I think that we would still need IOSH and various other bodies so the HSE do not have a monopoly on initiatives and force their will however stupid and ridiculous that might be.  IOSH, IIRSM, British Safety Council, ROSPA, etc, work together to find sensible initiatives and sensible solutions (or try to).  Competition and collaboration is good, it keeps things real.

Edited by user 13 March 2019 09:40:37(UTC)  | Reason: lack of clarity in response

Being a lazy so and so I will lift this from a reply I put up on the IOSH Matters bit of the Members Only forum where someone asked the question what is IOSH for?

“Firstly, and probably most importantly IOSH is an independent professional body the represents people who do H&S day in and day out. It is not a government agency nor is it controlled by employers or unions who, of course, have their own agendas.  That independence comes at a price: our annual subscriptions.  They are irritating but as the say goes ‘he who pays the piper, calls the tune’, which means in theory the organisation is accountable to its members.

Of course to be credible it has to set professional standards which is why we have the post-nominals etc to enable individuals and the sector as a whole to demonstrate their competence and integrity.”

First some of the stuff that IOSH does is not within the legal remit of HSE: the HSE can only do what they are allowed to do under the Health and Safety at Work Act. So they cannot provided qualifications etc for individuals, nor can they provide training.  

Secondly as I pointed out, H&S needs an independent voice. Although by law the HSE are functionally independent of the government, there is no guarantee that they will always be so. There are cases of similar bodies being pressured by the government to toe the line and not just in the places you might expect. There was a hoo-ha in Canada a few years back when it turned out that the Canadian Nuclear Energy safety watchdog threatened to closed down a commercial reactor that produced a significant proportion of the world’s radioisotopes ( I think it was about a quarter) . The watchdog had repeatedly asked the company running the operation to improve their standards but instead the company talked to it mates in government and as a result the safety board was sacked to protect hundreds of jobs and billions of dollars in earnings.  This could happen here except that organisations like IOSH exist and they would raise this issue and tell the Health and Safety professional’s side of the story.

So we definitely need something like IOSH. The question is do we need IOSH in its present form?

So, we are saying that the HSE and government of the day can’t be trusted to sensibly be responsible for looking after H&S without an independent reality check from an organisation like IOSH. However, is that not what the HSE and HSC in its day were set up to do? So, my question stands I think, if the HSE did what they were supposed to, then would IOSH be needed.

If the HSE have proved themselves to not be competent to do this and so not trusted, should IOSH step in and do what the HSE / Government of day are not, but instead get them to do what they should.

I was told that if I was to conduct a H&S audit and I say came across some boxes blocking a doorway on a fire escape route, that I should not move them myself. I should go to the person responsible and explain to them why they should not allow their people to do this. That way they learn, but if I did it, they would learn nothing and carry on doing the same.

Is this not the same, if IOSH take on initiatives, then do those that are supposed to be responsible not learn, and in fact let them get on with it as it is easier for them. So, we continue on a downward spiral.

With regard to training this can be done by any organisation, it does not require a charity. Indeed, it is not as if IOSH training is free to the less fortunate or anything.

If you then took this to its ultimate conclusion, then the HSE just become a regulator, and all help and awareness comes from outside organisations like IOSH, funded not by the people and business, but like a tax on those that work in H&S. Realistically for the majority you can’t work in H&S without being a member of IOSH, and so the shortfall in HSE is being picked up by a relatively small group of people (who also pay a second time as part of their normal taxes), for the benefit for all. This does not seem right, does it? Not IOSH’s fault, but not right.

Yes, I have been thinking about this issue from the post in the member forum about the point of IOSH, which just really went into what value people get as a member. But this is not about that, this is the need for IOSH to exist at all / the way it is funded / the work it does/ its current set up. Which is why I have put this on the part of IOSH that is free to all ( a good thing from IOSH – sometimes joe public has a simple question about H&S where they may or may not get an answer on here).

I thought it would be an interesting discussion point, I may be wrong. However that is the point of the forum is it not healthy debate / discussion.

Chris

If your look at the Robens report then the HSE is already exceeding what it was set up to do. Originally Robens hoped that industrial sectors would come up with the ACoPs and to regulate particular sectors. They only got involved in this side of HSE when industry (apart from the electrical engineering sector) decided not to get involved.

In any profession there are bodies representing practitioners, be they the Royal Colleges for the medical profession or the Law Society and Bar Council for the legal profession. If IOSH was to disappear the HSE could not become the spokesperson for the Health and Safety profession it would have to be someone like the British Safety Council or IRMS etc.

Do I not trust the government? Well no, they have an agenda just like anybody else.  HSE are accountable to the politician who control the purse strings. They can (and have) tightened the purse strings. If you listen to the current debates going on, every so often some Tory will stand up and says “In post Brexit Britain we will have to liberalise our economy” You can be you bottom dollar that the HSE is in their sights. If organisations like IOSH do not exist then the HSE will be quietly neutered.

Yes HSE Sciences Division (formerly HSL) does provided some training but it tends to be quite specialised and usually only done at the Buxton site.  To deliver the courses that IOSH does, would require considerable expansion of its resources. As matter of policy government departments do not get money to deliver services that can be delivered by others.  

Yes

Originally Posted by: chris42

If you then took this to its ultimate conclusion, then the HSE just become a regulator,

What is 'just' a regulator? Actually quite hard to define - the dictionaries certainly struggle.  The role is almost certainly much broader in the 21st Century than that which I suspect the general public typically believe i.e. mere enforcement. The HSE mission statement is to reduce accidents and ill health and that has long been more than finding fault and taking punitive action. 

Taking a step back, this country polices by consent and that means creating a general environment and culture where the majority of the public are law abiding by choice and expect the same of others - there are many many facets to that but they could never all come from one agency.

Originally Posted by: Xavier123

Originally Posted by: chris42

If you then took this to its ultimate conclusion, then the HSE just become a regulator,

What is 'just' a regulator? Actually quite hard to define –….

The HSE mission statement is to reduce accidents and ill health and that has long been more than finding fault and taking punitive action. 

Taking a step back, this country polices by consent and that means creating a general environment and culture where the majority of the public are law abiding by choice and expect the same of others - there are many many facets to that but they could never all come from one agency.

But that is what I was saying, if the likes of IOSH take over the role of educator in all things H&S and the HSE let them, then do they not be “just a regulator” or as you put it those that find fault and then take punitive action.

As noted from # “If organisations like IOSH do not exist then the HSE will be quietly neutered.” So, if we don’t have IOSH, the HSE are doomed to disappear or at least, become insignificant. There was talk of the larger companies self-regulating if they had formal management systems, a few years ago, so this is in people’s minds (well politicians and big businesses anyway).

However, on the other hand it seems that if we do have the like of IOSH championing all H&S causes, then the HSE will be needed less (as they will not be doing this and are just in the punishment side), then the HSE also disappear to almost nothing.

So, dammed if we have the Likes of IOSH and dammed if we don’t. The HSE (Gov) can save money if we do (as it is funded by those in the profession, not those it helps employees and business). Still somehow seems wrong.

Of course if the likes of IOSH become so big, who will keep them real ?

Additionally, if they become big enough, could they take on the role of “just regulator” as well allowing the enforcement element to be privatised.

So IOSH is as they say a necessary evil? And interestingly two of you have questioned if we need IOSH in its present form.

This then begs the next question; what should it look like? (what should it actually do, how should that be funded, how far should it go, should there be a monopoly)

Chris

“Of course if the likes of IOSH become so big, who will keep them real?” in theory this  is the role of the membership but like most organisations, IOSH consists of “coasters”(like me) who just join up and pay the subscriptions (as late as possible)  and the activists who take IOSH and what it does very seriously.   This minority seems to be setting the agenda. I am not entirely sure what their background is (independent consultancy rather than in house Health and Safety?)  But there seems to be a strong emphasis on providing training etc and especially growing the business, especially overseas.

Just who will provide the funds to employ several tens of thousands of people to undertake the workload

Originally Posted by: nickpatience1

If companies/people did what they were supposed to do we wouldn't need HSE, Local Authority enforcement, the Environment Agency, the police, or much of the ambulance service or fire and rescue service.

As an inspector with HSE much of my time was spent where they had no one properly managing health and safety.

Nick

I rather think it was the intention to increase headcount in the HSE to do all the work,ie a goverment employed set of H&S inspectors something the size of a small army.

IOSH as an organisation have manoeuvred themselves into a powerful position by virtue of taking on a Royal Charter. This means that they are more or less recognised as the preeminent Health and Safety body in the UK. This has come at some cost which is why there is so much emphasis on CPD which was one of the perquisites for the Royal Charter being granted.   

Other organisations do interesting stuff about Health and Safety including International Institute of Risk & Safety Management, which is a charity but not chartered.  They are other similar organisations. They are not public sector organisations nor are they commercial organisations out to make a profit.  Yes they have their own agendas but they see themselves as contributing to the mix that is Health and Safety in this country. In the UK we are quite reliant on what can be described as Civic Society (also called the third sector) where groups of people get together and decide to do something about something because it is the right thing to do.  We can’t ban this; it just happens and we can’t expect the public sector to cover every eventuality. When you organise an event such a country show you don’t expect the local Ambulance Service to provide cover; you get St John’s or the Red Cross involved.