Posted By Rob T
Hi Merv happy New Year.

I was just wondering if you had decided to be controversial as a New Years resolution? I thought that was more in my remit (smoking etc.).

However as you have asked for reactions my answer would be no way Jose! Although I am a FIOSH RSP I (along with many others) only took up the RSP last year to ensure that I remain on course for the impending chartership and don't lose the "tick-in-the-box". I have always spoken out against the RSP status as it shows nothing except Safety people attending courses (those with enough time on their hands). Why is it that you are on occasion forced to do a course you neither need or or want to go on just to get the required 20 CPD points.

In my particular specialism (which you are aware of) I find that there are few course's available and I am on a permanent learning curve anyway. I think that the requirements for corporate membership of IOSH i.e. NEBOSH Dip or equivalent, together with being in a safety post is a suitable level without the RSP bit.

Anyway how's the weather where you are? It's a touch windy here but I'm off to sunnier climes in Feb, sharing sleeping arrangements with Camel Spiders - now how do you RA those?

All the best
Rob

Posted By Merv Newman
I've just looked at the framed certificates gathering dust on the top of a cupboard in my office. I became MIOSH in 1991, by which time I had been in H&S for 15 years and a (salaried) consultant for 2 or 3 years. Never having taken an "approved" safety training course in my life I got in on the "grandfather" cause and the RSP came automatically three or so years later. As for CPD I have since attended one one-day course at the grange, and one expo at Earls Court. And I don't go to regional meetings. However, I do manage to rack up 30 or 40 CPD points each year for keeping up to date by doing new things for new people or new industries. Just keeping yourself and your clients up with legislation is always worth a few points.

OK, I was bored, but what's controversial about it ? We want better recognition for IOSH and ourselves, we want to be better positioned to help the SMEs, you want more money (I'm alright for the moment, thanks). Why can't the "industry leaders" IOSH, ROSPA and BSC get together for a bit of joint lobbying ?

Posted By Jez Corfield
Not purely RSP but I think either RSP OR TechSP as a requirement would be a good idea - It would be difficult to get into H&S if RSP alone were the requirement to practice, as some serious effort over a period of time is needed, but with TechSP there is already a competency check for lower risk work, that can be done by people earlier on in their career.

Having two levels of SP membership that judge on competence in its broadest sense (not just quals), is perhaps a better to do it.

Jez

Posted By Merv Newman
Personally I like the CPD system and it is fairly easy for me, probably for other consultants as well. We find ourselves in new situations, new industries, confronting different problems. New people to train. And we don't dare be out-of-date. We don't dare know less about our subject than the client's H&S team.

And the job is constantly evolving. The training I give now is very different from 5 years ago. I used to offer 100% Safety Management Systems. Last year the demand was about 20% for SMS and 80% Behavioural Based Safety.

But I can sympathise with the hard core of our profession - the factory or site H&S manager. Always solving the same problems over and over again, seldom anything new, no time or budget to get trained, recalcitrant management, no energy to go to meetings, no way to pick up CPD points. I did it for 12 years and was glad to get out.

Posted By Lawrence Bamber
What a great idea especially when we become CFIOSH & CMIOSH (when RSP disappears). Over to the Professional Affairs Committee, I think !

Posted By Mark R. Devlin
CPD by definition relies a lot on the professionalism and integrity of the participant but it is the most common way of demonstrating continual improvement. I am also a Chartered Marketer from the Chartered Inst of Marketing and we are required to do 35 hours per year CPD which is audited much like RSP.

RSP is as good a measure as any of competence, just because you have 20 years under your belt does not make you competent!!

Posted By Heather Aston
Rob

I've seen the camel spider photos before thank you very much - yuk. Even worse is the series of pictures of the development over several days of a camel spider bite on someone's hand - double yuk and don't look just after lunch. Be careful out there - don't put your boots on without tipping them upside down first.....

I understand what you say about getting CPD points for "just doing our job" and you are right, it has to be more innovative than that.

The CPD guidance on awarding points for Section F - H&S Developments/Training says "This section is intended to cover activities which we do in our day to day job but which genuinely develop our competence and effectiveness. This means that repetitive work is excluded"

I don't agree that just because something isn't done outside your own company means it shouldn't be included. Why not? We're not all consultants! The deciding factor is - have you genuinely developed you competence and effectiveness?

For example, I do risk assessments in house every year. I cannot claim CPD for that because it's (almost) become routine. However last year, a colleague and I designed a new procedure for assessing our compliance with fire safety requirements tailored to the requirements of our global insurance policy. It was - for us - a new and innovative approach and involved visits to all our European factories to carry it out. I've inlcuded this development in my CPD portfolio, because it has moved my competence a step forward. I think that's what CPD really is.

And Rob, your defence of why FIOSH was valuable for you is perfectly understandable - I almost agree with you... Any other FIOSH out there like to chip in?

Heather

Posted By Merv Newman
Jeff,

I have a feeling that "the grange" have a limited circle of contacts and very little contact with "the shop floor". Ivory tower sydrome maybe. If you are known to them, run courses and seminars that they approve of, whatever, then if you apply for FIOSH they will approve.

However, if you have been a factory safety officer for thirty years, with never a Lost Time Accident, have done all the courses, have all the qualifications : it doesn't count. They don't know you, they don't see you, they don't approve of you. You are not FIOSH materiral.

Caveat : this is from a refused FIOSH, who was plant safety manager for 16 years with only one LTA, is MIOSH since 1991, RSP since 1994 and H&S since 1976 = all twitter and bisted.

Salvé

Merv Newman

Posted By Robert S Woods
If it doesn't work why would you adopt it?
Why should IOSH granted RSP be a legal requirement.

Would this being adopted have an effect on thier charitable status?

I imagine that NEBOSH being the only acceptable qualifications to MIOSH and TechSp status was seen as restricting by the Charities Commision. Hence the sudden appearance of all the University Dips and NVQ 4s.

Posted By Rob T
Just a quick point Merv, on the Fellowship bit - none of the three person panel who interviewed me for FIOSH, were full time officers at the Grange. All were lay members whom I had not met in the past.

I know you're a damn good safety specialist as that was quite evident in work you've done for me in the past (in Paris), however as far as I see it, MIOSH is the ultimate qualification and the FIOSH is just a formal recognition of innovative work in a particular specialism (at least that's how I think I got mine).

Rob

Posted By fats van den raad
Robert S Woods....
What are you on about????
University diplomas have been accepted by IOSH for membership before there was even such a grade as Tech SP!!!

And while I'm on here, yes CPD may be a lot different, but it wasn't always like that!! There was a time when the only way to get CPD points was to attend expensive IOSH courses or events, hence the decision of a whole bunch of (very qualified and experienced) professionals of the day not to register for RSP.

Posted By Merv Newman
Andy,

I think that for certain situations, RSP (or equivalent) could be a very good idea. And I would not necessarily call a Ph.D more valuable than RSP. At least with CPD an RSP must keep up to date and develop new skills. There is no such onus on a Ph.D

What I would like to see is a nationally recognised and widely known high level safety qualification. If you don't have it, for example, you don't get the job of safety manager in a chemical plant.

Posted By Jeff
Paul, I think Merv needs to go out and find some work!

This is a tongue in cheek discussion that some seem to be taking seriously.

Jeff

Posted By Hazel Harvey
Hi All, I have just returned from sunny South Africa and have been directed to this thread to comment. The thing about this discussion forum is that it encapsulates the wider views of the profession as a whole and tends to sum things up nicely!
The views expressed here have been considered during our recent extensive piece of work on the membership structure and this structure goes a long way to addressing many of the comments expressed.
CPD is actually an integrated part of any professionals' way of life in one way or another,what the thread refers to is actually the recording of CPD not the CPD itself. And yes many consider this to be unecessary and this has been taken into consideration in the re-development of the scheme which will come into play as soon as we have the technology ready to make it on line (expected this summer). This new scheme allows more reflection on activities which develop and maintain professional competence and moves away from the more prescriptive scheme currently in use. However, the current scheme does not demand attendance at any specific events, it never has, contrary to statements made that it has!
In fact the importance of CPD is such that it is being extended to all nominated categories of membership with the implementation of the reviswed membership structure. As a professional body one of IOSH's main functions is to ensure that the public can be reassured that those who claim membership can be trusted to give advice to specific defined levels. This is why in the new structure the two main nominated levels are CMIOSH and TechIOSH based on the standards of competence in health and safety laid down by the UK regulatory authorities (QCA etc). This shows that there can be entrance to the profession via a lower level of academic requirement which fulfils the requirments to have sufficient people playing a role in health and safety in the workplace.
In regards to the intial question it is not the role of IOSH to regulate the profession only those who choose to be IOSH members. In this respect it is not like the medical professions which are government regulated and I doubt in the UK culture that health and safety ever will be. UK professions are self-regulating to protect the public good and the Royal Charter is actually formal recognition of this. It is sufficient for most professions for this 'regulation' to be carried out by those who are most qualified to do so, qualified people themselves. It is public recognition that effectively gives the regulation, to the extent that most people will go to 'chartered accountants' (MCAEW) for financial advice, even when they do not need to access a qualified accountant! (Yes there are some regulated accountancy functions but these are specific- which could be a model for some high hazard sectors)
Before I write a book, I'll just respond to the question to knowing someone at The Grange. The staff employed at The Grange as employees of IOSH do not make decisions on categories of membership other than in routine cases (and these are audited by members of the Admissions Committee). When it comes to interviewing for Fellowship this is carried out by volunteer members of the committee and if a person is known to these volunteers they will stand down from the decision. If everyone got through first time there would be little point in going through this process! This interviewing verification is to be extended to all those entering the 'Chartered' membership level and in due course we will be invited people to volunteer to form part of this process. We will need a wide range of people and will be asking for volunteers as the process should not be a 'Grange' driven process!

Posted By Merv Newman
Hazel,

I'll take that as a "no" then.

Merv

Posted By Stuart Nagle
Dear, All:

There is no legal requirement to be an

'Engineer' to perform engineering

'Architect' to practice architecture

'Marine Engineer' to build boats

'Electrician' to perform electrical works (even with Part 'P')

and so on and so forth...

or RSP to practice health and safety, so why should it be made a legal requirement?

Not being registered with the Engineering Council and not being a Chartered Engineer (before ICE was formed all the greats used to meet in the backroom of a pub - much like today really!!) did not stop I.K. Brunel from being a very accomplished Engineer, it did not stop Stevenson building the Rocket and establishing rail travel, or the Wright Brothers inventing powered flight, so do you think that a requirment to 'register' all health and safety practitioners will prevent someone giving sound safety advice?

Will this be beneficial to society?

I would think that professionalism is more applicable. It would in my own opinion be not so much what is done as how it is done and to the degree of benefit that is gained.

Whilst many attempts have been made over the years to form 'closed shops' for 'profesionals' - such as trying to protect the titled of 'Engineer' I for one am glad that the freedoms we enjoy and professionalism we expouse is tempered by the rights of others to make a choice. This makes us all the better for only when challenged will a professional show their true worth.

We don't need to protected by law, we need to prove our professionalism. This and only this saves face and marks those who have it from those who do not.

Stuart

Posted By Rob T
But Stuart, you've just said that there is no need for any qualifications!! I may be slightly averse to RSP but I certainly wouldn't go that far. There needs to be something that overtly shows people a level of competence. All I have said in the past is that MIOSH or TechSp (and DipSM which is, to my mind, TechSp level) by academic safety qualification, should be the recognised standard.

Posted By Roger
Stuart why are you frightened of a legal requirement? I can see a benefit, take the chartered status - one of my clients has asked me already;

'will you be one of these chartered IOSH members soon?'

Fortunately I will be, which is just as well as they're employment/recruitment policy is going to change to reflect such. I guess I'm not the first or last that will experience this.

I would definitely like to see something. The USA has a licensing system for many trades and professions which, is perhaps as much to do with litigation, nevertheless certainly reduces the 'cowboy' image and in my experience ensures a high standard of 'workmanship' which is surely what we want. What you say about professionalism is a nice to have but the industry certianly hasn't got it now and won't do until something further is done.

I bet the professionally qualified and recognised electricians are rubbing their hands after the recent legislation. We could do with the same I think.

Roger

Posted By Neil Pearson
I don't see a burning need for legally registered practitioners, but I'm enjoying the argument (even if it is tongue in cheek), and had a thought about it.

If we really wanted to do something, how about this. Every company could be legally required to appoint a chartered practioner, but that wouldn't mean that every safety person has to be chartered. It could work a bit like appointing a radiation safety adviser, so all the internal safety people could be below chartered level, but as long as a chartered practioner is overseeing, then the legal requirement is met.

Just an idea, but personally I'm not sure this will prevent cowboys from making bringing our profession into disrepute. I agree with the view that professionalism is part of our problem as much as people's level of qualification.

Posted By Roger
8000 Jim!!!! I bet we're lucky if there is 10% say 3000 - otherwise the privy council wouldn't have asked questions.
So.... skys the limit I guess.
Roger