The Lofstedt review concluded that the Health and Safety (First aid) Regulation 1981 gives the HSE no lawful authority to approve first aid training providers and intend to deregulate HSE approval. Anyone like to comment how company's will stand with regard to certification and training of first aidders on site. Steve W

I can't see a problem as long as the training organisation is 'competent'. Employers are expected to check the competence of other contractors / training providers etc before using them so why should first aid be any different. It will open up the market place to competition, which is good in my opinion. Cheaper courses means more people trained. It is currently cost prohibitive for a sole trader to provide first aid even if they are very experienced. It's all SJA and The Red Cross at the moment and they aren't cheap. It would also allow a greater number of courses to develop that cover the basics but are also specific to industry areas and the hazards they face. They exist now but at a high price. Taking the HSE out of the mix would be a good thing in my opinion.

I used a provider who trained two company nurses to deliver Emergency first aid and annual refresher training saving over time loads of dosh. This is under the present rules where the provider is approved by the HSE. The provider is not SJA or Red Cross - too expensive. I use the provider for FAW training only. Once the rules change I will continue with my present provider for two years then do a review of contractor (as I do for all contractors working for the company - bog standard stuff really). Rich

I've taken issues with one of the main players recently, as one of our first aiders reported back that she was told that she categorically cannot use the defibs we have installed as she has not been on the "approved" training course! OK it's relatively minor, and I get that all organisations need to up-sell, but stating something that is factually incorrect is not acceptable IMO, plus if she had just gone about her business and not let us know what delegates were told, a instance may have occurred where a defib would be a benefit and she would not have used it believing she wasn't allowed!