Posted By Steve Cartwright
Ted

That is why we need some official guidelines on what qualifications and training is required whether that be either degree/diploma/nvq.

I am very competent at changing the wheels on my car, changing the oil and filter, wiper blades, topping up the water in my radiator but I would not call myself a car mechanic.

If we want to be considered Professional then we will have to face up to the fact that an academic qualification will be part of that process.

I know some people fall into this industry by accident i.e. QA Managers, Engineering Managers, but the fact remains you would not be allowed to fall into other professions such as accountants, teachers, solicitors just because somebody thought you were able.

Steve

Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear Ron,

I have doubts over the legality and use of third party accreditation to regulate aspects of health and safety, such as asbestos.

As a consequence I wrote to HSE and asked whether it would be possible to task POOSH (professional Organisations in Occupational Safety and Health) to draw criteria so that competency could be identified and regulated, possibly by POOSH or by HSE, in all of the many different specialities within health and safety (e.g. safety, occupational hygiene, environmental health, occupational nursing, occupational medicine, occupational ergonomics, etc). They thought the idea interesting but not worth pursuing.

Regards Adrian Watson
Chartered Environmental Health Practitioner
Chartered Safety and Health Practitioner
Registered Professional Occupational Hygienist

Posted By Sarah Sahc
Hi Bob,

Have a look at Steve's comment on Friday 11th January at 13:58 - He has really summed it up well.

No other profession would have this discussion because before anyone could/should label themselves as a teacher or a doctor etc they would have to prove that they have the qualifications and experience and competence to do so, with their practices constantly assessed whilst studying and throughout their profession. Just imagine the situation where someone has read a book on kidney transplants or in fact just fancies a go and then decides to operate on you - the hospital doesn't need to do any checks on the new surgeon - didn't know it needed to after all a surgeon is a surgeon right! You get operated on - it all goes wrong - of course it does, as it is not the skills of the so called new surgeon operating as he hasn't got any - it is his ego operating on you, and then guess what the hospital does, they have to call in the professional, the one that has studied and got qualifications and experience, the one that isn't a GP, or a gynaegologist or in fact a paediatrician no they get someone in that knows about kidney transplants - the competent surgeon operates and save your life - welcome to my world! I am increasingly becoming a 'Danger Expert' as opposed to a Health & Safety consultant as I always seem to be at the crisis end of the problem rather then the preventative end, and I know that this is sometimes the nature of the job, but increasingly it seems to be due to the poor advice that organisations are receiving from so called H&S Consultants.

My point being is that if the H&S profession was regulated. The experience and qualifications of an individual would be assessed by the client as of course a hospital would assess any doctors they employ. The regulation of this profession needs to be made so that it can be called a profession and respected as one and thereby educating potential users of the profession to make an informed decision as to whether they want someone who has read a book to operate on them or an experienced competent surgeon - if I had the choice I know which one I would choose!

I am chartered in 5 disciplines and guess what guys it is hard work - my CPD alone is a full time occupation. The other professions that I am chartered in I am respected for my knowledge and understanding and experience. H&S is the odd one out. It is hard for some to understand but status, respect and hopefully professionalism comes with experience, knowledge and qualifications and not from a short course or a text book.

Posted By Steve Cartwright
Ron

Most of the key players you have mentioned I would not consider Health and Safety Advisors. An Asbestos Consultant is an Asbestos Consultant he/she is not a Health and Safety Advisor. To be an Asbestos Consultant you have to have the relavent qualifications. A guy was prosicuted recently for carrying out Asbestos Surverys without any formal training.

A major part of our role as Health and Safety Advisors/Consultants/Managers etc involves advising Employers, Clients etc on how to comply with H&S law and how to interpret these laws correctly. If you've had no formal training I can't see how anyone could do this.

If you type Training Regulations in Google you will come across a set of regulations called the Training Regulations 1990. These set out the criteria for becoming a solicitor. I do not see a problem in having something similar for Health and Safety. They explain what qualifications are required which include academic and vocational. It would be easy then, if you don't meet the criteria you can't call yourself a Health and Safety Advisor/Consultant etc. I would also make it an offence to impersonate a Health and Safety Advisor/Consultant/Officer etc. Hopefully then we might get some respect.

Steve

Posted By Pete Longworth
I tell you what, the air of superiority on this and other threads is overwhelming. One of the main arguments being put forward for regulation is the comparison with other professions. Let's compare some of the routes to gaining qualifications then. How long does it take to gain a law degree or a medical degree? How much FULL TIME study does that involve? Similarly how long does it take to qualify as an architect or a surveyor? I bet in each case it is much more than 1 day a week for a total of 40 weeks. ie less than 1 year.
Doctors, lawyers, surveyors, architects are all professions that require real concentrated study in order to gain the qualifications. In health and safety you can start a diploma course and qualify within a few months so let's cut out the unrealistic comparisons please. I have been through the diploma so I know that it is not an easy qualification to obtain, but it does not involve the amount of work that the recognised professions require.

Posted By Jim Masson
Just to throw a little spanner into the works, if the H & S profession is regulated, does that mean that you will tell all your companies that they will need to employ a seperate environmental professional rather than lumping it in with H & S?

I'm an environmental professional and know of many people with Masters or PhD's in environmental subjects who are working in menial positions because they cannot get into their proper field. Why? Because lots of environmental positions are combined with health and safety...

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
Jim,

I have also obtained a separate Masters Degree in Environmental Management, but however passionate I feel about that subject, I cannot convert this into the main portion of my income.

Posted By Andrew M
Just to put my point in....

I think the profession is already regulated by law.

Qualifcations only represent competence at the time and are only relevant to the questions asked, and under class room conditions - not in the workplace which can often be a very demanding and stressful environment.

Experience is important, however there are plenty of people out there who will not gain good experiences. I would imagine that there are quite a few of us who out there who get caught up in almost constant fire-fighting and do not get the chance to develop the culture/skills they would like or are capable of.

People always bring up the qualifications vs experience argument - i have never heard any one mention intelligence.

I am sure it is possible for an intelligent person to become more than competent in H&S without having any qualifications.

IMO there is no need for regulation. It is an employers duty to make sure that all the people he employs are competent in which ever field they are in, not just health and safety.

Regardless of regulation there are plenty of charlatans in every profession. Qualified or not.

So i do not see any need for further regulation.

Posted By PH
Totally agree with the last couple of posts. Ultimately the employer must decide upon whether the person is competent or not. What is needed is better education of employers and an overall raising of the profile of H&S - as I mentioned very early on in the thread, regulating the profession will not stop some faceless manager/ bureaucrat etc. using H&S as a get out/ excuse etc. This is where the real damage is done.

Also, how far do we go? Do we start saying that a employee who has attended a 1 day H&S course cannot do a risk assessment but someone who has done an IOSH accredited course can? My point being how do we regulate H&S at a lower level, at the sharp end. There are lots of calls for regulation, but I haven't seen too many suggestions as to how it can be done!

Regards, P.

Posted By Brett Day

One thing that strikes me (and I've raised at consultation sessions and on the CDM forum) is how about taking to task the clients?

After all in the CDM side of my work I'm far too often appointed too late to have the sort of impact that I could have had were I brought in earlier, many of these projects the HSE have been aware off were a few stern letters (at the least) / enforcement what effect would this have on the clients involved?

After all if clients demand better 'professionals' then it would only help the industry.

Posted By Andrew M
Sarah,

I agree with what you are saying. But my concern is regulation will not make any difference. There will always be people out there who give bad advice or are negligent. Regulation wil not change this and i feel the costs of this - direct and indirect - will be exorbitant and far outweigh the benefits.

These costs will be borne by business and the taxpayer. making the country less competitive in an increasingly competitive market.

I believe the current system is in the spirit of HASAWA and further regulation is an example of the increasingly prescriptive road we are going down.


Andrew

Posted By Sarah Sahc
Hi Andrew,

I appreciate that there are possibly, even massive initial cost implications, but in the long-run the cost to industry should be reflected in a better regulated profession and therefore a ultimate cost-saving.

From my experience, the current state of play is going down a very slippery slope and costing the industry more then just financially.

Posted By Pete Longworth
The problem is Philip that more than one argument has been put forward in this debate with complete and utter certainty without any evidence to back it up. It sounds right, it supports my (in some cases blinkered) view so I will say it. As such 100% of local businessmen are branded as ignorami, engineers are unqualified charlatans and the health and safety "profession" is riddled with parasites taking the money out of the pockets of others (maybe that is the whole point of the debate) all of which is baseless assumption.

Posted By Pete48
I thought perhaps it was time to inject a little levity into this debate.
I well remember learning at school about the introduction of a police force in the UK.
Many may find it hard to believe that until the early 1800's we did not have a professional police force in the UK. There was a great deal of public and private disquiet about the introduction and the press, as ever masquerading as the voice of the populace, took great delight in placing the fledgling service at every disadvantage.
There was also a large body of opinion that if the people wanted one they should do it themselves, not have the government impose it upon them.
By many accounts, the early peelers were a pretty poor bunch, many were drunks and bullies. Of the first 2,800 new policemen, only about 600 kept their jobs for any length of time. The first policeman ever appointed lasted less than a day before being sacked, he was drunk on duty!!

Now, I leave you to make your own comparisons and draw conclusions but for me it's good to look back sometimes!
No need for "rationalists" to reply.

Posted By Edward Shyer
But is regulating the profession going to work?

an investigation has stated that 66,428 patients were given the wrong treatment and 63,555 patients were given the wrong drugs all within one year within the NHS.

regards
Ted

Posted By Sarah Sahc
Hi Pete,

Yes I also have had great fun debating in the vitual world of 'no influence of impact at all' - I must do this more often!

Posted By Steve Cartwright
Ted

Nobody is perfect we all make mistakes, but any sort of regulation has got to be better than none.

Steve

Posted By graeme12345
So because all past accidents / fatalities in the UK were caused by unregulated incompetent persons giving H & S advice to incompetent managers I am to be regulated and controlled by a nationally recognised authority, after the government have brought in an act / set of regs or a bill (a franchise)
who will then will give this authority control of the regulations (license to print money)
Then the regulators will charge what they want and when they want, whilst hiding behind some government issued approved guidelines that the regulating authority say they have to follow (always check with the people giving guidance, you will find their guidance differs from what the regulating authority actually has / is putting in place)

If persons are serious about this, why cannot IOSH have a list of members names, qualifications, experience and contacts on this web site for any employer to look at(at no cost) to enable an employer to know he is least getting someone who has a piece of paper, or better still, with the paper and several years in the industry they are looking after.

My job is a H & S adviser, H & S is my profession

Posted By Simon Shaw
Steve

You state quite confidently that "Most managers, health and safety advisors/officers etc are competent, but not all."

How do you know this?

Having read through the threads I now believe IOSH membership must be the way forward - in other organisations, being Chartered is not the only level of membership which is deemed competent. Have a look at.....

http://www.engc.org.uk/d...s/CEng_IEng_Standard.pdf

We should promote IOSH membership so that employers and others automatically require membership of IOSH.

Posted By Simon Shaw
Pete

I don't think there is a definitive measure of competence.

What membership of IOSH could do is show that some measure of competence has been demonstrated in order to get membership. This could be through a combination of qualification and/ or experience, demonstrated by written examination or interview, or a combination of both.

Again, look at the link which demonstrates what engineers do.

I don't know a great deal about IIRSM. Does it have the same membership criteria? Do you have to sit a panel interview to get full membership? Do you have to maintain CPD?