Posted By Sarah Sahc
Hi Steve,

That is exactly what I said in the thread above (taken off), but I clearly do not have such a delicate way of putting it! Thanks!

Posted By Steve Cartwright
PH

I agree entirely with what you say about commitment, hard work, attitude, application of knowledge etc. However what you have to realise is there are a lot of people out there practicing H&S with very little knowledge. You only have to look on this website. In deciding how it will be regulated that will be up to the legal eagles. Obviously there will be a period of consultation where we all get a chance to have our say. If you already have the skills and the knowledge then you will not have anything to worry about. Judging by the responses who are against regulation well I'll leave it up to you to decide.

Posted By PH
Hi Steve

I'm not necessarily against regulation, but one of my concerns is why individuals or organisations are calling for it. Is it really to advance H&S? Is it to force individuals down a certain membership route? Is it to make us more valued (financially or otherwise)? I don't know, but this thread shows that there are differing opinions.

I think Chris makes a really good point - H&S is a very, very broad subject area. Can any of us truly say we are fully competent? Should we really call ourselves H&S practitioners? (A debate for another day perhaps?)

Oh, and for what its worth I don't fear regulation as I feel (and more importantly so does my employer) that I do have the qualifications, experience and even membership of the right organisation to do my job.

Cheers, P.

Posted By Sarah Sahc
Chris,

Qualifications and/or H&S study may well give you a broader and sounder knowledge of general H&S which ultimately would impact on your work whatever your specialism - so it has a value as does experience. Comparatively an academic with no experience is restricting his fuller understanding of the wider picture.

Regulating the profession is not putting people into categories in the sense that it seems to be portrayed through this thread. Of course H&S advisors/consultants etc have different specialisms as do other professions. Teachers for example predominantly have to obtain their PGCE and then they specialise - so they have an initial grounding in the theory of teaching. Nurses the same. Regulating the profession would have to accommodate a wide spectrum of specialisms as does other regulated professions manage to achieve.

I have a client that runs a themed amusement arcade. I am a CMIOSH and do not specialise in this area but have a good grounding of Health & Safety. I am well aware of my limitations and my priority is to ensure the client is getting the best possible service from me - and a competent one. The Risk Assessments were undertaken by a colleague of mine within my office who has a great deal of experience in theme parks, hotels entertainment type things - he is Grad IOSH and the Fire Risk Assessment, considering the number of people going in and out and the 100s of slot machines, the mix of accommodation and entertainment in one large building - I actually decided to sub-contract out the work. I quoted for it with the other work to be undertaken and I contracted out the work to an individual who is not an IOSH or IIRSM member, but he does specialise in Fire Risk assessments, qualifications, experience, training and is interested in it. He has done a much better job then I could have and he got paid the full quotation fee. So as a CMIOSH member, I am aware of my limitations of my competence and although I could have completed the work, there were others that were more competent in that field. I did not feel threatened by it or worried at all. I am not concerned that a non-IOSH member was more competent in his field them me or that he is not an IOSH member. I don't really have a 'them or us' attitude when it comes to regulating competent people.

PH

People have competence in their field as in all professions, there are specialists at different/same levels. Engineering for example has geotechnical engineers, structural, hydraulic, nuclear, highways/transportation, water treatment etc. Regulating the profession is not about questioning the competence of individuals to do their existing job.

Posted By PH
Sarah

Regulation means setting boundaries, boundaries mean some are in and some are out. So regulation could very well mean that someone may have their ability to do their job questioned.

Does regulation stop non CORGI fitters working on gas - no. What works is educating the public so that they are able to make an informed choice. Would regulation stop the cowboys referred to in this thread - no. What might is educating employers to enable them to make the same informed choice.

Cheers, P.

Posted By Edward Shyer
Following a link from another thread it might be worth looking at this although not in the UK.

Look at the registration fees although I do not know what the currency is in GBP there is still a charge to be registered.

http://www.gov.mu/portal...378e0514864be66a0208a0c/

regards
Ted

Posted By PH
Its not whining Steve. Just because someone has a different opinion to you does not make them wrong. I am also sure that should our industry be regulated a lot of the people who have expressed concern probably would satisfy the criteria.

And nobody fully in favour of regulation (and I am still to be convinced either way) has yet to answer my original question - how??

Its not about keeping people out of the kitchen but ensuring it doesn't become an elitist club.

Cheers, P.

Posted By Steve Cartwright
If we are to become regulated and the government introduces regulations setting out what is required it will be they who will decide how it is to be done. There should be a period of consultation so if you do have any ideas I would pass them on to IOSH or ROSPA as I think they will have a say in how it is done. Other professions such as teachers, solicitors, doctors, nurses etc are regulated, so if you want some idea how it is done have a look at the way they do it. They seem to be doing ok. I would also think Insurance companies may have a say as they appear to be driving a lot of other things related to health and safety.

Posted By Pete48
Now here's a dilemma? Just when I thought I had understood what regulation might be about and had at least got some understanding of the various views, I found this on the Europa website. According to that site we are already a regulated profession!! Their definition is as follows.
"A profession is said to be regulated when access to it is subject by legal, regulatory or administrative provisions to the possession of a specific qualification."
And lo and behold, go to this link and there you will find dear old "Ch Ss & He Pract" shown.
http://ec.europa.eu/inte...gprofs/dsp_bycountry.cfm
Perhaps someone who understands what that is all about and how it relates to this discussion would help a grey haired, partly senile old tweed jacket with elbow patches to understand it? (I guess it is just the harmonisation requirements and the fact that the UK parliament hasn't recognised it as such?)

I am still not convinced by those who resist regulation.
I am especially troubled over an apparent lack of understanding that regulation would not, of itself, prevent anyone from "doing" safety. I would go further and say that it shouldn't do so. It should identify what are the requirements to practice as a chartered practitioner and would, therefore, inevitably ring fence some areas of practice and the level of practice. It doesn't mean no work for anyone else, it means limitations dependant on levels achieved. It doesn't mean that line managers would be unable to do risk assessments. Isn't this exactly what happens in other areas. I see no reason why it would not work in ours, there will be some nitty gritty of course but the principle is sound to me. To introduce a prospect that only CMIOSH would ever be allowed to practice in the future seems to me to misrepresent the subject. I can empathise with a fear that it might be; but not that it is factual.

To suggest that because there is an overlap with other professions and that other professions practice safety means that it cannot, of itself, be a profession is another that I find difficult. Every profession studies relevant elements of associated subject matter. I seem to recall having to prove my knowledge in certain areas of both statute and civil law during my studies on the long road to chartered status, but I don't see that as somehow detracting from the legal profession; it complements it in my opinion. It also means that I do give legal advice but within defined and focused parameters. Am I therefore able to claim that the law is not a profession of itself?
Then I come to the thorny old question of competence and qualification. We must avoid taking a time stopped view of this subject. This is not in my view about whether old salts like me have the right tickets and therefore cannot be competent or whether a young sprog just through the Cert or Diploma couldn't get a rabbit in a box if it jumped in on it's own. You have to meet the criteria that you are required to meet at the point at which you start and end your chosen journey. Then you are judged by the standards board of your chosen profession when you are ready to be judged.

Posted By Aidan Toner
Civil Engineers
Mechanical Engineers
Chemical Engineers

Anybody spotted the professional sub categories which have yet to be identified, developed, and ring fenced into specialisms within our own profession .??

Aviation Safety Professional?
Nuclear Safety Professional?
Health Sector Safety Professional?
The above are my simple attempt to begin the process of professional categorisation. The actual categories matter very little, it only matters that we should ALL agree on the principal categories.Failure to develop these categories simply demeans the whole profession and gives the profession an identity crisis????
I am also of the opinion that there must be a finite number of categories.(A profession must be like salt -put it on all dishes and it's appeal diminishes)

These 'sub' H/S specialisms require immediate identification with declared levels of proven competency.(Entry to these professional subcategories might be a potential mix of H/S qualifications ... H/S Cert, H/S Dip, H/S Degree AND other items such as 'vocational degrees' and 'diplomas' in specific subjects.

For example....A degree or diploma in aeronautics has to be a start point for a claim to be an aviation safety professional???

Only when sufficient 'practitioners' with these 'declared' levels of H/S competency and operating in these specialist fields have been
(a) found 'wanting'
(b) challenged (by a panel of peers)
(c) Censured using professional measures such as forced retraining, fines or dismissal from iosh etc

...... will we be be able to TRULY describe ourselves as H/S professionals belonging to a RECOGNISED professional body.

PS Why is this most fundamental of 'professional' discussions taking place in a public forum ..why is it not being debated in the iosh members forum????

Posted By Sarah Haskins
Just a thought!
What if regulation deems that, say 50%, of the people writing in this thread do not have the “correct” qualifications to do the work they have been doing?
Regulation would be fine as long as the people writing the regulations have at least a 1/2 ounce of common sense.
I agree with some from of regulation as long as it would be clear & defined (Somehow I don’t think that would be the case).
The HSE must take some form of responsibility; if their documentation was not open to so much “interpretation” then maybe a costly regulation scheme would not be necessary.
I have to disagree with Aiden’s comments on why is this in a public forum….Health & Safety involves everybody at all levels.
Education, Education, Education- It’s the only way!!

Posted By Pete Longworth
probably drafted by lawyers....probably be other organisations involved in the process......probably won't be a million miles away.......probably be a period of consultation.


That says it all really Steve, neither you nor anyone else has the first clue how regulation is going to work. It's all supposition and conjecture.
Let's do a a straw poll shall we. Who is for or against and what qualifications / experience do you have. I'll start it off.

20 years as a safety rep in the engineering industry. 6 years as a full time safety advisor. Currently H&S manager for a company that manufactures and installs printing presses for the newspaper industry.
GradIOSH, holder of NEBOSH national diploma, peer review interview for chartered status in May. Against regulation at this stage unless I can be convinced that it is not just another device to limit the number of people practising in health and safety in order to protect vested interests.

Posted By Pete Longworth
It's just a figure of speech

Posted By Adrian Watson
There is still not a coherent arguement for the need for regulation.If regulation were to go ahead, should Safety practictioners be dealing with occupational health matters including occupational hygiene,ergonomics, etc?

It should be noted that IOSH, ROSPA are not fregulatory bodies. I would suggest that all of the Professional Organisations in Occupational Safety and Health be involved if regulation is to be confidered as there is overlap between all groups; I would be careful in what I was asking for as safety professionals are just one player in the field.

Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Steve Cartwright
Pete

You are right none of us know exactly how H&S Profession will be regulated, but I do know the process for drafting legislation, regulations and acts of parliament. If you or anyone else wants an idea how it might be done have a look at how the medical profession and legal profession are regulated. I have suggested these professions as our profession overlaps slightly with both of these.

I am for regulation and do not see it as limiting the number of people who work in health and safety. I see it as ensuring that the people who do practise H&S are competent.

As for added expense to companies, as the old saying goes you get what you pay for.

By the way I have NEBOSH General Cert, NEBOSH Dip 1 & 2, I am Chartered and have just started studying law.

Steve

Posted By Edward Shyer
I am now convinced that regulation is probably the way forward.

qualification in possession of:

CIEH foundation cert

Regards

Ted