Chris - if we draw a comparison with what we find in general medicine, we have the GP and then the various specialities. Medicine is such a wide subject that no-one can claim to have detailed knowledge of every sector. After all, if I visited my own GP (who is excellent) I would fully expect him to refer me to a cardiologist if he felt the chest problem was outside his area of competence. In my view the same applies to health and safety. It is such a broad topic and individual aspects can be so complex that specialisation is the only way to ensure that adequate (or preferably high) standards can be achieved. The question is how does the generalist H+S adviser recognise where his competence is no longer adequate and specialist support is needed. 

My personal view is that far too much attention is given to regulatory compliance and not nearly sufficient to achieving a high standard that matches the particular circumstances we are dealing with at the time, thus providing the optimum in workplace health and safety standards. Regulations can only provide a general approach and cannot cover all the many different variations that can exist in any one aspect. This is particularly the case in my own specialised field where the regulations, such as they are, certainly do not cover in any detail the many variations and complexities that I encounter. An example is the selection and use of gloves for chemical protection. The regulations are so vague and often misleading that it is not surprising that I so often find gloves being used that are simply not providing the level of protection needed and where regulations are of no practical help at all.

In my own field (in which I have been active for over 40 years) I still consider myself to be a generalist who may seek the support from time to time of a different specialist (toxicologist, occupational hygienist, dermatologist, industrial chemist, biologist, etc.)

So yes, there has to be a case for a generalist in health and safety, but one who recognises this and has made it clear to the client (employer) that, as with medicine, specialist help may be needed from time to time.

Chris - I don't think there is much danger that a sensible client is unlikely to recognise that there are going to be limits to the competence of any consultant they employ (in any discipline).

In contrast they might object if the consultant they have taken on has oversold their competence and says they need to refer things to a specialist when what they have presented would indicate that they could cover X, Y or Z.

Now it might be that the CV says they have done X-ish, Y-ish and Z-ish. Then the question for both client and consultant is whether the consultant then stretches their experience by doing something new as just part of continuous development or is crossing a line that they shouldn't be crossing.

Chris P (rather than Chris W!) - absolutely!

If the client pays X unit per hour, then they can expect a level of service appropriate to that price tag.

If the client pays double that, then they are entitled to expect BOTH that their consultant has either a wider knowledge base OR specific specialisms that they are looking for AND might reasonably expect that their consultant is better equipped to recognise the limits of their competence, including when their knowledge base may have been eroded, for various reasons including technological advances and improved understanding of risks.

P