Posted By Pete Longworth To be honest Simon I don't know an awful lot about it myself. I just quoted it as an alternative that some people seem to prefer. Looking at its website I would say that the entrance criteria are about the same at lower levels of membership but less strict at the upper levels of membership.

Posted By graeme12345 Steve, I'm interested in how the process will work, you stated my thoughts on the regulatory route were wrong, so you must know another way "I am all ears", would you please let me and the world know how the process will work

Posted By graeme12345 they could ( I have never heard of an HSE inspector asking)but it's not their problem (unless something goes wrong), it's the employers responsibility to make reasonable requests for info on persons they employ. The HSE can give advice on this. This thread is about regulating those who provide advice on H & S to others for payment, and when you said the only thing I got right was we are not regulated and my other reasoning was wrong I thought "well this guy says I am wrong he must know the right route or process" so I asked and you have gone off on a tangent about HSE and local authority inspectors looking at the competency of trade employees whilst visiting sites, and not answered my question about how "you" would instigate regulation. If regulation for H & S personnel is proposed and granted I believe this will cost every member of IOSH a very lot of time and money. Not only have I apparently achieved competency by experience and examination and, after being told to keep up with my CPD by IOSH (which we never had to do before, and now costs members more money)I am now being "tarred with the same brush" and will probaly again be "forced" into yet another level of "so called competency" and charged for it. Regulation is not needed, (except by other consultants and those who instigated this process). Accidents are not caused by incompetent advice or unregulated consultants. I am against regulation, because I know what it involves, and it is not the prevention of accidents ?

Posted By Sarah Sahc Pete, I am so glad you have come round to my way of thinking and there I thought that you were just arguing for argument sake - so you don't know much about the IIRSM then, but you are right the entrant criteria is not as rigorous as IOSH... and that may influence its popularity amongst the people that you know! The post is about regulating the profession and it doesn't have to be tied to any particular body - but I guess it would be useful if that body was Nationally recognised in H&S. Some threads here seem so determined to argue about the idea without considering the benefits to all members of IOSH and other H&S organisations. There would be no need for a team of auditors to be employed as there is no need in other regulated professions to have that facility. I don't believe that anyone has said that any regulation of the profession would guarantee a scale of competence levels with no exceptions or areas that may be exploited. It would however, not only offer more credibility to the profession but also a firmer structure, and assuming that the end user of your service is informed about the services that they need (what an assumption) at least they then can approach the most experienced or appropriate person for their particular requirements. I have not seen a fair or balanced reason not to regulate the profession at all throughout this whole thread. It would be good for someone who is adamantly against it to come up with a list of reasons why the profession should not be regulated - maybe I need it spelt out to me as I seem to be missing something!

Posted By Adrian Watson I can see merits in principle, but where is the evidence that there is a need to regulate Health and Safety Professionals? In particular: 1. Do countries with regulated health and safety practitioners have lower incidents of injuries and ill health? 2. What is the evidence that "unqualified" advisers are incompetent advisers? The greatest problem I see is getting advise into workplaces. I believe that this regulation is more about excluding persons rather than reducing accidents or ill health. However, I remain to be convinced. Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Raymond Rapp I have tried to resist such a scratchy subject..but here's my penny's worth. Not read every posting but have to agree with Adrian's post above. Regulation of h&s? Okay, not against it, but is that really so high on the agenda. I would have thought there are many topics that MPs could put to better use to discuss. Indeed, if they are so short of good subjects I will draw up a list for them. Ray

Posted By Pete Longworth Sarah You wrote - "so you don't know much about the IIRSM then, but you are right the entrant criteria is not as rigorous as IOSH... and that may influence its popularity amongst the people that you know!" Do you want to explain that last comment.

Posted By Adrian Watson Dear Lizzy, With respect where is the evidence that we have a flawed system here? I would prefer more evidence and less rhetoric! I am a consultant and know many consultants with different levels of qualifications and experience. Some have little other than the certificate and many years life experience; These people generally do a good job. Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Lizzy Hi Adrian, I think you’re muddying the waters here by introducing the idea of people with varying levels of qualification (you specifically mention the ‘certificate’). My argument would be that any system that allows COMPLETELY UNQUALIFIED people to give advice on health and safety is flawed because it makes no attempt to protect consumers from potentially incompetent people. Health is afterall a precious gift…why would anyone risk it by allowing someone (no matter how well-intentioned) to advise them, when they may not have any more knowledge than those they’re advising? Lizzy

Posted By Pete Longworth Yes Lizzie but what about the guy with no formal qualifications but a lifetime's experience in the industry. These people do exist. Some have been promoted from within as health and safety advisors. How much experience does someone need to have before it counts as a "qualification"?

Posted By Pete Longworth That's exactly the sort of guy I'm thinking about.

Posted By Philip McAleenan James Burke once asked his studio audience what they do. Invariably they replied by stating what their paid job was. Burke, a respected scientist, on the other hand stated that what he did was watch TV, walk the dog, gardening etc. Of course anyone can call himself or herself anything that they want; astronaut, swimmer, doctor etc., and indeed practice as such given that they are capable to do so. Generally speaking, those that are not capable of such neither call themselves nor practice in that discipline. Those that do are either found out pdq or are receiving treatment. Now the focus of the case seems to be on consultants (why people feel that employees would never do the nefarious things that consultants do beats me), qualifications and charging money for services. First off, anyone without qualifications, experience and the wherewithal to make and apply reasonable judgement would stand out like a sore thumb and is unlikely to be engaged in the first place, or if engaged, likely to retain that engagement beyond a short period (unless the client too has no qualifications, experience or ability to apply reasonable judgement). So lets knock this “without qualifications” nonsense on the head. The world is not coming down with unqualified people successfully passing themselves off as something that they are not. Lets narrow the focus and assume that what is being referred to is “appropriate” qualifications/experience/etc. What does that mean in practice? Does it mean that I do not ask a joiner for safety advice? Why not? If I am building a shed, making a table etc. who better to advice me on safety than a competent joiner? And you can take the argument to any area of expertise; competent electricians, mechanical engineers, geologists, doctors, astronauts and swimmers etc. are all competent to give safety advice within the parameters of their expertise, and indeed being competent are likely to also be capable of extrapolate (to a degree) such competence to other areas. Certain skills are transferable. Does that mean than they would no longer be permitted to give competent safety advice because they are not “regulated” by some “safety” body? The problem lies with a perspective that health and safety is somehow to be regarded as a discrete discipline, abstracted from the particular circumstances of acting. If health and safety is not an integral part of each individual’s competency, whatever they work at, then it is nothing. The competent worker and the competent business are all safety practitioners and safety advisers. The promulgation of a profession distinct from what everyone else does, to regulate that such as to prevent anyone nor “regulated” from practicing or advising is to neuter the competency of the workforce by taking away from them the very thing that proves their competency, i.e. their ability to make decisions about how they conduct their work activity. Instead of arguing for protective barriers that exclude, “safety advisers” should be assisting employers, workers etc. take back what is rightfully theirs, individual and collective responsibility and authority for safety. Regards, Philip

Posted By Sarah Sahc Pete, On Tuesday, 15 January 2008 at 09:36 you wrote: I mentioned IIRSM .... but the fact remains that it is an alternative to IOSH that many choose. Simon Shaw replied on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 at 09:47 I don't know a great deal about IIRSM. Does it have the same membership criteria? Do you have to sit a panel interview to get full membership? Do you have to maintain CPD? You replied on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 at 10:03 To be honest Simon I don't know an awful lot about it myself. I just quoted it as an alternative that some people seem to prefer. Looking at its website I would say that the entrance criteria are about the same at lower levels of membership but less strict at the upper levels of membership. My point/Explanation being, as requested, that after your assassination of my opinion, you stated yourself that you don’t know much about the organisation IIRSM, yet state on 2 occasions that ‘Many Choose’ and “some people seem to prefer” Considering that you felt my comments were ill-founded. I seem somewhat more informed and would not make the claim that many choose or seem to prefer – so I assumed they must be from your personal experience and colleagues of yours! I hope that this justifies my informed and educated (as opposed to snobbish) opinion as requested

Posted By Pete Longworth Sarah. Just when I think I have had enough of this discussion you draw me into something else. There's something strangely compelling about crossing swords with you. I don't think I need to substantiate statements like "an alternative that some people seem to prefer" or "Many Choose" because they are generalisations at best. However it is a matter of record that these views have been expressed on this forum a number of times. There have been a number of threads in the past where the relative merits of IOSH and IIRSM have been discussed and contributors to the threads have expressed preferences as I described. Others for whatever reason have stated their intention to leave IOSH and join IIRSM in those threads. A simple search of the forums will provide evidence of what I say. That said, the very fact that other bodies exist to represent health and safety , and the fact that those bodies have a membership surely validates my assertions.

Posted By Steve Cartwright Philip You used the example of asking a joiner for advice on how to build a shed. Would that be a skilled Joiner i.e. one who has served an apprenticeship the same goes for the electrician, the doctor (medical school), etc. Peter IOSH introduced CPD and they seem to be happy with it. Yes it does rely on the honesty of members however its not just about attending seminars a lot of new members are now using their formal training to count towards their CPD. Also I believe new members have to sit before a review panel before they can achieve Chartered Status. I'm also led to believe that IOSH do audit a % of members CPD. I would not stop anyone from carrying out a risk assessment as long as they new how to do one. Remember risk assessments have to be suitable and sufficient. Most craftsmen, engineers etc I've encountered do not know how to go about carrying out a risk assessment. Yes they are aware of the dangers and what precautions to take to reduce risk but they probably would not know the risk assessment process. MODERATORS I apologise if my views antagonise other members they are not meant to. I'm just trying to make a constructive argument for regulation. From my own experiences I have encountered good and bad in health and safety. If we are to be regulated I would welcome it with open arms, hopefully it would raise the profile of health and safety. Part of our role is to change things i.e. behaviour, attitudes especially towards health and safety. More and more people are now chosing health and safety as there chosen career. I feel it is only right that we should have some official guidelines in place to give these people/employers/clients guidance on what constitutes a health and safety advisor/officer/consultant/manager. Steve

Posted By Steve Cartwright Pete I totally agree with you regarding risk assessments and ssow, but just because they are involved in the process of risk assessments/ssow does not make them a health and safety advisor/officer/consultant.

Posted By Jay Joshi I do not think the call for regulating the profession means that all risk assessors or accident investigators etc etc must be Health and Safety professionals! That is really being too simplistic!

Posted By Lizzy Philip, It’s important to remember that health and safety is a vocation as well as a profession. I’m afraid it’s just simplistic and impractical to think that managers and workers can, should, or would wish to do everything related to health and safety themselves! Many of them have neither the aptitude nor the time (they have afterall chosen other occupations). The law recognises this and doesn’t require them to do it all themselves, it requires them to have access to competent assistance. They may well rely on advice and expertise in certain areas. For example: 1. Company-wide audit 2. Design and delivery of health and safety training 3. Design of policy and procedures 4. Hazardous area classification 5. Analysis of accident / ill health data 6. Major accident / incident investigation 7. Etc. Health and safety professionals work closely with managers and workers to advise, educate and upskill them (in risk assessment, basic investigation, etc.). However, certain skilled and specialised tasks will always be delegated / assigned to somebody with the appropriate skills and resources. Lizzy

Posted By Raymond Rapp I think Jay has hit upon a very good point - what is a health and safety professional? Is it someone who is a member of IOSH, or IOSH and IIRSM, but what about...? There are may people working in different aspects of health, fire, safety, risk etc. Not all of these do so in a full-time capacity. I would like to see the legislation that sorts that one out. Regards Ray

Posted By Sarah Sahc Hi Pete, Nobody I believe throughout the whole thread is suggesting that regulating the profession will see a wave of, for example, Chartered and GradIOSH listed and all of the rest will be left excluded. Nobody has suggested that it will be an exclusive 'club' but the impression I get for those that are opposed feel that they will be excluded somehow. It is also not about the most qualified or more experienced whichever that may be, securing better paid positions (although by default if you are more qualified/experienced/competent you would expect this to be reflected in this respect on the whole) There is no problem with competition - but I guess, as with boardgames; sporting events and in every other walk of life in most societies, nobody likes competing with cheats! You implied that you have not come across incompetent consultants. Just have a look at this forum, you can see examples usually daily of this but of course you can't talk about them without breaking forum rules and this maybe why specific examples have not been highlighted.