CSCS Cards and the Clients responsibility to Monitor Contractor performance

A little like the SAFEcontractor registration scheme then, this just seems to be a money making exercise for a well known contractor.

I can remember their advice and how it made me laugh. For example in order to comply with L8 they expected the temperature of evey single one of the 192 taps in a building to be tested daily.

First and foremost it's a business - a classic case of empire building and carving out a niche. To go back to the original question - if your people have IOSH qualifications don't waste any time or money on CSCS cards - they are far inferior.

It might also be usefull if they assesed somebodies competency!

Yes, I fully agree that it needs to progress to be effective.

As things stand at the moment, I think we're in danger of the scheme being seen as the major contractors wanting to side-step competence assurance themselves, i.e. paying lip-service to it.

I believe such schemes can be very good. But they need to be:

1. Objective in their approach

2. Bought-in to by the industry at large. I mean FULLY bought-in to, not just "lip-service".

3. Inclusive of prior learning and experience, not necessarily requiring a new qualifiction just for the sake of it - because qualifications is only a small part of "Competence".

4. Meaningful to the tradesmen, consultants, engineers and managers (etc.) who need to hold them.

It was the major contractors group who decided on this blanket CSCS requirement i sat on the steering group, as at the time there was no common standard or system, the trouble is it has not progressed into the next level, the reasons being that industry did not fully embrace it therefore the next logical level could not be applied, i agree it is not a demonstration of H&S comptetence, you could train a chip to pass it in an hour.

QUOTE "Graham, the concept of compentency means you have to consider-training, experience and qualification?".

Skills
Knowledge
Attitude
Training
Experience
Limitations (Knowing your own Limitations.

CSCS doesn't examine this.

The worst things about the scheme at present are:

(i) Not all "trades" are represented.

(ii) What's the point of getting an NVQ, if you already have some industry-recognised qualification at L7-8 on NQF, the assessment for which is "competence based" already?

(iii) Some people's work is across "trades" - they shouldn't need multiple cards. But there's no real guidance here.


I think the scheme COULD work very well. At the moment, I'm afraid in my part of the construction industry we've had nothing but headaches, and, whilst we can get people working safely on-site (first objective), we can't get our experienced, skilled, well-trained, qualified, staff anything other than a "related trade" card.

But at the end of the day, it still can't fully measure "competence", which surely is down to the employer to assess through their H&S and quality review, monitoring and audit mechanisms?

Graham, the concept of compentency means you have to consider-training, experience and qualification? training doesn't equate to qualification, whilst qualification indicates that some training has been assimilated/ Experience can still be the over riding factor in deciding competency.

All Construction Skills Sector support schemes do recognise prior qualification, the NVQ requirements are to allow those with no formal qualifications to use APL in the main?

Back to Stuart's intial question- when I was on my apprenticeship everyone wanted Snap-On tools, but no one could afford them or justify -after all we were mere apprentices!
CSCS is only one tool available to do the job, there are many more available, but whether it is the right tool for Stuart's staff is surely for Stuart to decide?

Nicolas: quote "Requiring me to have a CSCS card is equivalent to requiring a brain surgeon to have a first aid certificate" Please don't confuse your obvious and considerable academic achievement with practical competence. If I had an industrial accident, I would much rather be attended on site by a competent first aider than by a brain surgeon. Each has his place, their working environments and competencies are very different.

QUOTE "Nicholas, couldn't agree more, however your PhD suggests you would support the rationale behind CSCS/SMST if it ‘aids’ a demonstration of competency?"

The problem is it does not demonstrate "COMPETENCY", only that:

1. The person has some pre-determined qualification; and
2. The person has passed an arbitrary H&S multi-choice test.

Competence is not only "Quals + Bit of H&S".

In addition, some of the schemes don't take into account prior qualification and experience - still requiring an NVQ.

Demonstrating competence is something else altogether.

Nicholas, couldn't agree more, however your PhD suggests you would support the rationale behind CSCS/SMST if it ‘aids’ a demonstration of competency?

One is becoming a 'compulsory requirement' for members of the considerate contractor scheme, CSCS. I (the real personal I) feel SMST is another attempt by CITB to 'borrow' military precis from the Royal School of Military Engineering, change the name of the course and charge a fee for training and, assessment and endorsement to boot! (SMST is RE Site Safety Supervisor, (SSS) but notably with a much lower pass mark!)

In Stuart's case he may well be put in the invidious position of appointing a principal contractor who during constuction phase, question's the competency of Stuart's staff to carry out inspections (assuming his firm are savvy enough to realise it still needs to manage its contractors, and shouldn't/can't hide behind the 'It was the PC's responsibility). Most of the recent cases highlighted on the site show a trend to prosecute large organisations. If Stuart can demonstrate his Staff's competency via the combination of the training already undertaken, underpin that with one of the 'competency indicators' specified in ACoP L122 Appx 4. then he should be able to sleep tight at night?

Ref CSCS cards PQE Card would be the most appropriate for a non-tools person to 'work' on site. Black card for more senior management roles, it would depend upon the actual duties Stuart's staff (or anyone else) are expected to undertake.

IOSH seems a rather low level to use if staff are actually employed to carry out inspectios as part of their normal duties? Although, from Stuart's comments it appears his company fully support CPD so no doubt there is a move to NEBOSH Construction Cert level or beyond? The problem always seems to be communication, customers (internal/external) always see H&S as an added cost, instead of encompassing a safe culture that realises the benefits of allowing 'suitable' time for planning, in most cases the 'wasted time' actually saves time and money being wasted.

In my present role there is constant challenge on time-as with any production/manufacturing environment. The pressure is sometimes intense, due to the next three levels all having promoted though from my position.

There have been a lot of changes to legislation over the past couple of years all aimed at improving how we plan, do, review work. Most, if not all of the changes (WaH 2005, CDM 2007, Noise regs etc) are not familiar to the Senior Managers, so any costs or time is always challenged with a 'just get on with it; it didn’t take me this long/cost me this much’. Hardly a Safety Exemplar approach but like Stuart I endeavour to educate and inform! T

The message is slowly getting through that, employing competent people and keeping them up to date with products, processes and compliance issues, is a positive move that has benefits to the core business. Personally I would support CSCS as it demonstrates an ‘awareness’ level that can be used outside of the business if visiting other sites/ reviewing potential contractors etc. Which I would expect any professional organisation to do as part of its continuous improvement cycle.

This obsession with CSCS cards is becoming ridiculous. In particular I mean blinkered, blanket requirements that no one shall enter a particular site without one - no matter who they are or what other qualifications they have. I am a Chartered member of IOSH and I have a PhD in health and safety law. Requiring me to have a CSCS card is equivalent to requiring a brain surgeon to have a first aid certificate. Ludicrous. I am afraid some people in health and safety are in danger of losing the plot altogether. No wonder it is sinking further and further into disrepute with the media and the public.

The cost is £17.50 for the test and £25 for the card but which card? CSCS have a number of different ones e.g. management, visitor or operative. With regard to operatives for a Skilled Card they normally need an NVQ in their respective trade. Unfortunately not all trades have an NVQ. In the data cabling sector that I am in there is not one so at the moment there is an "Industry Accreditation" where the employer can rubber stamp their employees competence against a set criteria. This window closes in January but still no NVQ! You can buy the up to date test questions in book form to help revision (I have seen it in a Post office) and some of the questions are a bit of a no brainer. More and more of our customers are insisting on a CSCS card but it certainly does not prove competence in H & S.

& if you've taken the exam then you'd be well aware that it won't make a blind bit of difference to your accident rate, so it's dubious as to wheter or not it's best practise or just most common practise

There's no legal obligation to have a CSCS card, it is far lower in the level of H&S training than IOSH, although some construction companies do ask all their staff to hold one, not just specifice trades who can be trained to hold a specific CSCS Card.

If you have money in budgets to spare, the cost is relatively low, and the test consists of a multiple choice PC exam that can be taken at centres across the UK. I think it costs about £75, but may be more. No study is required if you've already got IOSH. I passed 100% after completeing the exam in less than a minute.

As and FM working for a large Blue Chip Employer we have over recent years invested heavily in H&S training for our project co-ordinators to carry out their duties managing the interface issues betwwen contractor operations and our operations. We have put them all through IOSH Managing Construction Safety and indeed some of the senior members have also gone through NEBOSH Contruction Safety. Recognising the push for accredited competence in the construction industry its clear the CSCS card system has been widely adopted and is providing industry best practice. I have had the suggestion/question levelled at me that no member of staff should go on to a construction site unless he has a CSCS card. My question is, is this now fact or is this a question of 'good practice' given the investment we have made in construction safety training over recent years and the project experience the team have I feel comfortable that they are sufficiently competent to access a site and carry out safety tours and inspections I dont necessarily feel that putting them all through a CSCS course or exam is necessary. Suffice to say when I discuss accessing the construction site Im not suggesting they are entering the site wothout notice and wandering round of their own accord they would book in with the site agent be appraised of current operations and hazards and then Im suggesting access site to review performance. What is the forums view am I mandated to take a CSCS route or have I satisfied my duty in this repect by ensuring all are 'accredited' to a standard? Thanks Stuart