Hi Colm
I am old enough to have enforced the Construction (General Provisions) Regulations 1961 as an HSE Inspector. Without checking I think it was Regulation 5 which required any Contractor in GB with more than 20 site workers to have a "Safety Supervisor".
This often tended to translate to having one or more site based Safety bods on larger sites OR upskilling a site agent or foreman (No forewomen in those days) via e.g. CITB SMSTS or SSSTS.
Many of these sites would also have a visiting safety consultant.
So, I would turn up at e.g. a housebuilding site and ask about the advice that was available (often when I was pondering on how many prohibition notices to write out).
"We use XYZ Safety Ltd as our consultants."
"What do they do?"
"They visit once a month and do a safety inspection."
"..and then?"
"They give us a report if there is anything needing to be sorted."
"...and then?"
"We sort out any issues they have raised."
"So who is responsible for site health and safety for the other 29 or 30 days in the month before the consultant returns?
That tended to get no answer.
Still some consultancies around making money out of this sort of model.
The problem with Site Safety Officers is that often site managers are given the excuse that Safety (and Health) is not their problem.
Which then leaves the Safety bod as the person who dishes out the Yellow Cards or chucks some sub-contractor off site - and this suits some Safety bods. When the site comes to an end, there is usually a similar role on another project though it might be 200 miles away, and the package can be right for e.g. somebody who roves from one site to the next with the same Contractor or who offers their services on a self-employed basis.
But in terms of improving overall standards in safety, and, particularly, occupational ill health this model has been shown to fail, to the extent that the requirement for a Safety Supervisor as removed decades ago, in favour of promoting the idea that health and safety should be treated as an integral part of the line management function.
...which then means more Contractors (the better ones were already usually doing this) going down the road of having a team who visit sites from site to time, to ADVISE and SUPPORT local managers, but if they are competent, NEVER to direct what is to be done - as that is a job for the line manager who has to juggle multiple priorities that sometimes compete.
Now, as regards "utilities" v "construction" each could mean all sorts of different things.
The "utilities" company could do very little other than dig holes in the street. Lots of BIG health and safety issues, but with the same issues coming up time after time, and perhaps not good for your career development as you would be less often faced with new challenges to stretch you.
Alternatively the "utilities" company might be doing complex installations and perhaps be NEEDING to do high voltage working, possibly along with digging up roads.
Same applies to "construction".
Could be a housebuilder. OK that INCLUDES some utilities works but the same problems are going to come up again and again.
But at the other end of the scale they could be building nuclear power stations or such like. Highly complex, lots of issues, and may be they do works on the railways, at airports, "major hazard" sites etc etc.
So, I think to compare the two opportunities you need to understand the range of current workload and what is likely to be in the offing.
Your profile says you are in Ireland. My first experience of an Irish Contractor was not encouraging. 9 months into the job, the Police asked us to look at a large civil engineering project, as they were concerned about the amount of compressed tankers that were going in and out. Tunnelling using ground freezing to support the excavations and the Contractor hadn't even completed the required notification!
Since then that Contractor has established themselves as a major player in UK civil engineering. No, of course, I am not going to name names!
Good luck whichever way you decide.
P
"