I think not, and I wouldn't think this responsibility would rest with the host employer, unless your potential exposure is beyond the sporadic and ad-hoc; e.g. are working for any one host employer for a significant length of time (i.e. an agency/ fixed term contract worker). You mention that you visit 'numerous' client premises, so I think a straight NO applies.

Lee: As with so many simple - seeming queries - without further clarification of the question, the only possible answer is "it depends...." What is the consultant doing? What is his relationship with the client / client premises? And - what is the health surveillance for? Is it employee protection or client / patient protection? If the consultant is a clinical (or surgical) consultant doing work in a mix of private and NHS hospitals - and each of the clients has differing 'health surveillance' requirements for people doing invasive procedures (to protect patients as well as clinicians).... Then - in my opinion - it should become a matter for pre-qualification and ongoing re-assessment of the consultant's health status by each of the client organisations. Responsibility on the consultant to undergo surveillance, responsibility on the client to make sure it's up-to-date. If the 'consultant' is a health and safety consultant doing site inspections for the client(s) - then, generally, he will not be exposed to the materials at the same level and for the same length of time as the operatives.... Maybe he should advise his clients that their health surveillance program requirements need to be reviewed and revised to introduce a sense-check... It seems unlikely that most generalist H&S consultants would benefit from health surveillance... If the 'consultant' is an occupational hygienist routinely entering asbestos enclosures - then yes he needs surveillane, and his employer should arrange it... And any one of at least ten other options that spring to mind.. Steve

All, Thanks for your thoughts and comments so far; Kate, I am not sure a consultant shouldn't be exposed approach is the right approach, as there will always be some degree of exposure... To clarify... I refer to a H&S consultant (PAYE) who visits client premises to provided advise, guidance etc. etc including undertaking Noise surveys etc therefore due the very nature of this type of activity is potentially exposed which could be detrimental despite wearing of hearing protection. Therefore it is my reasoning that a risk to the health of the consultant could be likely during the delivery of such consultancy services meaning that the consultants employer should have them under health surveillance. Lee

Not sure about other health hazards, but having just revisited regulation 12 of COSHH, where exposure to chemicals is concerned I would consider that health surveillance (respiratory and skin) is required. The fact that the exposure takes place in other person's workplaces is irrelevant, otherwise a service engineer maintaining equipment on customers' sites would be excluded for health surveillance. There does not appear to be any provision for this in the regulations. "Where it is appropriate for the protection of the health of his employees who are, or are liable to be, exposed to a substance hazardous to health, the employer shall ensure that such employees are under suitable health surveillance."- part of COSHH Regulation 12. Chris

Lee, your clarification is different from your original posting. But if you are just enquiring about noise? The Control of Noise regulations make it clear, or try to. I wonder what the health surveillance for exposure to noise should include as well as hearing testing. Health Surveillance 9.—(1) If the risk assessment indicates that there is a risk to the health of his employees who are, or are liable to be, exposed to noise, the employer shall ensure that such employees are placed under suitable health surveillance, which shall include testing of their hearing.