Posted By Robert Woods In reply to the IOSH TechSp survey. If the TechSp category were to be removed, would this (after a well defined transitional period), cause you to discontinue your IOSH membership? A: Yes Do you have any additional comments? Is there a point in belonging to an organisation where you have no status and the only value you have to that organisation is your yearly subscription, which is in effect what this survey is about: loss of revenue. The reason I am not studying to become a corporate member of IOSH is the excessive cost of the courses. I work for an organisation that provides free health and safety advice to the voluntary sector and SME's. We haven't got the funding for the appropriate courses. You should perhaps start thinking along the lines of a Bursary scheme. The loss of TechSp status would also put quite a few private sector and TUC lecturers out of work. The students aren't going to turn up to a course without a recognised IOSH qualification. Can IOSH survive financially if 75% of TechSp’s do not become affiliates coupled with the presumed loss of revenue from the number of people who [my opinion] will not take the part 1 dip without the TechSp status? Lets not beat about the bush an architect cannot become a member of their chartered institute with just a diploma and the fact they once designed and built a garden shed which took them five years, enabling then to claim necessary experience. The IOSH members [including RSP’s] with part 2 diplomas should have to reach degree level and have five years experience before being given Corporate Membership, if the Chartered Institute Status is to achieve parity with similar organisations. It may however be that the letters after their names may mean more to the some IOSH members than actually being as qualified as professionals of similar status. Second class is a phrase that springs to mind. The IIRSM must be rubbing their hands together at the thought of all the new members they're going to gain along with their registration and membership fees. Robert Woods TechSp [for the moment]. Comments appreciated.

Posted By Neal Robertson Agree with you on this one Robert - in a similar boat re further education. Several contributors to past threads have voiced concerns over the future role and status of the TechSP. Wouldn`t a firm statement on the future status and direction of the grade be helpful? It would certainly ease the concerns of a substantial proportion of the IOSH membership.

Posted By Paul Craythorne I don't think the TechSp grade should ever have come about in the first place. It was just another one of IOSH's fanciful money making schemes along with the decision to make the NEBOSH Diploma a two part process instead of one single course. I have been an Associate since about 1990 and will continue to remain one as I neither have the time, the money nor the need to do the two part Diploma to gain MIOSH status. I have never seen a job advert asking for TechSp status and I doubt whether many employers are actually aware of the grade. In fact it is probably better to inform a prospective employer that you are an Associate member of IOSH rather than a TechSp which in name seems to infer a lesser status. I am a full member of IIRSM and have been since about 1995. This status was granted to me on the basis of my qualifications and experience at the time of application. (I was not required to do the BSC Diploma in Safety Management). It looks like IOSH are going to be shooting themselves in the foot!!!! Regards, Paul Craythorne

Posted By Hazel Harvey Robert is quoting from an e-mail survey that was sent to all TechSPs with an e-mail address last week. This is an early consultation regarding the future of the grade and the findings from it will be considered by the Professional Affairs Committee in their discussions regarding the future IOSH membership structure. Currently there is no firm decision whether TechSP will be phased out. However, as the preamble to the survey stated there will shortly be no entry into the TechSP grade as there will be no qualifications at this level. The NVQ3 in OHS Practice has already gone, NEBOSH are re-defining back to a one stage Diploma at level 4 and the TUC are also looking at revisions. What IOSH want to know is how many TechSPs will actually be left in the grade within the next few years as it appears in most cases to be a stage in career development only. Last year over 60% of all those entering the MIOSH grade had already been TechSPs. Transitional arrangements will need to be made for all those left in the grade as and when it becomes too small in numbers to be sustainable as a category of membership with professional credibility. If you received the survey please make sure you respond so that your views can be taken into consideration during this important phase in the development of the profession. Just to reassure anyone part way through qualifications, carryon just as you are any changes are not imminent, it will probably be 2005 at the earliest before any change may take place and then it would be over a period of about 3 years.

Posted By Robert Woods Hazel, Thanks for the clarification. The fact that 60% of MIOSH's were at one time TechSp's shows that it has been an important step on the way to progression to MIOSH status. Dave, As for TechSp being letters for letters sake there could be some truth but I feel that the title acknowledges a level of commitment and progression. Of all the MIOSH’s I have met, the ones that have been TechSp’s have seemed to me to be the most capable. Probably because they have honed their skills in the workplace. I have a degree in art but I can't paint my front door without filling it full of runs, which is why I pay a skilled decorator to do it. Similarly a degree in health and safety and straight into safety management may not be the best option. Theory versus practical experience I know which I'd go for.

Posted By Ben This seems to me to be the first IOSH nail in the coffin of the Tech Sp. I find it a trifle concerning that if people fortunate enough to have received a questionnaire are told to "make sure you respond so your views can be taken into consideration" then all the membership should be give a chance to give their views, not just a selected few. The Tech SPs make up a substantial part of this Institution, if it will not be "sustainable" to keep this grade then watch them leave to another institute that does value people. People who perhaps cannot afford £5000 for the full Diploma / MSC. Would you kindly send me a questionnaire Hazel, you have my email address. Kind Regards Ben MIIRSM Tech SP

Posted By Ron Young I know its a regular subject on this forum but the issue of membership & professional status is probably the most important subject any H&S professional has faced for many years. Some peoples perception of the two tier Diploma and the advent of TechSP was one of greed and they may be correct. Lots was mentioned about why they introduced a two tier Diploma (big difference between Cert. & Dip etc.) but sceptics will always believe that it was a great way of doubling income for all concerned in H&S training & accreditation. Now we appear to be in U turn, why? is this well running dry. Is it any wonder people are sceptical with the advent of Chartered status and what will be required to achieve Chartered Safety Professional. Degree courses were few and far between a few years ago, now we see many Universities offering this qualification, why? money of course, they too appear to see H&S as a lucrative business. Do they know something that we have yet to find out? We safety professionals need to have clearly defined standards that are recognised by Employers & Employees alike. We do not need to have constantly moving goalposts of professional competence, status and qualification that we cannot keep track of ourselves, never mind employers. It doesn't breed confidence in those making the command decisions. On a slightly different tangent, I agree with comments made by Geoff Burt in previous threads alluding to the fact that employers did not have a clue about what MIOSH, NEBOSH, MIIRSM was or meant, it's time they did and I see this as a failing of every safety organisation not just IOSH. Surely we must raise this baseline awareness before we try and tamper with the top tier. I am in favour of being a member of a Chartered Institute and also in favour of a "higher" level of professional status, but not at the expense of MIOSH or other current levels or gradings. They must not be allowed to be undermined by the introduction of a "Chartered" Safety Professional, rather "Chartered" must be geared to a higher level than currently available.

Posted By George Wedgwood As a Council Member, long-time Member and RSP, as well as being in the position of recruiting H&S 'professionals', I have a strong sympathy for the arguments for retaining the equivalent of TechSP. We will always require horses for courses and I know many in such a bracket that are really good at their jobs and underpin a company's H&S management system to the appropriate level of competence. Yes, I encourage aspiration and future academic planning, as well as professional development to keep up to date and develop new skills, but I also know that a range of qualities are nearly always required to make a balanced team. The debate time is now, before we sit in our special Council meeting in June to discuss where this is all going - and your views are being taken account of! Continue to be constructive and even opinionated - it is better than saying nothing and then having to take Council decisions afterwards, without wide debate! My own view would be to retain a similar grade (technician) like the engineering institutions - they have three, chartered, incorporated and technician. Should we have something similar? Well, not exactly according to drafted plans but there is still time to ofer alternate solutions, to help Council make decisions. The Institution definitly needs Chartered Membership - that embraces credibility at a 'professional' level (I always have trouble with that word, as are we not all professional?). Our Institution should also be rightfully proud to boast other Members who may not be so well academically gifted but do possess sound competence and who need to, and will and should always need to, be Members of a democratic Institution like IOSH.

Posted By Trevor Pierce Sorry to keep this thread rumbling on like a juggernaut, but I feel a bit perplexed by all the previous respondee's. When I passed my BSc in Occupational Health & Safety in 1999, I was given the status of Grad.OSH by IOSH, and told that I could not attain MIOSH status until I had two years experience under my belt. From my previous threads in Careers Forum (Re: Age Concerned)readers will know that I only got a position in H&S recently - how do I stand now with the MIOSH status?! Trevor

Posted By Dave Wilson Hazel, As a person who does safety surveys asking employees opinions I feel that 120 responses from a membership of over 20k is not really 'representative'. Here is a thought, could you not get your 'webmaster'to produce a proforma on the IOSH site which you can complete online, obviously for security reasons only persons registered with the site can complete the questionnaire. In line with the thread It is heartening to see that council feel that we need to embrace all levels of competence with regards to Safety persons and that they recognise not all industry need 'higher' levels of H&S competence. The Engineering models looks good to me. I personally do not have any axe to grind as I hold MIOSH,RSP SpecDip EM but we need to take account and embrace all levels with a clearly defined route to 'Chartered' status.

Posted By Andy MacDonald I responded to the electronic survey and must admit that the question "would you remain a member of IOSH if the Tech SP grade was removed?" very loaded. Would "Turkeys vote for Christmas"? It is obvious that IOSH want to remove Tech SP and downgrade many full time Health and Safety Practitioners with years of experience in favour of Degree qualified newcomers to the profession. Whilst I welcome full time H&S degree courses we are all aware that this is very much a vocational occupation. I recently interviewed a graduate for an assistants post who had been granted MIOSH in relation to their overall Management responsibilities in a previous post, it was rather dissapointing at interview and embarrasing for the profession when the individual could not explain the process of "Risk Assessment" We all seek to further our competence and make workplaces a safer place, I agree with many of the earlier comments made on this subject and urge IOSH not to "shoot themselves in the foot" To restructure the membership grades to suit a "new breed" of individuals at the expense of longstanding Safety Practitioners is only "biting the hand that feeds you" Andy MacDonald Tech SP MIIRSM

Posted By David Edward Partington An interesting posting. Hilery well said TechSpec has a value. As a manager of a HS team with a budget and objectives I wish to form a team that can achieve our company's objectives. At the moment I am working for an organisation with a hundred sites that require an FRA I am having to do this fairly basic job personally which keeps me away from stretegic work. I see little value in training managers to undertake FRA. as at most they will undertake three FRAs, and these are based on little fire safety principles or experience. And therefore I am doing these myself with my MIOSH team. It would be helpful to me to employ a Techspec to do this. Also whilst I am able to undertake DSE assessments I do not have the time and therefore I employ a consultant at £600 a day to undertake 10 assessments per day. It really would be useful to me to have someone with skills seeking experience to undertake this for me. I am sure it would be cost effective. If we do away with this grade then what grade should I look for? Therefore IOSH please keep this grade as it is a stepping stone for future "pratitioners".

Posted By Dave Wilson Disagree totally!!!!! IOSH will have to have a degree qualified chartered safety grade or by existing qualififications (MIOSH, RSP by examination etc) a charterded status demands this. What is missing is what the other grades will be and how will this affect Tech Sp and aspiring Safety Professionals. Dont want to bring back the days of IOSH v MIIRSM but the point being if you want a job in H&S and you have MIIRSM or even AMIIRSM etc and do not also subscribe to the SHP(unless you borrow a members copy) you are extremely unlikely to be successful in gaining employment in this field. (note I said unlikely! not impossible So IOSH has done something for you as a Tech Sp, it helped and shaped the qualification you have which in the end got you employment and opened the door to higher qualifications! I readily accept that due to whatever circumstance that persons do not wish to or cannot progress to MIOSH, RSP status then this is a valued and recognised grade within H&S which has its place as not all employers need or want an MIOSH,RSP. The vast majority of H&S people out there are not MIOSH, RSP so the question still begs how do we as a Professional Institution embrace and nurture the majority of our members. Does it really matter what this grade is called as long as INDUSTRY recognise what this means. Do we wish to progress into the next 50 years hand in hand with industry or do we still want to be seen as bunch of old fogeys who try to stop me working?

Posted By J Coulson Can it be assumed that you take a "blanket" view that all Tech SP grades do not understand RA?

Posted By Dave Wilson This scenario is not new. Phd in 'Safety when producing Jelly and other Wobbly foods' and hence a Dr granted MIOSH status doesn't have the faintest idea of what H&S Risk Management is all about. This why we need and must have this chartered status as only then can the H&S professional be taken seriously. It is also the reason why prospective employers ask for Grades "by Examination" as this candidate would have not got an interview otherwise. Now going back to what I said earlier, is this not indicative of what prospective employers know about H&S people and the grades of membership and their capabilities because if they did then they would match this to their requirement?? Is IOSH in some part not responsible for allowing this? So Chartered status will hopefully be the answer to thsi problem as well. I have had experience with Consultants who have had NO and I mean NO H&S qualifications out there advising business and getting paid dam well for it. Why did the HSE produce the leaflet about getting H&S advice, why is their a reg whivch requires access to 'competent' H&S advice, because the regulators can see the gaping hole. (I do admit that there are dam good H&S people out with no qualification but know whats what by experience and keep current) Do we now go down the route of defining criteria for chartered status and then graduate member for so many years before sitting an 'Assessment of Professional Competence' to gain chartered status.

Posted By Stuart Nagle Having read the above responses with great interest, surely the real question is not so much the demise of TechSp, but where the persons currently holding this grade and the requisite qualifications will fit into a new IOSH qualification/status graded system. It is clear that to make good use of Chartered status the title 'Chartered' this or that will have to be put into this graded scheme as the top level membership grade. Under this however, there will need to be at least 2/3 other grades of membership to account for those who not have a degree, post graduate or higher degree qualification, i.e. those who are attaining certificate, diploma/NVQ4 after the scheme is introduced and also for those with no formal qualifications but having considerable experience... The other real questions is the qualifications themselves, at present we are limited to NVQ 4, Nebosh certificate and Diploma and the few BSc and MSc courses run by institutions accredited by IOSH. We need to inject more time and effort into formal (full-time courses) and informal (distance and part-time) qualifications to create a wider availablity and take-up of qualifications leading to a worthwhile grade of membership for those seeking membership and elevation within the Institution, and no doubt there will will also need to be CPD for full members and CET for those seeking elevation from non-corporate grades of membership. The schemes run by Engineering Institutions have been mentioned above, and I have myself in previous threads brought these to the attention of members, to be able to compare what is available and what is acceptable to the Privvy Council so far as 'Chartered Bodies' go... I do not believe you can divorce the questions of qualifications, routes to membership and membership grades, these items go hand in glove with each other and need to be adressed together, not in isolation.

Posted By Jay Joshi I am sure that IOSH will include an intermediate level of membership that recognises the relevant qualifications & competence for it in any future membership structure. The root cause of the current problem goes back to the time when the Occupational Heath & Safety NVQ’s/SVQ’s were compiled by the Occupational Safety and Health Lead Body (OSHLB) and a decision taken to designate both level 3 & 4 for Occupational Health & Safety at a PRACTITIONER level. This in turn led to 2 major impacts in the health and safety practitioner stakeholder community, the results of which we face today. One was the creation of the two part NEBOSH Diploma to align with the knowledge requirements of NVQ level 3 & 4, and the other the creation of the IOSH TechSP grade of membership. I very much doubt that this was primarily driven by commercial reasons alone. NEBOSH being an awarding body had to align its qualifications with the NVQ’s; otherwise it would not have been accredited by the Qualifications & Curriculum Authority (QCA) as an awarding body for QCA Part A accreditation. Secondly, it made sense for IOSH to accommodate the old level 3 (It was at PRACTITIONER level) in its membership structure and assigning it the “Technical Practitioner” status. The reality of today is very different, and it is now too late to influence anything now, as far as the new EMPNTO standards for Occupational Health and Safety are concerned. (the process for compilation of the new standards by EMPNTO was open & transparent as it can be. there was mention of this in SHP- any person with an interest could have commented etc. It would be an interesting exercise to find out how many of us knew of the consultation from EMPNTO and more importantly, the consequences for the TechSP grade as far as practitioner status is concerned) The reality is that the new NVQ level 3 for health & safety is not a practitioner level standard—that is explicit and any Professional Body representing Safety Practitioners cannot, but take cognisance of this. Even if IOSH had not gone for the Royal Charter as an Institution, it would have to react to this issue as far as the new NVQ level 3 is concerned and whether IOSH could continue referring to members with a qualification based at this level in any of its “practitioner” category in the longer term. That is why it is proposed there will not be new entry to TechSP grade after the proposed cut-off criteria have been implemented by IOSH. In the above context and in the long term, the issue not about TechSP, but what will the intermediate grade or even grades of membership be designated and how will the existing TechSP’s who do not wish to or cannot progress to a higher grade be accommodated. It is only by gauging the opinions of the existing TechSPs that IOSH can progress on this issue. However, no Professional Institution remains static. They are evolving all the time and so is IOSH. It is in all Health & Safety Practitioners’ interest that we are seen as “Professionals” with the type of qualifications and other qualities that make us competent. The issue of individual Chartered Status for members should not be confused with any future intermediate levels of IOSH membership, although I expect that there will be routes to achieving Chartered Status from the intermediate level, should one desire. In this context, I feel that Individual Chartered status should not be restricted to “degree” holders only. If a “degree” is an explicit requirement, which I very much doubt, then a route to Individual Chartered status should mapped out for those with other qualifications during a reasonable transition period. Other professional bodies that have individual chartered status also had similar problems when it came to convergence at the initial stages. They try to accommodate most, but if some individuals do not meet the new criteria after a reasonable transition period, it is possible that some will have to settle for a “lower perceived level” of membership than for example the current TechSP is perceived to be valued at. So, going back to basics, in the longer term, after NEBOSH has revised its Diploma programme, that the new NEBOSH Certificate is a level 3 and the explicit reference that new NVQ level 3 is not a practitioner level qualification what does IOSH designate the intermediate category? Is it proper and right (in the long term) to refer to this category of membership as “Practitioner” when the National Standards do not??? There are no easy solutions to this. But we as a profession must strive for highest standards possible. This means that there has to be very robust and respectable grades of membership within IOSH that is mapped in some way to actual competence & qualifications. I hope that there will be a transition phase so that those who want to go for the higher grades have an opportunity to do so. I empathise with the plight of the TechSP’s and hope we have optimum solution, but it is likely that some may not like that too. I realise that these are early days, but we have to move forward and ahead. For the record, I have been a member of IOSH since 1994 & IIRSM since 1996 (MIOSH & MIIRSM), entered the safety profession at a Graduate level with an MSc in Safety Management from University of Paisley (it was a full-time one year programme) and hold a first degree in Chemical Engineering (from India). My work experience is with British Safety Council (my current employer), Nottingham City Council’s Building Works Department, and a premier Petrochemicals & Fertilisers complex in India that manufactures amongst other products Caprolactum, the same product that Nypro did at Flixborough and would be under COMAH should it have been located in UK. My comments here are as an IOSH member.

Posted By Hilary Charlton I wonder if Nick Tracey actually read my comments - I am fighting against snobbery and elitism, not advocating it! My technical conversation would be the same with a TechSP as it would with a MIOSH or FIOSH or any of the other professional grades. I am certainly not seeking to belittle TechSP, I think it is totally worthwhile and having been one myself (and proud of it), I know that the technical knowledge is equal to that of a higher grade but the degree level qualification is not there. Perhaps Mr Tracey would like to re-read my response where I mention that a degree is not the beginning and end of being a practitioner and review it again.

Posted By Dave Wilson Barrie, Dont think this is about the NEBOSH Cert or Tech Sp but about how do we embrace all persons who aspire to be H&S professionals and what route map will there be to help them get them there. I would certainly carry on with the Cert and wish you all the luck in getting this worthwhile qualification.

Posted By Brett Day Here's my two penneth: I'm a TechSP and acheived it by funding my own training, I'm not in a position to afford further training for quite some time, so how do I go further ?? Acquisition of time served and CPD possibly ? One slight snag, my employer wants me to take courses that, whilst H&S in content are of commercial relevance to what I do (Planning Supervision & 'straight' H&S role) some of these are MIIRSM, RoSPA and APS courses. When I contacted IOSH to enquire if these were suitable I was told that they would not count towards CPD with IOSH. whilst they did not say so explicitly the impression I was given was that only NEBOSH or IOSH courses would be accepted. The Associate was open to those passing the certificate, now there is only the affiliate that, quite frankly, anyone can join on. I for one will not be keeping my membership as being 'downgraded' to affiliate does not in any way shape or form reflect my qualifications or experience. Many of my collegues are members of other professional bodies, these bodies withdrew intermediate forms of membership and as a result lost members who, whilst competant at thier level/role suddenly found themselves in the cold as their membership dissapeared. In certain branches there are several 'professional' bodies all pulling in different directions. Instead of a unified voice lifting the professions profile. I rather suspect that, judging by the demise of the Associate grade, this matter has already been decided in the aim to appear more professional. Also will the fees for other grades increase, if IOSH follows the route described above then it wouldn't surprise me. RIP IOSH. Brett Day TechSP, MIIRSM