Thanks for the heads up.

PH2

So are they saying there was never a need for CDM C in the first place?

Thanks for the link, I though was more interested in this quote from her speech. The last sentence will be very controversial for many large organisations.

"Just as we are doing in HSE there’s a need for everyone to take time to ensure that they are focussing on the real priorities – the real hazards that could cause serious injury or damage people’s health. Paper cuts incurred in the office and unlikely to be life threatening so why do so many organisations respond to them by conducting a full investigation?

This is partly about recognising that some of the risks are harder to tackle – health, process safety – but this is where you will have much more impact on outcomes in terms of prevention of harm to people. But its also about having the courage to let go of the trivial – the things which have become part of the drive for “continuous improvement” even when you have reached the point of seriously diminishing returns."

Under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM), there is a legal requirement for the client to appoint a CDMC. However, following the recent review of legislation carried out by Professor Löfstedt, it is anticipated that the CDM Regulations will change — despite Löfstedt stating that the CDM Regulations are generally “fit for purpose”.

It is widely believed that the HSE will carry out a 3-month consultation period similar to the others that have recently been held for COSHH, DSEAR and other key pieces of legislation. Changes were expected in 2014, although it is now speculated that this may be pushed back until 2015, and of course, any changes will need parliamentary approval.

It is anticipated that changes will include the removal of the CDMC role, placing the design phase and health and safety co-ordination with a “principal designer” (this new role has yet to have a formal title assigned), and the removal of the competence assessment criteria found in Appendix 4 of the regulations.

The construction phase co-ordination duties are likely to be assigned to the principal contractor, and client duties for domestic projects are anticipated to lie with the first appointee (eg the architect or the contractor). Another aspect that is likely to change is the introduction of the full application of the CDM Regulations to all projects with more than one contractor on site; this will also include all domestic projects.

While the Löfstedt report was intended to improve and remove duplication from current health and safety legislation, the removal of the CDMC has caused some controversy among the industry. There are some who believe that good CDMCs improve health and safety on construction sites, in addition to improving timescales and keeping costs in control. Others meanwhile, believe that the removal of the CDMCs will streamline processes.

Whatever your thoughts for now, the current regulations must be adhered to and so a CDMC must be assigned when the project is notifiable to the HSE. A project is notifiable if the construction phase will be longer than 30 days or 500 person days (domestic clients are the exception).

the above is an extract from croners that i recieved this morning and leads to the following questions:

1. if professor lofstedts opinion was that the CDM regulations where "fit for purpose" why in times of austerity are we spending vast sums of money re-writing the CDM regulations when a possible few amendments would have been more than adequate to bring them up to speed with what would be required of the origional european directive?
2. is it not down to poor interpretation of what is required by the CDM regulations that is the problem? and if this is the case why aint we tackling this matter head on, and issuing revised guidance on the matter?
3. if the government is so anti european why are we rolling over to europe again?
4. or is this just attack on "elf n safety" for the sake of political point scoring by the government?

Quote "Because saying you're anti-european looks good in the Daily Mail, but really no rational person would actually takes us out of it" unquote.

achrn - by stating this you are saying that the majority of the UK population are not rational.

Also it is the Daily Express who are crusading for the UK to leave Europe - in this instance give the DM a break.

Rich

heck may be we need to pre-empt devolution in Scotland next....

If it's such a no-brainer and everyone is really in favour of full exit from the EC, why are we still in it?

It's because actually, it is to the country's benefit, and everyone knows that really. The only people that say they will withdraw from Europe are the ones that think they'll never have to deal with the consequences. Rather like the lib-dems pledges over tuition fees. It's easy to sound grand when you know you'll never have to actually put up.

Yes, I agree with this. I've relatively recently had quiet a lot of building work done on my house. I appointed what I thought was a decent builder, who was well recommended (actually the second most expensive quote). When I was living on site I was continually nagging the builder about things (mainly work at height - their access to the roof for example). I wasn't living there for most of the build, but when I did drop in I was still picking them up on stuff towards the end of the project. If I can't make them do it right, what chance a naive domestic client who doesn't know what 'right' looks like? Some domestic clients are going to be gobsmacked to employ what they thought was a reasonable builder and then get hit with penalties from HSE, if HSE decide the client role has not been fulfilled.



The comment I gave on the last CDM review / consultation basically boiled down to that they aren't perfect, but we've finally reached the point where nearly everyone in most of the industry at least knows what they ought to be doing, so on no account should they be tampered with now.

So is this the thin edge of the wedge? Eliminate the interfering CDMC and no more H&S problems in construction.

So prof could you look at getting rid of these interfering safety practitioners next, just cost us money what with their stupid ideas on protecting people, not forgetting the fortune they cost in salaries.

Well yes, Prime Minister it maybe difficult, but if we succeed in getting rid of the CDMC who knows what is achievable, thinking out loud Prime minister what about all those Environmental Advisors we could start scare stories about them next, jus a thought PM.


You couldn't make it up!

I suppose we need to remember that IDS is in charge of the DWP, at least I think so, so we can be sure all changes will be chaotic as has been the case in other DWP areas.

Could this be that the cdmcs yu have encountered have not been fully empowered by the client?

In my humble opinion up until late 2007 early 2008 health and safety was making good and effective progress part of which was the implementation of CDM 2007 and the role of the CDM-C.
However the CDM-C role will only be effective if the appointee is fully empowered by the client and he /she focuses on his/her role and function rather than over emphasis on paperwork and buerorcracy (as mentioned in CDM 2007).
I have seen and worked with some very good CDM-Cs and also some poor ones whom where mainly interested in a paper gathering exercise rather than being a facilitator.
I have also come across principle contractors many of which are UKCG members whose sole intention seemed to be back side covering paperwork based I.e. RAMS for simple tasks covering over 20 pages!!!

The only thing wrong (in my opinion) with the current CDM regulations is poor interpretation and again in my opinion all that was needed was better/clearer guidance on how to comply with these regulations.

You ask for examples of how the CDM- C has improved things well im pretty sure that the accident stats could tell the tale here it certainly does at my current company where the CDM-C is also the Group Health and Safety Manager whom is fully empowered by the board of directors.

everyone is entitled to their opinion and mine is that by replacing the CDM-C with a lead designer (most designers are not the least bit interested in health n safety) is a bad move but only time will tell.

On what basis can you claim that CDMCs havent improved construction from a safety perspective?

What part have all the other duty holders played to improve safety in construction?

A downward trend over the last 20 years which continued with the introduction of CDM 2007.

would you care to answer my 2nd question? With regards to other duty holders?

as I mentioned in my earlier post where all entitled to our opinions, and only time will tell if the changes are for the better I like plenty on this forum fear that its a change for the worse.

Continued unaffected by the introduction, yes. That was my point.



Presumably all the things they were already doing and have continued to do that have been gradually driving down the danger in the industry. CDM hasn't of itself had a big impact - the industry has been gradually improving since before CDM and I expect it to continue to improve after parts of CDM are dropped.

The graphs demonstrate all this - if CDM really did have a big impact on site safety there should be a drop or change in gradient or something when it was introduced. There isn't. Creating CDM-Cs didn't improve site safety overall - the trends have not wavered. Creating CDM-Cs has added to paperwork, and created teh APS, but it hasn't done anything discernible to construction industry statistics.

Has not IOSH opposed the APS application for Chartered status?

Jon

Irrespective of who goes and who stays until the enforcers do their job and enforce enough clients and designers properly noting will change and that will not happen

We will be back to the 60's [when I started] very shortly if we are not there already with 0 hours employment contracts and the like