The recent Scottish Government consultation paper issued 26th Feb. 2010 has proposed the following (click here)
9.1. It is currently a requirement of Regulation 4 and Schedule 1A of the WMLR that a Certificate of Technical Competence ( CoTC) is held, as one of the items to demonstrate that an applicant for a WML is a fit and proper person to hold such a licence.
9.2. During the BWR consultation exercise, we indicated that the Scottish Government considered this to be "gold-plating" the relevant Community legislation. Scottish Government policy is to avoid any form of "gold-plating". Furthermore, we note:-
- a similar system is a requirement neither for registration of an exemption nor for the much more complex process of obtaining a PPC permit;
- it is questionable how well such a requirement fits with Community law, notably the Services Directive 8;
- it is not a proper function of Government to create and enforce what is essentially a private sector monopoly; and
- the requirement for a CoTC could be abused to create a barrier to entry to the sector for new participants.
9.3. Respondents were generally supportive of some form of demonstration of technical competence but, in Scottish Government view, no convincing argument was set out as to why the current CoTC system, or indeed any replacement, would achieve any additional protection that adhering to the terms of the relevant licence or exemption would not already provide.
9.5. The Scottish Government is committed to simplifying regulation and see no reason to retain the regulatory requirement for a CoTC to be acquired to demonstrate the suitability of a WML applicant.
9.6. It is therefore proposed to remove this requirement from the Scottish WMLR.
9.7. It will be for SEPA to satisfy itself on the technical competence of WML applicants. This would be in any way SEPA sees fit: nevertheless, it is likely that important evidence of technical competence would be operating correctly to the terms of any licence in force.
9.8 It should also be noted that, while the Scottish Government does not believe that it is appropriate that the law require a CoTC, it does however welcome efforts by the waste industry to provide professional education, and further develop operators' skills and knowledge.
We at Albion understand the issues raised in section 9.1 to 9.5 but to simply do away with a system which has had a significant impact on improving the training and qualifications within the industry would appear to be a serious back wards step. Many other industries for example construction and quarrying industry are struggling to implement a similar management competence scheme as there have no legislative drivers in place. In addition with the appalling waste management industry Health and Safety record it is surely in everyone’s interest to improve the overall competence of management.
As a company it is obviously in our commercial interests to defend the existing system, however we do think there are improvements which can be made and also we will continue to deliver these qualifications whether there is legislation in place or not. A number of our views and points on this issue are set out below –
1. At Albion we became an approved training centre to deliver these vocational qualifications in 2002, which was some 5 years after the system came into force. As a company we recognised we had to break into a captive market and we did this with two very simple guiding principles –
· Work we do must benefit the client organisation
· Work we do must benefit the candidate
Using this very simple approach we now have a significant share of the market in Scotland (and in fact in the rest of the UK) and continue to have a significant repeat market with candidates coming back to do 2nd, 3rd and even 4th and 5th awards.
2. The changes made to the system in England and Wales provide a variety of routes to achieving competence and is currently working well. The changes have actually resulted in an increase in qualifications as a number of routes have been permitted. So a sensible modification and improvement of the system has resulted in increase in qualifications which is surely in industry and governments interests to achieve? Current proposal does not provide for what would appear to be a perfectly sensible option.
3. We have always argued that the requirement to complete a level 4 vocational qualification to achieve a COTC artificially distorts the market from a training and development point of view –
· Current approach misses out large section of the market as it is only suitable for managers. The proper management of a site is dependant on training of all staff on site.
· It results in staff (supervisors and foremen) trying to complete an award at too high a level. For example try and gain a level 4 qualification rather than a level 3 which may be more appropriate to their experience and qualifications.
· Industry sectors which use vocational qualifications well, use all levels from 1 to 5 as training and development for staff. Current focus on level distorts the approach taken to training in the waste industry.
· There is no “ private sector monopoly”, a large number of approved centres are in house centres either in large organisations or local authorities. We at Albion have an active policy of advising organisations with large numbers of staff looking to complete level 1 and 2 awards to set up to do the award in house. This is a far more cost effective and efficient method for delivering these awards. We can provide support for the new centre and qualifications, for both technical and assessment (A unit) qualifications. (click here for further information)
The current COTC scheme has achieved much over the years and although not perfect is still fundamentally “fit for purpose”. To remove such a system totally would be a move in the wrong direction for the waste management industry. The system has played a large part in improved manager competence, played a part in trying to improve H&S performance and ensure environmental issues are managed in a sensitive and sustainable manner.
We will obviously be responding to the full consultation document however if you have any particular views please let us know.