A review of the HSE’s Fees for Intervention regime is expected to be concluded by April.
The review of the scheme, which levels charges for the HSE inspectors’ time on firms if they are found to be breaching health and safety regulations, was introduced in October 2012. But it was heavily criticised last week in the safety watchdog’s first triennial review carried out by Martin Temple, chair of the Engineering Employers Federation.
In the DWP backed report, Temple called Fees for Intervention “a dangerous model” which potentially undermined the integrity of the HSE and called for further consultation on its use.
However, a spokesman for the HSE said that it had always planned to review Fees for Invention after a year of operation, and had said so when it was introduced. He said this was expected to be completed and a government response formulated to the triennial review by April.
Temple concluded that the HSE was still needed and should remain a non-governmental body, however it could look for more commercial opportunities and improve operating efficiency.
In a statement, announcing the publication of the review, the minister for disabled people, Mike Penning, made no references to the criticisms of Fees for Intervention made by Temple. He said: “Mr Temple has recommended that HSE build on its well-deserved international reputation and makes more progress to grow its commercial income.
“I welcome these recommendations, but want to go further to introduce reforms of HSE to ensure that it delivers value for money to the taxpayer, whilst ensuring safety for the nation. There is considerable potential for HSE to become more commercial in outlook and in delivery – increasing the pace of the work already started within the organisation.
“Therefore, I have asked HSE to begin work immediately to examine commercial models for HSE in collaboration with HMT and Cabinet office, and to review the HSE Board to ensure it has the right skills to oversee future efficiencies and commercial income generating options. Some of the other recommendations require further consideration and therefore the government will respond more fully later this year.”
However, there is concern that greater commercialisation may damage the HSE’s reputation even more and the push in this direction runs counter to the criticism of Fees for Intervention.
Meanwhile, CIOB readers have responded with calls for Fees for Intervention to be reconsidered. Jason Sandland MCIOB said: “I believe from talking to contractors large and small, that FFI has set back all the HSE last 10 years proactive ‘working well together’ work and trust has been lost in HSE. Contractors and professionals are not now consulting HSE so much, due to their FFI attitude stance change, which is counterproductive at the coal face in my professional opinion.”
Ashraf Chaudhary ACIOB said: “The setup of FFI has only weakened the authoritative image of the HSE and made it a cash cow. This recent report is welcoming but will heed be taken?”
Temple set out a series of recommendations on Fees for Intervention, which raised nearly £750,000 in its first six months of operation. These included a further review on the views of stakeholders on how FFI is working. Temple also recommended that the following be consider:
- if FFI is to be retained, whether the threshold for FFI has been set at the right level
- whether there is evidence that the anticipated incentives to comply have made a difference and improved health and safety performance
- whether there have been any detrimental impacts on the behaviour of HSE inspectors and/or those inspected and/or on health and safety performance
- alternative sources of income, which should be tested against the same criteria.
