Posted By Raymond Rapp Swis Having skimmed the article it does not appear to have much substance. Most h&s professionals have very good qualifications, are or working towards Chartered Membership and/or do CPD. I think it is a bit rich that Ms Hackitt should insist on the need to 'manage risk by applying common sense', pot and kettle springs to mind. Ray

Posted By John Fraser Swis Having read the article, HSE indicates that h & s advisers do need to have some affiliation with a h & s body inorder to become 'accredited' according to the HSE. Could this be the start of a driver by the HSE to ensure that all h & s advisers are competent to deliver advice. i.e CMIOSH Status and affiliated to IOSH. As you know,there is detailed advice on how to become h & s competent if you are a Site Agent / Contractor/ CDM Co-Ordinator designer in the ACOP. Perhaps this is the next step for h & s advisors. It actually may improve the current confusion between the different grades of membership of IOSH of employers and recruiters if the HSE is driving this though routine inspections and ask to speak to the competent person. Interesting article. John

Posted By Raymond Rapp Hi Merv I am not convinced that there are many people who are giving h&s advice without some form of h&s qualifications. That level should be is commensurate to the level of risk for which they are advising. There are, however, far too many people giving general advice on various aspect of health and safety. Hence the silly stories that hit the media. I don't think that any formal accreditation will do much to curtail these jobsworths in councils, schools and so on. John, must not forget that IOSH is not the only accredited body in health and safety. Indeed, there are many others associated with fire, health, risk etc.

Posted By John Donaldson Just my own thoughts, but although HSE may not want to run any accreditation scheme will they at some time require this?. This could be along the lines of RPA certification which is required under the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1999 and is run by RPA 2000. The accreditation standards being set down by HSE. RPA 2000 was set up by the various professional bodies involved in radiation protection. We also have the Gas Safe (ex Corgi) model Could be interesting times ahead.

Posted By Jay Joshi Let us not pre-judge any outcome. It is my undersatanding that IOSH, together with other professional bodies is looking at the feasibility of an overarching accreditation scheme--its early days The HSE chair has been explicit:- "We do believe that there is a need for an accreditation system within the competency framework for health and safety professionals. "We have no interest in HSE directly controlling or regulating such a scheme, but we are very keen to ensure that all professional bodies who establish an accreditation scheme do so in a way that measures competence in practice, not just acquired knowledge" "Accreditation must include continuing professional development as a requirement as well as a means of sanction, with real teeth, for anyone who acts unethically in their professional activities – including providing inappropriate advice or guidance." She said that those involved in health and safety needed to be competent to assess and manage risk by applying common sense, taking a proportionate approach and exercising judgment about what is reasonable.

Posted By Raymond Rapp It is not a matter of pre-judging any outcome. Rather, it is a discussion on the pros and cons of accreditation within the industry. I think the diverse nature of health, safety, fire and risk management will not lend itself to formal accreditation system. For example, we have seen in the construction industry a range of accreditation systems that are often not worth a candle. These usually start as a good notion and up a money spinning exercise. It is these types of issues that need tackling first before we go down any other routes. Personally, I would like the HSE to get their own house in order by ensuring that prosecutions properly reflect the gravity of the offence and enforcement is consistent across the board. Note Michael Appleby's comments in this month's SHP.

Posted By colin1936 I think a licensing scheme would be appropriate which I believe is what happens in Germany. I agree most adviser's are competent, but the issue is all the organisations that you have to become a member Iosh / APS etc. Membership fees aside I see that licensing will cost us more money in an already tight financial climate. Again criteria is a problem I have seen some appalling people with CMiosh and Diplomas. I think to make it work the licensing would have to have sub categories IE Construction / Manufacturing / Engineering etc. On the bright side it could bring PI rates down personally as soon as I mentioned acting as CDM-C the premium went up significantly

Posted By Swis Competency is a combination of knowledge & experience. Workplace accident is a common thing. Unfortunately a lot of accidents happen due to inadequate risk assessments. There’re a few examples but as an example please see the following; http://www.britsafe.org/...ontents.aspx?id=19050802 Also Mr C Hooper, Safety Consultant was fined £3000 at Andover Magistrates' Court for carrying out insufficient risk assessments between 15 February 2001 and 18 February 2003. Company STD Joinery Ltd (in Hampshire)also fined £5000 and ordered to pay £837 costs.

Posted By Chris Packham Reading the press release, Judith Hackitt comments that HSE is keen to see that all professional bodies who establish an accreditation scheme do so "in a way that measures competence in practice, not just acquired knowledge." (note "in practice") - also: "... and how it should not be measured in terms of retained knowledge but instead on the ability to apply it." Once again, the whole topic of what constitues "competency" has been raised, with, in my view, no clear answers as to how we can decide who is competent and who not. Health and safety is an extremely broad field. Is anyone seriously claiming that becoming CMIOSH qualifies that person to be competent in every aspect of health and safety? Or is the view that because someone such as I has not studied all the other aspects of health and safety (which in my particular field of activity would be irrelevant), but with over 30 years experience in my particular specialised area, because I am not CMIOSH I am not 'competent' to advise clients? One of my definitions of "competency" is knowing where one's own limits lie and being able to judge when one needs to involve other specialists. Unfortunately, I often encounter situations where, being called in to deal with a health problem, the reasons for this are that the person advising the company simply did not recognise that he or she was moving into an area where their knowledge was inadequate. As one of the concepts it try to promote goes: "The danger arises when you don't know that you don't know." Chris

Posted By Chris Packham Pete You mention IOSH specialist groups. However, it is my impression that to be a member of a specialist group of IOSH you first need to be a full IOSH member. Please correct me if I am wrong on this. The Faculty of Occupational Hygiene has the facility to accept specialists as members, designated MFOH(S). This allows those with a specialised knowledge and expertise to become fully involved without having to go through the, for them largely irrelevant, study and qualification on the broader subject of occupational hygiene. I would certainly welcome something similar with IOSH. One other point. As a consultant in my particular field I am exposed, just as is any other consultant, to claims by clients through the normal legal process should my advice prove incorrect or inadequate. Of course, I need to carry indemnity insurance. Incidentally, when investigating a suspected occupational skin problem it is not unkown for me to disagree with the consultant dermatologist's diagnosis, simply because I have a better insight into what is really happening in the workplace. The diagnosis may be clinically correct but occupationally irrelevant. (If you want examples contact me off the forum.) The dermatologist is, of course, fully qualified as a medical specialist. It's why, when investigating a problem for a client I tend to work closely with the selected dermatologist to ensure that he or she has all the required information for the clinical investigation - not always that easy. I would never suggest that the dermatologist was not medically competent. But there is more to competency sometimes than many realise. Chris

Posted By Jay Joshi I do not think that some form of accreditation, especially for "Consultants"/"Third Parties" is a red herring-be it from insurers etc. Yes, there are issues to be resolved and get a reasonable consensus. Nobody at this point in time has mention that accreditation will be limited to CMIOSH or only IOSH members. Time and again, in this very forum we have had discussions regarding incompetent advice being given to SME's and useless paperwork that has been copied & pasted from a generic one rather than tailoring it to the organisation. Also, these so called consultant undercut the competent ones. Obviously, if there is no consensus amongst the health & safety professional bodies involved, then each will have to have it's own system.

Posted By Jay Joshi Why is it that when there is a discussion to try to improve a system, there is so much of resistance. Nobody is bashing consultants per-se. The need for some better system has been identified in several reports, including a DWP select committe that has cross-party membership. I have not said that the in-house advisors need not be accredited, but a start has to be made somewhere. I cannot trace the reference so that I can include a link, but I am reasonably sure that in order to identify the magnitude of the issue and look at the options, IOSH has started the ball rolling.

Posted By Martin J Morley An interesting twist to the discussions on competence. Judith Hackitt talked of 'an accreditation scheme ... that measures competence in practice, not just acquired knowledge' and of the need for sanctions against 'anyone who acts unethically in their professional activities – including providing inappropriate advice or guidance' She said that those involved in health and safety needed to be competent to assess and manage risk by applying common sense, taking a proportionate approach and exercising judgment about what is reasonable. Well we have often seen on this very forum, just how different the 'common sense' answers can be, even if their authors were competent. Raymond makes a significant point regarding the difficulty of applying a formal accreditation system to the diverse nature of health, safety, fire and risk management. Chris Packham picks up on my first two points, but then goes on "Health and safety is an extremely broad field. Is anyone seriously claiming that becoming CMIOSH qualifies that person to be competent in every aspect of health and safety?" Surely CMIOSH does say that a person is deemed to be a competent practitioner, potentially able to work in ANY area of the subject. I have yet to reach an understanding of the reasons why 'specialisation' is felt to be a good thing - surely few of us are actually specialists, qualified in the disciplines we advise. As Raymond goes on to say "The principles of good health and safety management apply across the board." Who would you feel competent (and/or trust) to assess whether your advice was inappropriate?

Posted By Swis how do you define 'experience' and 'expertise??

Posted By Jay Joshi The reference I was remembering is an extract from the HSE Chief Executive’s Report to the HSE Board, ref HSE Executive Board Paper No: HSE/09/48: Meeting Date: 27 May 2009 on page 1 under the heading, "Minister's Roundtable on accreditation of health and safety professionals" at:- http://www.hse.gov.uk/ab.../270509/p-may-b09-48.pdf The key sentence is, "The group is seeking to address the Select Committee recommendation that health and safety professionals should be accredited"

Posted By Flic Clearly no-one is an expert in everything. Martin uses the word 'potentially' and this is important. The underpinning knowledge is present, but the additional expertise in specific areas is added later. It is similar to the situation with engineers - I am C Eng, but only competent to operate currently within a specific field of engineering. My underlying engineering education gives me the necessary grounding that I could go into several other areas, but before doing so I would need to acquire additional expertise and practical knowledge. Flic

Posted By Chris Packham Arran Perhaps, but I still think it is a valid question, even if I did then suggest an answer! Chris

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith Chris, Unfortunately as you have constructed such an eloquent answer I think that you have closed off your own question.