Safety consultants register in 6 months

[The Instructor]

Unless this is put into place, then some firms (small and large) WILL look at taking a cheaper option, and use non registered advisors. Where will this leave those who have paid good money to register?

I also begrudge having to pay multiple membership charges, so IOSH and the other corporate bods should all get together behind this and we should pay one fee to cover us for the register and membership to an accredited organisation.

I'm all for getting rid of the cowboys (and girls - so should that be cowpeople? ), but not if it means those of us who do it properly will end up scratching around for work and trying to compete with the unqualified.....

All this is gonna cost money.....Accreditation - Monitoring of registered companies or individuals = FEES

The thing is......will this really get rid of the "COWPEOPLE"..... in my field of H&S, Forklift Training, there are lots of companies that are accredited and monitored by some of the governing bodies..... and I know they are crooked!! cutting corners.....doing it cheaper......the registration scheme sounds good on paper......but it just means people like me.....will have to fork out yet another £300 or £400 per year......booo hiss spit!!!!!

[kevins]

For eveyones info a question and answers between IOSH members and the HSE on the proposed new OSCR

Direct link to the pdf file - http://www.iosh.co.uk/news_and_events/n ... version=-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

same concerns as eveyone else why do i get the feeling that perhaps the HSE are under strict instruction to rush this in instead of applying some 'common sense' and implementing something that is really worthwhile and truly reflects the requiremnts of the proffesion and businesses, that truly reflects the 14% of business when surveyed had a problem with a consultant?!

[kevins]

Interesting conference at the Public Policy Exchange Symposium with guest speakers from the Department of Pensions Jonathan Russell, Deputy Director, Employee Policy CoE, Department for Work and Pensions note the title 'New Health and Safety Regulations in The Workplace Ensuring Your Organisation Is Ready' also see the programme agenda.

http://publicpolicyexchange.co.uk/events.php

have booked on will feed back to the forum, but it may suggest that some more announcements are imminent

as promised feedback on the above event;

well what can I say other than disapointing really, 90% of the discussion from the speakers was toward selling Lord Youngs report and the governments vision for Health & Safety. There was no meaningful debate about how the government reached their conclusions.

One piece of info was the consultants register criteria is to reach its final draft on the 21st December, all proffesional bodies IOSH, IIRSM, BSC etc etc will be attending meeting for implementation by 31st January 2011.

there was no outline whatsoever in relation to the title 'New Health and Safety Regulations in The Workplace Ensuring Your Organisation Is Ready' people from the floor asked if there was to be any white papers for consultation and there was an empty response. I get the distinct impression that opinions, reporting and voices are being subdued.

discussions took place re the new online risk assessment process and how you can have a high risk activity in a low hazard workplace, questions as to define a low hazard workplace again no definitive answer.

but in general it was just covering old ground very disappointing for £450.00 and on that note in April there is another conference at the Barbican at £850.00 for private sector candidates, and they have the cheek to label consultants as money grabbers (HSE Myth of the Month October)

sorry there was no more to feedback

Kevins

[Buster]

Hi guys an gals
I have just been reading through your comments some very valid ones i might add ,
I have just received an e mail from IIRSM trying to get me to join their consultants scheme .i am slightly miffed as i am not educated to the levels they require they were aware of this when i joined ,this is mainly due to the fact that i have not been fortunate enough to be able to have time off from earning enough money to survive so i have not been able to reach chartered standard ,i may be there as my experience levels are very high and very unique but i do not have the paperwork to prove it ,i am also of the age that going to university was a luxury which unfortunately my parents or myself could not afford ,even 'A' levels were a struggle as i needed to get out earning pretty damn quick .
i understand the need to ensure consultants are worthy but where do people like my self end up i am not a so called Cowboy but am starting to feel pushed out ?
I am Still unable to find the time or the funds to get a chartered membership but find im being muscled out by more demands ,i have 3 seperate memberships to iosh IIrsm and Aps and find i now need to spend more just to be able to find work i am already filling in forms left right and centre to keep the memberships i have current , when will this all stop ,we must be the only proffesion that gets treated like this .
Sorry rant over just getting very disillusioned .
Buster

[Onpoint44th]

If there is no proof of competence then it is a dead duck. There are plenty of qualified persons who are not competent,

It is difficult problem so the powers that be will ignore it. Hence the current focus on qualifications. I bet a pound that when the dust settles and its up and running, if you got the cert then you are a competent person.

garry

Oil companies are over flowing with safety people but it does nothing to stop them taking short cuts.

[Buster]

Garry
Im with you i have seen many so called competent exceptionally qualified people ,and they haven't had an ounce of common sense or any on job knowledge ,and due to their lack of experience problems have occurred . all that is considered is the certification not the knowledge ,knowledge and competence does not have to be learned in a class room .
Buster

[HelenPJ]

My view:

Competence should be (at least partly) reliant on the proven ability of the individual concerned having a wish and an ability to Educate and not to Browbeat

Most of what I regard as truly Competent individuals I have met, some IRL and some virtually, share this characteristic

Their competence is nearly always based on a combination of 2 important elements:
1. Real life experience of the working environement(s)
2. A level of qualification (for background knowledge, appreciation of the legislation in place, why the legislation is in place etc)
3. Real life experience of different working environments which may inform them of risks which are not apparent to those who have become accustomed/complacent to their current work environment

There is also (always IMO) room for the true Researcher in subjects such as H&S, without whom we would not know about risks such as Lead, Asbestos and other long-term effects. I am sure many researchers would not be happy about being given an FRA in their workplace to perform, however, as they would Know that this would be outside their area of expertise.

So - how can the H&S Industry provide proof of competence across such a diverse set of workplace environments, across such a diverse set of specialisations and account for true levels of real life experience which cannot be replicated but only passed on e.g. Best Practice?

They can't really

Any register of consultants will be unduly onerous if Registration with the "approved" bodies is the sole measure by excluding individuals who are competent but don't have the right level of qualifications to pass a tick-box.
Or cause potentially excessive expense

The Institutes do need to widen the membership up to allow more Open membership systems for those who have accumulated a life-time of knowledge and wisdom, but not necessarily have a Stifficate to prove it....

AND how do they deal with those "Consultants" whose pronouncements entertain the tabloid (and occasional broadsheets as well) press but who could be considered to bring the whole sphere of H&S consultancy into disrepute?

Quis custodiet custodies? (or summat like that)

And that's my twopennorth

[Buster]

And what a two pennyworth it is i think i agree with it all ,im all for competence but it has to be fair and not dictated by some people being able to make money out of it ,it needs to be seen as genuine and productive , with a real sense of being useful . The register in my opinion would not do this ,it would be to restrictive and selective so that only a certain group of people would benefit and a whole lot of experienced good consultants would fall to the side and leave the profession
it would Cause our profession to become a type of closed shop which would not be healthy for it or the public .

Buster

[Reddwarf]

Just to add my bit in i don't meet the criteria as I'm not chartered but to become charted then you need to either go down the NVQ route or diploma which both are not suitable for someone who works solely in fire safety and is self employed as the variety required for the other two routes is not enough. yet i have what i consider a fair list of qualifications in fire safety that i think should make me suitable to be registered.

i think there should be some route where they will look at qualifications and experience to deem someone competent based also on there work history. I'm sure we have loads of members on here that are self employed who aren't chartered but have for many years been providing a good service to their clients and certainly can't be seen as cowboys.

I still deal with people that haven't heard of the RRFSO which came out in 2006 so i doubt if they are likely to even be aware of such a register.

Just to add another thought in a manger of a hotel can carry out a FRA on his hotel with no understanding of fire safety and that is acceptable under the current system but if i carry out a FRA on the same hotel with my qualification in fire safety and experience i would be deemed not to be competent to make this register. But there is nothing to stop a totally unqualified person with not the slightest knowledge of fire safety from carrying on.

Sounds if the register is going to deliver real benefit


NOT

[Geoff]

I think Helenpj is correct in her assessment of the situation.
However, I can't draw a distinction between this and the need to prove competence in anything else H&S related, e.g. to do RA and FRA. Also to show that these are suitable and sufficient(?), its a case that everything is alright until something happens - suitable becomes unsuitable, competent becomes incompetent, sufficient becomes obviously insufficient.
It seems to me that when the focus is turned from the work place (applying legislation and regulations etc) on to the consultant or H&S professional, it all becomes unworkable - or more accurately unsubstantiable.

Could it be the kettle calling the pot black?