While there may be histories of over zealous consultants I have never yet had to tackle one. Incompetent consultants is another subject, which should/could be solved by the register. However, I have encountered numerous incompetent/overzealous safety "officers". Two of whom I have managed to get "moved on".

Merv CMIOSH, consultant. (retired)

Those with little knowledge can really give you a bad hair day.

Merv

I would agree with Merv. We have a saying in house that goes: "The danger arises when you don't know that you don't know". This is a common factor in much of our work. Even qualified consultants may not realise the complexity of a particular aspect of health and safety and, not knowing they don't know, may take action with the best of intentions that can actually be counter-productive. This is one aspect where I have reservations about the register. How will an employer, who may know little or nothing about health and safety, or about the specific aspect of this broad topic, evaluate whether the consultant on the register actually has the necessary specialist knowledge? Particularly if the consultant believes that he or she has, but in reality has not appreciated that they do not!

As Merv says, a little knowledge can really give you a bad hair day.

Chris

Chris

I have had two occasions recently when asked to advise on a particular occupational skin problem where the investigation revealed that the gloves selected by the company's health and safety advisor (in both cases CMIOSH) were incorrect and had contributed to the problem. Neither was aware of the complexities of gloves used as chemical protection (in my experience quite a common event) and had relied on the advise of their local supplier which was incorrect. Accepted these were not consultants but employed by their companies, but I cannot agree that having CMIOSH/FIOSH automatically confers competence in every aspect of occupational health and safety.

Chris

With respect Chris, that's ridiculous: we've all got a right to say right now whether the theory that the Register is based on is flawed or not - that's what these forums are for.

If the register is anything like CHAS, EXOR, Safe Contractor etc then it will just be a money making paperwork scheme and its my understanding that the register is purely voluntary, so if your a company looking for a H&S consultant aren't aware of the register, its just going to be a Google search and contact who's at the top! So in all honestly what use or advantage is it?

After all the debate, controversy and publicity surrounding the OSHCR register, last week I was shocked to come across a safety consultant who knew absolutely nothing about this.

My understanding is/was that the "Register" was not available for corporate registration. In other words it was for individual consultants. Having had a wee look at what the "Register" delivers I note some of the major top heavy selling agents are endorsed with an individual contact. Surely that was not the intention of the "Register". An inquiry to the "contact" might produce a "sorry he is not available at this time- can I help ? response . The punter is then sucked in and before he knows it he is allocated a non registered consultant (a cowboy if you accept Grayling's interpretation), a huge ready made health and safety manual of biblical proportions and an invoice for £4000.

Cynical I may be, but I guess this Register will self destruct within a year.

Jon

John M said
" My understanding is/was that the "Register" was not available for corporate registration. In other words it was for individual consultants."

John - that was my understanding also from the briefings I attended but am I surprised that the design and the end product are different? - NO.

I am surprised that two established independent consultants presenting sessions I listened to at recent seminars when asked the question would they join the OSHCR said NO

Take Care

Fletch

I concur. A different animal indeed!

Before I incur the wrath of the Moderators (again) perhaps the posting(s) dealing with the Register in general should be moved out of this thread.

Now back to overzealous etc......................

Jon

I accept that that ’overzealous’ and perhaps ’unscrupulous’ (adj. devoid of scruples; oblivious to or contemptuous of what is right or honourable) consultants exist. I have lost count of the number of calls that I get claiming this reg, that Act etc merely in order to try and get a 'sale'.

I for one am not as yet entirely convinced as to what the OSHCR will deliver, and will hold judgement on that for the time being.

However, I think Ken has made an interesting point about over zealousness vs. diligence. In the past, I have disagreed with and ‘challenged’ many people, including fire officers, HSE inspectors, insurance companies, on ‘advice’ that they have given and/or ‘things’ that they want done. I have won some and I have lost some. On a couple of occasions I have felt that they were being ‘over zealous’ or at least unrealistic in the practical application of their advice etc, but when we have sat down to discuss it I have often (not always) understood their reasoning etc.

I have NEVER considered any to be unscrupulous and I am both surprised and disappointed to hear Blodwyn say that she (?) has found EHO’s to be repeatedly unscrupulous. I am sure that the vast majority of EHO’s will take offence at that and I am equally sure that the CIEH would be equally keen for her to justify such a comment. It is possible that some EHOs may come under significant ‘political pressure in their work but I don’t believe that that is enough to justify describing them as unscrupulous.

In my experience the EHOs that I have worked with and come across have been in the main very professional, competent and ethical. I have bounced off EHOs and they sometimes come and bounce off me, sometimes they teach me something and sometimes I teach them something.

I think as these forums often demonstrate, there are few black and white/clear cut answers to many health and safety situations, and we will all have a slightly different take on what is required or not. That doesn’t necessarily make us unscrupulous, over zealous, incompetent or whatever; just different.

U only know if U/others are overzealous [or are they being suitable & sufficient?!] via a court decision as I advise that we all provide advice etc that is based on the fact that at a later date a barrister / judge may evaluate our advice/paperwork etc and only then will we see 'what is what' so we should do things right irrespective of other pressures!

I know of 2 risk assessments for the same situation; one of which was more than 5 pages long and 1 was two pages long - The long one was deemed to be too much and the presenter was being overzealous with recommendations / controls etc so they parked it; please guess which one in court was seen by the judge as being suitable and sufficient; Yep it was the longer of the 2! as on this occasion the short version could not be found so the longer one was put into the evidence bundle [even though it was not 'officially' used]. It proved to be a good 'mstake' because the short one would not have passed the judges 'SS' test

And I feel that we should not lose sight of the fact that it is the decider/controller; whoever that may be; that is the one that is banning everything not the H&S professional and the fact that H&S law does not ban anything it simply says that things should be adequately managed!

Jon

Doesn't the fact that a large player only has one consultant on the register indicate something to a would be client?

Regards

Bruce

Jon

Obviously the implications will upset people, but we have been through the competency debate time and time again....... in my opinion anyone using large consultancy that has only member of staff able to qualify for the register should have serious concerns about the overall level of competency and professionalism of that organisation. There may be exceptions where the advice is so niche, but that is unlikely to be one of the large providers....... and before anyone says that is not commercially possible then I am well aware of a small health and safety consultancy that currently has 4 CMIOSH, used to be 5 when I worked there and hopefully will be 5 again depending on upgrade panel...... they are all direct employees not associates and two have been brought on in house.

Bruce