Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight Hi Folks,
This came up as side issue in the late SHP thread, but it deserves a thread of its own I think. Briefly, apart from the recent woodworking machines one, who knows any details of consultants being prosecuted by HSE/LAs for H&S breaches,
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brian Hagyard The only other one I can remember was repoted in august/september 2004 from Andover Magistrates Court. The consultant was fined £3,000 under section 36(1) HASAW etc Act 1974 with £750 costs after an accident involving a wood cutting machine because the assessments he had undertaken "fell significantly short of the standards required."
Brian
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nikki Browett Prosecutions of consultants are really difficult to get because for it to be possible then there really needs to be a direct link between a H&S consultants advice and an accident. The HSE are really concerned about the quality of some H&S consultants advice though and are pursuing rogue H&S consultants more vigourously than they used to. What they would ideally like is a change in the law to make anyone who gives poor H&S advice accountable. Personally I think think this should happen as it would weed out those who are incompetent.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ian milne Check the latest copy of SHP (arrived this morning). There are a couple in there.
Ian
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson Does a well respected consultant with AIIRSM, Associate of IOSH be enough qualifications for a consultant, see this months SHP!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman I may be harking (great word that) back to an old thread, but shouldn't RSP be a legal requirement ? It is in Belgium.
Merv
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp Hi Merv - are you RSP? I thought so.
Two of the most eminent people I have met in health and safety (both PhDs) are not even members of IOSH! The point being, that qualifications are not everything, experience and knowledge still count for a lot. Before anyone suggests it, I am not talking about myself either!
Ray
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lynchy
Evening All
I think there is something in this for serious and sustained debate - this is an important issue, no doubt about it and I don't think it will get any less so!
The way society in general is going these days, there always has to be soemone to blame and I think that if we're prepared to be in it we have to be prepared to accept the risks - no pun intended!
What I would like to see is some sort of regulating of our profession similar to that required by the legal profession. I know it will cause much ado but I feel that if we don't do it, then the HSE (HSC) will - and perhaps it's long overdue! After all this is a serious business we are in. I've been doing this job for a fair while now and I think it has changed beyond all recognition to what it was say 10 or 15 years ago, mainly because of the need to hold someone to account!!
Maybe I'm out on a limb here but I feel it needs debating fully and openly - and soon!
Sure it is about qualifications and yes it is about experience - but above all I think this is going to turn out to be an issue about the quality of the people in our profession - the bench mark has risen and the stakes are higher - so the capabilities of the people dealing with it needs to follow suit!
Anyone else any comments on this subject??
Lynchy
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By PaulA Ouch.!!!
Merv.. you are going to make alot of people cringe and your last statement..... I'm sure you may wish to add that there are people H&S 'Guru's' operating within the industry that may not even be members of IOSH etc but may have other letters after their name such as MIIRSM or degree variants or even BSC... slightly narrow minded???
Your still an IOSH 'legend' in my eyes though!!
Kindest regards PaulA (mere MIOSH MIIRSM DipRSA!)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson I agree with all the sentiments here its not about the letters after your name its about qualifications and experience together, however if you put AIIRSM and Associate of IOSH after your name in 'THE' Safety Magazine and claim to be well respected with a lot of experience etc, dont make me larff, you really do not have a scooby or an understanding of the profession!!!! You will be shot at for this - Phd/MSc etc etc but AIIRSM!!! Associate of IOSH you have to pay get these so this person has no and I mean NO H&S Qualifications whatsoever!!!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nick Higginson Probably better if we don't make RSP a legal requirement as it is about to disappear!
Nick
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman A legend in my own lunch time !
I've just spent 10 minutes looking for me RSP diploma, should have been on top of the office cupboard. Finally found it in the wine cellar. It dates from august 1995, the miosh one dates from 1991. And I'm looking forward to becoming a CRSP (pronounced "a crispy", I'm still not sure about CMIOSH. is that "smish" or "smosh")
As a consultant I make a decent living by advising/training on safety management systems and behavioural based safety. I don't think there are formal qualifications in those "soft" subjects, except maybe BSc or similar.
And I do think that some kind of registration should be required for those practicing the "hard" parts of safety - where life, limbs, health and wealth are directly dependant on the recommendations of a consultant or an employed H&S person.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jasonjg Here is my view for what it is worth
We all know that this profession has its fair share of those who say they can, but cannot whether through plain ignorance or misguided belief from course providers etc.
We also know that we will face situations that can test our abilities and sometimes take on things we later find to be a little bit deeper/difficult than we first presumed.
I put to you the following questions: -
Who in your opinion is more credible to undertake the Risk Assessment for a Forklift truck operation in a simple open warehouse with no pedestrians?
1. An operator with 12 years experience and no qualifications but actually does the job. 2. An operator of 5 years experience with a Nebosh Cert. 3. A FLT trainer. 4. An generalist NVQ/Dip safety consultant with no FLT experience. 5. The designer of the FLT. 6. The warehouse Manager. 7. A physics graduate who specialised in movement and motion of machinery. 8. Any person/or any of the above who understands his duties under the management regs and the basic principles of FLT operations.
Now if your clever you will know that the correct answer will lead to a hefty debate all on its own so lets add to it the actual real life factor of what goes on in business and working life today.
We then add the lovely words reasonably practicable,
Add flammable or explosive atmospheres, and maybe some people including hearing impaired drivers or pedestrians.
Add cost implications of the organisation involved their attitudes and commitment to safety in the first place and what they want to pay for such services if they do not have the expertise in-house.
Now let me ask how many of you folks, whom are currently undertaking their NVQ4, DIP2/lvl4 or a Grad course, have actually worked with a FLT before?
How many of you would feel comfortable and confident about doing the above, especially in a company that you have only just visited for a day.
Lets go back to our own work experience, is it retail, chemical medical or construction?
What I am trying to say (very poorly at that) is the following: -
H&S is an absolute minefield if one is not cautious along the way. There seems to be a growing number of safety practitioners whom are being prosecuted for poor advice or Risk Assessments. At the same time, many Practitioners claim to be turning work down or passing it on due to such a high demand (wish that was the case in Manchester).
Many businesses are still unaware of IOSH/BSC qualification structures let alone aware of the register of practitioners in either. (From some of the above statements it looks like many practitioners are also unawares i.e. AIIRM rouge name cards etc)
Now this may sound daft but how do I actually see who is on this register? (I have been using this forum for 2 years so either it is me or the register is just not that obvious)
As for the differences between qualifications, it only adds more debate to which I have my own personal view.
I have decided to go the NEBOSH route as my cert tutor was very inspirational to me though he personally went on to study the Nottingham & Trent (probably sounds a bit weird).
When I first embarked on the courses, I checked them out, and this is what I was led to believe or mistakenly believed.
NEBOSH Cert = someone who manages H&S in a small organisation or a general manager.
NEBOSH DIP 1 = someone who either manages or assists in a medium to high-risk sector.
NEBOSH DIP 2 = someone who manages High risk or large companies.
Many of us know that the above is no easy route, as we have to digest loads of info and then be examined on it. But I believe some of the problems we are having lie here.
Now I must admit that after the Dip 1, I thought I was the dogs privates. I was cocky had a good ego etc.
I too looked at the NVQ, as a little bit of an easy route but was to be shocked into realising otherwise.
Now here is my belief today between the two after meeting a few managers who were undertaking the NVQ route and comparing them with others and myself from the NEBOSH route.
My belief is this
With the NEBOSH qualifications you can get into a blinkered view that you can tackle almost any H&S related job even when on the lower level cert courses.
This is more so if you have not really had much H&S management experience. This is a dangerous era of our careers and I urge people to take note that I speak from personal experience and the noticed attitudes of fellow colleagues. Merv does have a relevent point about a minimum legal level etc.
Trust me the Dip 2 has given me such a kick in the ego region, I am now feeling reality the hard way (I am sure many of you remember your wake up calls). Even after this I feel I will have to get to grips with more learning.
What I did notice about some NVQ folk I met, is the fact that these people had pretty much grasped their capabilities and the reality of dealing with certain H&S issues. They would admit that they had no interest in suffering the exam route and tend to be much more prepared to seek further assistance in subject they were hazy at than I was 12 months ago.
So, who is better qualified? (I think neither)
Moreover, at the end of the day does either still hold better standing at doing a RA for a forklift truck compared to an experienced FLT driver with basic RA training?
Anyway, I think I have lost track so going back to work.
Look forward to further comments and a good slating
Jason
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lynchy
Jason
I don't think you'll get a good slating - after all you're only putting your point of view!! It's allowed!
I for one am pleased that this debate has got going because I do feel that this is a subject that needs to be tackled.
I look forward to seeing this gather pace - perhaps IOSH will take a lead and bring forward proposals to the effect of regulating the H&S profession - I believe that this has to be the way forward and also that in this fashion our role will come to be seen as a "real" profession!
Is it beyond the wit of our industry to produce an ACOP that could be recognised by the HSC / HSE ? In the same way as other industries do already?? I don't think so but it would require the will to do it -
Lynchy
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp I think Jason has added some very good points, albeit a bit long-winded, regarding the competency of individuals under certain circumstances. In effect, health and safety is often a collaborative effort between those whose experience or knowledge is a valuable input. Furthermore, in the field of health and safety there are many specialist areas, and it is incumbent upon those who work in health and safety to know their limitations.
Just by adding letters to someones name does not in itself make them a so-called expert. If we go down that road then we are just kidding ourselves. It has become noticeable of late that many job adverts are requiring 'graduate' status and not necessarilly in health and safety either. The same principle thus applies.
There is of course a form of self-policing, where an individual practitioner may be asked to provide advice where he/she may not be competent. In that case any advice could end up with that individual facing prosecution if the advice was at fault. So it pays to be careful and not get carried away.
Regards
Ray
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lynchy
Morning Each
On the subject of competence, look at SHP this month - letter regarding the machine guarding incident ("Health & safety consultant fined for failure to notice risk") page 13- IOSH's Director of Technical affairs has apparently commented that IOSH (IE the members) find it "unacceptable" that there is no LEGAL requirement for any level of competency!!!
Interesting!!!!
Lynchy
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kieran J Duignan There could well be a significant theme linking Merv's view that 'RSP should be a legal requirement', the statement attributed to the IOSH Director of Technical Affairs asserting that safety competency should be a legal requirement and the forthcoming chartered status for individuals (which effectively incorporates RSP status).
The apparent common theme is that chartered status will be promoted by the IOSH as the 'gold standard' in safety consultancy. The condition being that CMIOSH status smay effectively become the de facto equivalent of law in the sense that being 'struck off' the chartered register of the IOSH may be seen as the equivalent of a court sanction.
Of two other professional societies of which I'm a member, the Professional Conduct Board of one (the BPS) effectively operates as a court of professional conduct, with substantive complaints being evaluated on an adversarial basis with the PCB being advised by solicitors and, commonly, the chartered psychologist being advised by his/her insurer's solicitors.
Professional societies in the UK and Ireland with chartered or similar status (e.g. medical societies with formal 'Royal' patronage) function as society's institutions for controlling standards in recognised areas of professional work; in that contest, it is seen the responsibility of a client, whether a person or an organisation, to establish the professional standing of a practitioner before commissioning him/her, with the implication that the client accepts a greater risk if he/she/they prefer to invest in services of a member who operates outside the jurisdiction of a professional society.
In the event that the work of a professional can be shown to have a direct impact on the safety, health or welfare of a member of the public, there may be a case for legislation specifically holding him/her responsible for serious injury or death, beyond the existing law of tort to do with negligence. That would be a lot more difficult to establish in the work of safety professionals than in the case of e.g. freelance psychologists or psychotherapists who often provide services directly with individuals and their families on a fee-paid basis.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nikki Browett There already is a law that holds individuals to account for their actions when they have directly affected the health and safety of others. It's called the HSWA. It's just really difficult to prove a direct link especially when the employer has ultimate responsbility and can't delegate that legal responsibility to someone else. In my experience those with an NVQ or NEBOSH certificate have frequently (but not always)had an over inflated view of their own capabilities. You can be in this business all your working life and never know it all. There are too many people who have done a little bit of health and safety in their jobs and thinks that qualifies them as a health and safety professional. In my opinion a health and safety professional is someone who knows their limitations and seeks advice when required. If someone gets hurt as a direct result of advice that you have given then you should be held to account. It doesn't make you incompetent, it makes you fallible. Those who are incompetent are the ones who think they're infallible. Peoples health and safety is at stake and therefore accreditation should be a legal requirement.....in my opinion!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp Some excellent comments from Kieran if I say so myself. Incidentally, with all this talk of legal status, RSP and chartered membership - where does this leave membership of IIRSM?
Ray
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By PaulA Nikki... Hasn't Jeremy Clarkson just been accredited with a degree from Oxford Brooks University...?? food for thought?
Regards PaulA
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By PaulA Hello there..
A classic.. one of the threads posted today is a H&S professional that has Gen Cert and mentions that he holds 'AIIRSM Status'.
He is obviously skilled in the area that he has chosen to specialise in within the industry.. is he a professional or somebody that may be able to manage the risk in the above mentioned warehouse better that the Grad?
Take a look and see if this fuels the debate..
I write this with no disrespect to the author of the Career thread..
Kind regards
PaulA
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jasonjg Good point as it is this type of example that can really fuel this debate, the only problem is that this person may well be very skilled but as you probably noticed, he may never have previously wanted to join any organisation until now.
Do we push for some form of ACOP/regulation for a minimum standard for practitioners and leave many people in an uphill struggle to attain the qualifications that have to be respected by us before embarking as a consultant (what a waste of potential talent).
This may very well cut short the variety of skills or should I say experience of those whom do not yet hold or wish to hold those higher qualifications and yet would be quite able to do many of the tasks involved, sometimes better than many grads and CMIOSH folks may I add.
The whole purpose of the question I raised was the fact that because this occupation is so varying unlike other occupations, it is only to be expected that the people suited to parts of this occupation would also be so varying. None can Judge the other and no matter how highly qualified we are, there will always be someone of less academic levels capable of doing parts of this job better than any Graduate Gurus etc. (what a blinking minefield lol)
Maybe the HSE have it right in the way that it is ultimately up to the employer to decide who they should employ or hire to do this type of work. Then I suppose it would be sensible to say that only a judge and jury should decide on what was suitable and sufficient when things went wrong and not us. I do not like that stance as it opens this profession to blaggers, con artists and incompetence.
Taking into account that there are loads of variations of safety practitioners out on the market that hold many varying skills and qualifications not necessarily all matching as we all know, what could be a good step for the profession would be my first question?
Should a Government body or one representing the safety organisations such as IOSH and IIRSM together license us all. Should we all be given some form of paperwork that describes what we can or cannot do at varying levels of knowledge and experience?
The above may be a good idea in the way that those with lower qualifications but wide experience may be professionals in their own areas of expertise and industry sectors.
As it stands today, this time next year I will gain CMIOSH and most likely think about self employment (I have sat back and collected most of what I need including experience though I will definitely have to hire the skills of a spellchecker for my documents).
The fact is, there is nothing to stop me going out and claiming I can do everything in H&S except my conscience and the Law should they catch up with me if I ever got something wrong? Would I even care? I may just be that type of person. (I am not by the way)
Ok a few large organisations would have the in-house knowledge to check my work but many SME’s will not have a clue or sometimes care what I am giving them so long as it satisfies their legal requirements. As it stands today, it is only my own wanting to do a good job that will ensure my customers get a good service.
Maybe the fear of losing a licence or Membership (temp or perm) or the very fact one would have to be produced before embarking on contracts will be enough to ensure a better service from consultants maybe not.
Lets not kid ourselves folks, Safety is Money today and there will always be those who aim to exploit that very fact. Today nothing much is in the way to protect clients from bad advice.
CPD is a great start but I am afraid I feel there should be more on top of that also. The problem is I do not completely know what would be good or not so lets get this debate rolling.
Jason (ranting again)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By john fitzgibbon If the actions of the "independent" H&S consultant had been carried out by an employee of the organisation (safety officer?) then the prosecution referred to would have been against the company which would not have been newsworthy (SHP).
As many other routinely prosecuted H&S breaches may be against companies who directly employ safety professionals as opposed to third party services then such failings are obviously not confined to consultants.
Competence is blind to employment status, unfortunately H&S Law is not.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andrew Brown Back to the original question. I remember a consultant was prosecuted a few years back for an inadequate noise survey, i believe he also got an improvement notice for some training.
As the most likely way for a consultant to be prosecuted is under Sec 36 a quick search of the HSE enforcement database revealed only 10 cases. None of which appear to be consultants.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Hackett Good Day all, I cannot help but feel a little sad at some of the comments posted regarding qual's, should we look on another H&S person with disregard just because they hold NEBOSH Cert, have membership to AIIRSM. AND AIOSH ??? I myself hold these meager attributes, but do I feel embarrassed about it? NO, and the reason I don't is because I see these as my first step into the obtainment of H&S qualifications that are needed today. I first started in H&S 27 years ago, and feel quite confident in most of my functions, for the things I feel unconfident in, I seek advice, as most others should do at times. Lets not forget we are all in this proffesion as a job, a job that we enjoy and a job that we can help protect others, and always remember that those that have just started on the road to "prove" they can do the job, may in fact already be competant people in H&S, so how about a little help and encouragement for the new starters as well as the old starters. (P.S. just for my bit, I also think we should be held responsible for our actions, together with a good salary to cover this :-)
Regards
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis Just to put a bit of a different spin on this - I attended one of the HSE promoted consultation sessions on Duties of Directors and the need for legislation. There were some faily well argued cases proposed for legislation but I can well remember, as I said at the meeting the plethora of pre 1974 legislation and the loopholes created.
Perhaps this is a vehicle that could be used to emphasise clearly to directors that competent safety advice means using persons with recognised professional abilities. My problem is that given above comments on the sheer volume of legislation, however, is that I do not always subscribe to the Legislation is good therefore more legislation is better school of thought. An ACOP is certainly needed though in my view as the onus is then on the directors to demonstrate that their use of a non-professionally recognised consultant was as least as good as the code.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nick Higginson I agree that in cases of negligence or matters clearly outside the competence of a H&S professional, then prosecution is warranted.
However, if HSE are determined to persist with action against H&S people rather than individuals, H&S in this country is going to be worse off because lots of good people are going to say the pay just does not justify the risk.
The details of the case were a bit sketchy and a little "tabloid like" in my opinion. Was the employer prosecuted too? Were they criticised for selecting an incompetent contractor?
The consultant also said he wasn't allowed access to all machines? Seems like a scapegoat to me.....
Nick
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By rjhills Whilst there is a need to ensure that any consultant is qualified, I agree that the experience v qualifications issue should not be discarded in favour of some kind of closed shop. Many practitioners come from being union safety reps, and are very competent. Some of these persons have no wish, and no financial support to go the way of NEBOSH, but are very effective in what they do. Perhaps we should remember that prosecutions are rare, and that the way government has been dragging its feet about corporate killing, the highlighting of the unfortunate consultant is much the same as commentators criticizing a referee at a football match, not understanding the laws of the game. Safety professionals need to be united, not split into camps.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson Some very interseting points here, I am a consultant in Neuro Surgery and a FRCS! So am I, I just never took the exams or joined the RCS! Who would you go and see for advic?
What my initial posting was about was quite simply, the AIIRSM and AIOSH bit you can get with very little or maybe no H&S Knowledge at all, so to put these in the recognised Safety Periodical and claim to be well respected and with lodas of experience etc etc Get out of here you avin a bubble - Not saying that this person is no good but a H&S Professional with just this who is getting paid handsomley as a consultant - poppycock what what what!
Instead of pandering to the masses say wahy you mean this is WRONG and you all know it!!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis The whole problem that our profession is facing arises out of the arguments over the need for high standards of professional training. I am afraid that many have failed to recognise that such training is actually essential to becoming professionally competent as a practitioner, preferring instead to rely on the experience gained over time coupled to a lower level of training. I really do not have a lot of truck with organisations which provide a mark of professional competence with varying degrees of minimal training requirement being imposed.
I see Lawrence has made some comments on the Hatfield sentences and further noted the need for an ACoP on director duties. Such an ACoP will necessarily, I think, involve definitions of competence being set at a chartered level, particularly where the advice is externally provided.
It is no use deluding ourselves that the experienced non qualified person taking an appendix out is as good as the average medically qualified surgeon. I know my preference. Also I know many will say that the comparison is not valid but the distinctions have to be made.
I have great concerns that we will see more and more cases such as this being reported as coming to the courts in future. The profession will be damaged and again branded as merely Officers inspecting that fire exits are clear, first aid boxes are full and the like. We as professionals need to break out of this mould and manage safety. The inspectors are those in training and awaiting full charter status. Our charter status should make a firm affirmation that we do understand the needs of business and can make competent judgements on the state of a company. The consultant concerned clearly failed to set the parameters of his report and thus placed himself clearly in the firing line. Would a competent professional have done this, I trust not.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By R Joe
With regard to being united, does IOSH now have a vital role and opportunity here? Should IOSH now be taking the game to HSE more by, for example, producing more comprehensive and authoritative professional standards on key issues such as risk assessment, that as members we could not only contribute best practice to and benefit from, but also, if it came to it, use as a pro-active defence? Just how effectively are we using our united front and collective experience at present?
With regard to the desire for more regular and public prosection of directors when things go wrong, is the other side of this inevitably that health and safety professionals are now also expected to accept a higher level of personal responsibility....(they certainly will be as ‘health and safety directors’....)
Regards RJ
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steve e ashton Slight sidetrack - Why should consultants be considered legitimate targets but NOT Inspectors? If the person who failed to spot a particular hazard (or recommend appropriate remedial action) had been an Inspector - EHO or HSE - then (s)he would have been iummune from prosecution.
WHY?
Steve
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman Miss/mister/Misses/Mistress R joe,
I strongly agree with you. IOSH should be taking a strong standard before the HSE in recommending minimum standards for anyone representing themselves as an "expert" in our field.
This said, I don't think that I, personally, would meet any such standard (BA Open U, MIOSH on the "grandfather" clause and RSP because I survived another 3 years as MIOSH.
Whatever. Here I am in Bourge-en-Bresse, nice hotel, blue skies, off to Lyon tomorrow - great restaurant. It's a rough job, but someone has to do it.
Experience over qualifications ? Anyone want me to take their appendix out ? (I've got the wellie boots !)
Merv
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nikki HSE inspectors are not immune to prosecution for negligence. As it happens the HSE frequently won't even back the inspector when something happens, even if it wasn't the inspectors fault. This has happened in cases such as the Fire at the(was it Bradford City?) football ground. This is why a lot of inspectors are members of a union. Further to this there is huge concern about the fact that inspectors are going into factories with the remit of ONLY looking at HSE's priority topics. This leaves them vunerable. It is not there choice to inspect this way, isnpectors are not autonomous, they have to work to gov't targets, as do all civil servants. However, having said that, case law does support the fact that inspectprs are not there to audit a company and are therefore not expected to pick up all H&S issues. That is the job of the employer. To carry out a full audit would take a lot longer than the time they have allocated. And by the way, unlike consultants, HSE inspectors are massively under resourced and under paid. Something I wasn't allowed to publicy state when I was one!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nikki PS,
Wish this Forum had spellcheck. Apologies for all the typo's!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nick Higginson Nikki
I have been in companies where the same inspector has been in time and again over years and years and missed a signicant hazard. If there is then an accident from that hazard, should the inspector not be held to account?
I don't think we can blame some more than others simply because they get paid more, that is not the issue. Anyway, judging by the results of IOSH's latest pay survey, some consultants are being paid considerably less than HSE Inspectors!
Regards
Nick
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nikki Do you know what most inspectors earn? Bearing in mind that it's a pay scale that's almost impossible to scale!
I'm a afraid that the law states that it is the employers duty to control the risk created from hazards. The inspector is only there to take a snapshot of how H&S is being managed. If it were down to the inspector then all companies would need frequent visits from inspectors. As it is I think statistiaclly a business can expect to get a visit from an inspector about every 20 years. If you got several visits you were lucky (?).
By the way, if you knew they'd missed it then that means you knew that it exisited. Doesn't say a lot for your standards!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nick Higginson I think you've misunderstood (perhaps I didn't explain properly).
It was the first time I had been in (as a consultant) and was told that an Inspector had never seen it as a problem.
I agree that the duty is on an employer, but last time I checked, consultants were't employers either? Not sure of the relevance of that point.
If an Inspector, or consultant, or h&s officer fails to point out something blindingly obvious and someone is injured (or exposed to risk) then they are possibly guilty of an offence under Section 36 of HSWA, which has nothing to do with being an employer.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis I think that there is actually a general disclaimer in all HSE communications to the effect that the matters listed are not necessarily an exhaustive list of ALL problems. It is the old adage of making clear in any inspection report just what has been looked at; either area, task or equipment; and thus define its scope. I personally have seen many consultant reports on construction sites which have stated the site address as the area inspected. Closer questioning revealed that they had only looked in a couple of zones. I will not comment on some of the major longstanding problems noted elsewhere by myself an hour after their departure, which actually had not been seen but which the report apparently stated were OK.
If ultimately these prosecutions improve the standards of consultancy then I am all for them. But my fear remains that without clear repudiation of such people we will be tarred with the same brush.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter Coming on to this thread a bit late I know, however I'm concerned by Merv's post of 8th October (17:14)suggesting that there should be a more rigorous registration of those practitioners working in "hard" areas where people act "more directly on their recommendations". Sorry Merv, but I don't think that your argument stands up well. You say that you are in the field of advising and training in management systems, i.e. systems which, depending on how they are implemented and monitored will surely have the most significant impact on "safety culture",allocation of resources to H&S, housekeeping, maintenance and accident prevention strategies. Aren't these areas equally "hard" in terms of the potential for things to go wrong if your advice or recommendations either aren't adhered to, or your messages are misinterpreted or misunderstood?
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.