Posted By Peter J Harvey Could it be that they have provided you a standard package to train from, they may therefore be saying that annual update ensures that you stay abreast of legislation, be careful in case the training package is licensed. Many training provider provide "Train the Trainer" updates, but I have not heard of any using "must attend" to remain qualified to train. I would go with your initial thoughts, however would be careful about existing trainers training other trainers. You could provide your own annual "CPD" update for trainers.

Posted By Hilary Charlton We use the same system here, send a bunch of people for training and then they train everyone else - this is standard procedure. We don't, of course, use the literature and training aids that came from the trainer's Company unless they give us specific permission to do so, but how hard is it to draw up a powerpoint presentation and put across the salient facts? As for manual handling training - as far as I can see the only thing that alters about manual handling is packaging. Everything now comes in cute 20 litre drums (totally non-recyclable of course) but they now weigh 20kgs instead of 25kgs to fit with the recommended maximum weight from the Regulations. People will still be lifting items 100 years from now just as they were lifting them when the pyramids were built 3000 years ago (although we have reduced the loads a little in the interim), so just how much do we think manual handling training is going to change from this year to next? They're having you on - once you have this knowledge which is bought and paid for, this is your knowledge and you can impart this to someone else as long as you don't use the tools and slides provided by the original trainer. It's like a chef saying "well, I'm going to show you how to make this dish but you must never make it for anyone" that would be a little daft. I recommend you just don't tell them, get on with it and then say you've found an alternative supplier when they sniff around next year - certainly wouldn't use them again. Hilary

Posted By Elizabeth Hallows Hm, I think I'm going to be controversial, but here goes: Of course your wife's company can in fact do as they choose. Perhaps the relevant question is whether they would be exposing themselves to any liability if they use the people trained as key trainers to train others to also become key trainers, and if they don't send the original key trainers for updates. I work in the field of manual handling of people with disabilities, and have in the past trained people to become key trainers. As part of that training, the "students" are assessed as being competent to train others in manual handling, not as manual handling trainers. There is a big difference. The more layers there are between the original trainer (who should of course be suitably qualified) and the final trainees, the more errors creep into the training messages. So much so that I won't train people as key trainers any more. The need for updating is harder to justify, especially in the field of inanimate load handling. In my field, advice and best practice changes regularly, and if I was still training key trainers I would recommend annual updates, as I do for those people I train to do manual handling risk assessments. It would be interesting to know what the original contract between the suppliers of the training and your wife's company said, as these issues should have been addressed at that stage. Elizabeth

Posted By Dave Wilson OK here is one! Ask the Key trainers etc if after your staff have been 'certified' and are deemed competent, will they accept full liability if they do something wrong which results in a safety lapse as a result of the training they have been given? Forget the MH aspect of this and concentrate on the outside trainers holding the company to ransom to gain more revenue, it's a good marketing ploy and nothing else, otherwise the question would not have been raised in the first place.

Posted By Geoff Burt Yes, I'm OK with that Elizabeth, I think. On second thoughts - They are not training people to be trainers of other people to be trainers but they assess people as competent to train people in manual handling! Seems a bit iffy to me. If you train people to be trainers in any field and 'assess them as competent' to do that then how can you try to restrict them from not training trainers? It still seems like a marketing ploy - or some devious way of trying to get out of a liability. That's not meant in a malicious way but I can't see any other explanation. Geoff

Posted By Geoff Burt Elizabeth I know where you are coming from - but it's the bit where you assess them as 'competent' to train trainers, I can't grasp. The A level lecturer has not made a decision that one of his pupils is competent to train at the same level, he has only trained the pupil to pass an exam. Can you see my point - it is the fact the person has been assessed as 'competent' to train, just has you have been. This is giving me a headache! Geoff

Posted By Jerry Hill Can I please thank everyone for their contributions to this thread. I honestly didn't expect so many varied, interesting and supportive responses. A big thank you to you all. My wife (thru her employer), having read all the attached, has decided to challenge the training company. She herself undertook both Manual Handling training and train the trainer training many years ago and has been training staff for some 7 years. During that time, there have been no reported incidents of injury or accident (from poor handling)from the people she has trained (totally some 100 people) and she consequently considers herself competent. Thanks again for your views and opinions.