Posted By J Knight Why would they refuse? Maybe somebody impersonating a Health & Safety Inspector? (I've often thought that that's a singularly pointless crime, myself). I have been told that inspectors can be refused entry if they haven't had the training or the equipment to ensure their safety; for example to an area with high levels of radiation. I wouldn't think something as simple failing to sign a fire register would be a reason to forbid entry, after all the employer could ensure compliance with fire procedures by accompanying them while on site but it is a bit odd, John

Posted By Tabs Hmm... interesting. I know where to look for his powers to enter the premises, but not your power to refuse if he doesn't comply with a local rule. The obligation to co-operate with h&s procedures only applies to employees. The HSE would probably like all their inspectors to comply with local rules if they are innocuous, but I am not sure they oblige them to (never asked). Seems very odd to me, but not a big problem considering I would expect him to be chaperoned everywhere. I might mention it in correspondence (assuming I get some, and I am not in for the high jump).

Posted By ddraigice Usually, Inspectors would comply with basic rules such as this - I can see no reason why they wouldnt. But back in the day when I was one of these I had refused following some procedures such as waiting for a certain person to turn up just after they'd notified the asbestos contractors that I was on site but they are the only type of circumstances - i.e. where you know things are going on to sort things out. Never where there was obvious danger though. In theory the inspector has the power to go wherever he wants so if you refused him entry it'd be a breach of HSW. He'd be pretty silly to go to a dangerous place such as where there's radiation as mentioned earlier - and it was (and probably still is) HSE's policy to undertake certain safety inductions e.g. at major hazard sites. Ultimately they are not employees and HSE and the inspector would be liable if the accident was as a result of not following your rules.

Posted By Tabs Dave, might I suggest that section 7(b) is more applicable? Section 3 does not place any obligation on an inspector as far as I can see.

Posted By ddraigice Sorry - didnt make it clear. They are not employees of the company they are inspecting.

Posted By Tony Brunskill I think the point that Dave was trying to make was that s3 applied to ensure the welfare of persons affected by your undertaking. You are responsible for him. This would equally apply to an inspector who endangered someone as a result of their activities. The Management Regs would probably be a better fit with regards to activities on Host Employers premises.