Posted By Pete48 How are you judging competence Tony? Is it on how close to your view they are or on the skills and knowledge required to be an inspector in the 21st Century. I hanker after the traditional hard knuckled down to earth factory inspector or specialist inspector on occasions. I found them easy to talk to as we shared a common background of industrial toil combined with specialist knowledge. However, they were just as infuriating sometimes when opinion differed. I never once considered their competence in question but have to say that I received both poor and incorrect advice from them as well. That is part of life is it not? Enjoy the difference and work in partnership. I don't think I expect the HSE to have a monopoly on perfection even if they do have to play the enforcer at the end of the day!

Posted By Adrian Watson Competent to do what; enforce or to advise? I would say that they are competent to enforce, but not necessary competent to advise as they do not automatically have the knowledge or experience. Regards Adrian

Posted By A Campbell To date my experience with HSE & EHO has been professional and open to reason to gain a workable result. The only reservation I have had in the past is that when asking for advice... on the spot so to speak.... there appeared to be a little squirming and feel that expectations in bringing forward solutions is pushed towards myself, prompted by oh yes that sounds reasonable when offering suggestions!

Posted By MT Crikey, as an LA Authorised Officer I'm not quite sure how to answer this one. I could be facetious and say "course I'm not, but my LA has let me on the loose, issuing PNs and INs willy-nilly and it's great fun!". When I started the job almost five years ago, I already had 8 years industry experience under my belt, post-degree, before I turned from poacher to game-keeper. The Section 18 Standards govern the training and competence of officers working for both the HSE and LAs, and my LA has additional requirements for training and experience of officers. I underwent practical, on the job training for months, shadowing other officers along with completing paper based tasks before our Specialist officer deemed me to be competent, and I was granted authorisation, which conferred powers upon me. Enforcement is not an easy job, as some might think, and we are learning on the job every single day. The day I stop learning will be the day that I worry that I am no longer an effective Officer. If I'm asked something and do not know the answer, I will say so, and I will also commit to finding out the answer and replying to the person who asked it. I'm only human, and I do know my limitations, which I think is key to this role. None of us can claim to know everything about every type of premises that we inspect, as they are many and various, but we have systems in place to ensure that we are as up to date as possible in a broad range of subjects, and we receive a fair amount of training, much of it carried out by the HSE. I'm not sure what else to say. HSE and LA inspectors are a diverse bunch, with varying backgrounds. In LAs you may find EHOs (Environmental Health Officers) who left school, studied, joined an LA and have no other industry experience. In my case, I am an AO (Authorised Officer) and only carry out H&S inspections, and I have industry experience. We can't possibly all be the same or know the same things, however, neither the HSE nor LAs will allow their Inspectors to carry out inspections or issue Notices unless they have met the common competence criteria. http://www.hse.gov.uk/section18/ Hope that's helpful.

Posted By clairel Ok. This is my knowlegde on how it used to be and so if it has changed in the last few years it is something I am unaware of. Firstly you can't compare EHO's and HSE inspectors. Different backgrounds, different training, different management etc etc HSE inspectors are specifically recruited with NO H&S background. They choose trainnee inspectors on the basis of being a particular type of person and with the potential to learn everything (it's a very steep learning curve). They don't want a background in H&S becuase they want to mould you in their own way. I am not being cynical. That is what I was told by many. Bearing that in mind I was let loose on my own after 8 weeks. Everything had to be put through my PI for agreement but essentially zero H&S knowledge to enforcer in 8 weeks. Full training is 2 years. However, trainee inspectors used to learn the ropes in a particualr industry, eg, enginering or textiles & polymers. This allowed the trainee inspector to learn the ins and out of a particular industry so they could talk the talk, so to speak. Every few years they would move on to a new industry sector and thus eventually a nicey rounded inspector. Of course they didn't know everything but certainly enough. This changed with the advent of the priority topics (falls from height, workplace transport, slips & trips etc). The industry groups all but disappeared (except construction) and everyone became general inspectors. New trainees were not being taught industry specifics. When I challenged a very senior staff member they said that new inspectors didn't need to know about the different industries because they were expected to concentrate on the priority topics and nothing else. This is very important. It was no longer expected that inspectors were to look at guarding, use of chemicals etc. becuase they were not priority topics. New inspctors were essentially going into an engineering factory without knowing what a power press was and what the precautions should be. Senior management thought this ok becuase they were only supposed to look at the priority topics. I'm so cross about that. That is so wrong IMO. When I left they were about stop putting trainees trough the PoOst Grad in Occupational Health and Safety too. Add to that HSAO's are now going into premises as basically trained poorly admin. They aren't supposed to offer specific advice but many do and many employers don't understand the difference. Add to that many of the experienced inspectors get so fed up with being an inspector they transfer in to Sector groups meaning they are no longer front line inpsctors, although technically warranted still. That leaves a bigger percentage of inexperienced inspectors in the field. There is a common misconception that HSE inspectors are experts. They are not. Many practioners out there will be more qualified and have more knowledge. Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming the inspectors themselves. Many do the best they can and some of the more experienced ones really know their stuff. It's not their fault. The fault lies with the target driven, cost cutting senior management who say one thing but do another. But having seen some of the responses on this forum and the fact that so many people seem to think a NEBOSH cert makes them competent, the HSE do little more than reflect what is going on in the professon generally. Sorry. But that's how I feel. By the way I thought the question asked was valid as most employers would expect the HSE inspector to be an expert or at least competent.

Posted By A Campbell Just to put my 2 pence worth in... (it is a recession you know!) I took the NGC as the first step to gain competency... obtaining some knowledge and never say that because I have a certificate that I'm competent. same as a inspector.... many have degree's but not necessarily deemed as competent. As previously stated many do not actually give out advice, especially on the spot but may return with some advice after they have sought out the information back at their HQ!

Posted By TonyB All, Thanks for the replys so far. Some very interesting responses. Can I clear up a couple of points First - I am not against the HSE/LAs or their inspectors. In fact I used to be one! Second - this was a general question to canvas opinion. Its was nice to see so many jump to their defence. Third - my opinion was based on an 'insiders' background knowledge, much like Clair. In fact I almost totally agree with her. Having read her comments on other threads this doesn't surprise me. Fourth - H Baker was incorrect when stating that the HSEs primary role is to enforce. Their primary role is to advice and help dutyholders achieve legal compliance. But let the debate continue. TonyB

Posted By db Where does it say that their role is advice? Surely HSE's role is to ensure compliance with the law - how that is done always has to be up to the dutyholder. The reluctance to give advice, in my experience, is because they could then be seen to be taking over the dutyholder role.

Posted By Steve Clark I have enjoyed reading this thread as has been a question that has tumbled around my mind for the last 12 years. I am a national S&H manager that has risen from officer, via advisor to my curent position and have dealt with EHO, HSE, HSE/EA and HSA enforcement throughout the UK and Ireland. I work in logistics and that crosses many industry boundaries hence the experience of working with many enforcers. When it comes to the various approaches [to enforcement] I have found in general the most competent to be the HSE and least being those EHOs primarily engaged with food safety - although this is a general statement as there are obviously both good and bad in all camps, as there are good and bad company professionals. I have rarely come across those who i felt were out of their depth, but will never forget the inspector who [when inspecting a chemicals facility] said 'well you are likely to know more about the subject than me, so i'm sure you will be doing the right things'. As a young H&S Officer i thought this extraodinary but as the years passed i have come to the view that as previous contributors have stated - no one [including me] knows it all (although some think they do). These days the only inspector i deem not to be competent is the one who isn't open to dialogue, is not prepared to listen and does not demonstrate empathy with the in-house officer/advisor/manager who is subject to the daily pressures of commerical life; because I include the skill of communication as important as knowledge. Thankfully, in the last 12 years i can only think of 3 instances where i have been left frustrated - even then these interactions all ended positively once reasoned, sensible argument had been completed. If the person the other side of the table from an inspector deals with the situation with hostility, mistrust and loathing then in all likelihood it will end badly - if you are professional and think you are in the right, communicate - like a human.

Posted By Safe System I took over a site that had a fairly poor standard of Safety - was due to carry out my first inspection but 2 days before a Prohibition notice was served when a HSE inspector passing saw something he didn't like...and rightly so. however.. i went first thing in the morning to investigate the reason for the prohibition notice and was actually quite appalled that the site only got 1! Within 10 minutes on site i had picked up breaches of numerous legislation's which would of resulted in a few more prohibition notices... but the only thing that was mentioned to me by the inspector and in his report was this 1 problem... which fell into the HSE focus point on WAH... Made life on site very difficult as all i got was "well the HSE have been here and they didn't mind..." read into that what you will...

Posted By Gus I find the comment that "HSE inspectors are specifically recruited with NO H&S background" incredible if true? What other industry/ business or profession deliberately ignores a qualified talent pool or could afford to do so?

Posted By Gus Tony I was not suggesting in any way that they limit recruitment to to H&S professions, as clearly that would shrink the overall pool size, however I can not understand why they would deliberately exclude H&S professionals either? This appears to suggest that someone who has industrial experience and a hard won H&S qualification is incapable of learning the skills and attitude needed to be to be a successful inspector? this also seems to contradict with the recruitment of specialist inspectors in the nuclear and offshore sections where they are looking for chartered engineers etc with experience of the industry. Or is the real reason that they want to recruit graduates on low salaries? I would be interested to know the IOSH stance on this

Posted By clairel Although they might take someone with some H&S experience generally they do not want people with a solid H&S background because you will be 'tainted' by that, if you know what I mean. They like to shape you in their own way. Basic H&S law and guidance isn't rocket science (sorry but it's not), they can teach you that, but they need particuarlar 'types' of people to do the job. The lengthy selection process is designed to weed out those that don't have the right personality. Specialist inpsectors are different and they work differently. Their knoweldge has to be able to stand up in a court of law and generally they don't operate like inspectors do, turning up unexpected and inspecting. Specialists are usually called in for specific isssues or to liaise with industry. Their knowledge is more important than anything. By the way, as a graduate the pay in training to become an HSE inspector is much better than the usual graduate pay in the real world. That's the only reason I took the job back then. Unfortuantely then the pay levels out and you end up being paid worse than other graduates in the long run.

Posted By clairel I have an arts degree! I remember one lad recruited into HID (Hazardous Installations Division) with an English degree.

Posted By Safe System clairel thanks for the response (see i can be nice!) My main concern that wasn't picked up on was an unprotected, exposed lift shaft at 4 stories up.. but i can not judge all inspectors based on one. HSE inspectors are imperfect just like us and they also miss things... that's life.

Posted By John Fraser Gus I also attempted to join the HSE an Trainee Inspector recently when I was job hunting, but had no reply back, possibly due to the fact that I have had several years of health and safety experience. I also do find it odd that health & safety people are not considered for a post with the HSE, but graduates with degrees or English or arts are considered with no experience - and yes I was prepared to take a drop in Salary at the time. Fortunately though, I managed to get a h & s position in a organisation that specialises in PFI projects that is infinitely better paid and in area which I am competent to advise in.I wouldn't question the competency of an HSE / EHO Inspector on site, but I would question a decision made by them if it infringed an obscure health and safety law. Just an opinion from the private sector side of things ! John

Posted By MT Can I just check - what's an EA inspector?

Posted By clairel ...um...you don't read the posts I take it. I was an HSE inspector. I passed their selection process (they don't have an interview stage by the way - it's far more complex than that). The fact that they do not like to take people with an H&S background is what I (and others) were told by senior HSE bods. EHO's have different process to go through. Completely different orgainsations. I cannot seriously believe that an HSE Specialist Inspector would go on to become an HSE Inspector - the HSE Inspector earns less. I think you are geting confused. As I already said only specialists can take on the roles of an HSE Spcialist but it is different process for HSE general Inspectors.

Posted By Alaniosh A really interesting debate - prompted me to put in my first tuppence-worth on a forum. I was an HSE Inspector many years ago - when the recruitment requirement was a degree and relevant industrial experience. The Probationary period was 3 years (and it was galling when it changed to two and I watched young whippersnappers get a pay rise after two years). We had Training PI's who knew their stuff backwards - and made sure we did - in particular, the law and how to apply it in a real world situation. You can give advice that promotes compliance without using that advice to enforce - if that makes sense - and still get the same result. I agree with Claire and all that she has said above. And I'm glad to hear that things are reverting to the old system of a Post-Grad diploma, etc. My experience after 11+ years in industry, post-HSE, is that HSE's standards have dropped significantly - the focus on "priority topics" has meant that I have watched Inspectors turn away from matters of evident concern in serious accident situations because what they were seeing wasn't on their list of topics. Non-Inspectors doing inspections and offering advice never sat well with me either. Not a question of competence, just a case of political massaging of reality so that it looked like a lot of "inspections" were being done by "inspectors". Inpectors were never experts in everything - what they need to be are experts at finding out about things - and must have the right attitude (and enthusiasm) so that they can go away, find out, and come back to a situation and deal with it appropriately. That's one of the aspects I loved about the job - finding something new to research, and go back to the occupier and advise on. My concern over the years has not been with the competence of the HSE or LA EHO's. My concern has been with my fellow safety "professionals" - the range of competence in the profession ranges from superb to woeful - and too often the failure is that folk don't go back to first principles - what does the relevant legislation actually say, and what does this actually mean for the activity that it is being applied to. Maybe that's the source of the comment "Read the ACOP" posted somewhere above. Too often the information is there already and the safety professional or manager or occupier hasn't bothered to search it out....

Posted By Safe System MT FYI: EA = Environmental Agency