Over 65% of organisations responding to a recent survey by law firm DAC Beachcroft expect to incur higher health and safety costs under the Health & Safety Executive’s (HSE) ‘fee for intervention’ (FFI) scheme. Despite this, over half reported that their organisation was not considering making any operational or budgetary changes in response to the new regime.

The new FFI scheme, which came into operation from Monday 1 October 2012, places a duty on the HSE to recover its costs for carrying out its regulatory functions. Consequently, it will now charge organisations, which it regulates, £124 an hour for any time its inspectors spend investigating and resolving breaches of health and safety (H&S) legislation which are sufficiently serious to be ‘material breaches’.

Over 100 organisations across a range of industries, including construction and manufacturing, completed the DAC Beachcroft survey which questioned awareness of, and reaction to, the HSE’s FFI proposals.

Some 80% of respondents agreed that the principle of an organisation having to pay the HSE for the cost of its inspectors resolving any breaches of H&S law was correct.

In addition to concerns about the financial impact on their business, around two thirds of respondents were concerned about the lack of consistency over implementation of the FFI scheme. Approximately 70% were worried that, moving forward, their relationship with the HSE would become less collaborative, with 58% saying they would be less likely to approach the HSE for advice. About half expected more frequent visits by the HSE.

Asked about awareness of the scheme, only 27% of respondents had received information directly from the HSE about the FFI proposals, with very large organisations with over 1,000 employees the most well-informed.

The survey also revealed lack of clarity in understanding a key term of the new scheme. Asked if the meaning of the term ‘material breach’ was clear, the survey revealed a 50:50 split in responses between those who did and did not understand the definition. Respondents also raised concerns that, because of the lack of clarity or guidelines, the term could be interpreted differently by different inspectors.

Sally Roff, head of the Safety, Health & Environment Group at DAC Beachcroft, commented: “The introduction of this new regime will significantly alter the relationships between organisations and the HSE, as its role changes from being predominantly advisory to largely enforcement.

“We still need a far clearer definition from the HSE on what will equate to a ‘material breach’ so that it can’t be interpreted in different ways by different inspectors,” she added.

“The best way for business to prepare is to ensure their health and safety processes and procedures are water tight and that their employees are well informed about the HSE’s new approach.”