Posted By Graham Clarke MIOSH, MIIRSM I have always been an advocate of the profession, it's ranks are full of dedicated, hard working, under-paid, under appreciated people trying to do a good job. We have enough problems dealing with peoples' appreciation of risk, operational guys cutting corners, cost constraints and now there is another, greater problem to the profession; what is this you ask? The problem is unqualified, "not competent" people taking on the mantle of Safety Advisors, Officers and Managers. I have had the misfortune to meet one such, (on talking to others, this is by no means an isolated occurrence), they work cheap, give wrong advice, fail to follow basic safety principles and far worse than this employers fail to expel these people. We, as a profession need to guard against this or our integrity will be compromised beyond repair.

Posted By Bob Matthews This should be a good discussion! I visited a company recently, which has 17 sites across the UK, they decided to employ one of their own as group health and safety manager. I pointed out the pitfalls but this has fallen on deaf ears. How the hell can one untrained person manage 17 sites??? This person knows nothing of health and safety law, so I guess this will leave the company in a mess if anything goes wrong. The company will train him in the job, but what happens in the meantime? Regards Bob

Posted By Jim Sweetman This must be a thread that is near to everyone's heart(and wallet!). I'm sure we've all got something to add. At present I have a situation where management are relying on advice from a solicitor (non H&S)which is in conflict with HSE advice and guidance. Interesting thought when considering competence. In light of this, the approach my section takes is to widely publicise MHSWR Reg 21. We also make it fully clear that people are responsible for their own decisions irrespective of H&S advice. If someone can show that they have taken reasonable steps to ensure the competency of their H&S assistance, things may go in their favour. Jim

Posted By Laurie Couldn't agree more. I've just made a formal approach to my senior management because of the increasing problem of staff not just ignoring my advice, but telling me, in writing, that it's wrong, on the strength of some unnamed source down the pub! Laurie

Posted By Andy Petrie In the engineering industry there are specific standards as to what a competent engineer is. The rail industry has very clear definitions on this. The main requirement is Chartered Engineering status CEng. This is requires for membership to all the various engineering Instutions and is a benckmark of competency. While there is no equivalent requirement in OS&H, the basic standard for membership i.e. MIOSH is the best equivalent and this is currently the best basis we have for measuring competency in the proffession. We need to publicise this standard throughout industry to ensure that MIOSH members are used wherever a competent person is required.

Posted By Neal Robertson I agree with most of what Robert says in the last posting, but another related subject often overlooked is - where should TechSp`s fit in to the scheme of things when they have taken part in the IOSH CPD scheme (same one as RSP`s) ? Some TechSP`s stand little chance of taking the academic route to MIOSH unless they move to a richer company or win the pools - there are no other routes to the next level of membership open ! I`d be interested to hear other points of view.

Posted By Robert K Lewis The NVQ 4 route is also available don't forget. The problem of course, with what has been floated by some people, is that the TechSP would disappear into the general CSP with a level set around the current MIOSH and RSP. Hence my severe concerns. Bob

Posted By Andy Petrie I think that for the RSP status to be the basis of competency, then the requirements for it need to be changed. I consider myself to be competent and I have 5 years of relevent experience which could count towards RSP status, but as I didn't complete my diploma until last year, I have had to clock my experience back to zero and start my 3 years (post diploma) experience from scratch. Surely relevant experience is just that, and whether it is pre or post diploma doesn't matter. The engingeering institutions require an accredited degree and relevent experience for chartership, and don't state in which order they need to be done.

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith Unfortunately anyone at present can identify himself or herself with undertaking the statutory role of Health and Safety Assistance, but it is the employer who is solely responsible for ensuring that those they appoint to assist them with their Health and Safety measures are competent. If an ISOH register of Competent Safety Practitioners were established, the three-year rule post IOSH membership would not be unreasonable if you have had previous H&S experience. An example of this rule in practice is that of the Legal Executives who have many years experience, that take the non-degree route into becoming a full practicing member of the Law Society. Another twist to this issue, I have seen my name identified as a competent Health and Safety Assistance for organisations who I have never undertaken any professional work. This has happened to me at least twice in the last six months. If the issue of H&S competence becomes tighter, this may well be the next trend that occurs. In response to Neal Robertson’s posting, I have helped someone to achieve their MIOSH membership, on a shoestring via the examination route. You don’t necessarily need an employer with deep pockets to achieve this.

Posted By Ken Taylor Anyone who watches the 'Watchdog' type television programmes will know that this is not just an issue in the health and safety profession. It seems that you can legally almost call yourself, or be appointed as, anything - irrespective of whether there will be implications for the health and safety of others. Even where recognised qualifications exist there are few requirements to actually meet, or appoint persons with, them. 'Competency' can be a very subjective and 'convenient' concept and it's often not until things go drastically wrong that the issue is exposed. Perhaps, one day, there will be a duty to appoint persons in possession of specific qualifications (or equivalents approved by an appointed body) for a greater range of trades and professions - but I suspect that will be a long time coming and, then, clothed with contraversy. [RSP, etc]

Posted By Richard Earlier this year I attended a workshop where one of those present was an H&S examiner for an accreditation agency who had carried out an evaluation on my employer last year. When we came to discuss the preparation of an H&S policy document this person admitted that he had never written or even updated/revised one, yet this person has been around and critically commented not only on my policy, but the whole of my performance as an HSO on my present post. I'm not saying he can't do it, or even that he was unfair, but I did, and do, find it difficult to get my head around it! Richard

Posted By Robert K Lewis Julie I don't doubt your statement but equally there are some who are questiionable to put it mildly Bob

Posted By Ian Waldram Obviously a subject dear to many hearts! It is easy to moan about others, but often not possible to do anything - the only realistic action is to set as impeccable a personal standard as one can, and trust that in the longer term the comparisons with those who don't have such standards will become clearer. Some of the previous comments seems to relate to 'original qualifications', and miss the point that in today's fast-moving world there is wide recognition that ongoing CPD is also required for any professional to remain 'current', whatever their original qualification or entry route to the profession. Mandatory CPD is already required in many professions working in areas similar to Occupational Safety & Health. In IOSH, a personal commitment to CPD involves an element of 'peer review', which is about the only realistic means of judging true competence anyway. To date a disappointingly low proportion of IOSH Corporate members are registered in the CPD scheme. I know it isn't perfect, but we all like to believe we ourselves are competent, so I find it hard to see why some believe that keeping personal records, submitting them every 2 years and taking account of any comments made is not 'reasonably practicable'. And CPD is also a good tool for non-Corporate members to use to aid their progress towards Corporate level competence standards. To those who have asked what IOSH is doing, just keep watching. The Professional Affairs Committee has a target of 2003 to implement a membership grading system which is fully competence-based. If you think you have a simple answer, I'm sure they would appreciate input! I understand the new arrangements will take account of the new OSH NVQ's, and also involve improvements in the light of experience with the current CPD scheme - it's not perfect, but I have had more benefits than problems in 9 years of using it.

Posted By Stuart Nagle Firstly, I see a lot of useful and thoughfull comments in this discussion, however, let's look at some of the problems; 1) H&S advisers, as yet cannot be compared to Engineers in membership of professional institutions. Engineers are graded at C.Eng, I.Eng or Eng Tech levels, based firstly on their level of qualifications (example - MSc now required before being considered for C.Eng MICE - BSc for I.Eng MICE - HND/HNC ect for Eng Tech) and before attaining this designation, awarded by the Engineering Council (as was) via the professional institutions, post qualification training must take place and candidates are required to attend a professional review. IOSH, at present, works a little differently. The RSP designation can be awarded to anyone who has 5 years + post qulaification experience (or so I am informed) without any proof of maintaining competence via continuing professional development in the 5 year post qualification period, but they are expected to do so after the RSP is given to them !! 2) Health and Safety qulaifcations are far too expensive (Nebosh diploma parts 1 and 2 advertised costs are in excess of £7000.00 with some organisations), and hence, when the majority of people are paying for their own qualifications, is it any wonder that qualifications are lacking - even when experience levels might be high !! 3) Chartered status for IOSH will not solve this problem (above at 2), but may well add to it. All MIOSH required to have MSc/BSc in H&S !! with what are deemed lesser qualifications for Tech.Spec etc... what about other grades.... are there any, and if so what will happen here. 4) The term Competence, is defined by the application of experience and tempered with qualification. In many ways, the application of this term has changed over the years. In years gone by the pro-forma was to be be accepted for training after some practical experience had been gained under the tutor-ship of an experienced person. This applied to all work/trainee situations from formal apprenticeships (e.g engineering mechanics) to civic engineering at craft level (e.g mason paviour). In recent times this has reversed completely in most employments, where young persons are going from school to college/university and getting qualifications/degrees, who have either no or very limited experience, and due to their level of qualification, in most instances, are accepted as professional and competent persons able to do the job. This in itself is inherently problematic, and I myself have obserbed well qualified persons making elementary mistakes due to lack of experience, being put right by lesser mortals with lower qualifications but higher levels of experience !! 5) The pond is deep and wide, and before we jump in we must no only learn to swim, but have the ability to go the distance. The question of competence, experience, qualification levels, attainment of level of membership and other issues such as chartered status etc, the high cost of training courses and qualifications needs to be reviewed. Going back to Engineers, they are vital. Who else is going to build our roads and bridges, provide electricity or gas and ensure they are 'safe' for us to use. Safety in the tasks on the other hand and training to achive the level of competency necessary has not been particularly well recognised or promoted in the ways other profesions have. So, there are a few bridges to cross (forgive the pun) before we can truly state that an equilibrium has been reached. Many of these issues will fall within the remit of IOSH I hear you say, but who is IOSH - we are, the members, and unless we make it change it may well remain the same. Stuart Nagle

Posted By Nick Higginson How do I get hold of this report from Mike Garstang? Is NEBOSH Diploma still going to be acceptable as an entry criteria, or is it totally based on NVQ's? Nick

Posted By Nick Higginson Robert, Are you saying that holders of certain qualifications will be called something different to holders of others? Or simply saying that the titles of MIOSH, RSP etc. are to change? From my own point of view, I am TechSP, working towards MIOSH (Diploma 2) and partaking in the CPD scheme. Is there anything else I should be doing or considering? Regards, Nick

Posted By Hazel Harvey I have been away and have only just been alerted to this thread. I think I could write a book on this subject but to keep it short I will use bullets. 1) The IOSH membership structure is under review but no changes will come in to force before 2005. There is much debate, administration and consultation that need to take place first. 2) It is recommended that the new structure be based on competence in OSH practice and that the hybrid structure currently in place is phased out.The MIOSH category is currently not a recognition of competence but a recognition of qualification and experience, which can be prior to obtaining the qualification (3 years pro-rata). Similarly FIOSH is a recognition of achieved eminence in OSH issues not necessarily competence. 3)Standards of competence are held by the Employment National Training Organisation (www.empnto.co.uk). The revised standards in OSH Practice are available from June and can be purchased from this web-site. These standards are: Level 5 Strategic Health and Safety Management Level 4 Occupational Health and Safety Management Level 3 Health and Safety for People at Work. The standards are no longer divided by the use of risk as in the current standards. This will mean a person may be assesses according to the skills they have in any workplace

Posted By Graham Clarke MIOSH, MIIRSM This thread was never intended to pertain to competency as a stand alone subject, but to "outing" those who do the profession a grave injustice by pretending to employers, employees and probably themselves they understand the implementation of safety at whatever level. This thread has thrown up some questions, brought about by reading the posts and trying to understand how the Institute's intentions will affect me, please forgive me if I appear selfish to my own career, but looking at the other posts I feel there are a number of others within the institute who feel the same. We are unsure where we are in the institute, we are unsure where we will be if changes detailed in the posts occur and to be honest I am even unsure if I am competent: a) NEBOSH Cert in 1995, am I competent? b) Degree in 1996, am I competent? c) Various safety courses in 97, competent? d) Level 3 NVQ safety in 99, competent? e) Level 4 NVQ safety in 2000, competent? f) Started CPD same year, competent? g) Construction cert this June, competent? h) Qualified instructor, competent? i) Worked as safety manager since 95, in 99 became Group Safety Manager, competent? j) NRSWA instructor k) Written 4 ISO14001 system, given to many IOSH members on this site etc, etc, etc. Am I competent? Sorry to go on but I am, as many many people within the institute, committed to safety; judge for yourselves.

Posted By David .J. Minnery Just a thought:- You can be as competent as the next person, but to get compliance you require co-operation. Just do not be too hard on yourself or anyone else, because without the co-operation you could easily be classed as incompetent through no fault of your own ! Regards David

Posted By Hazel Harvey Ken, Obviously RoSPA staff don't read their own conference programmes. I was presenting at the Congress in the morning. After lunch I was on the IOSH stand - I think they know who I am! The issue of competence is one of importance to those in the profession. One of yesterday's presenters at RoSPA, David Lewis, who is a lawyer at Weightman's said competence in the eyes of the law is what might be expected by a reasonable person. So from that perspective anyone giving advice on health and safety should be able to demonstrate Knowledge, experience and skills in the area in which they work. What the Institution is currently developing is a framework that people who give advice can judge themselves by. The current framework of membership does this to a certain extent but needs refining to become more reflective of today's requirements in terms of competence. As professions develop they are required to demonstrate to others that they are trustworthy and reliable, this is what the Institution is currently in the process of doing. Graham, to get back to your original question, it is only by having a robust structure that is easily understood by those outside of the profession (and possibly those inside!), and a higher profile, that those of inadequate competence can be identified. This does take many years to develop. To answer your second question, the only real judge of an individual's competence is themself. I think the case law definition in the IOSH CPD folder probably sums this up quite well. "A competent person is someone who knows what they are looking for, can recognise it when they see it and then know what to do with it". Also critical is being aware of your own limitations. The Institution will only ever be able to indicate that a person, by holding qualifications and demonstrating experience and skills and maintaining them through CPD, has reached a standard that would appear to be a reasonable measure of competence.However, this does give an indication to employers and others of what might reasonably be expected of their competent safety adviser.