Posted By Sheila Godfrey After yesterdays seminar and the new information on membership and competence, I asked the question if: "I am a registered auditor with IRCA, why do I need to sit an IOSH course on auditing to prove competence?". "Who says you are competent?" I was asked. "IRCA" I replied. "Who says they are competent?" as there was a lot of hub-bub going on I never quite got in my reply but; are IOSH saying that they can run a course which proves I am a competent auditor, but the Institute of auditors cannot judge competence, and the fact that I audit to ISO: 9001 and 18001 standards is irrelevant? In which case can we ask the question who says IOSH are competent to assess competence in others, is this not all going round in circles. I left the consultancy group seminar much more confused than I was when I arrived and I don't think I was the only one ....

Posted By Roger the Dodger This is the classic chicken and egg pattern or who checks the checker. I look at it from the consensus point of view, most safety people would consider IOSH to be a competent safety/training provider by virtue of their history etc. You could equally argue that the organisation who trained you are competent if they are following currently recognised safety management practices, generally recognised by industry/commerce. If you are competent in one industry to audit doesn't make you competent to audit another industry - other than in a very general way - policies, procedures, organisation, monitoring reviewing management systems etc. As per a quality assurance system, I think traceability of your safety/auditing training qualification is vital. In the final analysis, it is for a court of law to decide if someone/an employer is competent or not. Obviously competence being as previously defined as a blend of experience, qualifications, technical knowledge etc.

Posted By steve e ashton Sheila, as with so many questions, the answer has to be 'it depends'..... If you are required simply to audit against a defined standard (eg BS/ISO/internal Management System...) then a 'standard' auditing/accrediting body will be able to provide suitable training and accreditation. For the majority of quality (and many environmental?) auditors, this is often all that is required, and they tend to think the skills are universally applicable. When auditing against 'Best practice' or National legislation, then the standard audit training / certification will not provide the background knowledge required to decide whether best practice / national legislation is being complied with. In these circumstances, the professional body is likely to be a more reliable judge of 'competence'. I found the training for IRCA certification little more than a basic (five day!) study of HS(G)65 and the OHSAS standards. As such, it left me feeling uneasy that some people may take this qualification and claim to be competent to 'audit' health and safety management systems. The terms of any audit need to be very carefully spelled out, and the backgound knowledge and understanding of auditors needs to be checked against the auditee's requirements. Above all, I think everyone needs to take a long hard look at their own 'competences' and be honest with their clients / employers about what they are / are not competent to do. Hope this clears a little bit of the mist for you. Steve

Posted By George Wedgwood Having taken the 5-day IRCA approved IOSH course, which I felt was valuable training, it did not 'make' me competent but augmented my competence based on previous many years of auditing practice in a large company. I agree with their standard in that you need to keep doing audits to remain 'competent' as with any skill but at the end of the day, the employer has to make a decision as to the person's abilities and competence. Having been in court during an experienced engineer's cross-examination as a witness, the prosecution tried to prove that his competence was in doubt and savaged the poor guy, making him feel as if he was worthless - he later resigned as he could not come to terms with his inferred culpability in the fatality being tried. Of course, ultimately the company was found guilty as the prosecution failed to prove the engineer incompetent but proved the company's management of its contractors was insufficient. So be prepared to defend your competence and the more evidence you can rely on, the better!