All was supposed to be revealed at the APS annual conference in Belfast last week. However as I didn't have a spare £279 to attend, I am hoping that some of the delegate will share the information from it.

PH2

The APS are reporting that the CD has been delayed yet again due to the associated Regulatory Impact Assessment. The APS state that they are expecting the release of the consultation in October (if at all).

To quote the APS "We understand that the HSE are still planning to hold a 3 month industry consultation period however as the delay increases so does the likelihood that the consultation period will be reduced in order to still meet an October 2014 introduction of any new regulations.

We are still led to believe that the HSE may be proposing:
Removal of the independent CDM Co-ordinator role and placing Design Phase health and safety co-ordination with a 'Principal Designer' (working title);
Removal of the Appendix 4 Competence Assessment criteria;
Placing construction phase co-ordination duties with the Principal Contractor;
Full application of CDM Regulations to all projects with more than one contractor on site (including domestic projects)."

The above can all be found on the APS website at: https://www.aps.org.uk/breaking-news

I get the uneasy feeling that something has gone badly wrong with the drafting of these new regulations. Originally I was under the impression that the Consultative Draft was going to be published last October, then it was in the spring, then September, then mid October (again) and currently there is no anticipated date. I am also a Registered Member of APS, but I get the distinct impression that they are also being held at arms length and firmly away from any discussions that are taking place.

EXtract from referenced July 2013 paper at #2 above:

"HSE submitted this package to the HSE Board for its consideration at its May 2013 meeting. The Board considered the package in its closed session. At the meeting the Board requested sight of a communications handling plan which sets out the narrative for continuing discussions with stakeholders as the planned consultation approaches. The Board agreed that HSE should continue with submission of the impact assessment for consideration by RPC. The Board will consider the communications handling plan in the near future and will then consider approval to proceed with the consultation. The impact assessment has now been submitted to RPC."

Suggesting that the hold up is with either RPC (Regulatory Policy Committee) or HSE Board and the communications handling plan?

Hi Paul

The issue with domestic clients has been answered somewhat by the HSE. The minutes to the last HSE board meeting discussed the regulation of the construction industry and stated: "A further key element (of the consultation) is a proposal to remove the domestic client exemption, but create a default position whereby duties, which would fall on a domestic client, would instead fall to the designer or contractor."

this can be found on page 4 of the link here:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/ab...013/250913/psepb1387.pdf

Judging on what was posted at approximately 5pm yesterday on the APS Linkin forum, it now looks as though it is very unlikely that the CDM Regs will change next year.

Let us face reality

The HSE messed up the application of the 2007 regs because they failed to enforce well and threw themselves into supporting the plethora of competency assessment schemes. In many ways they failed to enforce/guide firmly the various protagonists into a reduction in bureaucracy. Now we find that the party in a brewery is still far too difficult for them to organise!!!!

Bob

In my opinion its either poor interpretation or over zealous application of the CDM regulations.

we developed our own in house CDM procedure and trained all the relevant duty holders accordingly. And hey presto it works well to be quite honest!!!!!!!!!!!

Liz

I am afraid the HSE`s faith in designers ability or willingness to consider health and safety as an initial priority and not an afterthought may be misplaced.
I do not think it is a question of growing up. More a question of a key health and safety role in a project being removed and replaced by someone who potentially has no independance, experience, knowledge or inclination to suitably fulfill the role.
regards

Must be Friday so off we go?


1) HSE growing up..... as evidenced by what Liz?

2) Did anyone else see the irony in the IOSH forum using the APS Linked-In site and conference as the source of expertise on construction health and safety?

I have been troubled throughout this sorry saga that the communication from the HSE on what is a matter potentially of very great significance to the whole of the construction industry seems to be predominantly by means of off-the-cuff comments, leaks and asides at APS events.

The initial announcement of the review was by someone from HSE at an APS CDM event saying 'oh and by the way we're going to revise CDM regs', or something like it.

It worries me that important matters like this are released at any such event. They shouldn't be dribbled out at some organisation's CPD events, regardless of which organisation. It also troubles me that the organisation that apparently has the inside track is the one with the biggest vested interest, the one that stands to gain from increasing paperwork and bureaucracy.

Although according to APS sources the CDM 2014 can has been kicked down the road, I think that the irony is that this is being actively discussed on this forum rather than the APS Link-in one.

In defence of Liz, I think that she does make a relevant point in that is very difficult to develop a one size model which fits all construction projects and that CDM is complex especially when it is seen as an add-on to the project and design management process rather than one which is integrated and that is before you deal with all the politics surrounding these proposed changes.

When the dust does eventually settles after the 2015 General Election the EU review of Temporary or Mobile Construction Sites Directive and BIM, my money is on CDM 2016 – 2017.

Steve

I have not missed any point.

My quote was in relation to why the announcement of the change CDM regulations was covered predominantly by the APS.
Could it be because the APS is the representative body of CDMC`s ......maybe, just a guess.
I am well aware of the history of CDM and the APS. Thanks very much for enlightening me though.

And as for your objective and impartial opinion..... its is very easy to have one when it is not your job role that is threatened. However having spent the last 15 years developing a career initially as a planning supervisor then CDMC, I am (understandably some would say) somewhat disturbed by the fact the the last 15 years of my (and a large number of others )professional life may just be about to be rendered redundant. A situation I hope you never have the misfortune to find yourself in.

Regards

There would seem to be evidence that some CDMCs have done a good job and added value. There is considerable evidence that many have done very little at all except charge fees. There is no argument that the addition of the new role of PS/CDMC has been an additional cost. Some on this forum have been earning the fees that are part of that cost. There is also considerable evidence of the gravy train of prequalification schemes with managers of such schemes writing their own requirements and setting their own standards, not necessarily related to hazard and risk nor legal duty. So some good work done but a lot of cost on a struggling sector. A lot of spurious junk.
Personally I would rather have a designer or a good builder/contractor help me build an asset safely than the best qualified H&S professional. Years of study and practical work help to shape a store of knowledge of what can work and what will not. Of course there are poor designers. There are good and bad in any field. It just seems entirely logical to me to allow those who have knowledge of the possible solutions available to be the lead body rather than those who demand retrofitted "Design Risk Assessments".
Do not misread this. I am proud to work in the field of H&S and so should anyone be. It is simply that the HSE has been able to learn more about what constitutes design and project management relatively recently. They have listened and learnt. Learnt that you cannot design out all hazards but rather that design choices design in hazards too. Learnt that attitude and leadership are difficult subjects for legislation and that other buttons need to be pressed than the whip of prosecution. Learnt that the fear of being held accountable can freeze senior management into negative behaviours that take us nowhere. My view is that they are maturing but probably too late to save themselves. I do not need to provide evidence to anyone to hold a personal view. Evidence to the contrary?
Don't get me wrong. I do not think HSE is all-wise! Fees For Intervention sucks. Pathetic fundraising scheme that is in my view likely to backfire very badly indeed. Bit like Environment Agency. Did not some one once say "Power corrupts...".
By the way - I am not up to speed on Loefstedt as per original enquiry, though I did meet him and put my view for British Chamber and SMEs. Since no one else seems to be up to speed either I have not let that worry me too much!

Just why should the CDM review be of more relevance to CDMCs and APS than other construction parties? One part is totally H&S and most of the rest is about safety management on site and during preparation. I am sorry but IOSH failed over this by allowing APS - Association of Project Safety to insert themselves as the leaders in ALL construction safety matters such that a CDMC with a NEBOSH Constr. Cert comes to have more credibility than a Chartered Fellow simply because he is the CDMC!!!

A comic opera still continues on this. Poor enforcement by HSE who inadvertantly maybe created the current bureaucratic monster. What is even worse is the utter failure to take account of EU timetables as well.

Bob

Exactly.

The assertion back up the thread "I dont think it is unreasonable for an organisation that predominatley represents the demographic that will be affected by the proposed changes (IE CDMC`s) to be more involved than other organisations." is wrong, in my view.

There are many, many more designers that will be affected than there are CDM-Cs. There are more contractors that will be affected than CDM-Cs. The APS does NOT represent the bulk of the people that will be affected by CDM - they represent one narrow category of such people. APS has done some good marketing trying to convince people that they are the seat of all expertise regarding CDM, but it's simply not true. They aren't even the source of all expertise regarding CDM-Cs - they are one of several examples in the ACOP of operators of CDM-C registers. They don't hold any special statutory role.

Furthermore, I did not question that any organisation be involved - what I question is first official announcement of such matters at any organisation's regional CPD events. It's not appropriate for announcements of HSE policy and working plans to be made at third party regional CPD events. Matters that will have major impact should be formally announced, not dribbled out in comments aside here and there apparently at random.

I too am a member APS (RMaPS). I think that's substantially irrelevant to the observation that HSE should not be dribbling out significant elements of policy and work plan at APS CPD events.

No, I don't think that is fact. I believe the first public announcement of an intention to revise CDM regs was at an APS regional CPD event. It was minuted at CONIAC after that.

Read the June 2012 APS digest - "in a surprise announcement at an APS London Region CPD event in mid
May, HSE representatives told their audience that the HSE is currently exploring the idea of developing a new regulatory package to replace the current CDM Regulations and ACoP. Solicitors have been appointed to work on this"

I don't believe there's anything about revision of CDM regs in CONIAC before that. The March 2012 meeting just says they are thinking about Lofstedt - "HSE was now looking at how to take forward the CDM Regulatory package in relation to the findings of the evaluation and Löfstedt/RTC, together with relevant European directive considerations, although no timescales for delivery of this work had yet been fixed. The evaluation report would be published in April."

It's not until the papers of the June CONIAC (after they've already told APS they are going to revise the regs) that there's mention of revision to the regs.

So no, it is NOT fact that the information was there in CONIAC records for anyone else to pick up - the FIRST announcement of an intention to revise the regs was in an APS regional CPD event. That is wrong.

Revision of the ACOP, which had been discussed. Possibly publication of some guidance, which had alkso been discussed. Not rewriting the regulations, which had not been discussed.

Since Lofstedt said don't change the regs, and since the evaluation had not been published yet, and assumption that "how to take forward the CDM Regulatory package" means "how we are going to revise the regulations themselves" would be completely unwarranted.

There was NO announcement of any intention to revise the CDM regulations until it was announced at an APS CPD event. That is the fact of the matter.

There was an open Meeting in June or July to announce just that. Problem being that HSE haven't published a Minute of that Meeting, and the little they have made public is somewhat buried within their website.