Posted By Bob Fulton, MIOSH Is it me or does anyone else think there is some clique within IOSH that do not and never have liked the NVQ 3 and are for this reason withdrawing Tech SP status because of it instead of revising the VQ. I have met many so called safety professionals with the diploma who couldn't match officers with the certificate or level 3. There used to be a saying when I worked in my trade that papers didn't make mechanics.

Posted By Stuart Nagle Bob. I think the move towards offering Chartered Staus (at some time in the future) undoubtably has a bearing on the decision to revise acceptance of NVQs for membership status of IOSH. This I suspect would indeed cover be for the two principle grades of corporate member and what is known as TechSp, Perhaps as MIOSH (CSP - Chartered Safety Professional) & AMIOSH (ISP - Incorporated Safety Professional). If you look at the membership criteria for other 'Chartered Bodies' able to award 'Chartered Status' to members - known as awarding bodies (see the engineering council site and SARTOR - Statndards and Routes to Registation - requirments) - you will see that all require a degree (BSc at least) and some (ICE for instance) require a MSc for full corporate membership with full C. Eng MICE (Chartered Engineer) designatory letters, as opposed to I.Eng MICE (Incorporated Engineer - Not a chartered engineer) It is worth noting also that all these bodies, apart from attainment of the respective qualification, also require candidates to undertake a Professional Review interview, akin to the level of membership applied for. This consists of an interview (2 hours +) and to undertake a paper set by the assessors following interview. The process is mandatory. If IOSH intend to persue the route towards becoming an Awarding Body, their systems will need to reflect those already established as the norm I think, in order to satisfy the Privvy Council who are the organisation (appointed by the Queen no less)that grant the Royal Charter and decide the conditions. As the established route and criteria for 'Chartered Bodies' to award chartered status has been long established, I do not see that a seperate system could be invoked for IOSH to do things differently. However I stand to be corrected on this !! It is worth noting though that all the awarding bodies (Chartered Institutions able to award the title of Chartered Engineer/ Chartered Surveyor etc) also have a route to membership that allows 'Mature Candidates' to undergo a MCR (Mature candidate Review) whereby the mature candidate can submit a long and detailed paper (somewhat onerous) and, if acceptable, be given a professional review interview akin to that (but much longer and arduous) given for acedemically qualified applicants, and if successfull also achieve the level of membership given to an acedemically qualified applicant. I see no reason however, why IOSH (the leading H&S Professional Body) cannot review the NVQ's available to upgrade them (to IOSH & Privvy Council acceptable level - after all these are Government led and preferred methods of allowing all persons the opportunity to obtain qualifications)and also devise a direct entry examination (as the engineering council have) to permit prospective members who do not have an acedemic qualification or those seeking elevation within the institution to undertake an examination and peer review that would satisfy the criteria for the various grades of membership available. Shutting the door, as it appears to be, without an alternative in such a style often leads to members becoming disgruntled (as has often happened in the past with other institutions) and setting up other professional bodies themselves, which often have a habit of becoming the leading light in the profession, outshining the former body, due to the fact that they are member interest led. An interesting scenario that has happened on more than one occasion in the last 30 years or so. lets hope IOSH listens to the members it represents and takes a course of action that considers all of its members and those who aspire to be members in the future. ~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posted By Robert K Lewis The new NVQ 3 is not actually leading to the loss of the TechSP grade, this will continue. It is the effective lowering of the new standard to a level below that of the old NVQ that has resulted in the change that is occurring. As I have 20+ years in the institution I think I qualify as an old boy and I can assure you that I personally and many others that I know have strong concern for the TechSPs in the institution. The "old boys network" I hope is disintegrating but I am doubtful that it will ever fully disappear. As long as corporate members continue to fight for the institution as a whole the future is bright. There are undoubtedly changes to membership structure in draft, I think, form and I know one extreme form of proposal was to abolish all grades; TechSP, MIOSH and FIOSH, in order to install a single membership grade. I trust that such a step will not occurr as it would aggrevate many to satisfy a few in my opinion. Bob

Posted By Bob Youel whilst the NVQ route is good enough for our fighter pilots [as well as the USA ETC. ]it is not good enough for others. Makes you think!

Posted By Robert K Lewis I am confident that those on the Admissions Committee understand the differences between the two syllabii and take the appropriate action. Bob

Posted By Neal Robertson I am TechSP qualified by NVQ 3 route and have 3yrs post qualification experience. I am into my second stint of IOSH CPD. Reading the postings above, it sometimes makes one wonder if the only tangible benefit of being a TechSP member is your monthly issue of SHP. My main concern is that prospective employers will look upon my "old" NVQ as being substandard due to the downgrading for the "new" one. What chance of IOSH awarding internal upgrades for existing TechSP`s who complete a set amount on CPD & an internal exam or interview - there are some members who are unable to undertake external examinations at present due to cost or time factors etc. Any comments ?

Posted By Ashley Williams Its strange the comments on competece, I know of an old thread i was involved in where i commented on my old job. In my old job i worked for a small registered charity which provided free health and safety support to anyone in the country it was staffed by two TechSP's. I remember moaning to the discussion group about the nuber of MIOSH who would contact me for advice on trivial things like how do i do a risk assessment, where do I obtain MSDS etc, all things they should have known!. I even had responses from a couple of FIOSH agreeing with my comments that for a MIOSH you need to be able to be able to recite things word for word. To be a TechSP however you need to remember the information, be able to use it in everyday practical situations and be willing on average to be paid less than someone whos got a piece of paper but has no practical skills, which in my opinion makes the paper worthless!!!! Ashley