Posted By David Bramall
Am I perhaps a lone ranger in thinking that these schemes are simply forcing companies and individuals into obtaining a qualification which is so low level that it is almost useless.

Yes I know that some authorities are insisting on these before awarding contracts but is it really necessary?

Looking at the CDM ACoP, the qualification is only the starting point in a very long road to competence, the next steps are the ones that actually prove competence.

Surely a body such as IOSH, instead of bowing down to the "CSCS system" should be guiding the industry in the right direction by proving that competence is the way forward instead of a "worthless?" card.

DrB

Posted By joseph byrne
I think the CSCS card was brought in to rid the construction industry of the cowboys as any Tom, Dick or Harry could say they were a construction worker and get on site.
I must agree with above that it has become a money making scheme but we do need a scheme due to the ammount of fatal injuries within construction.
The figures issued are only people who actually die on site not those who die later in hospital etc.
Joe

Posted By PMW
My main gripe is that the CSCS reg scheme has not emlimnated the problem of untrained people acessing out construction sites. It appears to be irrelevant what level of card is held, as long as the individual has one.

I work for a thermal insulation co - CSCS will only recognise NVQ qualifications or letters from the individuals employers confirming their apprenticeship, Industry accreditation is now closed. Try telling a 50 yr old lagger -you need to do your NVQ to get a CSCS card, as the company you served your time with went bust in 1986. OR you can just get an operators card. The system is open to manipulaiton - for that reason I believe it has little value.

Posted By Robert K Lewis
With regards to IOSH involvement my personal view is broadly that it should be involved in the loop that defines competency requirements for H&S in construction. Having said that however the reality is that many vested interests have become embroiled in this area and the political clout from central government has not supported anything other than the CITB approaches.

I personally also feel that now we have our member competency reasonably well settled there is scope for us to deal with the whole question of H&S competency for all employees. One off courses such as Working Safely, Managing Safely etc have a place but where does one then take the next stage of development? A refresher programme of the same course every 3 years would not in my view be truly adequate. Continuing development of H&S among the workforce needs to be targeted at specific needs of the employer, the employee and the task; something like a good CPD development plan. Annual and similar appraisals were intended to achieve something like this but most I have seen fall short of the mark.

Can IOSH change this? - Perhaps if the guidance could be broad enough and refrain from looking purely at IOSH based materials then it could work but our horizon needs to be higher.

Bob

Posted By David Bramall
Carl

I take your point - we can judge any scheme on results. If things have improved, then it's a good scheme.

Sadly, although I dont have immediate access to the stats, I do believe that incident rates have not been reduced - I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

If anyone can share any true results, stats etc. of incident reduction (or otherwise) it may prove an interesting discussion point.

Regards

DrB

DrB