Posted By GSP
Seen as a qualification is NOT Personal Protective Equipment.......what do you think?

Posted By J Knight
Sadly no; it is usually taken to mean PPE, things like guards and dosimeters if required, and does extend to necessary safety training, i.e. that required to do your job safely. Cert & Dip aren't needed for safety purposes even by safety professionals; I learnt not to stick my finger in plug sockets long before I did my Dip,

John

Posted By Dave Wilson
NO as Sect 2 deals with the training element for Safety in the work place, if your employer deemed that all his work force must be CMIOSH then he would pay for that! But if the employee thinks he should have this then that is vocational training which dependant of HR policy in the company would depend on how this is undertaken.

MHSW Regs talks about H&S Advice and competence and this is up to the employer to decide who is competent to give this 'Safety Advice' which is clearly distinct from safety training required to do your job.

Posted By Sean Warburton
It is a reasonable question mate. It's a good one in fact. I've heard this argument before. The management regs require employers to appoint a competent person to assist them, if you are that person and require training for your employer to comply with the management regs (reg 7), then yes, they should really pay under section 9. Unless they can argue they already have a "competent person" and it is purely for your personal development of course. :)

Posted By Sean Warburton
See, i said it was a good question.:) Section 9 states, and i quote" not charge for anything done or provided to comply with a specific legal obligation" reg 7 of the Management regs is a legal obligation is it not? It's worth a thread discussion i reckon.

Posted By Alan Hoskins
Very tenuous I think.

The requirement is to appoint a competent person, not to train someone to become competent.

However, if an employer says "I want you to be my competent person" then there is certainly a moral obligation to pay for any required training and most good employers would.

Good question though.

Alan

Posted By J Knight
Sean,

Reg 7 is a specific legal obligation but there is no need for the 'competent person' specified in Reg 7 to have any formal qualifications whatsoever. Competence (as has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum) is related to levels of qualification, but not determined by them. Nobody needs cert or dip to carry out RAs (which is the role of the competent person in Reg 7), they might need technical skill, and they might need experience, but not a NEBOSH Dip (other qualifications are available). I train people to do RAs here, the course I use is Managing Safely, and the rest is supplied by their other qualities, skills and most of all experience,

John

Posted By Darren J Fraser
I was thinking along the lines of information, instruction etc,

Let us take a worker for a supermarket, they are trained to use the till as part of their job, therefore the company absorb that cost and do not recover it.

Now lets look at someone being appointed as the company competent person as part of their job, surely the same applies, the only difference being that the training is likely to be provided by an external body and not an internal trainer.

Posted By Robert J Martin
CW
A training course is not Personal protective equipment.

It is the duty of every employer to provide information, instruction and training.
If the employer wishes to train an individual to a certain standard then that is the desire of the employer. However, if I was an employer training an employee to say Nebosh Gen Cert of DipOSh Level 6 etc I would be asking for a level of commitment say 2-3 years to get value for money and this agreement is very common amongst employers. Or I would be footing the bill to promote my personnel for other companies to poach


Hope that helps

Rob

Posted By Edward Shyer
My Manager has deemed me the competent person to meet reg 7 as I have got a CIEH foundation Cert, other qualifications and qualities plus plenty of experience.

The problem you have is that regulation 7 basically state the competent person is required to help the employer to carry out their responsibility for H&S. He decides what is the level of competency required for his business so if he feels that you need qualifications to the highest standard then he pays for it (or gets someone in with these qualifications) (and yes I know it says preferably from his workforce). The final call is his as if it goes pear-shaped he is the one in front of the judge.

What you could do is instead of quoting regs etc ( you must train me because of health & safety regulations) have a chat with him and put yourself a case for him contributing to the higher qualifications telling him the benefits of these to him as your employer. Don't forget that training is possibly tax free (think) not a tax man.

regards
Ted