Posted By Clarke Kent the 2nd
If the inspector (or anyone for that matter) remains with the site manager or other site operative at all times then there's no need for and induction. I wouldn't have thought anyone would let a HSE inspector take a site tour on their own.

Posted By Peter MacDonald
Jason

Not sure your argument stands up to scrutiny. I would imagine the guys working on the roof have an pretty good if not better idea of the hazards up there than you. Why not show a good example and at least sign on to the permit.

I refused entry to a HSE inspector on my site once as he did not have the appropriate PPE on for the risks on site (land remediation). He came back kitted out and got on. We gave him an induction too. He was pleased that we stood our ground (in a polite fashion)and accepted that the induction was required to fully understand the site hazards and set up.

I've refused entry to MD's as well with incorrect PPE. Practice what you preach.

Pete

Posted By Clarke Kent the 2nd
Totally agree with practice what you preach, I think perhaps jason's approach was irresponsible and you should lead by example, gaining access to a roof space which requires a permit is somewhat different to be accompanied around a site.

Posted By Descarte
I was under the impression "the Health and Safety executive have the right to enter premises and will and may insist on going directly to an area where they feel imminent danger is likely"

However I would expect them to undergo an induction if this was not the case

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
It is simple. If they are in possession of a warrant card, you cannot stop them, however if you are unhappy about them attending site, you are at liberty to identify this.

Posted By Barry Cooper
Wherever I go as H&S Manager, if a permit is required I always comply.
As many have said, lead by example, otherwise "A rule for one......"

Barry

Posted By Paul Duell
I would at the very least give him a brief rundown on fire alarms, etc. In any case as we're a food production facility we'd have to give him the "don't touch anything without asking first, as it may be very hot even if it doesn't look it" spiel.

As for Jason's "PTW" point - I always make sure I'm absolutely squeaky clean on site rules. If I'm not, how can I expect anyone else to be?

Posted By Ian D.
Hi I have been in H&S 13+ years in coal mines, top tier comah sites and now manufacturing. I have never put a HSE inspector through an induction. I have always treat them as a visitor who are accompanied at all times. More to the point I have never been challenged on this policy by an inspector. If I was not complying with basic rules and inductions where expected, I am sure that they would have pointed this out. Whats the problem?

Regards

Ian

Posted By Jason911
Paul,

Do you sit down with yourself and advise yourself of the emergency procedures each time you visit a site as well?

Jay

Posted By Delwynne
One of our site supervisors challenged an HSE Inspector regarding this exact point & asked him (politely) to either spend 10 mins having a quick briefing regarding the works in the area or to observe them from outside the area.

The Main Contractor nearly had a fit but the inspector was extremely complimentary of the supervisors attitude.

I would completly agree with those that have stated you should lead by example.

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Lee

Some interesting points raised all round in this thread. Let me first of all say that whilst the HSE have a right of access via their warrant card to enter premises or sites this does not de facto allow them to enter without any form of induction process, commensurate with the risks at the time of entry. It should be part of the routine for every visitor, regardless of whom they are and even though they are to be accompanied.

Do we after all not need visitors to know the emergency arrangements or about the need to stay with their escort? Do they not need to know of any specific high risks that could be encountered or specific pedestrian routes and other significant site rules? I actually think very few Principal Inspectors would not support such actions for their staff on arrival at site.

You clearly however have a problem with your gate staff and they do need extra coaching to ensure that they apply entry restrictions to all visitors. The right of access does have a reasonable test attached and also remember that any site rules you as PC may make are in fact legally enforceable under CDM as has been alluded to by another poster.

The example of a permit use simply because the work is on a roof troubles me however. Permits are intended for use in those situations of very high risk where the hazards and risks of the place of work cannot be fully controlled and thus need formalised management controls set out. Some roof work may fall into this definition but not all, by any means. It seems as if we are bringing such systems into disrepute with operatives because they are becoming routinised in their issue without any real significance in the control mechanisms stated. They are never to be a simple checklist for use on a roof where there are no specific hazards, and controls such as affixed edge protection are in place. We will quickly develop a perceptual set in the minds of people that permits actually provide little worthwhile to the job other than as a time-wasting form-filling bureaucratic exercise.

Bob

Posted By Jason911
Exactly the point I thought I was making, although maybe not as well as I'd hoped.

I mean I would not sit an inspector down to an induction around any type of site, simply because they had not been to one before. If however the site posed serious enough risks, then of course it would be necessary.

Otherwise its just a pointless waste of time if applied to all situations.

Jay

Posted By ddraigice
The simple point is, as has been mentioned, the induction would be necessary in high risk areas such as comah sites etc. If accompanied and as long as there isnt an immediate issue the inspector needs to deal with, no induction is required.

As for comments from Jason - going to dangerous areas such as where there are fragile roof lights, a permit to work is not sufficient to be working or have access to an area where there is a risk of falls. An inspector wouldnt be allowing you to give him an induction, he's be issuing a PN and possible taking statements!

Posted By Jason911
Not every roof has skylights and inadequate fall protection!!!!

We have safe systems of work designed by me for visitors performing work where they may not be aware of all the hazards. I am aware because I designed and implemented the safe systems of work after risk assessing the area.

For me to complete a PTW each and every time I ventured on the roof would be like sitting myself down and making myself aware of our own emergency procedures, which I also wrote!!

As I have said many times before I am in the habit of stripping out any bureaucratic form filling that translates into utter nonsense and instead prefer to tackle the real issues.

I think this thread is completely drifting away from the point I was making concerning an inspectors induction being necessary or not, by those who obviously have not read or perhaps misinterpreted the complete thread.

You cannot possible say that an HSE induction would be necessary in each and every case. For example, if I worked for a supermarket and the HSE turned up, it would be a complete and utter waste of time, as they would be exposed to no greater risk than anyone shopping. If they wanted to go in so called dangerous areas, these would, or at least should be properly restricted from public access and require you to accompany them anyway. In my experience this has never been declined and as far as I am aware cannot be. The HSE may be able to go where they want but it is still your business!

Jay

Posted By Jason911
Apologies Lee, was not trying to hijack your thread but just trying to justify the whole roof thing for some people.

As I said earlier in the thread you need actual HSE inspectors to respond to you on this one.

Jay

Posted By FJ
Turn it on its head- if Inspector has accident, who is responsible and, at least morally, would you feel uneasy.
Second point SFAIRP are you doing all you could to safeguard the individual- or others who, eg may have to swerve to miss him if he doesn't walk down the pedestrian walkway ('cos no-one's told him about it...)?
I'm impressed (not) that some Safety Managers might believe that they should know all the local hazards without being told about them!

Posted By Lee Mac
Steven,

I fully appreciate that going from site to site and going through more or less the same inductions can become tedious.

However with each site surely comes a new set of new arrangements, therefore it is must be imperative that you are aware of the new set of arrangements with regards to H&S- Fire, first aid, Site Management Structure etc.

Are the HSE inspectors exempt in some legislative way from having to undergo an induction?

I was TOLD by this inspector that he did not have to undergo an induction.

Basically, if someone ever gets injured on our site, one of the first things our insurers request is a copy of the induction record of the IP to show that we have communicated the necessary information and that they have understood. They never request the number of sites that they have been on before they arrive on ours. This makes me wonder how are HSE Inspectors actually exempt?

I just need a bit of clarity on this issue.


Thanks,

Lee

Posted By Pete48
Lee, I think Steven has answered your question. Think co-operation, add a goodly dose of mutual professional respect and mix well. An induction record can be whatever you make it, can it not? You may fall into the trap of managing the consequence rather than the hazard if you continue to follow this route.

Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear Lee,

I would like to add some further points. An induction may vary from nothing more than a two minute chat pointing out any special risks and site specific information to a two-to-three day induction course on some comah sites that I have worked at. The induction is of course determined by the specific circumstances, but in no case could I envisage someone visiting a site where one is not needed.

Whilst inspectors have to comply with the law of the land as we all do, they also have a duty to set a good example - failure to do so sets a very unfortunate precedent. Furthermore, I would never allow an inspector to tour a site unaccompanied. I would want know what the inspector saw, address any questions and have the opportunity to learn from the inspector.

In respect of the issue of Permits to Work; I believe that there is some fundamental problems here. It seems to me that some people are lumping together PTW and authorizations. I would be using authorizations and not PTW for working at height as PTW are too onerous for that type of work.

Regards Adrian

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Lee

At the end of the day if the worst case scenario occurs and the inspector is injured, for whatever reason, the 1st question asked by the investigating inspector will be - Was the person familiar with the specific risks of the location? - If your answer is no then a simple section 3 breach, as mentioned above is a possible outcome.

Bob