You can monitor live, the reply's to the HSE questionnaires here.
Please comment in this section. Note: To reference an individual questionnaire, state
their reference number.

Posted by Admin

Admin.
Well said chap!

as many of you will know by some of my postings, I really do not mince my words.

At no time has Dave or anyone, those involved with the organisation of the conference for example, said they speak for those who are members of this site. If they did, they would hear from me.....I am big enough and articulate enough to converse on my own behalf.

Saying this, I am really delighted that this site exists, it is of benefit to the First Aid community and is aimed at all levels of first aider, trainer, member of VAS, commercial or anyone along for the ride.

As to the HSE being able to post....can No.50 take the head out of the sand? REAL WORLD!
I enjoy the possibility of having the valuable and beneficial insight of the HSE at tap, as it were. I feel this opportunity to converse with the Holy Grail of Health and Safety Legislation is of benefit to me as a trainer and a training provider.

I accept you are able to express your personal views, that is your right and I fully support that right, do not suggest things that are something less than factual. It suggests that First Aid cafe somehow go beyond accepted boundaries....As in my case, certainly not the truth. i am delighted to be a gold member of a NEUTRAL and thought provoking site.

May I ask if this person obtained the DISCUSSION document from FAC or HSE?
If from FAC, hypocritical to say the least.

If this person feels he is being abused, why be a member of (as I understand it) the only BENEFICIAL AND NEUTRAL first aid site I have been able to find in the United Kingdom. I trust Einstein will continue to post as he has done, this is a valuable contribution and allows a previously unheard of line of communication. I feel the input of HSE in such matters is the most positive contribution made by HSE in many years. Einstein is KIND enough to give us the benefit of HSE`s thoughts and this allows me, and others i am sure, to revise my thinking to the benefit of my customers.

Admin, and those who work bloody hard for the conference, thanks for all your vital and hard work. Some people do not appreciate the work done here for the benefit of others, at little or indeed no cost.

Is this person a gold member? bet not!

I look forward to thunderous abuse for this post.

Posted by scottydog

When I last checked we had 10 completed questionnaires available for viewing. I thought it would be worth giving a quick overview of the results so far from the HSE perspective and will try, time permitting, to keep this up on a fairly regular basis. I intend to cover the major themes rather than the detailed responses to every question.

A large majority think the discussion document addresses the key issues well, which is encouraging.

In general there is not much support for incorporating the FAW Regs into other H&S regulations. The discussion of this is very similar to that in the research we commissioned from Casella, so no surprise there.

Whether the FAW Regs are clear (Q3) is getting a very mixed response. One of the commonest criticisms is that the role of the appointed person is not clear, as we rather suspected. Several respondents want more guidance on first aid in schools, nurseries, care homes, etc. This is closely related to the question (Q7) about whether first aid provision for the public should be compulsory. The opinion so far is that it should. Much food for thought for HSE if this trend continues.

On first aid training (Q8) there is about equal support for the proposed new two-tier system and the provision of a first aider in every workplace. There is hardly any support for retaining the present system. It is perhaps worth pointing out here that we could actually have both options 2 and 3. There is no reason why the first aider in every workplace should have identical training, and we had thought that they probably would not. The really important difference is that option 2 would do away with the role of the untrained appointed person. This sounds easy, but is actually a major legislative problem.

On Q9/Q10 there is a definite majority view that a change in the accepted training standards would be valuable, but opinion is about equally divided on whether HSE should expand its list of options or the industry should develop its own standards. My initail observation is that if HSE revises its standards without extensive consultation some sectors of the industry are bound to feel left out. Therefore either of these options needs a better consultative network within the industry. Any feedback on that would be welcome. Incidentally, nobody so far has opted for restricting the accepted standards to the RC (UK) and VAS.

On the training approval system (Q11) the majority so far is in favour of retaining the present arrangements, with a minority in favour of approving the content and structure of courses rather than the training providers. Nobody, yet, wants complete self-regulation. However, there is universal support for a nationally agreed qualification for trainers and assessors. If the trainers were nationally approved, and HSE approved the course contents, why would there be a remaining need to approve each organisation? (Just to provoke thoughts.)

On first aid kits the overwhelming majority favours option 2, i.e. the present non-prescriptive arrangements but with much more advice and guidance. Some repondents have made heplful suggestions on the form this might take.

Opinion is about equally divided on whether first aiders should be allowed to administer drugs. The reasons given for the negative responses are mostly concerns about the legal responsibilities involved, as I would have expected. The positive mostly do not give any suggestions on what they would like first aiders to dispense, why, and in what circumstances.

The responses so far are very encouraging. Please keep them coming.

Richard Elliott



Posted by Einstein

Just a thought. Reading the discussion document and responses so far I get the feeling that the HSE want to reduce their commitment to First Aid Training. It appears to me that the approval system is too complicated for the HSE and they are looking for a more managable way of working. For example Einstein's thought on approving course content and having people complete and trainer / assessor course.

Who will run such a course and will existing trainers and assessors have to complete this training or will they gain granfather rights similar to when the HGV license came into force.

What the discussion document does not give is a clear view on the future plans of the HSE. They must have a preferred option so why not let people know as this will help with their responses. As I say just my thoughts.

Posted by booty

ref no 50

If the individual does not "regard the FAC as representitive of me, or indeed the majority of approved training organisations". Why did he come to the site, one would have to surmise because the site has much more activity than any other site. Indeed the forthcoming conference with over 150 delegates from across the board will be MUCH bigger and better than any other conference I have attended. I wonder how many other conference organisers would have the support and memebership that First Aid Forward will have.

I for one am very happy to be part of this site, and YES, I feel FAC is a very good representive of me. That is why I am here. If I didnt like it I would come back. Its as easy as that isnt it.

Regards to ALL

Michael Rattigan

Posted by ratty

Booty, thanks for your thoughts. I will try to fill in some background information.

HSE cannot, legally, get out of responsibility for FAW training. There is no master plan to reduce our commitment, but we certainly don't want to increase it as the current, rather complex, system is seriously under-resourced and there is no prospect, in the present financial climate, of providing additional resources. We therefore need to think about whether there is a more efficient way of doing things.

There is a quite specific reason for the option of approving course content and structure rather than training organisations. Our solicitors have advised us that it is a much more natural interpretation of the wording of the regulations and is probably a better reflection of what was originally intended.

Our current guidance on the qualifications of training and assessors has been criticised as being insufficiently specific. This is a major driver for the idea of introducing a nationally recognised qualification and registering approved trainers. There are other major advantages in this. For example we would have a system that was better aligned with other countries. We have, in principle, an obligation in EU law to be able to consider reciprocal recognition of trainers and trainees from other member states. At present this is difficult and the proposed register of trainers would simplify matters.

There seems to be much support for the registration of trainers, though rather less for the move to approving course content. My comment on these was a personal view. I was suggesting that if all trainers are approved and the courses offered by the organisations they work for are approved what is the additional value of approving the organisations themselves? It was a question, not a hint at some secret plan:)

We do not regulate any other aspect of health and safety training in the same way as we regulate FAW. The normal process is to produce goal-setting regulations setting out what we want to achieve and guidance on how it might be done. We then rely on industry to devise appropriate courses and organisations to deliver the necessary training. We are therefore trying to move in that direction, but we need to gauge how comfortable the industry - ALL sectors of the industry - feel about it. There is no point rushing into something that people think is unworkable.

As to your question on "grandfather" arrangements there will obviously have to be appropriate transition arrangements for any of the changes we make. We would present these in a consultative document before finalising any new regulatory system.

I hope that gives you, and others, a better feel for our future plans, but part of the problem is that we have not got a definite plan. We are asking you to help us formulate it.

Richard Elliott.
HSE Medical Sciences Unit


Posted by Einstein

Ratty, looking forward to the opportunity to have a bowl of water with you.

Regards

Scottydog
Daniel McKenzie

Posted by scottydog

Booty

Realistically how many of the 1300+ Approved training Organizations and the 3000+ members of this site would actually visit the HSE site.

We have an interest in FA and this site is about FA - it would seem logical (to me) that this is the best place to inform the FA community about whats going on.

Dannie Houlden

Posted by chunkymedicdan

Booty the FAC "COULD" be considered "AN" authority but not "THE" authority - if you get my drift.

An yes mine was an assumption... I have visited the HSE site on many occation but I'd rather come here and find it in a "one stop shop" so to speak.

Regards

Dannie Houdlen

Posted by chunkymedicdan

Booty

Not at all. As previously stated the FAC is the place to come for FA matters. Not because it is an authoruty, rather because everything is here. The FAC brings people together in a way the HSE website cant. I think the fact we have the likes of Einstien etc who can provide the HSE side of things and make it available to all is a superb bonus. The very fact of this forum for example, Im sure reaches many more peopele than the HSE web site can, the other benefit is that if each of as individuals goes to the HSE site, we may well spend a while looking for stuff (I know I have), it is possible to come here and find out the info I was looking for in a fraction of the time, simply because of the fact that this whole site is for First Aid, the HSE have such a vast area to cover, they cannot afford to devote such resources/space in the same way the FAC can.

Regards to all
Michael

Posted by ratty