A domestic client has to do nothing under the draft proposals. A domestic client has to do nothing under the current Regs. No change.

Yet the lack of no change is costing UK PLC E300kpw??? Straight through the looking glass and deep into the cloud over cuckoo land. This is not Elphen say 'phtee' gone mad its EU eurocrats and their lawyers gone totally barking..

Considering the proudly presented NHS constitution has no legal standing then a degradation of work safety should come as no surprise. Dark days ahead my friends even litigating against negligent Employers has recently been made harder.

The proposed regs (given the ACOP will disappear) do not outline the suggested contents for a constrution phase plan, health and safety file or suggest what pre-construction information should comprise. Have I missed something or are we to summise that this guidance will be provided?

An interesting SHP article on CDM 201X Consultation

http://www.shponline.co....ns-the-potential-changes

It all appears a little garbled to me. What are the objectives I thought they included reducing injuries and ill health in construction? Yet reading the CD it is filled with the words, expect and low compliance. Does this mean HSE will not meet their objective and they find that acceptable?
If the highest number of incidents are on projects employing 15 or less on site, why change the method of gaining intelligence on this work by only notifying work employing 20 persons simultaneously?

Whilst much is printed about the failures of CDMCs, which I do take exception to, we did not all fail, what is does say to me is the HSE failed with clients, designers, CDMCs and especially all of the SME contractors who are still behaving as health and safety is not an issue. Example Chimney breast needs pointing price submitted seems low “have you allowed for scaffolding?” response “if you want it done safely that will be 50% more” whose safety? Culture never changed quickly but without education and enforcement it is a lost cause.

No I think somebody needs to ask serious questions about the effectiveness of the HSE in the SME part of the construction industry.

The move away from the ACoP is a concern. Guidance will be helpful, but I recall the guidance in 2007 came circa 6 months after the Regs!

As I review my notes I am sure many more points will come to the fore. One query I do have, is this about savings or health and safety, as it certainly has a lot to say about costs and benefits and little about the health and safety of workers and clients.

Sorry Carrwood,

Surely it will be 150% as under Reg 6 (1) a & b of the new Regs as once you add the scaffolding, there is more than one contractor so you will need both a Principal Designer and Principal Contractor?

Just remains to decide when we can finalise the update presentation and task sheets forrtraining programme roll out among our clients!!!!!!!
Bob

Where does the consultation make any suggestion that designers will undertake the additional duties for nothing?

What it does say is that CDM-C duties have a median cost to the project of £3,150, and removing the CDM-C and implementing a PD will result in average savings of £585 per project, which means that there is still a £2,565 cost to the project of undertaking the work previously done by CDM-Cs. There is no implication that I can see that designers are expected to absorb this cost.

Please can you explain how you conclude the consultation foresees designers undertaking the additional work for nothing?

Apart from complying with the TMCS directive in full (as required by europe) what is the point of the CDM review?
Is this not just political pandering & spin by the current government (we have reduced the health & safety burden on business blah, blah, blah).

It just seems a little pointless when the major problem with CDM 2007 (in my opinion) is/was poor implemntation and a lack of enforcement by the H.S.E.

IMO, after this ludicrous exercize we will still be left with poor implementation and a lack of enforcement by the HSE!

That's not my interpretation Ron. For the pre-construction palnning, the consultation document says "The default position will be that the responsibility for discharging of the function is within the existing project team, facilitating an integrated approach to risk management".

Surely 'the team' can include an 'independent safety adviser'?

JohnW

Ron, yes, but I still interpret the 'business in control' can be the builder and anyone he uses or employs.

In these seven years I've worked with what would be called 'small builders', who might be building new houses or refurbishing office units. They take on the role of 'designer' and might have a mate who is the 'principal contractor' but neither have formal H&S training. They employ me to fulfil their duty to have 'access to competent H&S support' and it has suited them that I could provide pre-construction advice, CDM-C, as well as ongoing construction phase advice, site inspections, basic training etc

I still think the changes to CDM will offer much to us H&S consultants.

JohnW

I note that the idea of a single person to fulfil the various duties is still stuck fast in peoples minds - this was the cause of many issues with the CDMC role. It is not about the singular person but the organisational provision using the in house skills avaiable.

I too cannot see a non construction safety adviser should ever be held liable for the implementation of CDM15. That is tantamount to the HSE arguing t6hat non competent people should be used, but then they are eliminating the competence regulation so who knows the real motive.

As far as the PD role is concerned the HSE seem to forgat that designers often change once planning consent is achieved and I can forsee a rich fertile ground to keep both criminal and civil courts tied up in many hours of wrangling for years to come. Certainly my advice to contractors is to check the tender closely to see if they are being required to fulfil any duties other than those set out clearly in the regulations. Tender exactly for what is there and charge for anything that is not when requested to do additional duties. The PD role as described leaves gaps in control and no designer has the power to require a contractor to do anything except where set out in the contact.

I am not troubled by the HSE costings however as they are pure cloud cuckoo land and have no regulatory force - they are a figure designed to fill a box to say that something has been done NOT that it is the actual figure.



Bob

As Bob Y points out the real problem with CDM has been the virtual absence of prosecutions of clients (designers, planning supervisors and CDMCs) along with HSE's complete failure to get the message sufficiently through to those who influence excessive bureaucracy.

CDM 1994 - we don't want bureaucracy, but HSE didn't enforce

2002 Approved Code of Practice - more emphasis on the role of clients, but HSE didn't enforce.

CDM 2007 - more emphasis on role of clients, and less bureaucracy, but HSE didn't enforce, nor insist on less bureaucracy.

CDM 201X - more emphasis on role of clients, and less bureaucracy, but with a budget cut by 35% and inspectors diverted to writing so many consultative documents it's untrue, no chance of effective enforcement.

Which means that in 201X + X years someone will think that we need to change the law again.

A few well targeted prosecutions under CDM 1994 and we wouldn't have needed to have three consultations for a replacement ACOP and then two sets of replacement regulations.

With no transition period for the introduction of these new Regulations, April next year is going to be an interesting time, especially on those projects long past the pre-construction phase with many Clients then finding that they are left holding the H&S File baby as Principal Designers under the new 6. (2) Regulation.

My interpretation of this responsibility comes from paragraph 42 of the Consultative Document which states “In summary, the PD will be responsible for: Preparing the health and safety file”.

The new Regulation 9 states:

A principal designer must plan, manage, monitor and coordinate the pre-construction phase of a project, taking into account the general principles of prevention to ensure —

(f) The preparation and subsequent appropriate revision from time to time of a health and safety file which must contain information relating to the project which is likely to be needed during any subsequent construction work to ensure the health and safety of any person.

The new Regulation states 12. The principal contractor must plan, manage, monitor and coordinate the construction phase taking into account the general principles of prevention to ensure that—

(j) The health and safety file is appropriately updated, reviewed and revised from time to time to take account of the work and any changes that have occurred.

I personally see no real change for the PC with regards to the H&S File. Nothing says they must prepare it only to provide the information required. I simply hope that we stop getting the situation where information is demanded in very specific formats sometime after award of contract.

I also note that the need for the Initial Construction Phase Plan (CPP) is now with the client alone and I presume he WILL expect the rest of the project team to assist him with this duty. There is no clear standard such as adequate or suitably developed attached to the CPP. At the end the end of the day the emphasis is on the Project Team with the PD taking the lead in a First Among Equals type of approach. For clients familiar with construction their H&S Adviser may well be involved but this is not necessarily envisaged as essential. Contractors are very likely however to have the services of H&S advisers to deal with their duties.

Certainly I would hope that the type of conflict created by so many CDMCs with safety professionals will cease. I have lost count of the number of times when a CDMC has claimed the Ace of Trumps with his 6 month old NEBOSH Cert v my Chartered Fellowship and 30 years in the industry sector.

There is much good in the regulations, because they repeat the 2007 regs:-). However I think there are areas where things have gone awry such as the revocation of the Competence regulation.

Bob

SP900308

I am talking about full time in construction safety professionals who are most challenged by some of the aggressive CDMCs invoking their power to refuse a CPP because it does not match what they think should be done!!!! This simply because they want to emphasise that they alone are the fount of all knowledge concerning construction safety because they are Association of Project Safety (APS) registered. I would hate to see the PD et al developing this same stance. Designers are aware of building safety with regards to the structure design and materials to be used but site safety per se I would have to insert a VERY big question mark. Do not forget that many still specify the use of heavy blocks (>20Kg) for some works without regard for the operative.

I never expect a clients safety professional to be totally familiar with construction BUT I still treat them with the respect they deserve as part of the client team. I have time for them as ultimately we should/are sharing the same code of professional ethics.

Bob

Having also been declined for local authority work by not having the “necessary NEBOSH Construction Certificate” element of CDM-C competence despite being a Chartered Member of IOSH, Chartered Member of the CIOB and RMaPS, I am inclined to side with Bob on this one.

But there are CMD-Cs that do.

I have even been told by a CDM-C, in front of an HSE bod, that the only possible way that a designer can comply with CDM07 is for the designer to submit their scored 1-5 x 1-5 risk assessment for every risk in the design to the CDM-C for the CDM-C to approve. If I didn't do that, I was in breach of the CDM regulations.

To be honest, this statement was wrong in so many ways that I wasn't really sure how to respond to it.

As SP900308 says, a lot of it is about personalities, but it is a frequent source of frustration that the design phase of a project is planned managed and coordinated based on the advice of someone that is not (and in my experience, is incapable of being) a designer. Maybe giving someone an apparent opportunity to control those they are incapable of imitating encourages certain personality traits.