Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH
Just wanted to get a feel from fellow members on how they think the proposed new changes to the CDM Regs will improve the construction industry or are they going over the top with their requirements on the following:
Client, Co-Ordinator, Designer, PC.

PLEASE if you have nothing constructive to give to this thread then I respectfully request do not get involved.

Regards

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
My initial thought is that there is nothing significant in the new regs, which will not improve the overall performance of the construction industry over the current CDM Regulations.

Had the current regs been used in the spirit that they were intended, much of what is proposed in the new ACOP would already be regarded as best practice, however I view the development of the CDM 2007 Regulations as a good industry exercise for reviewing how the structure of safety management should be undertaken and the outcome of this exercise may improve safety performance within the construction industry.

Basically I feel the review process has much greater value that the new CDM Regulations.

Within the new regulations there is a new general emphasis on co-operation which I feel will be the ‘catch all’ aspect of the legislation when things go wrong. Basically all the Crown would need to show is a failure for any one of the key parties to co-operate with other members of the team in order to prosecute them.

Posted By Steve B
The revised regulations, together with the supporting Approved Code of Practice (ACoP), have been developed in line with “Better Regulation” principles and aim to reduce construction accidents and ill health by:

• Being clearer in order to make it easier for duty holders to know what is expected of them;
• Being flexible and accommodating the wide range of contractual arrangements to be found in the construction industry;
• Emphasising the need to plan and manage work rather than the bureaucracy associated with it.
• Emphasising the communication and coordination advantages of duty holders working in integrated teams; and
• Simplifying the way duty holders assess competence

The CDM Regulations and The CHSWR become one, again taking out the x reference requirement between the two.

As above the biggest and most significant changes for me is that of the lesser spotted planning supervisor, in reality the PS could run and I use the term run very loosely many projects at once, in my experience a very expensive tick in the box and a administrative roll for many. with the Coordinator, they will need to be more proactive, attend design meetings, site visits, coordinate designers, ensure cooperation etc etc etc.

I believe it is a move in the right direction, not the complete answer I agree but a positive move.

Regards
Steve

Posted By Crim
Robert

What do you mean by Part 4? I understand the new Regs are in 3 parts?

Posted By Steve B
Crim,
Part 4 is now duties relating to Health and Safety on Construction sites.

Originally the CHSWR were going in as shedules, but the latest revision makes them regulations.

Regards
Steve

p.s. they are now in 5 parts. part 5 is General, civil liability, enforcement in respect of fire, transitional provision, amendments to other regulations etc.

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Too true Ron

Bob

Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH
Brett, I understand your frustration and hope, like many other H&S bods that with the change to both the CDM regs and Building regs that the Clients might also change. That is the thing with our job, we can say and write things till we are feed up stating the facts and when it does happen, they all look to us and say why? I am hoping, like most of us, that this change will be a good thing, communication, cooperation, both still under current regs but stronger in new regs. The HSE have to prioritise enforcement maybe soon they might go back to basics instead of only looking into fatal accidents, but there's not many of them and a lot of us. With the changes to both CDM and Building Regs this will put greater duties on LAs, so they need training up, but that is a long way off and I know that LAs do not wish to go down the flexi warrant route, what will happen then?
To sum up, a move in the right direction, yes. But still too many questions like: how to advise small building company's, advising Jo public, hows this going to be done and to what cost? How many enforcement bodies involved now?
Regards

Posted By JEB
Robert

In the latest draft, (annex to paper HSC/06/54) Regulation 21 states that the CDM co-ordinator shall ensure that notification is given to the HSE to be signed by or on behalf of the client, therefore if the clients instruction to the co-ordinator is to sign the notification on his behalf and it is not issued then surely the CDM co-ordinator would be in breach not the client.

John

Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH
Ron,
Please advise where in the proposed new regs that domestic premises are exempt from CDM regs.
time and duration of works.
Maybe laws outside england and wales might be different, i.e scotland and northern Ireland?

Posted By Ron Hunter
Jonathon -please don't take offence - this is one of the sensible threads!
I meant that CDM 07 doesn't apply to domestic clients (i.e. joe public). Domestic premises are obviously still within the scope of the Regs, e.g. LA housing stock.

Posted By J Knight
Hi Arran,

Not sure I understand that point. Since the principles of prevention form the intent of Reg 4 Management Regs and are explicitly to be used in RA, surely this will more likley mean RAs which are more likely to be suitable and sufficient? Or is this a naieve view and am I missing something?

John

Posted By Ron Hunter
Those with a particular interest in the Designer role may be interested in page 71 of the draft 07 ACoP. See:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/ab.../2006/171006/c54Ann6.pdf
The HSC aren't pulling their punches!!

Posted By JEB
This is an excellent thread as it focuses the mind on reading the "small print". You could almost use it as part of your CPD.

Posted By Robert K Lewis
JEB

But note the magic ensure - if the client instructs the CDMC to sign on his behalf then he is notifying the work. If he will not sign and refuses to allow the CDMC to sign then equally he is still responsible.

I think the statement in the regulation 14(4) that the client will be deemed to be the CDMC or PC if he has not appointed one or other or both at the appropriate time will provide an interesting take on the delayed appointments and rapid start dates.

As Arran has stated regulation 7 is potentially going to cause some headaches. Yes it repeats current legal duties in many ways but now puts a new twist on events.

Bob

Posted By Brett Day

Jonathon, I understand that under the 'new' regs the client is responsable, but the particular client I'm talking about was blatent in thier disregard of the regs - I can't give too much info away as it would identify the client, however, the HSE knew what was going on from the calls they made to us. We were doing the best we can to educate, cajole and set an example.

Had the HSE sent the 'Red Letters' to the client as well it would have helped enormously, had they sent the client the stiff letter we recieved from them again the same thing. Why this reluctance to involve the client, let alone take action??

I will continue to be as profesional as I can despite some of my clients and will do my best to help, bully, cajole and encourage.

As for "Let us be clear the coordinator will include a number of persons with a range of professional skills, one of which should be chartered membership of IOSH for at least one part of the team. This is of course subject to project size and complexity."

Sorry but am not chartered, nor am likely to be so for a while yet have discharged my duties competantly on all the projects I've worked on. Lets not get into the belief that chartered = Competant, I've picked up three projects that a then MIOSH had made a real foul up of.

Posted By Davelfc
Jonathan,

Its been said before good thread and good points by all, It will be interesting to see if the new Regs actually make others more accountable.

With the old regs it is and has always been easy for the Principal Contractor to fall in the trap of enforcement, where as the other duty holders take their coin and do not come under the same scrutiny as they are not left holding the baby.

Also said previously and good example the client phones up and says you have been appointed start on ? The PC is relieved he has the job but lack of information and time, this impacts on all projects as everyone is chasing their tail. the designer does not foresee all the problems in the design particularly build ability and in many cases leaves for site to sort, the client feels he has done his bit by pressing the button to start, the PC should be grateful I have appointed him.

The HSE need to look at the problems they find and track them all the way back to where they started, where you notified with enough time to plan has the PS/PC co-ord coordinated and ensure sufficient time and resources are built in etc etc. Problem they don't have the resources the easy way out is to drop enforcement on the Principal Contractor and this is also the case if on the other side of the coin a subbie does something that does not comply, even when they are specialist and are the problem and if they do hit the subbie then generally Principal Contractor also gets a bit.

The spirit of co-operation should mean waht it says on the tin, all should share the burden when things are not quite right, or if what I hope the new regs are going to do the enforcing authorities don't simply scribble on a piece of paper, walk off site and leave the dust to settle.

There is an oppertunity to look deeper but they need to start as they mean to go on and not take the easy option for the regualtions to have the desired effect and get all to plan design and manage correctly.

Regards

Dave