I have just heard a snippet of information that at long last the HSE are going to review pre-qualification schemes, has anyone got any further information on this matter that they would like to share?

thanks in advance

allan

I am quite comfortable with the approach taken by S.S.I.P. whereby schemes recognise one another and perhaps this is the way forward.

with the cut backs in the HSE i cant see them giving us much in terms of methodology however i could see them using SSIP as an example and perhaps even recommending such a scheme.

Sorry, I think that complete opposit will occure and in the current political environment, the HSE will simply take a step away from formally supporting any independent pre-qualification schemes and identify the ultimate responsibility for assessing competence lies with the Client. I.e. if you (Mr Client) rely on a third party pre-qualification assessment scheme and they get it wrong, then we shall be coming after you.

This topic is mentioned in the latest edition of construction news.

I understand that the HSE are tasked with review of CDM Regs via Lofsted, LY and other pressures, and that industry consultation reported a perception that CDM had led to an increase in bureaucracy and paperwork at prequalification stage.
My view is that problem (if it actually exists) is not the fault of regulation, more a problem with the application and interpretation by the supply chain (with the Major Contractor Group having a significant role) in failing to accept interchangeability principles the SSIP promote.
We have had many threads on this Forum bemoaning the duplication of effort involved in meeting the requirements of various clients, unreasonable demands (recent UKATA asbestos thread being a case in point).
Is it really the job of the regulator and health and safety law to fix this unecessary burden on the supply chain. Can the CDM Regulations really hope to fix these supply chain errors?
Despite the best efforts of SSIP, HSE and others, we are now in a position where there is too great a focus on prequal and "tick box" assessment, and far too little attention paid to task or project specific methodology at tender stage - probably because that takes competent assessment and analysis as opposed to ticking a box. That is not the fault of CDM, HSE or the various commercial pre-qual. schemes.

JohnM

I think you are wrong to keep excepting CHAS - all these commercial systems have the same problems. CDM works well if interpreted correctly but too many people twist it to suit their own ends in whatever way that goes. Put simply the regs are about using competent people and companies to design and construct a structure, and to co ordinate between designers during the design and construction phases. All too often the emphasis is put solely on pre qual without an undertsanding of what is actually required. Yes such as the MCG are avidly assisting this misunderstanding.

Bob

As the Chairman of SSIP I can confirm that it is our aim that all correspondence to SSIP is dealt with and responded to. I would not be suprised if you have already had a response, provided your comments got through to us. If you have a complaint that SSIP can address, and have not yet put it to us, or as you suggest have not actually had a reply, I am respectfully inviting you to do so again via the SSIP secretariat, the contact details are on the SSIP website. I will be looking out for it.

SSIP does not ignore any correspondence: if it contains matters that we can actually address, we are pleased to provide a prompt response. We welcome contact from any IOSH member who has issues that SSIP should know about. Regards, Paul Reeve CFIOSH (ECA, SSIP acting chairman)

Paul

My correspondence to SSIP has not met with an acknowledement - never mind a formal response. The issue has now been elevated.

Jon

I must admit to being a big fan of the SSIP concept as this could do away with a hell of a lot of repetition & beaurocracy.
Surely it would make sense for the HSE and or the government to get behind SSIP in the quest to cut red tape, cost and beaurocracy so making the tender process simpler and more cost effective during these troubled times.

You are naturally entitled to elevate this to wherever you wish, but from this thread I do know what SSIP issue you are seeking to resolve. If you want to advise me what the issue is (it will need to be about the operation of SSIP, or how its members are not delivering what SSIP is set up to achieve - comments about individual schemes are best dealt with by the schemes) then, as I have already offered, I will consider it promptly, irrespective of where else your comment has been sent. In all likelihood, such comments will come back to SSIP in due course anyway, for our response. Paul

You are naturally entitled to elevate this to wherever you wish, but from this thread I do know what SSIP issue you are seeking to resolve. If you want to advise me what the issue is (it will need to be about the operation of SSIP, or how its members are not delivering what SSIP is set up to achieve - comments about individual schemes are best dealt with by the schemes) then, as I have already offered, I will consider it promptly, irrespective of where else your comment has been sent. In all likelihood, such comments will come back to SSIP in due course anyway, for our response. Paul


I am somewhat uneasy with your response and position in so far as you know "what SSIP issue you are seeking to resolve". Knowledge of the issue should not generate a request for further "advise of the what the issue is."

For your further information I had exhausted the lower tier procedure of complaint to the pre qual outfit without satisfaction. The wholly unnecessary curt and dismissive response from the outfit promted me to raise the issue with the HSE. From there it was onwards to Chair of SSIP, APS, 5 New Mart Place, Edinburgh EH14 1RW.

Hope this helps.

Jon

It is clear that my particular and detailed response to Bob Lewis has caused a bit of an issue with the Moderators - I would welcome reasons for the removal of the post as I do not believe it infringed forum rules.

Jon