Anne, an interesting but not unique scenario. Someone within your organisation must take some responsibility for contractors and their work. In most cases I would ask what does your company policy state? Not much use asking that on this occasion.

I think there should be shared duties in most cases. For example, the health and safety dept should be checking their documents i.e. RAMS/CPP and possibly they are an approved contractor. Whoever directly engages the contractor should give the contractor's staff an induction, permit to work and possibly some level of supervision if required.

It's one of those, no real right or wrongs - it's what works.

Can U identify just what the word 'responsibility' really means as this is important e.g. Responsible for the issuing of contracts, pricing, letting contracts, design, acting as client, procurement, quality, environmental etc. etc. and which areas are covered or is it just the H&S areas. And questions to management such as 'What would happen if I throw a contractor off site /or stop them working [which will cost £]' and similar are neededs as in my view this is buck passing and the person concerned is deliberately setting up H&S for a big fall - nothing new here then! And note that in law all supervisers at all levels irrespective of their individual role in a busines are responsible for the management of H&S irrespective of what an individual wants

I've always gone with the principle that responsibility rests with whoever engages/appoints the contractor. Foisting all this on h&s shows a poor understanding, presupposing that the only risk potential will relate to safety (very rarely occ. health). An incompetent policy surely.

How do you know that it is a H&S "Guy" and not a "Gal". Sigh.