecution.

From now it’s likely that the records about inspectors will include FFI interventions and money generated, and furthermore that some or many inspectors will, to varying degrees, feel under some pressure to look out for FFI intervention opportunities to generate income to satisfy their bosses. Also, some HSE bosses may well feel under pressure from those above them to ensure that HSE collectively generates ‘suitably sufficient’ sums of money via FFI.

p.s. After drafting a response along the above lines earlier today I hit the "post" button only to find that my log-in time had apparently expired and that my draft had vanished and, frustratingly, there was evidently no way of recovering it. After previously experiencing this quite a long time ago, I've tended to select and copy my longer or detailed drafts before posting them. However, I forgot to do this in my haste to post earlier today. Am mentioning this with the aim of saving others from experiencing similar problems with unexpectedly expired log-in times.

I have attended legal updates and network meetings with solicitors and HSE Prinicpal Inspectors. The things which I have noticed.

Solictors are advocating challenging any invoice issued under FFI where it is not that clear as to whether there is a material breach or not (check the HSE enforcement managment model for some guidance) and scrutinising the invoice as it will have to give a detailed breakdown on each chargable item. You can challenge any particular item and only pay the elements that you are OK with.

All the HSE Inspectors I have spoken to have voiced their concerns over the scheme and certainly wouldn't want it bringing in if there was a choice as there could be a reluctance to contact the HSE Inspector for advice to try and stop a material breach. Thankfully the Inspectors I deal with have all emphasised that they will still answer queries and answer where advice is sought.

Officially there are no plans to extend this to EHO but again all relevant people anticipate that this will also happen as further cuts are made.

The comment from a Principal Inspector basically sums it up in that it is not wanted or liked but there will be no changing it for the next 3 years so we have to live with it and challenge where appropriate.

Interesting as some people did not believe that this would happen with the HSE until they had a massive budget cut. I am aware that some LA's are looking at how the FFI regime operates and waiting to see how many challenges are made and how it is accepted. They are likely to wait a number of years before they seriously consider any introduction but they will face pressure to consider a similar scheme especially if they see the HSE generally covering the shortfall in budget.

The assumption that there is some consistency among HSE is a big assumption as I have experienced 4 Inspectors at once for a week when they were inconsistent in the company of other Inspectors! This will become more so as more experienced Inspectors retire or leave and are replaced by younger less experienced.

Personally I would not want to see the scheme extend to EHOs but if the scheme does what it is intended to I cannot envisage LAs looking to introduce something similar.

Point 1 - they do strive for consistncey which is why they have enforcment inspectations and (nowadays) inspcetion packs. For example the enforecement expectation for a damaged ladder would be a PN. However, inspectors have always been allowed to use their judgement in taking into account the bigger picture.

My so called inflammatory comment was not meant to be inflammatory but a statement as I see it from my time there. Inspectors are generally fed up with up all the changes and stupid ways of working that are introduced - not to make a differene but for political reasons and they know it. However, the salary, pension, working conditions and job sevurity are still better than at most places and they know it. That is what keeps many there, not the love of the job. Same as for a lot of people. Inspectors are no different. That's not an inflammatory statement that's just accepting how it is.

No, THAT Inspectors approach was Black & White. That is not necessarily the approach of all inspectors.

Buy only less than 500 active warranted inspectors, the rest do non insection roles in Sector etc.

However, the 12 PR's a year is a bit of nonsense. Some won't do any in one year. Generally maybe a couple with some inspectors being a bit more active on the matter than others.

Disagree about the TU being able to oppose any targets (Prospect is the main one in the HSE). They can moan like hell but that won't necessarily get them anywhere. Don't forget that historically targets have been set for enforcement notices. And to be honest Prospect can't be bothered to put up much of a fight about anything unless it's related to salary increases, pensions or job cuts.

Claire

I think you left a long time after I did but I would be really fascinated as to what was your personal target for enforcement - not sure what sector you worked in, how was it set and monitored

Look forward to your reply

Kind regards

Bruce

No matter the implication of the previous posting, I am aware of the amounts of money which are projected to be raised by the introduction of FFI and also the proportion of that money which will be made available to HSE. The projections cover the first 3 years of implementation and (I suppose) will have been worked out on the basis of the numbers of 'material breaches' recorded in the past few years and the amount of time that has been spent by HSE in ensuring that these were put right.

HSE47 has now been published on the HSE website and is entitled 'Guidance on the Application of Fee for Intervention (FFI)'. This provides the details of the system and clearly explains the application. Some of the perceptions on the Forum are, quite understandably, a little off the mark. For instance, the entire Inspection is charged where a material breach is found, not just the section relating to the material breach. The advice suggesting that you can pick and choose the chargable 'bits' would appear to be a little misleading.

Regards,

David

The 'targets' are for a division or geographical area. In the past I have not always met these because of long or complicated investigations but someone else will have done more to balance that up. There is no penalty for not reaching it unless its because you've been a bit of a slacker.

Back to the consistency issue - HSE sees consistency as consistency of outcome rather than the means of achieving that outcome. If one place gets a notice and another gets advice so what? More importantly, have the same level of controls been applied? That is the challenge for HSE, especially as more experienced inspectors retire or leave. Duty holders may want to see consistency between notices and verbal advice but that will never happen. And under ffi there will still be a charge.