Posted By Lee Bennett Dave, Without wishing to get embroiled in a MIOSH versus MIIRSM debate, I feel the need to respond to your comment over the benefits of IIRSM over IOSH. I receive exactly the same service from the IIRSM as IOSH with a monthly magazine, information fax back service and post nominal letters. So personally I do not feel that membership of one is better, or worse, than the other. As for my views on the removal of Tech SP they are pretty much the same as the previous respondant. Kind regards Lee.

Posted By Robert K Lewis This still rumbles around I see and I actually have a great deal of sympathy for the TechSPs. It was brought in without thinking through the whole membership structure and would really have been left alone at the time. But now we have it there needs to be some hard thinking. Hazel knows my feelings on this in that I believe that the grade needs to be used in some form of sensible manner to manage what will be a substantial Graduate and Postgraduate entry of people with little practical experience of managing safety in the world of work. Some argue that the Grad. IOSH status resolves this but I feel that it would be better to place thes people in a Technician Grade - Indicating that they are moving through their professional development phase - awaiting Corporate Memebership. I see no problem in allowing those who choose to remain in this grade, for whatever reason, to do so. Those current TechSPs who also choose to move on may do so but at least the remainder will have a place in an active grade of membership. Active in the sense that there are arrivals and departures. I think some in the institutution who would prefer it to whither on the vine but that is not my view. Bob

Posted By Stuart Nagle I have been suprised at some of the comments above further to the discussion topic. 1) I think the only people to blame if health and safety profesionals are held in low esteem, are the health and safety professionals themselves. Too often I personally have found the health and safety professional quietly plodding along, and not making those around him/her aware of the goings on of the profession or the workings of IOSH. If we want these matters improved then we must make the improvement, take the profession to the board and onto the works notice-board. No one will do it for us in the workplace. 2) If you have taken time to read the new Royal Charter document and Bye Laws relating to it, you should have noticed that there are several areas that require Privvy Council Approval before they can be altered. membership is one of those areas, and in particular designations and the use of the term 'chartered'. As I have stated before, and think that it needs saying again, there is a route that can include all members and this is currently the type of system (approved by the Privvy Council) such as used by the Professional Engineering (Chartered) bodies. This includes: Engineering Technician level members (was ONC qualification level as a norm - now HNC) as the base level of membership. Incorporated Engineer level members (was HNC/D but now BSc) as the intermediate level of membership. Chartered Engineer level members (was BSc now MSc) as the top level of membership. (The changes from ONC to HNC & BSc to MSc etc were made by the Institution of Civil Engineer to reflect higher levels of engineering knowledge required and the capabilities required of both levels of membership at Incorporated Engineer/Chartered Engineer level) Fellowships are granted by invigilated election. At present we have by way of qualifications in health and safety: a) NVQ 3 b) Nebosh Cert c) NVQ 4 d) Nebosh Diploma - part 1 e) Nebosh Diploma - part 2 f) BSc Occupations health and Safety f1) PgC Occupational health & safety f2) PgD Occupational health and safety g) MSc Occupational health and safety in respect of the above the following could be stated: a) is a non-practitioner entry level qual. Is not needed by IOSH - dispose of it and leave this to industry to use. b) is a practitioner entry level qual. This needs to be reviewed as to it's status and use. It should be amalgamated with (d) Nebosh Diploma - part 1, as a route to Technician Safety Practitioner as the first professional grade of IOSH and be AMIOSH (No designatory letters). c) is a practitioner level qual that merits elevation of membership to MIOSH. An (invigilated) alternative route to above that needs to be reviewed and improved and will essentially be the route taken by mature candidates who have no previous acedemic qualifications suitable for membership via the acedemic route and give access to 'Technician Safety Practitioner' AMIOSH. d) is a practitioner level qual that in itself (i.e. without part 2) does not get anything except a big bill. This should be incorpoarted with (b) as first professional level qual. (see above) e) is a practitioner level qual that merits elevation of membership to MIOSH. This should be reviewed and a separate qual(forget the comparrison with NVQ's 3 and 4 - the structure is now gone) for those seeking elevation of membership to (NON CHARTERED) 'Safety Practitioner' MIOSM. f, f1, f2 and g) to all give membership at MIOSH and allow membership as Chartered Safety Practitioner - 'Chartered Safety Pratitioner (CHP)' MIOSH. There is of course, with any proposed changes a hangover for existing members. The normal format is for those at the top level of membership at the time (having the highest qualification level acceptable) to be allowed admission to the new highest grade. What is clear is that a review of the qualifications available and their value in respect of membership is urgently needed, and if necessary IOSH should take the bull by the horns (if not doing so already) and lead the way to ensure these 'fit' with what is required for a streamlined and future facing professional institution. So that's that sorted then!! IOSH please take note.....!!!