Posted By Robert K Lewis Am I the only one who has some niggling worries about these roles, ie the previously announced roving safety reps? I've been reading the Nov-Dec 2003 Safety Express from RoSPA and I am concerned that essentially these people are effectively undertaking the role of what would be regarded a professional safety consultant. Additionally the use of the word "worker" in the title seems to suggest that other safety persons are only acting on behalf of the management. There seems to be some retrograde thinking at work here. The HSE have often been averse to the creation of a special title for safety practitioners which would be protected yet they have happily grasped the nettle for the pilot group. As roving safety reps I have no problem with the notion but I believe that this is now not the case. Comments. Bob

Posted By Kieran Dowling As a safety rep, I'm very much in favour of roving safety reps giving advice to SMEs and their workers where they're not already covered by unions. If it results in better representation and conditions for workers and improved health and safety in SMEs, that can only be a good thing. If an indirect result is a reduction in costs and a slowing down of the consultants' gravy train then so be it.

Posted By Chris Abbott I would say that in my experience, Consultants tend to be a little aggressive in their stance towards what's right, what's wrong and what can/can't be fixed. They don't have a good feel for what would cause moral problems, or what would cause significant downward trends in behaviour - specific to the company. - Not always but in a lot of cases they do what's necessary and what's required - which is absolutely correct. But…. employee reps, working advisors, safety advisors, who work for the company are in a position to be able to apply changes/implement change to the business, whilst keeping an ear to the ground and making sure that they have staff involvement/empowerment. I like the idea of working safety advisors, and I think that any effort to increase the safety and welfare of staff has to be a good thing. The same old problems of management responsibility won't change - but then that's a battle as old as the profession itself. :) Chris

Posted By Paul Crump Bob The following points are taken from a report carried out by "York Consulting LTD". This firm of consultants were contracted by the HSE to carry out an analysis of the WSA pilot scheme. 1. There may be a need to ammend the regulations (SRSCR) to extend indemnity to cover the work of WSAs. 2. It is important to reflect on the potential to match individual WSAs to workplaces and to consider this in the context of recruiting potential WSAs in the future. 3. WSAs will require specific training in their role and this training should be set at a standard equivalent to, IOSH`s Technician Safety Practitioner award. 4. WSA activities should not be regarded as a substitute for other sources of health & safety information and support, but they could have an important complementary role. regards Paul

Posted By Pat Burns MIOSH - SpDipEM - AMIQA It would be interesting to hear IOSH's views on this and how it fits in with their analysis of Safety Practitioner Competence as detailed in their appointments page 'An employers' guide to IOSH membership. If WSAs' are to be deployed around small workplaces to advise on H&S who would pay their professional indemnity insurance, if they could get any that is. Whilst some might be competent to advise, others would certainly not, and who would decide who does what in a workplace. I would suggest that only long serving full members of a safety profession on CPD such as IOSH, IIRSM etc should be deemed competent to offer advice. Perhaps it should be mandatory as a pre-business start up that the business owner should receive formal health & safety training to ensure they are aware of all their responsibilities.

Posted By Robert K Lewis Jay The worrying part is that the money now seems to be allocated and once a managing contractor is found for the fund the process of recruiting these people commences. I am finding it hard to understand what benefit is provided that is better than the employment of a professional consultant. Are these people going to start work and still be liable for their actions or will immunity be rushed through parliament when something goes wrong? Bob

Posted By Chris Abbott I can see where I missed the point of this thread - sorry - yes I agree with what you are saying... As an ex-RoES who is now a Safety Advisor - I can see the problem associated with roving reps, with no real expertise in the departments/area's they "advise" in. I would be hesitant, for example, of having roving reps from office based environments stepping onto the "manufacturing shop floor" to give advice there too. The question of accountability is of paramount importance, for any chain of command in an organisation. I see it as the focal issue in this thread - and I take onboard both of the Bobs point's, that a rep may fall back on the advice from a safety professional, even a member of the senior management team - but there is, mostly, clear accountability for bad advice - the case of the Advisor being found guilty of giving incorrect advice - springs to mind. I now foresee the whole point Robert was tying to make - "I'm a Worker Safety Advisor" - it isn't that different to saying "I'm a Safety Advisor" ... but we know that the too roles are very different indeed....

Posted By Chris Abbott It's a good point John, can't say I agree with it - having worked in Manufacturing what was advised by our safety teams became law - and I was recruited specifically (in a Publishing environment) by the Director of HR for the role because I'd worked within manufacturing and had the disciplines of a regulatory environment - and I have met no resistance at all. Quiet the reverse actually. It's a very speculative argument, in my opinion. Chris

Posted By Paul Adams Personally, I am somewhat confused as to the role of a Roving rep in that I can't see how they will achieve their aims. There appears to be an assumption that if an SME does not have union representation then it is lacking in some way. Will the roving rep have right of entry to our premises? If so, where does the right come from? Will he/she understand our business? Are they able to make recomendations or stronger? Our SME has a qualified, experienced H&S advisor, it has Safety Reps appointed by the workforce, with training provided and a pro-active, enlightened management team. If we recognise a need for specialist advise, we go and get it. Above this, we are open to inspection and enforcement by the LA or HSE as the regulating bodies and often subject to audit by our clients who demand excellence in H&S management. I really don't see an opportunity for another party to become involved in our management of H&S issues. The more I read and hear on this subject, the more confusing it seems to become. It is no longer clear to me whether these roving reps will really be government inspectors, union reps, or employee reps. It is also no longer clear whether these reps will come into an SME by invitation, or by right. If they come in by invitation only, then companies who would do so probably already have adequate representation. If they have right of entry, are they any diferent to our enforcing agencies? I guess it will come out in the wash, but either I am reading the wrong things or it is simply confusing. Anyone care to enlighten me please.

Posted By Dave Daniel If you are to provide "advice" to employers then you will need Professional Indemnity insurance. As a safety consultant I can confirm that this is extremely costly but I would not trade without it. You also need to be technically competent, and I have concerns that the "advice" likely to be provided may not be particularly competent. We live in an age where even HSE inspectors seem unable to identify hazards and risks! Employers are required to obtain competent advice and would be well advised to enquire about the professionalism accountability of the provider for its accuracy. I cannot see a WSA being considered as offering this service. I realise that some see consultants as money-grabbing pariahs but in actual fact most small companies use a range of professionals and consultants to advise them, including their accountants and lawyers. We have never been accused of overcharging for our services and in 10 years, few of our clients have terminated our services unless they themselves had financial difficulties. How else could a SME call upon 30 years of professional safety expertise? Dave Daniel - Consultant - Coventry

Posted By Kieran Dowling On the last point from Dave Daniel, sorry about sloppy drafting in my use of indemnified. Not a good civil servant am I? However, my main point which people seem to be missing is that the WSAs will be there to advise employees/workers not employers, hence their title. If employers want to call in consultants to advise them of the implications of listening to WSAs, I don't suppose many of the contributors on here would complain.

Posted By Kieran Dowling Bob, I agree: what's in a name? Presumably it sounded better than roving safety rep which might have proved a bit too workerist for the employers in the pilot, so a neutral sounding title had to be invented. Let's face it: they could just as easily have been called peripatetic employee safety consultants. Just be grateful for small mercies. :-) Merry Xmas

Posted By John Murgatroyd I stopped trying to make sense out of this a while ago !! In the place I work (25 employees total) there is no works safety rep, just a manager in charge of safety. Lets see...they have a "gold award" for H&S paperwork (from their H&S consultancy). They refused to pay for safety footwear, until they had to. They used to spray paint in the workshop...until the workforce just upped and went home....sometimes they still do spray paint in the workshop. There is no workshop dust/fume extraction worth it's name. As I've said, the heaters recirculate the air, time and time again...dust/fume and all. Until somebody opens a door to breathe. And a lot of small companies are in the same boat. I can *honestly* say that if the insurance company hadn't insisted on improvements to the workshop, safety and electrical systems, before they would issue insurance, then we would still be painting in the workshop when others were welding and grinding etc.