what do people think of this new scheme for some H&S rofessionals that the HSE etc is looking to introduce under headings such as 'Accreditation scheme should help “restore" confidence' My thoughts are these; as long as many managers will not make a decision and the insurers are as they are thus making people risk averse the situation will not change especially so as the press love any kind of story and in reality people do have confidence when it effects them personally

Health and Safety is an extremely broad topic. Can anyone really claim to be an expert in every aspect? Will the 'Accreditation' imply that the person is competent to advise on such diverse aspects as asbestos, fire safety, working at height, vibration, etc. At the moment the accreditation is only planned for "safety" but I read into what has been published that the concept should be expanded to include health issues. Will there be a separate category for health or will the accreditation imply that a safety specialist is also competent to advise on mental health issues, asthma, dermatitis, etc. I foresee a can of worms! Chris

The diversity in health, safety, fire, risk and so on, does not lend itself to a generic accreditation scheme. If it is to be a meaningful qualification and not just another 'tick the box' exercise, it will be too complicated to enforce. Just a white elephant me thinks. Of course, many professions do have accreditation schemes. However, they tend to be far narrower in scope than the world of HSQE.

Bob, I assume you are talking about the work to develop an accreditation scheme for health and safety consultants as a result of Lord Young’s government review into health and safety. This is currently being discussed on the members forum, which the is not accessible to the general public. This is something that many of us have been targeting and supporting for many years. To all that have been working on this initiative – VERY WELL DONE. Ref: http://www.iosh.co.uk/ne...ccreditation_scheme.aspx To start with the scheme will be voluntary and no doubt the many ‘consultants’ with little or no qualifications and technical expertise will still be operating and making our profession look ridiculous to many of the general populous. Over the next few years I hope that this leads the way to formal legal criteria of health and safety professionals in the same way as other professional bodies operate. This development is a positive for all health and safety professionals and can only be beneficial for all, with the exception of the cowboys.

I agree with bilbo's idea of listing the individuals areas of competence. Perhaps the PI Insurance should be appended to the certificate (or whatever is issued) that may also list the relevant areas.

I have also noted that there seems to be a total obsession with PI insurance. I find this move very worrying because providing you stay within your bounds of competence you are very unlikely to get sued. Having said that I suppose someone has to help the profits of poor insurance companies and nothing improves profits more than fear

Can we please slow down a bit and wait to see exactly what the proposal is going to bring? Hain an approved accreditation scheme sounds like a good idea as it will sort the wheat from the chaff so to speak. IOSH are involved in getting this scheme set up and I am sure they will take note of comments from legitimate members.

Is there such a thing as over qualified? If there is, then I'm definately working towards it! Friday can't come soon enough.

Agree with freelance safety, it's time for those in our profession to 'embrace' this change, in my opinion it is for the better and is gong to happen anyway so lets go with it. Have to be careful in terms of changing the law to suit.....making laws doesn't guarantee anything, e.g. has making the use of mobile phones whilst driving illegal changed peoples attitudes and behaviour......? So lets see if we can change attitudes and perceptions of those we are trying to influence.......slowly, rather than the 'big stick' legal approach just yet, after all isn't that what do in our work as H&S professionals?

Chris, The following link with Hazel Harvey's explanation should help answer your question. See: http://www.shponline.co....-help-restore-confidence

Having previously dipped my toe into the consultation game there are two big issues here: 1. There are some absolutely dire freelance consultants out there, offering poor advice, take a look at the Yellow Pages and you will see what I mean, non-existent or outdated qualifications and clearly limited experience. 2. There are some bigger businesses out there, presumably with qualified/CMIOSH people, that are also providing poor advice, namely the 'H&S in a folder' for £1500 approach! The new scheme might start to address the former but the latter would still probably obtain approval and be free to peddle poor advice. Interesting to see if there will be some sort of 'ombudsman' or interview/inspection process.........

Shouldnt attaining CMIOSH be the de facto qualification for all safety consultants? Especially seeing as job specs already ask for CMIOSH. Or as you are saying, is CMIOSH then not enough? Surely we should look at improving what we have? Or are we saying for people not to get CMIOSH, seems strange for IOSH to support a register which will make membership of its own institution redundent

I am (and have consistently been) opposed to the concept of an 'accreditation' scheme for H&S practitioners. If someone is looking for a certain level of education and training - then there are evidential qualifications. If someone is looking for a generalist H&S with a peer assessed level of general competence then there is CMIOSH. If someone is looking for a specialist in explosion overpressure calculation, or toxic plume dispersal ranges, or the calculation of zoning requirements around a solvent processing plant - or a specilaist to advise on what aids might be available for a differently-abled DSE operator - or a technical assessment of the performance a fire door set following a fatal fire - or the difffering performances of different points on a railway... or someone to train overhead linesmen in working at height, or ... You get my drift... If someone wants to pay peanuts for a consultant, they must expect to get a monkey. It is not, and will never be possible to accommodate all these and the many others broadly working under the single heading of health and safety under a single 'competence' or accreditation scheme. Yet, for some reason, for m any years the IOSH hierarchy have been pressing ahead regardless. One of the posters wrote ""I am sure they will take note of comments from legitimate members." Sadly, history suggests otherwise. The decisions will be taken by those in the Institution who 'think they know best'. Dissenting voices will be completely ignored - no matter that they are occasionally in the majority. IOSH has invested too much time and effort lobbying for this white elephant - I cannot see any prospect of the Institution now stopping, and asking its members what they think, and perhaps 'changing its mind'. Its mind has already been made up, and there is little prospect now of any allowance for reality to intrude. I will venture to suggest that the country WILL get an 'accreditation' scheme (following Lord Young or irrespective of his findings). It will be adminstered (at great expense for all and significant profit for some) by those who think it's the bees knees, and who cannot see that one size does NOT fit all. It will become the target of much villification and dislike amongst the h&s community, and in the wider employer forums. Anyone for another CSCS farce???? Must be Friday, and I've got my Mr Grumpy hat on. Steve

In fact, according to the table published by the QCA I can confirm that a Level 6 Diploma is (still) equivalent to a Degree in terms of level, and that an NVQ4 retains a similar equivalence. So what IOSH is saying is that for the register a degree level quallification is required, but this includes all the qualifications which meet the entry requirements for Chartered Status. CMIOSH holders will be entitled to register, John PS Not sure about grandfather rights holders though

"I cannot think of many professions that have a Royal Charter and provide the services that we do who are not formally regulated.!" What further regulation do you require of a CMIOSH individual greater than mandatory CPD, IPD prior to joining, pier review and interview and adherance to a strict code of conduct including disciplinary procedures?

I thought it was the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health that had the Royal Charter, not the profession. Otherwise you would be implying that Fellows and Members of the IIRSM cannot be engaged in the profession. Chris

Martin, if you believe that then what is your solution?

The announcement has to be seen as the first step in an attempt to alter the general perception of the "H&S" profession. As I do not know the full details I can only comment on the IOSH release to members and at this stage I have a few concerns the main being about the word "voluntary". Time will tell us more about the scheme and its administration then I will be able to make a more considered judgement so at this stage I support the scheme but have some reservations which hopefully will be resolved as more details are published. Take Care

Not what I said or meant Freelance. Hundreds of groups? Drama queen much? You have not suggested anything. What is your solution?

Freelance Let's not get too pasionate about this issue. It may or may not happen. If accreditation does, then so be it, I have nothing to fear. That said, there are many complex issues to resolve if accreditation is to become a meaningful scheme in our industry. In my experience complex issues either get fudged and never happen, or they take so long, with so many different views accounted for, that it end up in a right old mess. The Corporate Manslaughter Law is an example of the latter and Directors' Duties the former. Hopefully it will take 5-8 years to resolve and I will be retired by then. Have a good weekend. Ray