![]()  | 
			Mark Sennett
			 Managing Editor  | 
			![]()  | 
			Kelly Rose
			 Editor  | 
		
| Home> | Managing Health & Safety | >Standards | >Fee for Intervention should stay, says report | 
ARTICLE 
	
	
Fee for Intervention should stay, says report
09 September 2014
A scheme designed to shift the cost of regulating workplace health and safety from the public purse to businesses who break the law has proven effective and should stay, an independent report has concluded.
The report recognised that inspectors at the Health and Safety Executive have implemented ‘Fee for Intervention’ consistently and fairly since it started in October 2012, and found no evidence to suggest that enforcement policy decisions had been influenced in any way by its introduction.
The independent panel which conducted the review was chaired by Alan Harding, professor of public policy at Liverpool University. Other participants were representatives of the GMB trade union, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Department for Work and Pensions.
According to the report’s authors, the professional approach adopted by HSE’s inspectors has ensured any challenges raised by the scheme during its first 18 months were minimised. The evidence suggests the concerns voiced about FFI have not manifested themselves to any significant or serious extent and that ‘generally inspectors and duty holders continue to work together in improving health and safety management’.
Judith Hackitt, chair of HSE, says: "Both HSE and the Government believe it is right that those who fail to meet their legal health and safety obligations should pay our costs, and acceptance of this principle is growing. This review gives us confidence that FFI is working effectively and should be retained. We will continue to monitor the performance of Fee for Intervention to ensure it remains consistent and fair.”
The report concludes that "it [FFI] has proven effective in achieving the overarching policy aim of shifting the cost of health and safety regulation from the public purse to those businesses who break health and safety laws.”
It also concludes that: fears that FFI would be used to generate revenue have proven to be unfounded; while not popular with some inspectors and duty holders, it has been embedded effectively and applied consistently; there is no viable alternative that can achieve the same aims.
  MORE FROM THIS COMPANY
- Review of Health and Safety Executive launched
 - European Commission recognises Societal Impact of Pain
 - Not enough being done to tackle work-related ill health, say GB’s business leaders
 - Development company guilty of repeated safety breaches
 - New Institute for Risk and Regulatory Research
 - Firm in court after man died in roof fall
 - Construction firms invited to mock trial
 - Engineering Company in court over forklift incident
 - Construction company fined after worker fell from height
 - Little improvement in workplace fatalities
 
RELATED ARTICLES
- Ensuring CDM Regs compliance
 - HSE Chair calls for consultants to sign up to new benchmark register for health and safety
 - Changes to construction site scaffolding regulations:Are you safe?
 - Lessons in safety
 - The Corporate Manslaughter Act: Why only 2 prosecutions after 4 years?
 - Nationwide gets OHSAS 18001 accreditation
 - New procedural guidelines at VdS
 - Prevention is better than cure
 - NQA prize winners
 - Latest register of legislation
 
OTHER ARTICLES IN THIS SECTION
























