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

I find it interesting that parallels are drawn with the medical profession. Here, CRB checks and registered practitioner status are highly bureaucratic and often delay new recruitment by months - e.g my wife's just waited 3 months to recruit a new practitioner because although he'd had a CRB check with his old NHS employer, he needed a NEW one for his NEW NHS employer, according to NHS procedures. Maintaining your registration is the same - huge amounts of time wasted on bureaucratic messing about. I fully support the need for professional healthcare staff but this is not a good example of "accreditation". It just shows that the whole thing can end up being the focus of effort, rather than the delivery of service.