Brain or brawn?

In the debate over the merits of the CSCS health and safety test, much has been made of how easy - or difficult - the test is.

However, talk about the quality or accuracy of the questions, or of the failure rate, has served to obscure the most important question. Is it the most appropriate and effective way to assess the health and safety skills required by those who work in the construction industry?

The difficulty in answering such a question is exacerbated by the absence of proof either way. No conclusions can be drawn until several years have passed, over which accident rates can be monitored.



Acid Test

This, after all, is the acid test, although establishing cause and effect between any preventative measures taken and benefits accrued will in itself be difficult.

Yet the relevance of asking the question is demonstrated by the comments made by CSCS committee member Melvyn Parrott in a letter to Contract Journal (see facing page).

In response to an article (CJ 14 August) that reported on CJ staff sitting the test, Parrott rightly points out it is unfair to draw comparisons between the deputy features editor, for example, and a labourer on site.

He illustrates this by reference to his own company where three labourers have repeatedly failed the test. This is in stark contrast with some members of the CJ editorial team who passed the test at the first attempt without studying the test handbook.

The unfortunate conclusion Parrott draws is that it is unlikely the three labourers will ever pass the test, prompting him to ask rhetorically: "What happens to these three useful team members who do not have the ability to pass the test in this form?"

This question highlights the concerns raised over the relevance of the test. On the one hand, among the 14% of candidates who fail the test, are experienced, useful - and by extension safe - workers.

Those who repeatedly fail are likely to be lost to the industry, or consigned to its cowboy fringes beyond the reach of certification and training. On the other hand, among the 86% of successful candidates are journalists with little or no direct site experience, some of whom passed the test despite a lack of revision.

If we again ask the question, 'is the test the best way of examining the skills required to work safely in the construction industry?' the answer, in some cases, would appear to be no. This conclusion can be supported by the fact that the construction industry, by its very nature and heritage, prides 'manual' skills above 'intellectual' ones - and this is not to denigrate the skills of a labourer.



wrong priority

In such a light, the admirable desire to quantify and certify health and safety skills may be seen to have inadvertently given too much priority to the literacy of candidates over their more traditional abilities.

It would be a sad irony if the move towards a long-overdue recognition of construction workers' skills - of which the health and safety test is a part - had the effect of overlooking, or even dismissing, the very skills that made them so worthwhile.

This desire for tangible symbols of ability mirrors the current vogue for qualification and certification across society - witness the proliferation of standard assessment tests in schools, degree courses, league tables, etc. However, construction, as the industry sector with the highest number of fatalities, must surely place pragmatism over blind faith in the latest policy initiative. After all, with lives and livelihoods at stake, this is one situation in which the ends must justify the means.



Accused of failure

By failing to deal with the consequences of otherwise competent workers now disenfranchised from the current health and safety culture, the health and safety test stands accused of failing to follow this approach.

Attempts to address the issue - although they may benefit some (witness Parrott's belief in the effectiveness of the handbook as a teaching tool) - cannot be justified on the basis of 'we've got to do or be seen to do something'.

This approach is only valid if the first tentative steps are taken with an open mind and criticisms - good or bad - are taken at face value. It is to be hoped the industry has the courage to face up to this difficult task - matching the necessary improvements in health and safety with the inherent skills of the existing workforce.

Only when such a debate is opened involving the whole industry, can there be real progress towards such seemingly elusive goals as reducing accidents and fatalities.