Posted By Pete Longworth
A safety advisor is a direct employee of the company and a consultant is either self employed or works for a consultancy. Why should a company pay a consultancy an hourly rate of whatever when it can employ a full time person, probably equally qualified and competent. A person who by working for the company full time can become used to the company's ethos and values much more easily than someone who may be there for a few hours a week.

I have no argument with consultants, but to me employing your own safety advisor would always be the preferred option.I accept that in some cases the level of work required may not justify employing someone directly, equally financial considerations may dictate otherwise, but from what the OP writes that does not seem to be the case here.

Posted By Ron Hunter
Taking a step back, who would have written the job specification? A Consultant perhaps.
Just to muddy the waters, both terms are used for internal appointments in LAs (one pays better!).

Posted By Pete Longworth
You're probably right there Ron, it would be typical of a local authority to come up with an overblown job title, but it is generally accepted that, in terms of health and safety advice, a consultant would be from an external agency I believe. What I am struggling to understand is why Blue believes that the job on offer would be a consultant's role rather than that of an internally employed advisor. My contention is that the majority of advice provided to employers in this country comes from internally employed advisors, not from consultants. That is not to denigrate consultants in any way, I'm just trying to establish why anyone would think that a consultant would necessarily be in any way a better option.

Posted By Andy Petrie
about £300 per day

Posted By Jon Dawson09
There is one other important difference - an employed advisor is covered by the employer's insurance for the advice he/she gives (unless proven to be grossly negligent). An external or freelance consultant would be expected to carry his/her own liability insurance for the advice they give - they take the risk, which is one of the reasons they tend to charge more.

Posted By Nigel Bryson
Blue

The debate about whether an organisation should use employed staff that are ‘competent’ to give advice on health and safety measures or consultants depends primarily on the competency of internal staff.

In law the preference is for internal staff to be advisers, so long as they are competent:

‘Where there is a competent person in the employer’s employment, that person shall be appointed …….. in preference to a competent person not in his employment.’ Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999: Reg 7(8)

It seems logical that if a suitably competent person is not available internally, one should be appointed. This would be in preference to an outside consultant.

The HSE stated in the associated ACoP:

‘In making decisions on who to appoint, employers themselves need to know and understand the work involved, the principles of risk assessment and prevention, and current legislation and health and safety standards.’ para 46

It is following this point that many advisers are appointed with the employer not actually understanding what is needed. Hence some of the weird criteria in job advertisements.

As indicated by other comments, many organisations may have their own advisers but need consultants for specific measures or projects. Where specific hazards apply suitably qualified advisers may be mandatory.

In the current economic climate it has been suggested that some internal advisers be sacked and replaced by consultants – ie outsourcing. Reducing costs is often cited as the reason.

The need for health and safety advice is likely to remain in such circumstances hence a ‘competent’ internal advisor may have grounds for unfair dismissal if the outside consultant is simply a replacement with similar competence. ie an advisor post is made redundant but the work is done by an outside consultant. Presumably it would depend on whether the work changed significantly. Any observations from the employment law specialists?

So long as they are competent, preference is for internal advisers, so the advert seems logical: seeking a competent advisor they employ internally in the long term. As for saving money, employing someone usually entails the employer picking up the administration support, office costs, tax, national insurance, Employer’s Liability (EL) insurance etc. These are costs the consultants have to carry and cover in their fees – not EL if self employed. Consultants tend not to be cheap.

Cheers.

Nigel