Posted By PH
While reading this months SHP I noticed the bit about regulating our profession. My question is how can it practically be done and to a lesser extent, what would it achieve? I can't see it stopping some faceless bureaucrat at county hall banning Christmas decorations or a school stopping trips because of 'elf and safety!! I have always believed the way forward is education, education, education (to quote a Mr Blair). Anyone else got any thoughts?
Cheers, P.

Posted By Steve Cartwright
The problem we have is that anybody can call themselves a Health and Safety Advisor/Officer etc and there is no comeback.

Other Professions such as medical doctors, solicitors, barristers, accountants, teachers etc you have to either go to medical school, get a degree in law, teaching degree etc before you can even become doctor, solicitor, teacher.

In our profession a lot of people get a job in H&S and then start looking at what qualifications they need.

Imagine going to see your doctor, a solicitor or your kids teacher and then you find out they are about to start their training.

I'm all in favour of better regulation and until it happens we will never be treated as equals. I think the government should introduce some guidelines/codes of practice etc of what qualifications Health and Safety Professionals should have before they can claim to be one.

Posted By garyh
I agree to some extent with some of the posts above however I would point out that there seems to me to be an element of "closed shop" about some professions. It can be sometimes less about competence and more about keeping others out of their "nice little earner" profession.

Hang on, yes bring on the regulation!! Maybe we can get £250 + per hour like solicitors!!

Posted By Steve Cartwright
P

Regulation of our profession might not make the workplace any safer that will still be down to the people who hold the purse strings. However the point I was trying to make was that our profession does need regulating. If a GP makes some serious mistakes and is deemed incompetent they can be struck off and barred from practicing medicine.

Anybody can call themselves a Health & Safety Advisor/Officer/Consultant etc without any formal training such as Degree/Diploma, I don't really want to get into a debate about NVQ's.

How many threads do you see on this website where the poster states that they have just got a job as a H&S Advisor/Consultant and then wants to find out what is the best course/qualification to attend/get.

It does not happen in other professions i.e. they have to have some form of formal training before they can become a Doctor, Solicitor, teacher, even to drive a car you have to pass a practical and a theory test, thats my point. You don't get yourself a car, start driving around on your own, then look at what is the best driving school to attend.

Steve

Posted By Sarah Sahc
Regulating the profession is not separating out the Chartered as being in and everyone else out - that is very much a view of those that prevent change. Regulating the profession is ensuring that the profession is seen as one - a profession, and not a collective of a group of people from the most experienced and qualified individuals (Chartered) to those that have managed to get a job in health & safety and want to know what they do next. The analogy regarding driving above is excellent and sets out my main concerns. Any competent H&S advisor (and by competent this doesn't equate to chartered at all) should welcome the opportunity to have their profession regulated to add value and credibility to what they are doing.

Posted By graeme12345
One thing for certain,

You will all have to put your hands in your pocket by,
1. revised subsciptions
2. extra costs for CPD
3. extra courses because revised competency routes will be put in or added on to existing.

This organisation may well be charging (fee per annum) H & S professionals for a license to operate next, once you have spent a fortune achieving the required competency levels by sitting the exams set by IOSH and NEBOSH. as they already control not only the criteria for competency but for any courses/exam content, exams and marking of those exams.

H & S has been about for a long time, and almost all employers know who the HSE are and where to get advice on employing a competent H & S person
I do not need regulating, I work directly for a company.
Instead why is IOSH not telling the government to plough back the money the get from H & S and environmental fines back into the industry so those actually being killed and injured each year and their employers do not have to spend any of their own money on H & S training, CSCS or other passport site schemes dreamed up by incompetents.

Posted By Sarah Sahc
Pete,

I find it difficult in some respects to address your comments as I do not see this as a chartered versus everyone else point.

I used the analogy chartered to indicate one spectrum, (whereas I could have equally used Grad IOSH or Fellow) to compare it with the other spectrum of no experience or qualifications at all. Unfortunately it seems that there are a body of people that have the "them and us" attitude and can not see the woods for the trees - too preoccupied with status and labels rather then with experience and actually competence. If someone is deemed competent based on experience and qualifications (and fortunately/unfortunately that is what determines competence) rather then trying to protect themselves - usually because they know that they would not be considered competent to undertake the work that they carry out then there would be no discussion at all and I believe that everyone would say regulating the profession to manage the industry is the only sensible option.

Chartership at the moment is the only benchmark that the industry has - and this is clearly comparable with other professions such as engineers, architects and accountants. If the government regulated the profession then there would be other benchmarks from which to evaluate the profession from, at this time however there seems a large wave of poorly qualified and experienced H&S Practitioners who are negatively influencing the progression and standing of the profession - these individuals are, I believe operating largely in some/many cases beyond their ability and you only have to scratch the surface of their knowledge to realise there is nothing beyond that - these people are the majority and are arguing largely to stop the regulating of the profession as they know they would not enter the profession at the status they consider themselves to be at, or not enter at all. They would then have to compete on a level playing field rather then cheating their way through it.

Posted By Pete Longworth
Sarah
I don't disagree with some of your sentiments regarding regulation, but I still take issue with some of your comments.
Chartership is not the only benchmark for the industry. It is the benchmark for IOSH only. IOSH is not the only organisation that represents health and safety "professionals". Other organisations such as IIRSM to name just one exist also.
I also disagree that there is "a large wave of poorly qualified and experienced H&S Practitioners". In my view it is petty bureaucrats who constantly use H&S as an excuse not to do their jobs that are, as you put it, "negatively influencing the progression and standing of the profession ".
Undoubtedly there are incompetent people out there, some of them CMIOSH, but I believe these to be in a tiny minority. The vast majority of people in health and safety just want to do as good a job as possible for the benefit of their colleagues. I'm not against regulation per se but I certainly don't believe that IOSH should be the only player in the game.

Posted By Pete Longworth
Steve
There is NO route to chartered status along the lines you describe. No one can now achieve chartered status unless they have attained an approved qualification either academic or NVQ4. Past experience counts for nothing at all.

By the way I don't need to prove I'm competent I am already GradIOSH by examination and have a peer review in May. That said I have worked with a number of people who are very able but hold no formal qualifications.

Posted By ITK
I welcome regulation of our profession there are too many out there giving health and safety a bad name.

Remember competent means horses for courses, I am CMIOSH, (also by examination Peter), but would not profess to be competent in all areas relating to OSH.

As regards the quals V experience question my former H&S manager only had a NEBOSH Cert, he was extremely competent, in my humble opinion.

Posted By David S Burt
The ENTO Standards have already established the criteria for someone to be deemed as competent in Occupational Health and Safety.

The significance of these is there is no reference to Chartered Status but these Standards could if required be used to allow someone to gain Chartered Status.

The following is a direct extract from the ENTO web Site

The National Occupational Standards are:
? Statements of the skills, knowledge and understanding needed in the workplace
? Expressed as outcomes of competent performance

All National Occupational Standards must conform to criteria set by the Regulatory Bodies. They must:
? Identify the main roles and responsibilities within a defined occupational area and reflect best employment practice.
? Describe what is essential for successful performance
? Specify what an individual needs to know and understand to do their job
? Describe what an individual should achieve, not how they should do it
? Include relevant technical, planning and problem solving skills, the ability to work with others and use information technology (Key Skills)
? Include statutory, legal and Health & Safety obligations/ requirements
? Include relevant environmental aspects
? Capture defining occupational characteristics such as ethics, values and creativity
? Be written in plain language and in a user friendly format
? Be free from discrimination (overt or covert) against any sector of the community
? Provide a satisfactory basis for the design of assessment
? Meet the needs and have the support of all significant groups of employers and potential users
? Distinguish clearly between occupational standards and qualifications

I say bring on regulation based on the above already Nationally recognised Standards.

Posted By Sarah Sahc
Pete,

Yes there are of course other bodies out there and as you mentioned the "The Institute of Inadequate Risk & Safety Management" as there is in every profession.

I specialise in a specific field and do not accept or take on work that I consider that I am not competent for - most recently nuclear and food safety. I could have taken them on and muddled my way through - well I know about bits of the legislation and more then those asking me to do the work, Probably get away with it - but why would I? I can turn down work because I have a reputation of being competent and knowing what I am doing without charging the earth - and my frustrations stem from sorting out the messes left for my clients, in a lot of cases that are created by those that are poorly qualified and inexperienced acting as competent advisors. I have seem many incidences where people have completed a 4 day IOSH Managing Safety or 5 day CITB course believing that they are now competent setting themselves up as independent safety consultants. They advertise themselves as being IOSH trained with 20 years experience in industry but do not state the particulars - that is 20 years of plucking chickens and 5 days study!

Oh and I agree entirely with Steve!

Posted By J Knight
By the way, I'm Chartered by examination, and also would hesitate to describe myself as an expert except in my own particular area,

John

Posted By Pete48
Just a sideways thought for all those that consider competency to be related in some way to an examination.
In 15 years time, when IOSH has developed and the current Diploma system is no longer the required qualification, lets sya it has progressed to a Masters degree plus x,y,z. By now you are a CMIOSH or even a CFIOSH. Are you suddenly no longer competent? I cannot be sure but I doubt that anyone is a member of IOSH without having achieved the required academic (by exam) criteria relevant at their time and that they had demonstrated CPD or its equivalent.

And to not be able to accept the point that regulation, if it were ever to be applied, would have to apply to all levels of the profession and would work by identifying different levels of allowed practice seems somewhat strange to me. Thinking simply about the fact that you do not need a chartered person for all and every H&S positions illustrates that point surely.

So, I would welcome some form of regulation: why? because the decisions that we make and help employers to make can be matters of life and death. No other reasons, no closed shop, no elitism. The regulatory standards would need to recognise other specialist qualifications as well as the IOSH route in order to avoid preventing the practice of such specialist roles.

Posted By Ron Hunter
Regulating the profession will not make us all equal. Just as with the other professions mentioned (medicine, law, teaching, engineering, etc.) there are people working at various levels and delivering a very valuable contribution.

There is a danger I think, particularly where emotive issues or high-profile accidents may be involved, to have the bar set way to high and thereby exclude or reduce the overall resource.

In the longer term, there may be difficulties in attracting people to join a profession so subject to whim, pillory and both political an media pressure and manipulation.

Remember too people, that we are not a group particularly highly valued by society in comparison to other professions.

We are already "regulated" by the HASAWA and the MHSWR. The potential already exists for us to be criminally convicted for failure, further regulation may also see individuals "struck off" and prevented from practicing all together.

A similar exercise was considered 25 years or so ago with respect to the engineering professions. The whole concept was very quickly dropped when it was realised the Country (and Industry) couldn't afford it. Some of us older hands might remember (or even been involved with) the Finniston Report?

Posted By Garry Homer
Having been through this process decades ago as an electrical engineer I wish you all the very best of luck.

Why Luck? It will all depend on where you are and what you are doing on the day when the line is drawn in the sand.

If you have extra abilities and this is recognised and you take an alternative progression path with additional duties you can find you are on the wrong side of the line when that day is announced simply because you do not fit the recognised training route stablished between your employer and the registration body. Your collegues who did nothing extra but remained glued to the same seat for years can tick all the boxes but you might not.

There is also a question of what about small companies that do not have the same presence with the registration bodies, that will not have recognised training procedures? People in those companies will find it very difficult to show they merit chartered status.

My professional body is now considering accepting only a Masters or a PHD in engineering to attain Chartered status. They are backing away from practical competence which is hard and costly to evaluate in favour of the easy accademic measure. Being naturally cynical, I predict in the future it will only be those who have remained cocooned in accademia that will hold the Chartered or Fellow status.

The rest of us will just have to get on with protecting the workforce from their employers, workmates and themselves.

So I repeat, Good Luck to you all.

I'm off to find a warm pair of slippers so that I'm more than ready for whatever happens.

Regards

Garry

Posted By Brett Day


Some concerns that I have regarding the state of affairs is there seems to have been little in the way of consultation or discussion before supporting this EDM.

As for the comment about "the only individuals that can be "threatened" by that are the ones that may be trying to fool the public."

I use as analogy of what can go wrong and how those who are competent and are 'legitimate' can be affected by holding up the recent VCRA

The Violent Crime Reduction Act came about from the feeling that ‘something needed to be done’ (ring any bells?) and also was there to rationalise existing legislation.

The argument of only those who can be threatened, only those who are breaking the law have anything to worry about was widely used. Interested parties either accepted this or were not aware of some very half-cocked consultation.

We are now in the bizarre situation, where as an airsoft skirmisher I cannot buy RIF’s (Realistic Imitation Firearms) without being a ‘Registered Skirmisher’ and having had to attend a certain number of skirmishes yet as a Company Manager and Stage Manager of a theatre company I can buy exactly the same piece of kit just buy turning up and introducing myself as a Company / Stage Manager, however, I have to justify the use of that RIF or prop weapon in a production – pointing to the script or props list is not enough.

Having spoken to two Police force’s firearms units they have both explained that the legislation is deeply flawed, parts are unenforceable and an ‘off the record’ comment being that this was pushed through by politicians so that something could be seen to be done.



And now we have the proposal for regulation of the H&S industry again like the VCRA:

There is poor consultation amongst the parties it affects, another poster on this forum has suggested a condoc be available ASAP, in the couple of days that this has been running in nearly every post that I have put up I have made comment about consultation and what is being proposed for regulation. I have had no contact from IOSH either by posting here or by e-mail, nor have I seen anything on the IOSH member’s forum.

It is being started with a fairly innocuous and at face value sensible EDM,

The arguments of those who criticise the process are being seen as feeling threatened, rather than raising legitimate concerns.

Runs the risk of detrimentally affecting those who are ‘legitimate’



Can someone from IOSH please explain what it is doing in relation to the EDM?

Is a condoc available?

Why has there not been consultation PRIOR to the EDM being supported by IOSH?

What consultation with industry is going to take place?

Posted By Philip McAleenan
That this House is concerned that in the last year there were 212 workplace fatalities and that 328,000 people were seriously injured; is conscious that accidents at work and ill health cost society up to £31 billion a year; is alarmed that people without experience or qualifications can start up as a safety and health adviser; is troubled that a lack of clarity about competent safety and health advice can put people at an even greater risk in the workplace; and welcomes the call by the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health for the Government to bring forward measures to regulate the health and safety profession.


This is the Early Day Motion that is being discussed. There are a number of questions that need to be raised in regard to the content of the motion and the assumptions and reasoning underpinning the call for regulation.

1. Where is the evidence that there are significant numbers of unqualified and inexperienced people starting up as safety advisors such as should be causing alarm in the house?

2. Who are these people that are the target of this motion? Are they employees of companies who have misled their employers as to their competence? Are they self-employed consultants?

3. More to the point, where is the evidence that there are substantial numbers of companies who are incapable of performing their fundamental duty to employ/engage competent persons?

4. What evidence is there that there is a lack of clarity about what constitutes competent OSH advice that the house is so troubled that people at work are at even greater risk?

5. Notwithstanding the poor application of terminology to abstract concepts, have not the courts, academic institutions, and IOSH, etc. not made clear what constitutes a competent worker? (See for example the Irish Supreme Court 1977 case, Dalton v Frendo; IOSH research workshop paper “Mind the Gap”; and McAleenan & McAleenan, “Competence – Redefining the Matrix of Authority”.

6. What is the theoretical basis and reasoning underpinning the call for regulation? Did not the HSE promote a campaign over recent years that OSH is everybody’s responsibility? Did not IOSH find that as managers and workers become more competent in OSH that safety practitioners would work themselves out of a job, thus negating the need for the “profession”, regulated or otherwise?

7. If we have a workforce (managers, operatives etc.) that is competent in what it does, does not the existence of a separate body of safety advisers constitute a class of superfluous worker? And if this body is regulated such that they are the custodians of safe work practices, does this body then not neuter the competence or workers, managers etc?

I appreciate that some of the questions are contained within the body of a number of the above postings, and that there are indeed many more that need to be asked. But they are questions that must be discussed and answered before we go asking MPs to sign up to motions that at best may be naïve and at worst counterproductive.

Regards, Philip

Posted By R Joe
"The problem we have is that anybody can call themselves a Health and Safety Advisor/Officer etc and there is no comeback."

Aren't we already regulated by the HSE/EHOs? Employed H&S Advisors and H&S consultants can be prosecuted if their significant competency shortcomings result in harm to employees/others. Consultants can also be sued.

IOSH could defend its members on grounds of competency in such circumstances, or not, depending on the nature of their actions and alleged shortcomings.

Posted By Steve Cartwright
Its not about whether we are competent in all matters relating to Health and Safety.

In other professions such as Doctors, Solicitors, teachers etc they all have one thing in common. Doctors attend medical school, once qualified they then go into their specialist field, Solicitors get a law degree then many of them specialise i.e. criminal law, employment law, h&s law, teachers get a degree in what ever subject they want to teach i.e. english, maths etc.

The pattern is they all get a qualification before they announce to the world that they are a Doctor, Solicitor, Teacher etc. There are guidelines on what qualifications are needed before they can enter these professions. There are no such guidelines in Health and Safety, anyone can call themselves a Health and Safety ???????.