What will become of the A.P.S. ? will they re-invent themselves again like they did after the introduction of the 2007 regs?

They already have membership catagories for registered designers and construction safety professionals in addition to the CDMC. I would imagine they will merely add a higher health and safety qualification requirement or test to their designer membership requirements and start trying to make it a benchmark for the Principal Designer role.
They will probably also shortly start rolling out a "Learn to be a Principal Designer" course as an extra money spinner to make up for the CDMC membership fees they will be losing.

I dont think they will have any need to re-invent themselves this time as there title doesnt contain a direct reference to a role this time. As for whether they will survive for long after this change of regulations only time will tell.

http://www.shp4jobs.co.uk/job/315919/technical-and-standards-manager/

If not bitchyness then it seems there is a lot of pleasure in the potential demise of APS?

Is this professional?

While I hear what you say, and do agree, surely it was down to the ignorance of the Client in thinking APS membership was proof of competence?

Not all clients think that way, I actually operate as CDM C for a Designer and without any such qualifications or membership. The Client doesn't think APS membership is required.

There are many contractor competence checking organisations out there who operate for their own rewards and Clients seem to think membership of such schemes is proof of competence, (some contractors have to be members of more than a few schemes) and this is similar ignorance in my opinion.

Talk about kicking a man when he's down ?

I believe the membership of IOSH are better than that.

I hear what you are saying - but then isn't the general competent Health & Safety Advisor type role also legislated for by reg.7 of the Workplace Regs? By that logic, the general H&S role does not add value either.

I think the true test of whether the Planning Supervisor/CDMC added value will be whether compliance with the CDM Regs stays the same or is lowered - I have encountered many Principal Contractors who fail to follow their own processes for putting in place a site specific Construction Phase Plan. In fact, I have found from experience that many large Client organisations do not have the time or resource in terms of reg.7 to monitor their construction projects and the CDMC helps alot with this - the H&S guys I have encountered at large multi-national organisations are too busy running around doing DSE asessments or taking care of office risks (I am being over the top) - but as a CDMC I know we add value when we have assisted the Client on numerous occassions to ensure a "competent" and well resourced Principal Contractor has a simple Construction Phase Plan in place which is site specific - I sometimes shudder when meeting CMIOSH level folks who know nothing about construction safety, perhaps because they are to busy dealing with more regular business risks.

I'm not sure of the relevance of reg 7 of teh workplace regs, but actually, I did think about H&S roles before posting, and there are others that could be used to argue that case - union representation in various roles, for example. However, I don't think they disprove or contradict my point, because actually much of the industry (construction, at least - I have no detailed first-hand experience in others) is now going above-and-beyond the legal minimum requirement. If they are doing more than the statutory minimum, I think the role is not one that is legislated into existence - it's a role that industry has decided to implement that also satisfies the legislation.

Returning to the union roles (since I brought them up), they are closer to a role that is merely legislated into existence, but actually the legislation in that case is more in the manner of an arms control treaty - it benefits both sides of any would-be conflict to have clearly defined and agreed limits to each side's powers - crudely, they may be more like the rules in competitive game (rugby, cricket, whatever). Besides which, unions weren't legislated into existence - legislation formalised teh powers of the bodies after they existed.



No, that is something like begging the question. That's assuming that the purpose of the CDM Regs is to further compliance with the CDM Regs. That's not the case - the CDM Regs are not an end in themselves, the purpose of the CDM Regs is to improve safety in the design and management of construction.

Complying with the CDM regs does not in any way add value. Processes that result in sites which don't kill and injure people add value. Compliance with regulations alone does not.

Does anyone know if the changes will be actioned April or October 2015, or even later ?

When the page at http://www.hse.gov.uk/ab...s/hseboard/2014index.htm was first pointed out in this thread the link on that page to http://www.hse.gov.uk/ab...14/130814/paugb1462a.pdf which contains the impact assessment worked - I downloaded it myself. Now, it no longer seems to work - it's 404.

So, is this conspiracy, or cock-up? Is the HSE trying to claw the revised impact assessment back from public scrutiny and APS have spoiled that, or is it just the HSE's web site (or my browser, I suppose) being flaky?

As to paragraph 92, it looks like empty words to me. 'Many' people working as CDM-Cs probably are qualified to work as designers. They may or may not be competent to be designers, however, and whether someone who is incapable of being a designer will be accepted as a principal designer is one of the things that the HSE has not seen fit to clarify.

And surely the flip side to this is whether a designer or design organisation without construction health and safety experience and knowledge/quals is suitable to fill the role either (depending on what the HSE define the requirements as) ?

Theoretically, but I'm not sure how any designer that has worked in the UK since 1994 can be claimed to be without construction health and safety knowledge, since they've had a statutory duty to consider it.

Do you think there is such a thing as a designer without any construction H&S knowledge? The duties don't require a great deal of detailed, specific knowledge - they are mostly about ensuring something is done, rather than either doing it or assessing how well it has been done. There's no requirement that Principal Designer approve, check or endorse the things done.