I completely understand why they exist but I HATE HATE HATE all of them! And if I ever see another one (which I undoubtedly will) it will be too soon! I have to deal with the one we send to our suppliers and ones that our clients send us. Sometimes they can be 60+Gb in size. Absolutely ludicrous. I also have a severe dislike for so-called specialist procurement companies, which both we and our clients pay extortionate sums of money to for the privilege of filling in online questionnaires full of often nonsensical/ill-conceived/irrelevant questions (the answers to which which I doubt are even read), and having to produce pointless documentation which serves no useful purpose, and then waste a couple of days of my time sitting in an audit which is about as value-adding to my company as a free paperclip. GAH!!! I'm convinced people just lie through their teeth because they can get away with it. I really detest this kind of H&S bureaucracy, and I'm doubtful the findings have any bearing on whether the supplier is going to work safely.

Approximately 10/15 years ago, most Local Authorities introduced Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) schemes in an effort to cut costs & increase efficiency.

H&S "compliance" was part of this process, & I can still recall the accountants being given a couple of files; the Quality bod perhaps a couple of folders & then the porters wheeling in a sac truck loaded to the top with H&S "evidence".

So when CHAS first came along I was one of the first to applaud its intentions, swiftly followed by a myriad of other schemes & finally, SSIP, which seemed like a good idea.

However, in my opinion, this has now created a monster which needs to totally overhauled & get back to basics. This was brought home to be a few months ago when a prospective client asked me which scheme was the "best" to have & should he gain accreditation with all of them.

I doubt if you will be surprised to learn that the sole intention for this was to "tick the right box" & had absolutely nothing to do with providing a safe environment for their workers or any prospective clients.

Just in case you were wondering, I declined the work!

Torkee,

I don't think that I have misrepresented anything of the sort, I was merely giving a true example of how prospective contractors used to try & swamp you with (usually) totally irrelevant information in the hope that the sheer volume would deter you from actually reading it!!

I am more than aware of the reasons why CHAS et al were first formed, being a supporter from the start & understanding why the SSIP scheme came into being.

The point you make very well in your last paragraph is what I was trying to allude to, in that there needs to be a review of the scheme which must include proper marketing & a better explanation of why it is in place & how it should be able to be of benefit to all parties.

Until that happens large amounts of time & money are being wasted which surely cannot be in anybodys interest.

hear hear Frank.

Whilst there may have been worthwhile intention behind the various schemes at the outset - the outcome is bureaucracy for the sake of it. (Although since it's not strictly govt bureacracy - I'm not sure the red tape challenge could easily have done anything to tackle it.... Its not often you'll see me defending the current Govt!)

We did it to ourselves by allowing rule-following bureaucrats to take on the job of assessing competence. We got a "black and white" answer to a "shades of grey" problem. The rest as they say is history.

Steve

Can anyone explain to me why these assessment outfits want copies of the companies financial accounts ?

Jon