Posted By Diane Thomason
Good to see that the DWP has mentioned us, and we have even been mentioned in Parliament...


http://www.nu-riskservic...668485212694732161_1.htm

Posted By Stupendous Man
It's a good point you have made Brett, we do have make sure that companies do not get put off getting health and safety advice by imposing too stringent requirements.

At the back end of last year, I contacted Neil Budworth to ask whether IOSH were going to promote CMIOSH/CFIOSH as the only solution for providing competent health and safety advice, given that there are many low and medium risk companies out there. Neil explained that IOSH was committed to promoting members of all levels.

Posted By David Pike
The question of 'qualified' and 'competent' probably comes up as often as the gripes that the Nebosh diploma is too difficult!

Why shouldnt companies with low to medium risks employ the services of a chartered health and safety practitioner just because it wasn't a high risk environment?

Surely everyone prefers to have the best possible advice?

I accept that as I am CMIOSH then its easy to promote ourselves, so in the interests of fairness, what would other members (at whatever level of membership)suggest would be a suitable level of qualification/membership grade to effectively manage low to medium risk businesses and why?

I shall look forward to your responses, its certainly a very intersting and contentious area!

Dave Pike

Posted By IT
Great Statement ,

Does this mean there is no further choice in whether you do or you don't join an organisation to work in your chosen profession?

And I thought compulsory unionism was finished and that freedom of association was an entrenched right, silly me!!!

We have revisited the competency vs. experience in numerous threads on these forums and agree to disagree, if I choose to join an organisation then that’s fine,why join if there is no benefit to me or being forced to do so, what’s being put forward is that you are incompetent unless you hold membership of an organisation, and let me guess MOST people were against compulsory unionism?

FLAME PROOF SUIT GOING ON NOW

Posted By I Goddard
I agree with Jos

Before I became an Health and Safety Officer with my current employer, I was a Union H&S Rep for about 5 years. I've worked in verious manufactoring environments, from paper to engineering.
Its not all about course's it's also having work experiance, and knowledge of other sectors etc.
there are possibly individuals out-there who have no work experiance but have done the courses and got the certs ect. but in my view that is still not sufficiant, with out working in a sector you are providing advice.
Im trying to work towards my diploma in H&S, but the company I work for cant afford the course for me to do this, even when I have suggested I would pay half.
It's probably about time the goverment stepped in and sponsor small and some of the medium companies, in regards paying part of the courses were possible, this would probably help some industries promote better health and Safety.

Posted By Jos
Absolutely correct David. But you are missing the point regarding that one particular statement. It can be viewed as damaging for all those who are currently employed in a H&S role that don’t have CMIOSH status because it infers that those people are not qualified or competent. In other words, if you are a lower level member of IOSH or not a member at all you are in the same category as a untrustworthy gas man who is not Corgi registered!

I personally agree that it is important to achieve CMIOSH because it demonstrates that you are at a certain competence level (in theory) but surely there should be some respect for those who are performing a perfectly good job and have done for many years without being a corporate member. Yes, CMIOSH is great, but just because you don’t have it, does it mean your incompetent ?

Posted By Dave Pike CMIOSH
Hi all

Well what a super response so far!

For me its simple.... my CMIOSH status makes it clear to all and sundry that a certain level of academic and experiential standard has been achieved and accepted by my peers as evidence of my competence.

So for those who intimate that they dont need the 'badge' of chartered membership to prove their professionalism or capabilty and competence to manage health and safety, I would agree with them, but with the caveat of being someone who has the academic and experiential qualities to satisfy chartered membership but choosing not to do so.

Whether we like it or not we already accept these standards generally in society such as professionally qualified doctors, engineers,dentists, architects, accountants etc....

I can't see too many people queuing up to visit a doctor or dentist who didnt quite achieve the academic standards and dropped out of medical school, can you?

I believe there is a very clear career path within IOSH for progressing along the route to competency and achieving the status of being a chartered member, my only real concern is that of the financial support necessary to attend such courses of study.

Many course providers costs are well outside that of an individual's personal budget making it a bit of a 'closed shop' unless you have corporate funding.

This is an area that should be subject to scrutiny and pressure by IOSH to make access to such courses within reach of many undoubtedly eager and talented people who would make excellent safety practitioners.

Cheers

Dave

Posted By Sean Fraser
Just to chuck in my tuppence worth . . .

CMIOSH is an excellent step up for the rpofession and proves that IOSH have been and continue to be the premier body representing Health and Safety professionals both home and abroad. Those who have CMIOSH status and above should quite rightly be proud of their achievement and their contribution to the profession.

But it all comes down to cost at the end of the day. Not all companies are willing or able to support the high fees required to achieve this status, and not all individuals can either. I have been fortunate to have the companies I worked for help pay my way, and I cannot afford to go it alone. My choice is not in demonstrating my competence by achieving the Diploma, but in being able to pay for it.

And the point has already been raised - why demand a CMIOSH provide a service to an organisation in a low risk industry? Definite overkill. Access to competent advice is the key - and the level of advice needs to fit the circumstance. The crucial definition of competence for the person actually employed is knowing when to call in specialist knowledge - in this case, bringing in a CMIOSH as required to deal with a specific issue.

it is unreasonable to dictate the gold standard be applied to all and sundry.

Posted By Merv Newman
Ruth,

sorry, but who are you ?

I have asked for IOSH representatives to identify themselves when they post to this chat show

Merv

Posted By Brett Day
I happen to think it is fairly important that IOSH staff/officers etc identify themselves especially given recent criticisms on other threads notably the TechIOSH/MIIRSM threads of an apparent lack of openness and transparency on the part of IOSH.

Posted By Merv Newman
Sorry Ruth and others but I didn't get to the bottom of Ruth's posting for Neil before wondering who it was talking.

I liked the bit about "chartered or working to achieve" If you tie that into an appropriate level of competence. It would be nice if the 5 person newspaper office could offer useful employment to someone just starting a course of study. And encourage that study in some way.

So the student spends 5% of their time on H&S and 95% on journalism or making the tea. I am sure that both sides would benefit. And the tea would always be delivered to point-of-consumption at a safe, enjoyable temperature

Merv

Posted By Jay Joshi
Why is it that everytime the Chartered status is publicised or promoted, some in non-Chartered fraternity get so sensitive, to the extent that they do not seem to be fully reading the press-releases & more importantly, what the Regulation, ACoP & Guidance to Regulation 7 of the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999 requires.

Firstly, the Norwich Union risk services press release appears to be originating from the IOSH press release dated 11 January 2006.

http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...m?go=news.release&id=247

The IOSH press release amonst other things states;-

The Government says it is “fully supportive” of the introduction of a chartered qualification for professional health and safety advisors and pledges to recommend all advisors, where appropriate, to work towards achieving it.

In response to a Parliamentary Question, Anne McGuire, Minister for Disability in the Department for Work and Pensions gave her unequivocal support to the UK’s 6,000 recently chartered practitioners.

There is also a comment by the by the past president:-

“You wouldn’t employ someone who wasn’t Corgi-registered to deal with a faulty boiler, and you wouldn’t want an accountant dealing with your finances who wasn’t chartered. The same rule should apply to health and safety.


“We’re raising our game so that business and industry can reap the benefits. The days when a health and safety practitioner could go around a workplace with just a checklist and pen have long gone. Chartered safety and health practitioners will be a different breed, providing practical solutions to everyday problems in the workplace and communicating in the language of business.”(end of extract from press release)

If you analyse the DWP pledge for support etc, the OPERATIVE TERM USED IS “WHERE APPROPRIATE” ! There is no mention that the pledge is for all advisors/advice.

Secondly, the ACoP & Guidance to Regulation 7 of the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulationa 1999 is in some ways clear about this.

ACoP to Regulation 7:
Employers are solely responsible for ensuring that those they appoint to assist them with health and safety measures are competent to carry out the tasks they are assigned and are given adequate information and support. In making decisions on who to appoint, employers themselves need to know and understand the work involved, the principles of risk assessment and prevention, and current legislation and health and safety standards. Employers should ensure that anyone they appoint is capable of applying the above to whatever task they are assigned.(ACoP ends here0

Guidance to Regulation 7:-
Competence in the sense it is used in these Regulations does not necessarily depend on the possession of particular skills or qualifications.

Simple situations may require only the following:
(a) an understanding of relevant current best practice;
(b) an awareness of the limitations of one's own experience and knowledge;
and
(c) the willingness and ability to supplement existing experience and knowledge, when necessary by obtaining external help and advice.

More complicated situations will require the competent assistant to have a
higher level of knowledge and experience. More complex or highly technical
situations will call for specific applied knowledge and skills which can be offered by appropriately qualified specialists. Employers are advised to check the appropriate health and safety qualifications (some of which may be competence-based and/or industry specific), or membership of a professional body or similar organisation (at an appropriate level and in an appropriate part of health and safety) to satisfy themselves that the assistant they appoint has a sufficiently high level of competence.(Extract from guidance ends here)



It is the latter case of more compliacated situations that the Chartered Status goes a long way in facilitating the employer to discern and diffrentiate. Nobody has mentioned that one requires a Chartered Safety & Health Practitioner for ALL situations. It is obvious that the comparision with CORGI was in this context.

Can we please try to see the new membership structure i.e BOTH the chartered CMIOSH and TechIOSH as a positive development rather than it being TechIOSH vs CMIOSH ?? There is room for both !

On a personal basis, it is my view that in the long term-perhaps in the nexxt 10 to 15 years, most of those entering the safety profession will tend to progress to Chartered status.

In USA, there is a designation of "Certified Safety Professional"

The Board of Certified Safety Professionals is a not-for-profit organisation. It operates solely as a peer certification board with the purpose of certifying practitioners in the safety profession. (It is not a membership organization) Its functions include:

• Setting standards related to professional safety practice.

• Evaluating the academic and professional experience qualifications of safety professionals.

• Administering examinations relating to professional safety knowledge and skills.

• Establishing recertification standards in the Continuance of Certification (COC) program.
• Authorizing individuals meeting BCSP standards and paying an annual renewal fee the use of BCSP designations:

- Associate Safety Professional (ASP) [an interim designation to show progress toward the Certified Safety Professional]

- Certified Safety Professional (CSP)


This can include members from professional safety organisations such as:-

• American Society of Safety Engineers
• American Industrial Hygiene Association
• Society of Fire Protection Engineers
• Institute of Industrial Engineers

As we do not have the equivalent of the above, the TechIOSH & CMIOSH categories will be roughly equivalent to the ASP & CSP designations.

For the record, I do not hold any IOSH positions except on a IOSH branch committee, but I am now a Chartered Safety & Health Practitioner

Posted By Brett Day

Jay

My comments were directly on the press release from NU not any others.

"She pledged to recommend that all people providing safety and health advice to employers hold chartered status, or should at least be working towards achieving it."

Maybe the above quote is incorrect, but none the less if accurate does worry.

I do happen to think that Neil's comparison with corgi certification is poor and could be misconstrued in the press, so perhaps a little more thought could have gone into an example, bearing in mind the press adage 'never let the facts get in the way of a good story.'

Posted By Ruth Doyle
Dear Merv,

The posting I made last week was on behalf of Neil Budworth, IOSH President. Because it was his contribution to the discussion, I didn't put my job title. In any instance where I speak on my own behalf, I always would. I agree with you that IOSH employees and volunteer members should declare their role in any discussion or debate.

My apologies for any confusion caused,
Ruth Doyle
IOSH Director of Communications

Posted By Paul Hay
As with the thread about defining competency through law - if this is done to improve standards, then excellent. However (and you may call me an old cynic!), if it is done to create a closed shop and thus drive up a members worth(Ching! Ching!), then this is a very bad thing that will ultimately damage the profession. I can see the point in stating that a competent person should achieve a certain academic level and back that up with appropriate experience (is this not a loose definition of competency anyway?), but to suggest you must belong to an organisation is wrong.

Paul

Posted By ME
They can't make Chartered Status a pre-requisite for 'competence' because then most HSE Inspectors would have to be classed as incompetent! Most have less than 5 years experience and recently employed inspectors will only do an NVQ in health and safety. Most inspectors aren't even IOSH registered and very few would meet the requirements for CMIOSH.

As to comparing Chartered Status to being CORGI registered, that's just rubbish. To become CORGI registered you just need to pass an exam to become chartered you need years of training and experience.

Defining competence would be a good call though. It's too vague as it is and would actually protect the true professionals.

Posted By Dave Pike CMIOSH
I think what is very clear from this thread is just how shrouded in confusion the whole aspect of competency is!

This is certainly an area that would benefit from some clarity from IOSH and the enforcing authorities on what they would consider as being competent.

Whether people like it or not there does need to be a line drawn in the sand as to what is or isnt competent?

Perhaps the word 'competent' itself needs to be replaced with something else that relates to an indivduals' skills and experience etc.

At the risk of starting a whole new debate consider what you have to do to drive in the UK?

You have to pass a test in both theoretical and practical application of driving skills!

Now I'm sure there are many people who can operate a motor vehicle who have never had a lesson in their lives and never opened the covers of the Highway Code who could quite comfortably drive a vehicle off road or indeed be driving (legally) without ever having had the requirement to have sat a driving test under 'grandfather rights' being conferred upon them.

But no-one is suggesting that you let people loose on the highways without having passed a test.Is this not also a demonstration of proving a level of competency?

I quite like the idea that different levels of academic qualification and membership levels could be related to the level of risks and responsibilities but in practical terms almost impossible to manage.

So here I am standing by with my trusty safety pincers ready to remove the splinters from the bottoms of IOSH and the enforcing authorities from the sitting on the fence called competency.

As an aside I work for a company with complex chemical risks and I am the safety,health and environment manager for their european plants.

I certainly wouldnt want to undertake this role without the qualification and experience that have allowed me to become a chartered member of IOSH and the chartered membership is understood and respected in the manufacturing plants I deal with in Belgium, Serbia,Russia and the Czech republic.

As a closing thought to this posting, as safety practitioners you have a hefty responsibility for protecting your workforce in situations that could be fatal or cause permanent disability so what proven and tested level of knowledge and experience do you think you should have?

Posted By AlB
I agree. H&S is as much part of a business as accounting and human resources and needs similar level of competence and a defining line needs to be drawn to distinguish between educated and competent.

Safety, health and environmental management can not be dismissed as unnecesary - businesses can not afford to jeapordise their reputation and profits due to poor HSE records, and the advice that are given to companies needs to reflect that importance.

Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH
IT.
I take it you are refering to training required under the HASAWA to become a safety advisor?
In order that a person can become a safety advisor that person must have attended a course?
There is no mention of passing an exam or other qualifications, unless you wish to enforce under sections 18-25 ect..
Not even in the man regs does it state qualifications.
Just because I am chartered does not mean I am a good safety advisor, but what it does show that I have achived a certain level of education; that, does not demonstrate practicle approach to doing the job, hence NVQ's.
If a person who has a degree (therorist) a better safety adviser than a safety advisor who can demonstrate by compleating the NVQ(practiclist). Who would you argue is qualied? degree or nvq?
Regards.

Posted By M Darcy
In response to I Goddards comments, I have been a H/S Rep for 13 years and have only worked in two sectors, these being manufacturing and the Prison Service.I only have experience of these sectors, because of this am i to be barred from other sectors when it comes to Health and Safety. I believe that over the last 13 years I have built up a knowledge and understanding of most H/S areas, coupled with my qualifications this in my view is sufficient to move from sector to sector. Safety Representatives or Safety Managers should never focus soley on thier own sector but through learning and networking seek to gain an understanding in other sectors.