Stephen This issue has been discussed a few times before, albeit mainly on the members' forum. That said, still a good topic and one that has yet to be resolved. Personally, I think it is a white elephant. I'm not convinced that there can be a suitable benchmark for all the diverse roles and responsibilities associated with health, safety, fire, risk and so on, unless it is so basic that it won't be worth the trouble. Meanwhile, and to play the Devil's Advocate, why should there be any difference in 'minimum standards' for a consultant or in-house h&s advisor? They could easily be doing the same type of role and requiring a similar level of knowledge. Simlarly, why should a minimum standard take into account the size or resources of an organisation? If anything, it should be risk based. The current IOSH grades might be a better starting point. Tech IOSH for a h&s co-ordinator or someone relatively new to the industry, Grad IOSH being an intermediate level and CMIOSH for senior h&s post. However, there is no good reason to say that a consultant must have CMIOSH status. I know many respected people in our industry who are not even members of IOSH, but hold other memberships, doctorates etc. I find it all a bit bizarre to be perfectly frank. As for the Government championing this matter, they would be much better off pursuing other personal responsibilites for duty holders which would improve h&s no end, for example, Directors' Duties. It is of course much easier to point the finger elsewhere, rather than some naval gazing of one's own limitations. Well, you did ask...

...nobody mentioned 'low grade' safety. Tragic though her accident was, if we default to a worst case scenario we will always find something awful. Surely the thread deserves something more constructive.

The thread appears to be getting out of line with the intial question. So in an attempt to bring it back here is MHO Consultant : Nat. Dip (or equiv.), membership of suitable professional body In House : Risk based (low risk - NGC?, med and above Nat. Dip or equiv.) Enforcer : P.G. Dip (as it used to be!!) + industry experiance I know most people could come up with an arguement about when the above would not be enough or too much, but it was a general question and its my general answer. All the best, Tony

IOSH will only accept CMIOSH onto their register of consultants, and recommend potential clients seeking a consultant to use CMIOSH. This could be seen as discriminatory, as this is not the only route for progression in our profession. It could also be seen as discriminatory against those who have passed their Nebosh Dip etc., but unlike those who passed in previous years, now have to jump through all sorts of time consuming hoops in order to achieve that status. There are therefore, two types of CMIOSH - those who got it on a plate and those who have to pass the Diploma, then prove their competence with postfolios, interviews, presentations - on and on and on, whilst being at a commercial and/or career disadvantage throughout this endless and irritating process. The words goalpost andmove spring to mind.

As Ray mentions, there are many people within H&S who are extremely competent, both in terms of technical knowledge and experience, but not CMIOSH. I'm not sure you can set a competency framework for health and safety because of the diverse nature of industry and associated risk. You would need to have several specialisms which would be a burden to regulate and would also be restrictive from a practitioners point of view. I would, however, advocate some form of approved consultancy qualification that covers core consultancy skills.

IMO the HSE will not solve the problem! There is no way the HSE will go for only CMIOSH. Their policy is not to exclude any equally effective means or achieving the same result - even if there is no other effective means. Take FLT training - it stipulates the content of training but not the organsiations that can deliver it. CMIOSH status does not mean competence. It means you have jumped through the hoops required. H&S requirements and the industries they serves are so wide rangeing that no individual can be completent in all aspects of H&S in all industies. Therefore nobody is 'totally' competent in all circumstances. So how can say that a few letters after your name make you competent for the post you are filling. Tony