The new accreditation scheme for safety consultants will be officially announced in the next few weeks by the HSE, which will run it in the initial stages.
The scheme will be open initially to UK consultants only, so in-house health and safety managers, advisors, etc. and consultants based abroad will not be eligible to register. There will be an annual fee to join, though this will be to cover administrative costs only, and so is unlikely to be prohibitive. The register will also initially be open only to those providing safety, rather than health-related advice.
Stakeholders in the profession have been calling for an accreditation scheme for some time and its development has been accelerated by the current government review into health and safety being undertaken by Lord Young of Graffham.
The set-up of the scheme is based on the outcome of the feasibility study carried out earlier this year by IOSH and the CIEH, the lead institutions in the consortium of stakeholder groups in the scheme, which also includes RoSPA, the British Safety Council, the IIRSM, the BSIF and the British Occupational Hygiene Society. This consortium will eventually take over the running of the scheme via the establishment of a company limited by guarantee.
Chartered members of IOSH and the CIEH who work as consultants providing safety advice will be able to join the scheme, and it was agreed that fellows of other relevant institutions will also be eligible. Once it has been launched, IOSH’s own register of safety consultants will cease operating.
Said the Institution’s chief executive, Rob Strange: “We see the scheme as setting the standard for competent, qualified and experienced health and safety consultants, and helping to restore confidence in health and safety.
“It is vital that businesses looking for help – often small firms – get sound, proportionate advice on health and safety, and that they have confidence in those advising them. Research shows that there is support from both bona-fide consultants and small businesses for this sort of scheme.”
However, there is some confusion over the difference between accreditation and chartered membership, with 63 per cent of respondents to SHPonline’s current poll on the issue believing there is no need for the former when the latter is already available.
IOSH’s head of professional affairs, Hazel Harvey, explained: “Chartered membership is recognised by the Privy Council as an appropriate designation for someone with a degree-level qualification, and who has been assessed on their skills and experience. It’s not just available to consultants but to all who reach those standards. Accreditation means belonging to a register for which there are set criteria, but it does not have any formal recognition.”
The HSE and other stakeholders have been clear that the main aim of the scheme is to ensure that all businesses, especially SMEs, receive proportionate and sound safety advice from practitioners that have demonstrably reached a good level of qualification. Asked whether it really would make that much difference to firms who are struggling in the recession and so may be likely to choose suppliers based on cost rather than qualifications, Hazel Harvey said: “Using advisors without the right level of expertise, no matter how cheap they are, is potentially dangerous and a false economy. Research has shown that SMEs would be interested in using the proposed register of accredited consultants.”
The register is due to be launched early next year and it will be publicly accessible and searchable via a bespoke website.
The HSE, when contacted for a comment, refused to confirm any details other than the names of the stakeholder organisations involved, that the scheme will be voluntary, and that a main aim is “to make it easier for those employers who do need to use external safety advice to find consultants in whom they can have confidence”. It added that further information will be available “in the autumn”.
Advance your career in health and safety
Browse hundreds of jobs in health and safety, brought to you by SHP4Jobs, and take your next steps as a consultant, health and safety officer, environmental advisor, health and wellbeing manager and more.
Or, if you’re a recruiter, post jobs and use our database to discover the most qualified candidates.
May I know why this opportunity will be limited to the UK professionals only. What about those candidates who are certified from accredited organizations from other countries and loyal IOSH members? Will the accreditaton body address that issue too.
This is a SOP to Lord Young who fails to recognise that professional H&S qualifications are available and that professional standards are applied through IOSH. Recognition of this fact and making it mandatory for companies to obtain H&S advice from such a practitioner is the only way to improve standards. Would the current H&S advisor to the Government (Lord Young) with his H&S qualifications and extensive experience qualify for accredited status!!
Whilst I think this is a welcome step in the right direction, I wonder just how many of IOSH’s Chartered Members actually have a degree-level qualification? A great many were given this status under grandfather rights from the old RSP, having attained the old NEBOSH Pt 2 Dip – which cannot be considered a degree level qualification.
Only with BSC’s Dip SM being totally revised as Dip OSH & alligned at Lv 6 (degree level) on the NQF did NEBOSH follow with their Lv 6 Dip. Same folks & advice !
Another Quango, that’s just what we need isn’t it ?
Bad press is generated by unqualified people making OTT decisions. So long as these people have responsibility for safety “elf n safety gorn mad” decisions will happen.
Removing doormats in high flats, insisting on scaffolding to put up christmas lights, goggles for playing conkers… none of these resulted from a consultant making an OTT decision.
The new scheme won’t help our image and so is bound for failure.
I can’t see this scheme as currently discussed doing much for potential users of H&S services or those who do not hold CMIOSH membership or memberships of other bodies.
I would take the idea of an accreditation scheme if it were graded by say membership grade (as there are a lot of competant non corporate members and members of other bodies about) and an industry catagory, for example:
CMIOSH (Chem) – Chemical industry, TechIOSH (Con) – Construction Industry, MIIRSM (Man) – Manufacturing
Whilst I welcome some scheme to regulate consultants I worry about where I stand. I hold a NEBOSH Cert but don’t have the means or finances to take a degree. I have been in the H & S sector for 15 years and do a lot of work for the voluntary sector where finances are restricted. Does this mean I am not allowed on the register because I don’t have a degree? The MHASAW regs state that a person should be competant by means of experience, knowledge and qualifications lets see if the cap fits.
Under this scheme my Tech IOSH status and experience within the industry will be a complete waste of time. Surely membership to an associated body should be enough to prove proficiency?. Smacks of a ‘jobs for the boys’ approach this and it wont work.
Long overdue. At present any out of work banker can call themselves a health and safety consultant unlike most other professions which do have recognised standards of membership and to be able to carry out their business.
If this denies the “off the shelf” H&S merchants a living I will be very pleased.
So, a scheme for accrediting consultants, drawn up with little or no consultation with those consultants, and to be operated by non-consultants who probably have little appreciation of what professional consultancy entails. It’s voluntary, and none of my SME clients even understand my CMIOSH qualification, let alone how to find an “accredited” consultant. It just seems to be a good money-making wheeze and is certainly in no way a fix of what seems to be a non-existent problem.
Let’s keep an experience route and “Grandfather Rights” for the first stages at least. There are a lot of good H&S professionals out there with loads of common sense but not chartered. (even if by professional interview)
I’m sorry to say but a degree isn’t everything and I know many a chartered engineer who thinks he knows it all because of his initials but is in fact dangerous.
The problem is those with no knowledge, no experience etc. who therefore do not understand risk.
Am I correct in saying that in-house company health and safety professionals are not allowed or would not qualify as Consultants. Most people of permanent jobs have private businesses on the side which offers consultancy services. the current economic climate neccesitated this.
Good potential for establishing professional credentials, but there will still be many others required to do Risk Assessments who have a fear of litigation and include everything imaginable. Local Authorities, schools and voluntary organisations have succummed to these pressures and, often, been the cause of bad press. Will the accrediation scheme address these unforseen results of MHSWR’s? It’s an easy “fix”, I hope Lord Young finds other ways too, including controlling the compensation culture
I agree 100% with Kevin. Where will this leave practicing Tech-IOSH consultants like us? What will be the point of joining IOSH at any level other than as a Chartered Member with a degree? I’m OK to train others in Health and Safety via CIEH, HAB and RSPH, but going forward will this mean that I and many other diligent trainer practitioners be deemed not competent?
A great cash cow for some, but who really believes that CM and a degree necessarily makes you competent in any field.
I have deep concerns over this as it could penalise business. I am a member of IOSH. I have been doing Health and Safety for 15+ Years. I run my own business. I am a Tech IOSH, having tried to navigate their system unsuccessfully. That is why I joined the IIRSM because I feel that IOSH can be a “closed shop” for the “old boys”. It could put a genuine H&SE out of business. Having Chartered status does not guarantee a good consultant.
I do believe the accreditation scheme is an excellent idea. However, I am yet to be convinced that it is really necessary.I also agree with Ian’s comments.
Elitism and shades of the old closed-shop
Two posters are right on the button.
Terry Warren on the cash cow
H Doler on the moonlighters
At first glance, it appears to me that there will be confusion. The statements attributed to the great and the wise reinforce my initial opinion. And there will be a very hard sell by the accredited con-sultants
Massimo Verdi
Excellent point Brett Day
Industrial or Sector Specialisation will and must come be it safety, health or environment otherwise there will be a body of Jack of All Trades spouting on about the things they heard at their most recent CPD. Without understanding fully the implications of their rantings. The safety professional will remain a laughing stock.
For those involved in the construction game there is always the APS’s excellent Registered Construction Safety Practitioner ( RCSP) route
Once, in radio interview, an IOSH president was asked about an incident outside a shop: a street artist blowing balloon had been stopped because of risk of exposure to latex. The IOSH man said that it would have been better if a qualified “professional” had made the decision. He couldn’t guarantee an IOSH man would have made the a DIFFERENT ruling. A naive change in name or having a degree won’t alter things when it is the HSE’s historical interpretation of risk that has caused the problem
Somebody mentioned “the APS’s excellent Registered Construction Safety Practitioner ( RCSP) route”.
That’s another scheme with no account taken of experience in the industry, it’s based on specific qualifications. My colleague (CMIOSH, 15 years as an HSE Inspector, similar period in consultancy, expert witness for both civil and criminal cases) was denied access to the register because he doesn’t have enough ‘points’ from qualifications. What nonsense.
So much to consider.
There is a strong case for the merging together of all H & S bodies, I certainly agree with most points that CMIOSH does not make you necessarily a good practitioner & renders other quals useless, if this scheme prevails?.
I think the merging of qualifying bodies (CHAS/EXOR/Safe Contractor) for Contractors etc should be brought into line at the same time with standard PQQ’s.
Having only just applied for TechIOSH where does it leave all of us with this status??
I note with interest that two IOSH bulletins on this subject quote candidates will have a degree level qualification. This is not a MUST HAVe criteria to become a chartered member. I and many other chartered members do not have this qualification. Will this affect inclusion in the scheme and, are IOSH now widening the goal posts?
I don’t know why this old topic has been resurected, but why all this CMIOSH bashing?
I am CMIOSH and a consultant, but I did not sign up to the OSCHR because I think it is a white elephant. We all know that qualifications alone do not maketh the man. That said, I worked hard and paid for my own degrees, I’m not appreciative of people bashing my qualifications for no good reason. There are many good h&s professionals out there without CMIOSH and many good professionals with CMIOSH – end of.
I fail to see how this new scheme will establish professional credentials.
There are numerous professional bodies in existence with their own standards. In theory, membership at the appropriate level of an existing body should serve as an indication of competence.
Many consultants with CMIOSH will qualify for the register that fail to demonstrate the necessary commercial awareness required when advising SME’s.
Should they consider a merger of IOSH, IIRSM, CIEH etc rather this option?
The system that allows competent assessors to work is a system that allows incompetent assessors to work. One identifiable register is exactly what is needed; those assessors who believe they are competent need to bite the bullet and take the lead, only with a ‘joined up’ approach will standards improve. However, it looks like it will be exclusive not inclusive, which means that the standard for bodies operating certification of competent persons BS EN ISO 17024 hasn’t been considered at all.
‘Certification schemes for persons should only be established in response to specific government
requirements i.e. protection of the public or a demonstrated market need/desire (i.e. credibility, confidence and improvement of the profession)’. BS EN 17024 There is a standard for the certification of competence that allows for an inclusive method of assessment. This proposal goes against the principles of this standard. Why?
I fully understand the need for the accreditation scheme, although i’m a little dismayed that only chartered members of IOSH or CIEH can become accredited. I am a Tech IOSH member who has worked as a full time H&E consultant for the past 6 years and worked in a H&S environment since 1995. I am working towards chartered membership and in the middle of my degree at Portsmouth Uni. I am sure that there are many consultants in the same position as myself, who will not be permitted to apply – why?
Let all the CMIOSH members run the whole Safety sector! Get rid of some HSE Inspectors. Charge business for it. Why not let CMIOSH members take over the HSE as well?
This country needs more unemployed right now after all, watch it all fall apart in 2012. Yet another cock up for this government.
some practitioners feel the need to hide behind a warrant card
others, a hell of a lot feel the need to hide behind CMIOSH.
Pleased for IOSH and CMIOSH / CIEH members everywhere that at long last there is a recognition of CMIOSH / CIEH status.
Will client’s now demand that the ‘competent person’ charged with providing them with H&S support and assistance from within a registered Consultancy is actually named and individually accredited as CMIOSH or CIEH? I would sincerely hope so in an effort to support and maintain professional standards that are expected of their members by their Institutions.