Hi Martyn
I endorse what WatsonD says though I would go further!
My day job these days is mentoring others, so to help me do that I do look at lots of adverts for job vacancies for H&S roles and my conclusion is that the majority of employers AND recruitment consultts (including those who supposedly specialise in EHS recruitment) are poor when it comes to working out their person specs and understanding what qualifications to "require". This hasn't changed much in decades!
Often this results in a situation where instead of specifying e.g. a Level 3 or Level 6 OSH qualification they specify NEBOSH Certificate or Diploma (as they have heard of NEBOSH) so your task when going for some position is to explain that a Level 6 NVQ is equivalent to a Level 6 NEBOSH Diploma and equally valuable.
For perspective, when our team was growing and we had a stream of people looking to get OSH qualifications our preferred route was NVQ partly as it was a cost effective method from an employer's perspective. Ouc candidates usually moving into H&S from one of a diverse range of roles could put together most of what each needed for their NVQ portfolio from evidence they would be able to get by simply doing their job - IFF we gave them the opportunities to stretch themselves and a breadth of new experiences , so no pigeon holing!
Your secondary question.......
Also any advice for someone starting out in this career at a later time in their career or good resources to tap into (apart from here of course).
.....is more tricky than it used to be, partly as many OSH professionals and the bodies representing them have shifted focus away from the things that have traditionally caused most work-related harm and continue to do so.
The International Labor Organisation estimates that nearly 3 million people die prematurely each year globally as a result of work, with over two thirds of those being down to occupational health risks rather than "safety" ones.
A similar picture can be gleaned for the UK from HSE statistics and a not dissimilar pattern for lower severity harm.
But even the HSE seems to have been diverted away from core issues towards concerns which arguably would be better LED by other disciplines instead of the Safety Bod.
As example, I having been thinning down my library but one book that is not being thrown out is an HSE Discussion Document from 1999 on the subject of work-related stress.
In that DD, HSE clearly pointed to the difficulties in trying to disentangle adverse health impacts of stress that is work-related, is NOT work-related or might be a mix of both.
However, in recent annual statistics, HSE just counts the total amount of absence from a number of headings which can be broadly grouped as "stress", such that this serves to present a picture that ALL the lost time is work-related. This is probably counterproductive as those who are keen to avoid the topic of work-related stress can simply question the numbers that HSE presents, thence giving them an excuse NOT to manage that part which IS work-related in whole or part. [All they are doing is to repeat a misuse of statistical information that doesn't give the full picture to divert attention from the need to tackle MANY risks - lots of organisations have been doing this for a very long time - pollution, stress, even group child sexual exploitation - this week's Casey report homes in on statistical information being misrepresented].
I suggest the answer to your secondary question is to try and keep abreast of multiple sources of information but to treat ALL of them with caution.
You start your career change with a major advantage - 20 years front line experience, so some of the time you should know when sometimes the OSH "thought leaders" and "influencers" are talking nonsense!
Good luck, Peter