Health and safety “Competence” still an issue
April 22nd 2008 There appears to be two interpretations of the term "competence" and while there is some movement to bring these definitions together, there is a significant gap when if comes to the differences between the legal interpretation in respect of health and safety regulations, the educational system of qualifications and the expectations of those seeking to employ/engage competent advice and guidance.
There is little doubt that the health and safety regulations interpret competence, when applied to duty holders, as an ability to know, understand, interpret and perform. With most qualifications, the term competence refers solely to a person's ability to know and understand the subject.
NVQ's are slightly different in this respect as they do usually incorporate the need for candidates to demonstrate skills/abilities but in a controlled environment, in which case this demonstration is "theoretical". And, when it comes to health and safety, many of the NVQ assessors are not qualified safety professionals. It is this cross-over that seems to have muddied the waters.
The new suite of National Occupational Standards for practitioners, inspectors and duty holders (some twenty plus standards) only uses the term "competence" in only one standard and then it is not defined. In most of these standards there is a list of out-comes which should be evidenced. If they are, competence is assumed.
Because there is no definition of competence, a qualified person is unable independently evidence their own competence.
In enforcement terms, as a person is "assumed " to be competent against a series of out-come criteria, they suddenly cease to be competent when an incident or an accident occurs through an oversight or an error on their part. It is almost like being judged as being capable of driving until an accident occurs and then immediately being judged as incapable.
Because most accidents/ incidents occur within smaller organisations which do not employ health and safety specialists, and because they will exercise their duties of care through contracted consultants, they have little or no opportunity to independently verify the "competence" of the specialists they eventually engage. The BSIF believes that the answer is to have a clear statement of what competence actually is, rather than a loose series of indicators, so that those seeking competent personnel can verify that they are, indeed, competent. More articles from BSIF Enterprise: | 
