The HSE recently launched the consultation to remove the requirement for first aid training to be accredited to by the HSE. http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd248.htm

According the HSE; "We believe this amendment to the First Aid Regulations will give businesses greater flexibility in choosing training and providers that are suitable for their workplace." This is in line with the Lofstedt report which did not seem to provide much information or evidence to support this particular assertion.

I can see there being some logic to this. If you arrange first aid training in a chemical plant then you might need training about dealing with chemicals in the eye, where as if you are a social care provider you may need to have more emphasis on epileptic seizures. So, yes, good to be industry specific.

However, why is the solution not to improve the HSE scheme and make it flexible instead of just destroying it? Is it just a case of the ConDem coalition living up to its name once again. Or may be I should put politics aside and be open to a good reason for removing the accreditation scheme?

Just one other thought about this, it has bothered me that there is not more accreditation of providers rather than less. For example, it seems that any old company can offer manual handling training - some are excellent, while I have seen others that in my opinion are cowboys and quoting pseudoscience. Perhaps first aid should have been seen as the shining light of how a form of H&S training should be quality assured rather than being seen as a failure?

I believe the driver here is about the Industry being allowed or encouraged to self-regulate (not a bad thing if you discount the financial sector), but it would have been helpful for the HSE to at least set a framework for some sort of alliance (however loose) before abandoning ship.

In reference to your assertion,
According the HSE; "We believe this amendment to the First Aid Regulations will give businesses greater flexibility in choosing training and providers that are suitable for their workplace." This is in line with the Lofstedt report which did not seem to provide much information or evidence to support this particular assertion.

I think it's reasonable to draw different conclusion from Loftstedt's overall lines of argument.

1. He urged great caution about repealing most regulations, contrary to the evident expectations of the government who commissioned his enquiry.
2. He justified his stance on the principle that regulation should oblige employers 'in so far as reasonably practicable', an internationally accepted prescription for relying on verifiable evidence, and one that courts endeavour to apply, often with the support of expert witnesses of fact in relation to OSH.
3. Beyond that, he left it to publicly elected representatives to determine how safety/health should be regulated and had already written and co-authored several other studies which justify this stance.

That these publicly elected representatives, currently forming a coalition government, should allocate public money in ways that oblige employers to exercise responsibility for identifying and assessing risks by appointing 'competent' persons and listening to them is consistent with Loftstedt's argument.

Bearing in mind how this government has facilitated employers to find competent persons through the OSHCR, the overall strategy, within which the HSE's consulation on first aid training is taking place, offers scope for OSH practitioners willing and able to conduct scientific evaluations. In time, the net effect CAN lead to improved standards of OSH, through more scientifically based work by 'competent' OSH specialists.

Within the newly emerging framework, an alternative to the HSE endorsement of the kind you advocate is for another group who are excellent in first-aid training to negotiate entry to the OSHCR, in the same way as the British Psychological Society has done this year (so that its members become eligible for inclusion on the OSHCR in a couple of days time).

Regarding the question from Nee'Onions, I am not sure - I'll leave that to others to comment on.

Regarding this quote from Kieran;


Thanks for your detailed response. I'm afraid i do not fully understand the last two paragraphs - especially the bit about "OSH practitioners willing and able to conduct scientific evaulations". Would you mind explaining further?, Thanks.