Posted By Paul Craythorne Charles, I have read it and it supports my stance with my clients. I always refuse to carry out risk assessments as there is always the danger that the client may fail to provide you with some critical information at the time and this could lead to an unsuitable and insufficient risk assessment. I prefer to train the client's employees to carry out risk assessment and support them in the process if required. Paul

Posted By Nick Higginson I would agree with Paul. Any consultant who carries out risk assessments for a client is playing a dangerous game. Clients should be instructed how to carry them out and guided through the process. I do wonder what the enforcing authorities are trying to achieve though by prosecuting safety professionals. Are they trying to make the profession even less enticing? Will that help to improve standards across the country? Is this something IOSH should be addressing as our professional body? Regards Nick

Posted By Nick Higginson Sean I agree to a point, but I wasn't talking in isolation about consultants, rather safety professionals as a whole. Like you, I do not have the full facts of the cases but I am becoming increasingly concerned over the increase of prosecutions of practitioners. The onus should be on directors of companies - prosecutions of health & safety advisors and consultants are going to provide another scapegoat. Regards Nick

Posted By Richard Spencer An interesting topic and one that gives reason to the difficulty faced by individuals, seeking to integrate into the field of OHS. It also gives reason why many organisations look critically at the experiential evidence of the individual when applying for jobs or a contract role. I have studied both qualitative and quantitative methodologies and I have read widely on the subject as it relates to various working environments or to the man/machine/environment paradigm. Indeed in the manufacturing industry this is done by Statistical Analysis such as, Binomial Probability, which includes Confidence Intervals and Testing of Significance of the data. This seeks to provide evidence of the probability of an event occurring with fixed parameters. By example what is the likelihood of 5% of Coca Cola bottles being incorrectly filled out of x number of bottles. There are many models that provide reactive evidence as to the level of risk following an incident as in the case of a critical failure of the safety management system (Root Cause Analysis). Equally there is evidence that scenarios following a risk assessment of a facility or a specific part of the facility may be approached by actively investigating potential event failure, how they may occur and the possible outcomes (Event Tree Analysis). As this thread relates to the statutory prosecution of a safety practitioner then it seems evidence collected by the regulatory authority demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt the Defendant to wit, the ‘Hazard Identification Risk Assessment and Control’ or HAZID RAC Assessor, lacked the skills and expertise to conduct this basic assessment. It appears the court found the ‘competency’ of the individual to practice as a safety professional in this particular event was in error and subsequently led the court to find for the Plaintiff (the injured party). The same liability is placed on anyone who seeks to put up the shingle of “Expert”. In my work as an Expert Witness, my competency is continually under attack by the ‘other side’. This is done in the open forum of the district or Supreme Court, as well as subject to critique of other “Experts” generally called in to contradict my findings in matters before the court. In my professional life I have declared my ‘competency’ as a risk assessment expert and faced on a daily basis issues concerning my competency as a safety consultant. As a result my PI is set rather high for which I pay a substantial premium. However, this sets the stage for the future as Chartered Members/Fellows -this is the price of professional status. I do not agree with the view expressed by others that Risk Assessments are not the purview of OHS professional. Indeed, nothing could be further from reality. Risk assessment is one of the corner stones of OHS practice at any level of any organisation. Without it we would be a poorer society, certainly as it relates to injury and death. Of course if a practitioner states to his employer or client, in the case of a consultant, that he will not do risk assessments for whatever reason, then I believe this is not fulfilling one of the most important elements in Safety Management. In summary: 1. Ensure competency before embarking to the position of expert. 2. Do not work outside the boundary of your competency. 3. Refer to other experts if the field you are asked to examine is not your field. 4. The court will always ask the expert to declare competency, indeed it must appear on the expert’s report. 5. Ensure the PI is sufficient for the field you work in. 6. Continue to study to gain greater competency. Richard MIOSH RSP

Posted By Raymond Rapp I am not familair with this case but a fascinating scenario has emerged and I have read the comments thus far with interest. There are several angles worth exploring as follows: Can a h&s practitioner be expected to have an in depth knowledge of all types of machinery and working practices? I suggest not. He/she could ask an operative to explain how the machine operates and/or check the machine manual if available. However, there is no gaurantee that something may have been overlooked. Another suggestion is to train employees in risk assessment. But surely RAs are a specialised subject that requires not just knowledge but also experience. The subjective nature of RAs can lead to quite complex issues. In any case, it seems absurd to me that a qualified practitioner would train others for the job he is employed to do. The answer is to involve those who do the work, but this could be time consuming and hence expensive. In principle I do not have a problem with the HSE taking legal action against a h&s practitioner for poor advice. Providing that it was gross negligence or something similar. Otherwise it is a fact we all make mistakes from time to time, including the HSE. Regards Ray

Posted By Nick Higginson Geof You have your beliefs and others have theirs. My belief is that the only way health & safety is to be improved is to train and encourage managers to take ownership and responsibility for health & safety in their company, rather than paying a fee for a consultant/advisor and believing responsibility has been passed to them. To call others arrogant, and then suggest that anyone who disagrees with your point of view should find another job, brings the words "pot", "kettle" and "black" to mind. Regards Nick

Posted By Nick Higginson Geof I am perfectly calm. I have reread your posting as you suggested and it still comes across as arrogant. Perhaps you should consider rephrasing it if that is not what you intended to say? Perhaps follow your own advice and think before you post? Regards Nick

Posted By Jack Come on Nick, I don’t think you are seeing Geof’s comments in context. He didn’t say people who disagreed with him should get another job; he was talking about people not prepared to be held to account for their actions. I have to agree (and with John – for God's sake!) that if a safety adviser/consultant commits an offence eg bad advice, then he/she should be in the frame like anyone else. In this case the employer was also fined and the consultant was there too because the HSE considered it was due to the fault of the 'other person'. On the risk assessment question yes, I would agree with you that normally we should be enabling managers to undertake them but even then we advise them on the process and must surely be held to account for that advice? And our advice, surely, is based on an assessment of risks (and here I’m agreeing with Richard too!!! risk assessment is a cornerstone of our work). Also, there will always be risk assessments beyond the competence of a particular manager and h&s practitioners will be more directly involved (obviously recognising the limits of their competence – the point made by John and Richard) perhaps as a member of a team (ensuring that people with ‘local‘ knowledge have an input). (NB, this was a criminal case so no plaintiff)

Posted By David Sinclair I have read most of the replies on this subject with interest and I have two points to make: 1. I believe that the number of prosecutions and civil actions against health and safety consultants will increase exponentially over the next five years. This will primarily be: a. because there are consultant out there who are operating outside their area of competence; and b. companies (and insurers) will want to avoid liability for accidents, etc. This will inevitably lead to more consultants being refused indemnity insurance and an even greater increase in the cost of cover. 2. I believe many practitioners (and particularly consultants) do not know what their legal position is, or how to give themselves the maximum level of protection against prosection/civil action possible. I would therefore pose the questions (to the profession genrally: a. Is there sufficient interest to warrant training (in the form of a seminar, conference, etc) to clarify the position for consultants and to show them how they should be protecting themselves? b. Is this something that IOSH or some other training agency should be doing? Regards. David

Posted By Sean Fraser Having read with interest the continuing debate here, I have some additional comments. There seemed to be a presumption that individuals were performing the RA until an excellent point was made that it must be a team effort, and I wholeheartedly endorse that. There is research that demonstrates that groups make better (or optimal) decisions than individuals, and this is simply good sense - more cogent points of view, pooling of experience, ability for reasoned and intelligent debate and the onus seek mutually beneficial compromise where there are divergent points of view. On the other hand though, there may be the potential for conflict, the inability or delay in reaching decisions and the danger of "group-think". On balance however, presuming that the objective has been adequately identified and understood at the outset, much of this will be reduced or eliminated. For this reason, I endorse the statement that a safety professional is there to educate and assist in the correct application of the methodology while others bring their knowledge and experience to the actual operation being examined. In the case of SPs who have progressed directly from the operation side there is no reason why they cannot make additional positive contribution to the facts of the operation - but it isn't always going to be their primary function. I am not an engineer, but I work in technical fields. People use my expertise in the conduct of the assessment, while they provide the technical background. Together, we consider all angles and aspects to ensure that the RA is thorough while keeping the goal (no harm to people, property or the environment) in mind, tempered with the ALARP principle - retaining focus. For example, technical personnel may concentrate on the actual operation of the equipment, while the SP considers peripheral issues such as the possibility of it being operated by young persons or pregnant women. Pitching in together, we are more likely to come to the best result and hence using our individual competencies we have reduced the liability for each person involved overall. This is not abrigation or transfer of responsibility - it is combining it. The point is that we seemed to be thinking that individuals were working in isolation - that is seldom (if ever) the case and if it is, then wow, is there a potential disaster looming! Experts will actually work better in conjunction with other experts (in the same or different fields) and the risk of incompetence will fall dramatically by doing so. As has been mentioned, the individual in this case pleaded guilty - an acknowledgement of their error in judgement by allowing themselves to be placed at risk by taking on more than they could cope with and shouldering the burden alone? Also, we have to consider that in nearly every prosecution, the finding is that there were shortfalls in the management system. One could argue that this is also a failure of the safety professional to assist in the implementation of a safe system of work - isn't that one of our remits as well? Yet time and again we hear of organisations who employ a safety professional only for seemingly cosmetic reasons - should we be advocating that our people refuse to work for bottom-line driven organisations who deliberately or negligently discard their H&S responsibilities? People have to work (most of us, anyway) and our choices are sometimes the erosion of certain principles in order to keep food on plates. Would this be recognised in a court? Advice for such situations is to ensure that you maintain your own competency and to keep records that demonstrate that you consistently advocated safe systems etc. - I disagree that there will be an increase in prosecutions of H&S professionals - but there might be an increase in prosections of those who are playing at it, are obviously out of their depth or are simply incompetent. Such prosecutions will only stregthen our professionalism, as it will demonstrate the necessity of achieving and maintaining an appropriate level of competency in relation to the industry or sector we work in.