Posted By Stuart Nagle Dear, All. In recent months in all areas of the site I have asked a number of questions concerning the value and cost of qualifications. Coupled to this I have tried to align the subject to the testy question of the possible future development of the Institution, and in particular to the notion of IOSH awarding at some time in the not too distant future, the title 'Chartered Safety Professional/Practitioner' (CSP). Feed back from the question on the value and cost of qualifications has been very interesting, and in general most respondents feel that the NEBOSH Diploma is too expensive, bearing in mind of course that a high proportion have to pay for their training and are not supported in this by their/or any employer. Further on the qualifications subject; a very high percentage, when faced with the cost of the NEBOSH Diploma route have opted to take a PgC, PgD, or/and leading to the MSc or are now considering this route in preference to the NEBOSH route. In the most part, feedback appears to indicate that the MSc is regarded as more cost effective and of higher status/value in terms of employment/prospective employment than the NEBOSH Diploma. Interestingly the NVQ4 gets mentioned but is obviously in the minority, although this may not appear to be be due to its value, which in the most part appears good, more likely it appears that it is fairly difficult to achieve and the period of work experience at the right level may be lacking for those who have considered it. Whilst I had also hoped to spark the idea that if the title 'CSP' must be on the horizon and in the thoughts for IOSH, I recognised that a lot of work would still needed before this could be anywhere near achieved, not least in reorganising the qualification and membership standards/criteria of IOSH to a great degree. Further it was highly likely, looking at the standards required of other 'chartered' bodies to be able to award the title 'chartered XXX' that the likely qualification requirement for this group would be that of BSc and/or MSc, and tried to hint at where the NEBOSH Diploma and other qualifications (NVQ's etc) would fit into the overall picture. Whilst much talk has ensued and been generated by the subject of 'Chartered Status' few it seems to me (forgive me if I am wrong) have actually grasped this and what the possible standards may or will be in order for the CSP to come about, and hence the hoops that prospective 'CSP's' and perhaps a lot of other members will have to jump through if they wish to attain this status when and if introduced. In saying this, it would seem rather odd for a body to go down this route and attain chartered body status if it were not aiming to proceed to the stage of being an awarding body for chartered status for its members !! Whilst I had hoped that some would see the link and put the thoughts on this in the various discussions on the site into form and focus, this seems not to have been the case, and much talk on the subject(forgive me) seems to have missed the point. I now ask you: what is the means by which IOSH (which claims the title of senior professional health and safety body in europe) can establish a system of qualification that fits both members and prospective members in terms of costs and attains the prospective IOSH (assumed) vision of seeking higher standards in the qualification route, thus meeting a smoother transition from Institution to Professional Chartered Body, and able to award chartered status to members? What is the way forward for those seeking qualification in light of possible future developments and the possible award of 'chartered status' - those who have studied hard and paid highly will not I am sure be happy perhaps if their NEBOSH Diploma does not merit the criteria for inclusion for registration as 'CSP' which could be limited to only those with a BSc and MSc !! What then for the highly experienced but not acedemically qualified occupational safety advisor - how do we engineer a route for persons in this category? we surely cannot let these, our former seekers of wisdom down by closing the doors... How then do you try and seek understanding and foward motion within an institution where its members argue (sorry enter into reasoned debate) over wether CSP is wanted or of value when esentially the institution has never consulted them or allowed them to vote on the subject!! There are only 3 options, move forward, stand still or go backwards. neither going backwards or standing still is an option here if progress is to be made, and it must be. There are however issues, albeit thorny, that need to be managed and decided. Perhaps we can now have the seminal debate that we should have, and indicates which way the motion should be carried - forwards, backwards or nowhere.

Posted By Jim Walker Stuart, Here are my views on a number of points you raised. Getting qualifications The various routes are expensive & time consuming; anything else degrades them, to pass shows commitment. I first got seriously involved in H&S in 1990 yet only last year attained MIOSH, my family had priority on both time and the money. Anyone who has managed to get funding from their employer is extremely lucky and from your survey fairly rare. When I was working towards my MIOSH and IOSH were in the process of getting the Charter; I did have visions of CSP after my name. As you comment in your other threads, a brief look at the qualification requirements of organisations that do have chartered practitioners, show that this was never on the cards. I’m probably among your category of MIOSH that will never get CSP and I think that is why we have a deafening silence on this issue from the board as they realise they cannot upset the vast majority. Where do we go now? The chartered status of IOSH has got to be beneficial; I suspect no where as beneficial as we all thought, but its water under the bridge now. Presumably what we all want these fancy titles for, is to show that H&S professionals have an important role to play and thus deserve higher status (and all the goodies that go with it). The IOSH corporate strategy seems to support this aim. I believe considerable time and effort should be put into lobbying HSE in defining a competent person and thus strengthening the requirement of reg. 7of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations. At present the competent person can be anything you want it to be, usually something cheap. Why can’t IOSH produce a guideline of its own on this subject, given time it would achieve the status of an industry best practice. At the same time a campaign of “enlightenment” of employers is needed. Too many employers seem to view H&S as a necessary expense because of legal requirements rather that good business sense. In the past two years (as I’ve commented in this forum) I’ve been chasing jobs and find myself considered no better qualified that someone who has done the one week managing safety course and a bit of experience pinning up posters. IOSH should push its claim that the membership is superior to other organisations and that MIOSH (by whatever route) and RSP are the top of the heap. CSP is something well into the future, RSP is already well established. Let us concentrate on the achievable for the benefit of the membership and the status of the profession. There is nothing stopping us talking RSP up to the status of CSP if we work on it. Which brings me back to my original point, making MIOSH and RSP easier to attain is not in our interests.

Posted By Hazel Harvey Firstly I would like to thank Stuart for his detailed and informative posting to the web-site. He has managed to encapsulate many of the challenges faced by IOSH in the next few years. The granting of the Royal Charter for the organisation of IOSH is a great honour for all the members of the Institution in that it recognises the value and integrity of health and safety as a 'new' profession. Whether you have doubts or not about the validity of a charter at all, in the fact that we are a UK based body this is the way of achieving the necessary status for the profession. Although IOSH is increasingly becoming an international body, it is still based in the UK and this is the route for recognition for IOSH as representing a profession, in a similar way to many other, now, international but UK based professional bodies who have gone before us. Yes, as Stuart says the next stage of individual chartership is not an easy one, the profession has a lot to do to attain this. The corporate strategy in 2000 indicated that this was work that would need to be carried out towards the enhancement of the reputation and standing of IOSH. I can reassure Stuart and all of you that this is being carried out. Perhaps there is limited information about what is going on at the moment, this is because we are still developing the concept let alone the details of what will be required. Perhaps it could be done quicker but it could also be done wrongly and to quote Stuart neither standing still or going backwards is an option. The Professional Affairs Committee (PAC) of IOSH, which can be contacted via myself, have taken up the work load required and at the moment in addition to them we have a Working Party looking at Qualifications in the HE sector (our biggest growth area), a Working Party reviewing the CPD scheme and we continue to work with both ENTO and NEBOSH on the standards and qualifications they oversee. The PAC are leading the debate for Council at a meeting convened in the summer purely to discuss this isse. Once Council have, in principle, agreed to the outline proposals then a consultation with the membership will take place. To a certain extent this is already being done, I spoke to this subject at both the IOSH and RoSPA conferences last year and at many local branches who invited me to do so. The Branch Education Officers from each branch also attended a day on this subject so they could take the message about what was going on back to the members. The issue about the level required to allow IOSH to apply for individual chartered stautus is indeed a thorny one! We will obviously take advice from the Privvy Council on this one as we develop the proposed membership structure. There are, now two frameworks for qualifications in the UK. The Quality Assurance Agency for HE (QAA) and the Qualification Curriculum Authority (QCA). As the press has informed us recently these have their faults, however they do give an indication of the level of the qualifications in relation to each other. The NEBOSH Diploma, currently at part 2, will be placed on the QCA framework at level 4 similar to the N/SVQ at level 4. This level is defined, by the QCA, a government agency, as HEDiploma or Degree level qualification. We could then expect that existing NEBOSH Diplomates could be recognised as 'graduate' level. It is a bit early to say at the moment if this would be acceptable but it is a piece of work we have to do. To pick up Jim's point in a response to Stuart. RSP is a good recognition of a person's competence in health and safety and the fact that it has mandatory CPD gives it more authority. Any future individual chartered status is likely to resemble the current RSP quite closely, the assessment of those entering the register has already tightened as we, to a certain extent, 'pilot' future criteria. Although we often think IOSH is following other bodies, in CPD we are in fact very well established. Not all professional bodies, including some with chartered individuals, have yet introduced mandatory CPD. So we do have some very strong points in our favour. To summarise IOSH is moving towards more searching entry requirements, which will facilitate the move towards individual chartered status. Your elected Council members, would like to hear from you regarding this process, which I would not anticipate being complete before 2005. As a final shot shouldn't it be CSHP?

Posted By Dave Wilson Hazel, Thanks for the in depth reply and I am relieved that the Institution is progressing this, I dont really care what the 'chartered' person will be called but that our profession overall may, in the near future get the respect from Industry which we rightly deserve. If it wasn't for our members out there some of these 'Directors' could well be in jail and the HSE annual stats would be lot worse than they actually are.

Posted By Dave Wilson Nice salary, and if you can get it with a NEBOSH cert then Good luck! Just goes to show that does industry really understand what they are getting for this. Do realise that there are very competent safety professional who only have this qualification but also with a wealth of experience, so how does a prospective employer diffirentiate? Difficult!! I have come across in my time H&S Consultants with NO H&S qualifications and even someone who had failed the Cert Twice!!! Chartered status will only enhance a prospective employers understanding of 'Relevant' Safety qualifications. As I am writing this it raises the question of how do you accommodate a person who is an exceptionally good H&S professional with vast experience with minimal 'academic' qualifications as part of a chartered institution? Any ideas?

Posted By Stuart Nagle Dave. I read your interesting comments in your replies. In response to your question: how do you accommodate a person who is an exceptionally good H&S professional with vast experience with minimal 'academic' qualifications as part of a chartered institution? Let me try and explain how other professional bodies do this; They actively seek members from this category, realising that they too have something to add, by having a 'mature candidate route to registration'. This operates by accepting applications from persons who meet a set minimum standard, usually defined by age (to ensure maturity for the level of responsibilty likely to be held by this level of applicant), number of years experience in the field, and supported by references and the application being supported by several existing members. The 'Mature Candidate' would be asked to prepare and submit a project/thesis on the field of operations with suitable technical input, defining his role, responsibility and demonstarting his level of skill/expertise etc in these and supported (normally) by his employer. This documentation would then be circulated to members sitting on a 'Mature Candidate Review Panel' (who will interview the candidate) where each has the opportunity to read and digest the submission and make an appraisal, based on the submission meeting a specific set criteria (defined by the institution as meeting the standard normally equitable with whatever level the 'Mature Candidate' has applied for). The 'Mature Canididate' will then be informed if the submission meets the requirement of not, as the case maybe. If it does s/he will be invited to undertake a 'Mature Candidate Review', which is an interview by the review panel (basically a good grilling - 4 to 6 hours is not uncommon so I understand) to establish that the candidate does indeed meet the criteria for whatever grade s/he is applying for, and may also be asked, depending on the outcome of the review to sit a 2 hour paper on a subject set by the review panel where they may have detected any weaknesses in the presentation made by the candidate, right there and then !! Following this process the results and comments of the reviewers, with a recommendation for a grade of membership (which incidentally may not be the level actually applied for but lower, as the review panel see's fit) are passed to the review board. They will sit to review the reviews done by panels and a grade of membership (or not as the case maybe) offered as a result. I know what your thinking.... Blimey this is long winded (or perhaps words other than this !!!!), but this is the way that other 'Professional Bodies' deal with the situation. Most if not all have this mechanism for 'Mature Candidates' to be able to achieve full membership if meeting the standards set. Consider.... They too have worked hard for their bodies status, and hard for the attainment of perhaps Chartered Status - Degree or Masters Degree - Post qualification training and experience of varying lengths of time sometimes years, to attain 'Chartered Status' as an Engineer or whatever. The systems employed are designed to ensure; * Standards are maintained and improved * Only those who are actually worthy candidates can attain the status, thus ensuring equitable standing in the eyes of peers It is not an easy route to take, and it is not intended to be so, but if you are to offer a route at all it has to equate with the grade that was attained via the normal qualifications to have any standing at all, and meet the standards set and agreed by the bodies themselves (and of course satisfy the Privvy Council and Qualifications bodies) that achievement of the route does meet the standard required... Hope this anwers your question....

Posted By Nick Higginson Stuart, I know that you are an advocate of this "mature" member route, but I just can't see it. Are you saying this should be a route into the highest level of membership, or a lower grade? I can understand the need for a lower grade of membership where people did not have relevant qualifications, but surely a CHSP (I agree with Hazel, current RSP and TechSP designations omit the ever increasing health part of our jobs) would need top class qualifications AND extensive experience? I do tire of old hands (not referring to anyone in particular) bleating on about these young upstarts with paper qualifications and no experience. I agree that this does not define competence, but is it any worse that someone with no qualifications and 30 years experience (who has possibly been giving dubious advice for 30 years)? Kind regards, Nick

Posted By Nick Higginson Dave, I am not trying to put down people with lots of experience, just trying to say that the only people eligible for CHSP should have top class experience AND qualifications, not one or the other. There is a route for people with qualifications and no experience to be involved in IOSH (Graduate) so a mature grade seems reasonable. However, I do not subscribe to the view that there should be a mature route into CHSP, regardless of what other institutions feel is acceptable, but hey, it's just my opinion. Regards, Nick

Posted By Hazel Harvey All, The Privy Council is the body which sets the requirements for Charter. You can find the outline requirements on their web-site (www.privy-council.org.uk). One of the requirements is corporate members of the Institution should be qualified to at least first degree level in a relevant discipline.Clearly IOSH has some way to go to satisfy this. The PAC are aware of the comments that arise both in this forum and others. You can rest assured that they are aware of most of the issues that face the profession and are taking all the comments of members into consideration It's not going to be easy to take the next step but then something that is worth having seldom is. With that philosophical note, on a Friday evening I shall retire to a glass of chilled white wine.

Posted By Website Co-ordinator As referred by Stuart, there have been several threads on this topic, including "Chartered status" initiated by Ken Taylor on 12/11/02 - now archived to let other discussions like this one develop - 133 responses are pretty cumbersome to download. If you've not seen the other threads, open the "Search" link in the right hand column of the forums and enter the keyword, "chartered". The search can be further refined by making a choice from the drop down lists "In" and "Forum". Leave the member box blank unless you want to locate threads containing a posting by a specific contributor on the topic. Also, this year’s membership renewal mailing which all members will receive shortly includes information about the Royal Charter and Byelaws. Angela Wheatcroft Website Co-ordinator

Posted By Philip McAleenan ""Chartered status" [is] now archived to let other discussions like this one develop". What authority is being invoked to close a debate that is still very active and has held the interest of many readers, (over 21 thousand viewings with several thousand in the past week or so)? Have the controllers of this website decided that there are certain debates which are preferrable and that others are to be "archived", i.e. prevented from developing any further, because of their preference. This thread is interesting. So is "Chartered Status", but the actions of closing down "chartered status" raises very serious questions and concerns about the openness, fairness and integrity of this forum. Put "Chartered Status" back on-line and allow readers to study and develop all debates and and not simply those which the co-ordinators prefer. Fraternally Philip

Posted By Jack I agree with Philip (Now there's a first). Who decided on a 133 and out rule? Mind you I'm sure most of the 1000s of viewings are us same old sado's who click on to every new posting! I think it should be brought back out of the archive, though.

Posted By Laurie Those threads which are no longer "active" and provoking, or inspiring, responses will gradually slip down the list until they archive themselves. To archive what was still a very active thread smacks to me a little of censorship, and an abuse of the moderators' role. Even if only one or two are still contributing, several hundred, including me, may still be reading, with interest. Let's have it back please Laurie

Posted By Dave Wilson Thanks for that George, obviously this is a topic which is getting a long hard look at.

Posted By Nick Higginson Stuart, Please don't think I'm criticising, because I'm not, but I just don't get it. You said "......achieve competence through practice" indicating that competence can be achieved through practice alone. To me this is a contradiction in terms! Do we as Safety professionals not preach all the time the attributes needed to be classed as competent? Aren't these attributes a mixture of knowledge, training AND experience? Would you be happy to be operated on by a brain surgeon who had no medical qualifications, but had been carrying out brain surgery for 30 years? Would you allow an electrician with great experience of working with electricity to rewire your house if he told you he had no recognised qualifications? I thought we were trying to develop an institution to meet the challenges of the 21st Century and beyond, not emulate what some civil engineers thought up in the back room of a London pub? Kind regards, Nick

Posted By Geoff Burt Nick My intuitive answer is yes and yes. If a person has great experience and a good track record then why not? An electrician can serve an apprenticeship without taking a single exam - it doesn't make them any less competent at wiring a house. Changing the subject slightly and purely on a personal note is the Diploma of 10 years ago (which consisted of 9 weeks full time training and then 5 exams) at the same level as a degree? My question is, how can a 9 week course be equated with a first degree that takes 3 years. It seems to me we are on sticky ground if a diploma is going to be accepted as the level for individual chartered status. Geoff