Posted By Michael Battman Without proof of construction industry competence as well, I doubt it. IOSH on it's own only proves competence in H&S, a member could work in the food industry or manufacturing, etc. CDM Regs demand (and rightly so) experience of construction.

Posted By David S Burt Just a thought but you do not need any construction experience to be a member of the APS which is recognised in the Draft ACOP. I have raised this issue before on both this and the closed forums.

Posted By Dave McIness Sorry forgot to paste the link: http://www.associationfo...ts/membershipbooklet.pdf

Posted By Peter Rose I am a member of APS and I had to demonstrate relevant construction qualifications and extensive experience. I still had to take an open book exam. This would not necesarily show competence as a co-ordinator though. I fully agree that a co-ordinator should be competent as it is a pivotal role. Peter

Posted By sagalout Davids both, I checked the APS site and I read the criteria for ordinary membership as professional + 5 years OR 10 years experience with such exams as... Maybe I am reading it incorrectly? I hope that a sensible solution will be found to this matter that does include recognition and inclusion, at an appropriate level, of what NEBOSH/IOSH carries with it. To be totally excluded or sidelined from any "list" that may be used to "recognise" just feels uncomfortable and not helpful to the improvement of H&S in construction. But hey ho, I will watch with continued interest, from outside since I am not involved with the construction sector. It has messages for IOSH beyond construction I think. Lest we forget, construction does not have a monopoly on needing specialist knowledge and/or experience.

Posted By Robert K Lewis The good news obviously is that the final draft regs and acop have gone to the HSC for approval with the relevant parts of the text unamended!!! The text will also refer to the CAW 2002 regulations which were repealed this month so the drafters really are at the top of their game!! What really concerns me is that the CORPORATE nature of the co-ordinator is lost yet again by the use of individual qualifications and memberships as evidence of competence. In spite of the acop I think there are very few occasions where an individual alone can fulfil the role. How many garages can you build in a week after all. 30 days of site operations has the ability to be often complex. The regs use the 3rd person in stating that a person must be appointed as co-ordinator, just as it does when stating a person must be appointed as principal contractor or contractor, as the case my be. I believe that a co-ordinator must be able to demonstrate within its operations the skills of design, those of contracting, those of H&S and those of mediation, negotiation and communication. Show me the single person who can fulfil this as a lone individual. When I am assisting a client to identify a co-ordinator this is the standard I will be suggesting - Remember that the client has a regulation 4 duty to assess competence and ensure competent persons (note the 3rd person use)are appointed to the roles. It will be all the more interesting during the first 12 months when it is suggested that existing PSs (who will be deemed to be the co-ordinator for the remainder of the project) and contractors (not just PCs) must have their competency re-assessed under regulation 4. And please note I have not even said a word about the APS in all of this. Bob

Posted By Sean Nuttall and yet all the PS we deal with are getting all giddy about their move into the role of PC. I personally am sick to death of next to useless pre tender H and S documentation drafted by PS who never even bother to visit site before drafting them and yet get anal over the toilet cleansing frequency that you failed to include within the construction phase plan. (We now have to include a statement that cleansing will be based on the frequency of use and volume of effluent produced or the PS informs the client we have not included sufficient information and our plan is not up to scratch !!) Naively hoped the individual PS would vanish off the face off the face of the planet but they are sadly just changing jackets

Posted By Sean Nuttall crap puns r us hey I am happy with our standard documentation but we have to "tweak" it for our demanding PS. And as you guessed the buildability from them is useless. They never ever visit site. However its an important client so we must bow to those that demand toilet cleaning frequency data

Posted By Steve B Sean, I think you will probably find that a lot of planning supervisors will disappear, and some should, in my experience the pre-tender documentation does not live up to much from some in fact in some cases clients appoint the PS for a tick in the box (a very expensive tick in the box may i add). The last PS I worked with turned up at the pre-tender meeting (late) gave us a pre-tender documentation for the previous phase which he had copied and pasted (tell tale signs was he had forgotten to change the dates on the appendices) phoned me when I knocked back a method statement about two months into the contract (i gave him an attitude adjustment) never heard from him again for the rest of the project 2 years. Before I need to put my hard hat on and gum shield in.... I am not taring all PS with the same brush just my experiences I am sure there is good and bad in every profession, including ours. Regards Steve B