Posted By Robert K Lewis
Hazel

Perhaps this is an indication that the CIC actually have no real desire to open uop the systems?

I despair of this scheme sometimes, but you seem to have inexhaustable patience with them.

Bob

Posted By peter gotch 1
Hi Hazel

As one of the very few members of our H&S consultancy unit who has yet to go through CSCS, thanks for your efforts.

Truth is I think I have only been on one UK construction site in the last two or three years - specifically to look at a scaffolding issue. Looked at some construction work in Ukraine in Dec 05 [actually quite impressed with arrangements in terms of compliance with EU Temporary or Mobile Construction Sites Directive, albeit less impressed with implementation!]

Lack of CSCS doesn't stop a repeated flow of expert witness enquiries, nor Seveso-related workload which is also high on the repeat agenda, particularly post Buncefield [whose impact affected my travel to Gatwick en route to Ukraine].

.....and off topic, when our seaside hotel in Ukraine suffered a power cut, our key contact at the larger of the the integated iron and steel works in Mariupol drove round to explain that the power cut would be dealt with quickly as it was impacting on the house of the Mayor .

Regaards, p

Posted By Robert K Lewis
It looks as if the CSCS scheme has managed another own goal then! They live in a rainbow world of coloured cards when in fact only two are needed - Site Resident and Visitor. Job role is then merely printed on the reverse.

A deeper issue however is the knowledge and competency of the CIC in making these decisions. I do know that even their understanding of the NVQ system is fatally flawed so how they are able to keep requesting information beats me. If they are not competent in the role perhaps the whole basis of the system is also flawed. It was the political child of the departed ODPM and perhaps now needs to properly re-vitalised and modernised, in the spirit of Brownian change, so that something fir for purpose can emerge.

Bob

Posted By PH
I had a chap turn up to a course recently who had four different, current passports - CSCS, SPA, CCNSG and SAFED as well as being a highly qualified Engineer Surveyor. To say he was not looking forward to another H&S course was an understatement, although he did give positive feedback afterwards.
I do sympathise with him and the many others in the same or similar boat and feel that this whole situation is quite damaging for H&S's image.
P

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
Hazel,

If we have satisfied the Privy Council over our professional competence I cannot see what the problem is, however in the circumstances I feel that you have done all that is reasonably expected for us and I am now of the view that we should firmly walk away from this scheme.

Posted By Jim Walker
Hazel thanks for your efforts.

Having spent a lot of time helping our folks get these damn cards, I have an inkling what you are up against. As others have said its nothing but an incompetently run money making scam.

Like many government initiatives it WAS a good idea, but badly delivered.

I'm now seeing clients backtracking and saying its no longer compulsory, so maybe the golden goose will expire?

I'm more concerned about IOSH getting its name on the CDM accepted list

Posted By Gillian Lloyd
May I join this discussion as a novice to the CSCS card issue.

I have just been asked if I can deliver training for would be construction site workers who will be undertaking the 35 question test so as to obtain the card.

I have not had sight of these questions and would need to design the training around them. Can anyone help with this? Any background to the topic your discussing would be useful as I can't pick up on the original issue.

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Gillian

Posted By Davelfc
Hazel,

Well done and keep your chin up.

I have struggled with CSCS for sometime. I have produced a CSCS strategy and subsequently NVQ strategy in my company which go hand in hand for obvious reasons we are a high rise design and build company.

I am a very positive person and
I have to say It has been hard work but, we are no getting our rewards, We have gone from 20% last year to 96% fully carded work force (100% touch screen test) at all levels from operatives to senior management and have every coloured card for projects teams to QS's etc.

we are not a large company but are in the same market as the MCG, we have worked hard, to achieve this and have received recently the CSCS Gold award for employer commitment to CSCS.

I personally did an NVQ level 4 a while ago and gained my platinum card and have enrolled myself on level 5 to get the Black card.

I advocate the scheme as the benefit on site is plain to see, for instance unlike the MCG we do actually stop people coming on our site unless they can demonstrate they have a similar strategy and they have personnel booked on the touch screen test and that they are working toward individuals being carded. We log these individuals and write to the sub contractor (S/C)involved it is starting to work. We let the S/C know in our qualification and tender paperwork, we have a minuted pre contract meeting well in advance of them coming on site that they sign up to all sorts of agreements including CSCS they must demonstrate a strategy, to us.

I have put 40 plus people through NVQ this year at levels 2,3, 4 & 5. and have 60 personnel carded some are on trainee cards.

What we have done has improved our competence immeasurably, well actually it is measurable.

This may be controversial to most people but just because you are a safety manager of X years with X qualifications whether you are CMIOSH, Tech IOSH or what ever does not mean you should have a CSCS card, I don't get frustrated very often, but do when some safety people come on site to advise a subbie on some practice or other and they have not the first clue about the process, and or giving guidance on practical solutions. I think there ought to be an NVQ in Construction Safety, for that reason alone.

What CSCS do need to get right is the entry level there needs to be an entry level card for all, maybe the Safety Practitioner gets on site as a professionally qualified person the PQP card. Why do they not recognise the NEBOSH Construction qualification with CPD attached? these are issue' that need raising.

They will be in a position soon where a safety professional will not be able to get on site to conduct a site inspection or incident investigation.

We actually stopped four people today three tilers and a renderer from going on site and letters have gone out.

We are in control and in many ways CSCS is leader to that and as I said I advocate CSCS.

I think rather than slate the scheme we need to support it as it is better than nothing and the CPCS and CISRS side of the scheme is strong and is not easy to achieve, CSCS is also not easy and needs to have better entry system, I can't see how young lads get a card unless they are in an apprenticeship or NVQ scheme and I know some youngsters who can't get started in the industry and some drop out of society, because migrants are taking there jobs that's another issue.

In summary for me there is a requirement to be met, all need to look at the requirement and move to meet the requirement. I have and my company has and I think to dilute it now would undermine what we and others who care in the construction/safety industry have done.

IOSH need to assist to set certain criteria for safety officers and advisers and safety managers, so there is a suitable entry and progress level, there would as I have eluded to earlier, be a good starting point NEBOSH Construction, linked with a CPD program, they are my thoughts and my opinions which i am sure will differ from others and CSCS.

I also think site managers with CITB SMSTS and other competencies on the vocational side should have a level of card to help enable this. But this is for the CIOB to argue.

Look forward to reading this particular thread, there are many pros and many cons, the scheme certainly needs to be more flexible without devaluing it.

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Davelfc

I know where you are coming from but in the end will a chartered fellow with 25+ ongoing years construction experience and originally a chemical engineer not be sufficient for a CSCS card without having to prove further professional ability. It is the pettifogging attitude of CSCS that causes the ill feeling.

Let us also remember that as far as the CSCS card is concerned the H&S part is merely an initial training - Stephen Williams, chief inspector of construction point of view not mine. The origins of CSCS were to verify trade skills and it has a valuable role to play in that but not so for H&S. What happens on site is far more important. The CDM acop talks in terms of proper supervision but we are a long way from providing managers and supervisors with the correct skills to assess competent performance on site.

The attitudes exhibited by CIC in slow pedalling the approval of competent professional H&S practitioners operating in construction demonstrates to me the very serious problems with the scheme. It is not the only game in town but it did have undue political support to reach the position it has but at a substantial financial cost. The ultimate degree of idiocy for me is the fact that training organisations are trusted to assess trade skills for the CSCS but not the H&S abilities - the touch screen test being de rigeur.

Bob

Posted By Davelfc
Bob & Peter,

I am an advocate of the scheme simply because it gives us a basis to check competence, without it our managers don't have a framework.

In my organisation we are improving all the time with our own competencies, and with that of our sub contractors and we are policing this. Without CSCS I wouldn't have a vehicle to do that easily.

I do sympathise with both of your sentiments, and others on this and previous threads. The scheme to gain more respect needs to be looked at, if as bob says you have someone who can clearly demonstrate even a small % of his 25 years experience then he ought to have a card.

I have worked in construction all my working life, and as a safety manager did not mind doing the Touch Screen test, it would be nice if they could keep upto date the first edition Q&A book 2007 had many mistakes in that i picked up on days before the legislation changed in April thats an aside issue.

Is there any reason why IOSH could not have a voice on the Scheme I for one would put my name forward. What it needs is a practical view if CIOB ICE etc can get their members in through accredited route then we should in IOSH but my feeling would be that IOSH members from the specialist Group showing CPD linked to construction safety would be a starting point, maybe an individual would have his CPD audited by IOSH in it it must demonstrate Construction Safety Knowledge. Then IOSH simply forward this to CSCS saying that our member(s) meet a certain level and get a certain level of card.

What is frustrating is you may have a chap or chapess on diploma or degree with great competence and he can't get a card because he hasn't got an NVQ which is what they want.

I sent off for a card the other day to CPCS for one of our employees she has an NVQ in Mast Climbers in use inspection and demonstration and an NVQ in Hoist Operation and a third in general construction operative, all these I have put her through and she has achieved at level 2. She completed touch screen test last November I completed and checked all the paper work and sent all NVQ certificates and a copy of the Touch Screen test and applied for a CPCS card. The application was rejected, I have up to 70 employees at all levels, so I probably have more frustration than most, it is not an easy scheme to administer

I could write a book on the various problems encountered.


Look forward to future discussions and hopefully we will get a common sense approach in the future.

Hazel, maybe we need a working Group set up from experienced members, that set guidelines and present them to CSCS for membership and card scheme criteria for IOSH members giving them a practical solution which involves CPD but I am sure knowing CSCS it would not be that simple?

Regards

Dave

Posted By Alan Spiers
I Agree with Robert regarding skill competence and H&S related to that skill & general H&S elements. I hope I've not missed the point but the H&S elements were discussed years ago, including a thread by myself and a SHP letter, there were calls from many areas to highlight the level of a H&S passport and re emphasise indg 136 core syllabus ( which is iosh working safely and many other schemes )This was to ensure any unenlightened organisation insisting on a particular scheme could be pointed to a robust HSE document confirming they were all the same. Unfortunately nothing happened and the confusion continues along with money spinning charges.

Posted By Rob Amson
I sympathise with all of the other member who are having difficulties obtaining CSCS cards some of you are obviously very experienced professionals. However I feel that all the criticism that is targeted at this scheme is over the top. Prior to the introduction of the cscs and cpcs scheme their was no real measure of competence on construction sites at all and in my time as an apprentice joiner I worked alongside numerous personnel who had never had any formal training in their trades or health and safety. The schemes have moved through a number of developments starting with industry accreditation where a signature from an employer was enough to the current level where the majority of cards now require an NVQ. I have sat the Health and Safety test and it is at a relatively low level but in organisations where I have worked the pass rate has been as low as 50% among the manual trades. The test is not the only measure of health and safety knowledge required to gain a card. All construction NVQ's have at least one health and Safety specific unit and most units involve having to work safely to achieve the required standards. This is a huge improvement on the situation when I first started in the industry. The scheme requires further improvement in many areas but I feel that as professionals we should be supporting the aims of the schemes which is to improve the competence of the work force and working with the industry to make the improvements that are required.

Posted By alex mccreadie
Once again Bob has hit the nail on the head.
Very few of us who attempt to understand CPCS question the need for NVQ in the trade capacity.
What we are questioning is the long winded seemingly impossible task to get a visitors card with our Health and Safety qualifications.
I go on sites frequently and when I come up against the required CPCS card system I hand them my Passport to Safety and inform them it was a 4 day course therefore higher status than a Touch screen test. As usual it baffles them and gives me site entry.

I am exempt from the test through having passed the CITB SMSTS course. But I still refuse to give unnecessary money away to a organisation that does not deserve it.

This is probably due to my Scottish upbringing!

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
Rob,

In principle, I also have no problem with this scheme for trade skills, however it is the madness of this scheme, which surrounds the competence of the Chartered Safety and Health Practitioner.

My architectural colleagues think that it is absolute madness that with professional evidence they only have to take the test to get a Professionally Qualified Persons Card, but I am not eligible for such a card!

The crux of the problem appears to be our NVQ route of entry. I firmly believe that it is right that we have this, however with this in place CSCS appear to have firmly blocked the route for their Professionally Qualified Persons Card.

I now feel that it is time that we discussed this issue with the Major Contractors Group, after all it is very rarely that we are asked for a CSCS card and will our IOSH membership card together with photographic evidence not suffice?

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Peter

When the job needs doing just get the bodies there - It never will change. But perhaps there is the chance a note of realism will finally get through to the contractors and clients - The casual adoption of the scheme as THE H&S comptency evidence was fatally flawed.

I believe that it is actually now time for the discredited part of the CSCS card to be finally replaced, as far as professionals are concerned, with a proper system for H&S competence verification.

Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Dave

But if we correctly choose competent organisations to undertake work then we should be able to rely on their competent management of their staff. CSCS has become a sacred cow leading to blind acceptance. But no sensible dialogue with the CSCS board or CIC appears now to be possible and it has reached a point of impasse as they believe they hold the whip hand.

As the professional body for H&S perhaps it is now time that we expressed our view of the lack of H&S competency within the CSCS and related organisations. Setting out our own standards of H&S competency performance. Which strangely we already do for many other matters.

Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis
At the end of the day the Board of Trustees are responsible for the day to day running of IOSH, if they have not placed enough policy effort into this to support the director of professional affairs perhaps we need to look at what is being undertaken at trustee level to improve the situation.

This card scheme has been a running sore affecting 8,000+ members and we seem to have lagged behind the competition in trying to evidence our competence to both the industry and the drafters of legislation and guidance. Is this then a lack of leadership?

The CSCS is a dead duck for H&S competence and it needs replacement with a scheme not designed in a vacuum inhabited by people who do not understand what they are doing.

Bob

Posted By John Caboche
Pat, with all due respect, membership of IOSH, even at chartered level is not a measure of competency in the construction field.
IOSH is a broad brush organisation covering occupational safety and health, construction is only one area of this - I would not consider a chartered member of IOSH who has experience in a warehousing environment for example to be able to advise on construction health and safety.
To this end I cannot see any way in which membership of IOSH can be seen as a pre requsite to be considered competent in this particular field (or for that matter any specialist field whether that is rail, nuclear, ergonomics or whatever).
There are criteria set down for many things - CSCS/CPCS is one of them, much as it stuck in my throat I undertook and completed the Manager's touch screen test to obtain my CPCS AP card. Those are the rules - much as there are rules to abide by should you wish to attain chartered membership of IOSH, the ICE, The CIOB or whatever.
I do not dispute there are many competent construction health and safety professionals at both technician and chartered level within IOSH, however membership of IOSH does not confer an automatic right of competence in any specialist field as the organisation as whole is too wide in its remit.

Posted By Pat Hannaway
John,
I totally accept that not all Chartered IOSH members are competent regarding construction. However there are many who are Chartered, (and often members of professional construction bodies)and have extensive experience in various fields of construction, backed up with other well recognised related qualifications.

Equally, I do not accept that possession of a CSCS card in itself makes someone competent. I fully accept that there should be some form of demonstrable competency by operatives on construction sites: the theory behind CSCS was aimed in the right direction but has not lived up to its initial expectations. Equally, site managers and visiting construction professionals need to be able to demonstrate different competencies, but one size does not fit all.

Many contractors have become myopic in their approach to assessing competency and are bringing health and safety into disrepute. If it says CSCS in the CDM Regulations, that is the only acceptable proof of competency to many contrcators. Refusing site access to experienced Chartered Engineers or Architects, who may also be Chartered Health and Safety practitioners (without a CSCS card) does not advance the case for improving overall site safety.

Despite the introduction of CSCS cards we still have an appalling safety record in the construction industry. People are still falling from heights, being struck by vehicles and suffering from manual handling injuries etc. Too many contractors are obsessed by having comprehensive (paper) management systems, which I suspect is there to impress Clients, but fail to implement those same systems or keep to their Construction Phase Plans.

I respectfully suggest that extremely few accidents are caused to or by construction "professionals" visiting a site. From personal experience, I suggest that often the refusal of access has more to do with hiding poor standards of Health and Safety for site operatives than to ensuring the safety of the visitor.

To insist that all professionals who visit a site has a card, irrespective of other real world proof of competency is, in my opinion, political correctness gone mad. CSCS and CITB despite the good work that they undoubtedly do, should not be the sole arbiters of construction competency.

Posted By John Caboche
That's strange - because in my CDM 2007 ACoP it states in appendix 4 "for example the CITB construction skills touch screen test or similar schemes, such as the CCNSG equivalent"
It doesn't seem to mention in appendix 4 the CSCS card as a requirement for competency.
You are right in that the ACoP requires competence - but it does not require CSCS cards, the people who require CSCS cards on their sites are the Major Contractor's Group, your ire at the CSCS scheme is aimed in the wrong direction. It should be aimed at the MCG rather than the CITB who just administer the scheme.
For reasons stated in my previous post I will never subscribe to the belief that membership of IOSH in isolation demonstrates competency in construction safety any more than it demonstrates competency to act as a CDM Coordinator, offshore or rail safety advisor or whatever.
Combining said membership of IOSH with practical and academic experience (possibly combined with membership of other professional institutions such as the CIOB and ICE for example) is a completely different kettle of fish and as such would demonstrate a certain level of competency within the construction industry.
I personally believe that there should be exemptions to the touch screen test - my opinion is that they should be the NEBOSH Construction Certificate, CITB SMSTS or IOSH Managing Safely in Construction.
I personally utilised my Construction Certificate as an exemption for my CSCS Contract Manager's whilst that exemption was allowed, the door closed and I had to take the test for my CPCS card. Whoopee do!
It took me 10 minutes and cost 17 quid.
Fairly painless in all honesty.
I understand that what I'm saying is contentious for some people, but in the past the door was open for people for long enough to go down the experienced worker route. Why didn't you do it then?, the writing has been on the wall with the MCG for some time now.
All of the complaints with this issue and the related issue of CDMC competence seem to me to be a case of sour grapes.
As I've said contentious - feel free to disagree with me - I'm sure some of you will.