A New CSCS Test

SueC_2

Russe11 wrote: »

since the previous version, the card would be valid for 3 years, now its only 1 year... when the scheme was first intoduced it was valid for 5 years.

Not sure about that.... I'm sitting looking at a CSCS card for someone who sat their test a couple of weeks ago. Expiry date is May 2017.

dickydonkin

saintjammyswine wrote: »

They were brought in by industry to regulate health & safety in the construction trade. If the site is an approved one then workers are required to hold the card. Not all sites are approved within the scheme though. Construction Skills who campaigned for and started the scheme have actually given their 5 year notice to pull out of the scheme and start their own as CSCS has become a bit of a monster!

The 'industry' does not regulate health and safety in the construction trade.

Various pieces of legislation - (CDM regulations in respect of construction - underpinned by the Health and Safety at Work Act) is enforced by the HSE and it is these bodys who regulate construction safety.

I have always been sceptical of schemes such as CSCS and CHAS which in my opinion do not improve construction safety to a great extent, but are money generating schemes falsely (in my opinion) giving the impression that construction companies are fully complying with legislation and working in a safe manner.

The reality is that now many companies won't be considered for contracts unless they have some accreditation such as the CHAS scheme.

As with many trade accreditations, many believe they are not worth the paper they are printed on.

A recent campaign by the HSE to target safety on construction sites found that one in five sites failed safety checks - so there is still a lot of work to be done in construction safety - I don't believe these schemes are the answer.

SueC_2

dickydonkin wrote: »

I have always been sceptical of schemes such as CSCS and CHAS which in my opinion do not improve construction safety to a great extent, but are money generating schemes falsely (in my opinion) giving the impression that construction companies are fully complying with legislation and working in a safe manner.

At least CSCS involves the employee demonstrating some (albeit fairly basic) level of knowledge.

How CHAS can claim to be an audit when it is carried out entirely on documents you choose to show them, and doesn't involve any kind of site visit / interview whatsoever, is beyond me.

And as for Construction Line, don't get me started - you pays your money, you gets your certificate. Scandalous.

dickydonkin

SueC wrote: »

At least CSCS involves the employee demonstrating some (albeit fairly basic) level of knowledge.

How CHAS can claim to be an audit when it is carried out entirely on documents you choose to show them, and doesn't involve any kind of site visit / interview whatsoever, is beyond me.

And as for Construction Line, don't get me started - you pays your money, you gets your certificate. Scandalous.

You are right of course and I need to correct myself as if I remember rightly, CHAS is a 'not for profit scheme' but yes, you are right - it seems more of a tickbox and document checking exercise.

When I was out of work, I was 'invited' to apply for a CHAS assessors position.

This involved me having to pay for my own training and when I realised how the scheme worked (as you alluded to in your post), it transpired that I could do the work from home with documents being sent to me for checking - which I found quite bizarre.

I always tell the people I do health & safety work for that pieces of paper (risk assessments, method statements, policies etc.) do not prevent people from getting hurt at work.

I declined the offer by the way!

SueC_2

dickydonkin wrote: »

You are right of course and I need to correct myself as if I remember rightly, CHAS is a 'not for profit scheme' but yes, you are right - it seems more of a tickbox and document checking exercise.

I hadn't realised that it was not for profit. So, not for profit, and not for the improvement of health and safety. Remind me again what the blinkin' point of it is....?

saintjammyswine

dickydonkin wrote: »

The 'industry' does not regulate health and safety in the construction trade. - no but is was brought in by the industry as a show of good practice to try and counter the bad image and poor health & safety despite the existing legislation

Various pieces of legislation - (CDM regulations in respect of construction - underpinned by the Health and Safety at Work Act) is enforced by the HSE and it is these bodys who regulate construction safety.

I have always been sceptical of schemes such as CSCS and CHAS which in my opinion do not improve construction safety to a great extent, but are money generating schemes falsely (in my opinion) giving the impression that construction companies are fully complying with legislation and working in a safe manner. - huge money maker, same as most awarding bodies for qualifications - brought in with the best intentions (usually) then realise what a cash cow they are!

The reality is that now many companies won't be considered for contracts unless they have some accreditation such as the CHAS scheme.

As with many trade accreditations, many believe they are not worth the paper they are printed on.

A recent campaign by the HSE to target safety on construction sites found that one in five sites failed safety checks - so there is still a lot of work to be done in construction safety - I don't believe these schemes are the answer.

See comments above but also agree with your last paragraph.

dickydonkin

SueC wrote: »

I hadn't realised that it was not for profit. So, not for profit, and not for the improvement of health and safety. Remind me again what the blinkin' point of it is....?

Found this.

What is CHAS Registration?
CHAS stands for the Contractors' Health and Safety Assessment Scheme. This is a Government-run (not for profit) scheme administered by the London Borough of Merton. CHAS has been developed and refined over a number of years by local government health & safety and procurement professionals, with the support of the Health & Safety Executive.

That is not to say that there are many companies out there who charge fees to assist businesses to get the accreditation and there will be some nice salary's for those administering the scheme I suspect!

Sambucus_Nigra

CSCS was brought in by the Major Contractor's Group [MCG] as the industry were killing too many people, because the gvt at the time sat down the the MCG and told them that unless they did something, the gvt would bring in legislation. So at the time, there was this scheme which the MCG decided to roll out to all of it's supply chain. The scheme became CSCS. The MCG were regularly audited and had to reach a certain percentage of staff and contractors on site on audit day that had a CSCS card. Those the didn't have the card got a day off; and nobody ever checked that it was the right card for the job they were doing. The Gvt funded NVQs for a time, and hence, using On Site Assessment [and training, not that much training ever got done] to churn people through the NVQs and hence the numbers started to go up. They have been meddling with it for years - but as the safety record improved whilst it has been 'in' - the industry [for that read MCG] are afraid of stopping it as they will end up with some legislation that will cost them more in the long run.

All these amends/changes/charges/timescale/qualifications etc are all done in total consultation with - and most stuff is at the request of - the MCG. Now called UKCG...http://www.ukcg.org.uk/index.php?id=10359