Posted By The toecap
It hasn't really changed the CDM scenario a great deal anyway. There would be little change

Posted By Alan Hoskins
Why would anyone want to do that?

Is anyone aware of this being done previously, ever? (in connection with H&S legislation).

Posted By Gilly Margrave
Actually it's not the first time he's done it.

http://edmi.parliament.u...DMByMember.aspx?MID=2439

Gilly

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
I understand from CNPlus and http://www.building.co.u...84&storycode=3083749&c=1
That Parliamentary time is now being set aside to debate the introduction of the 2007 CDM Regulations

I personally cannot see how these regulations have not been sufficiently debated during their consultation phase, however this is the reason given for this debate.

Posted By CFT
Despite an earlier comment, CDM 2K7 is fundamentally quite different to the 1994 CDM regulations. To suggest that they should be shelved and introduce further consultation would seem to be totally irresponsible; I see the changes tightening up many holes in the earlier regs and introducing a far higher level of commitment from the client and removing the right to transfer liability is in my opinion a good one, among many other changes.

If Mr. C had moaned to say they could have been of a prescriptive nature as opposed to the descriptive then he may well have had a point worth listening to; he states that the restraints that will be placed upon small and medium sized companies is unreasonable; unreasonable it may seem to those companies, I doubt it will be perceived that way by families when there loved ones lives are protected in a more responsible manner; again, if he had bemoaned the fact the HSE are already over stretched and proposed that funds should be made available by the existing Government to actually enforce CDM 2K7 it would have got my vote, as it stands some companies will get away with it until tragically something goes wrong.

It would be satisfying to think that Mr. C had the time and energy to devote to a worthwhile cause; if the consultation process had ignored the comments from those that count, then that may well be a bigger issue worthy of further consideration, as it stands the contributions made throughout the process considered the needs and requirements of most, they are still far to watered down and I see some amendments on the horizon; time as usual time will tell.

CFT

Posted By holyterror72
A colleague just got this response.

Dear Mr Cantrell,



Thank you for contacting Philip Hammond MP, who has asked me to reply on his behalf, about the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. Let me assure you that the Conservative Party is committed to the highest possible standards of health and safety in the construction industry as elsewhere. We are also committed to implementing health and safety legislation in the most efficient and effective manner.



We have received many representations largely but not exclusivley from smaller businesses, questioning whether the CDM regulations are being implemented in the most effective manner. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has, for example, also raised questions about how these regulations are being implemented. Members of the Health and Saftey Executive's own Small Business Trade Association Forum have raised strong objections to the regulations.



There are a number of issues involved, including why these regulations are not being implemented through the granting of planning permission and building regulation approval which was how the Disability Discrimination Act legislation was successfully implemented.



The CDM regulations were tabled under what is called the "negative resolution procedure" which means that there would be no debate on them unless an Early Day Motion was put down requesting a debate. The wording to achieve this is set down by the Parliament. Although the term "annulled" is part of this standard wording, all the Early Day Motion does is secure an hour and a half debate in which MPs from all parties can question the Minister introducing the regulations. In this debate assurances can be sought about the implementation and any subsequent review of the regulations.



Given the concerns expressed on this issue, we believe it is right that there should be the opportunity for debate. Parliament is rightly criticised when it does not debate important issues and legislation that is not scrutinised is almost always the poorer for it. I hope that this reassures you and explains the action we have taken.



With very best wishes



Andrew Selous MP

Posted By holyterror72
Bob,

Don't shoot the messenger! I don't agree with these idiots. Its been debated by accountants, you know people on the 'sharp edge' of construction.

People have harped on about 'some' of the CDM issues being part of planning for some time (ie structural features, abseiling, etc) which may work, but its only a small part of CDM isn't it?

What about logistical restraints, sequencing of programmes, etc which are way beyond planning, and are a fundamental part of CDM.

I personally don't expect any objections to it from the debate, after all its only based on current 'good practice' under CDM which has been undertaken since the implementation of the new regs in '95. But we will see....

Posted By holyterror72
While we are on the subject this is an email reposne from the HSE late last week...

'Thank you for your enquiry regarding the implementation of the Construction
Design and Management Regulations.

The Health and Safety Executive's CDM Policy and they have stated that an
"early day motion" has been lodged in Parliament calling for an annulment
of the CDM 2007 Regulations. It is understood that very few early day
motions succeed and that they have to be debated in the session in which
they were laid. There is only a short period of time left for this
parliamentary session before the House rises for the Easter break, so if
the motion is not heard before the Easter recess it will fall.
Another early day motion could be laid in the next parliamentary session
but as the Regulations will have come into force by then it will make any
future challenges difficult to proceed.

HSE's CDM Policy are still expecting the regulations to come into force on
the 6th April 2007.'

So it just goes to show the world does stop for Easter! We've been told by the APS that the next chance for debate will be 16th April 07. Great!

Posted By holyterror72
CFT,

I agree the response may not be from who it states its been wrote by.

I also seem to remember a letter from CIA regarding CAWR and other regs. They probably issue an objection every time something is brought to light which has an effect on their Clients liability ie everything!

The content of the CIA letter does seem to address issues from the first draft which I seem to think have been altered in the new ACoP so I don't think their main objections are based on anything current, so hopefully no problems.

It will probably go something like this

"House of Lords, lets debate CDM."
"Whats that, Cadburys Dairy Milk? Whatever, lets move on and discuss fox hunting and gay marriage again".

Posted By Robert K Lewis
It is very sad really that my surname's sake should so expose himself to open comment by virtue of his email to the HSE. I presume however that he has publicised it and thus does not understand the significance of what he has written.

HolyTerror

I was not intending to shoot the messenger - the target was the Lunatics who are running the asylum. It is so very sad that we have to survey the ruins of a world that has yet to comprehend the real problems of labour in terms of injury and ill health - in spite of the finely spun words. In this anniversary period for slavery emancipation we would do well to remember that it is less than 200 years since Britain removed herself from the trade and only slave owners were compensated for their losses.

I am truly afraid that many of the so called intellectual elite of this country do not fully subscribe to a message that insists all employees have a right not to enslaved by injury, disease and death whilst at work. Economic performance will always come first. The Right to Life Campaign has been criticised by many but as well as being anti-abortion it also stands for the rights of the working person to maintain a healthy existence. Would that more subscribed to this fact.

Bob

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
Gilly,

I do admire your attention to the programme going on in that House.

I was only testing another hypothesis, as I could not see the point of squandering an hour and a half of parliamentary time debating this Statutory Instrument.

From my own experience I have never seen so much (written) debate over the introduction of any new H&S Legislation.

Posted By Gilly Margrave
Aaran,
I do so agree - there are far more importatnt matters before the house:

http://edmi.parliament.u...?EDMID=32923&SESSION=885

Gilly

Posted By holyterror72
Apologies! My 'flowery' building site language coming out.

Posted By CFT
Being in receipt of an identical letter from Mr Cameron's press and public relations people with a short line added for my own benefit last evening, I responded detailing my disappointment at the level of duplication the letter contained.

On arrival at work this morning I have had another response which has now been passed on to the Shadow Minister for H&S/Pensions etc. I am further informed once my comments have been digested I will be contacted again. I am also in communication with my local Conservative MP on said matter.

Clearly this area of concern has not yet completed full circle, and I personally look forward to a resolve that might even consider some additional funding from the pot so that enforcement authorities can better measure the success of CDM 2007. (I know don't hold my breath on the latter statement)

CFT

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
I recall doing a word search on the Conservative Party's Manifesto at the last General Election and the words 'Health and Safety' and 'Global Warming' did not appear. In fact the word Environment on appeared twice in one remote paragraph.

Strange how quickly politics changes!

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Ron

Your comments reflect many of my thoughts with regard to the very significant impact of what might seem to be minor changes - particularly with regard to non-notifiable works and the loss of the agent.

I actually think the Institution, and specifically Council, need to come to terms with the fact that familiarity with construction will soon be an essential part of any competent H&S professional's skillset. As yet we seem unable even to put out a decent guide on competence and training even after many month's of Technical Committee input and activity.

Bob

Posted By David S Burt
People just to put things into prospective the following actually applies:

The EDM secures an hour and a half's debate in which MPs from all parties can question the Minister introducing the regulations. Despite the wording of the EDM, the CDM regulations 2007 WILL NOT BE CANCELLED, nor will the implementation date of April 6 be changed. The only likely change to the regulations is that a two year review be introduced. Which presumably means we'll be having this argument again in 2009.

On that occasion lets hope that WE i.e. IOSH Members can lobby the powers that be that perhaps being a Chartered member of Europe's leading Health & Safety Institute back up with significant Construction Experience is sufficient to allow us to be considered for the role of CDM Coordinator.

I also believe that the new CDM Regs need to be directly linked into the Planning Process. It is all very well banging on about what Clients must do but what happens when the vast majority of Clients do not know or understand their duties?

Posted By David Brede
A cynic would say he was endearing himself to a range of businesses that have deserted him for Labour in recent years so why not do something that is all show, takes little time and nothing of consequence will come of it?