Hypothetically.

A domestic Client has a kitchen extension to his home. Client appoints a reputable jobbing builder who, as he is the first appointee then takes on clients duties and becomes the PD by default (unless a n other is appointed by the client), he also now is the Principal Contractor as there will be additional trades involved.

This small jobbing builder who probably has very limited knowledge of the requirements of various H&S legislation now takes on an overarching health and safety duty in respect of every worker that will take part on this project. This could potentially be scaffolder, bricklayer, groundworker, electrician, joiner, roofer, window fitter, tiler, plumber, plasterer, kitchen fitter etc.

What level of information is this small builder now expected to obtain to ensure he is covered in the event of an accident on this site. Is he now expected to obtain written details of the "skills, knowledge, training and experience" of all the other trade operatives in order to assess their suitability to undertake the works ?
Should he obtain and review a safe system of work from each of them prior to them commencing work ?
Should he request and review their risk assessments for suitability ?
What level of supervision should he be providing to ensure the other trades are working safely ?
What safety equipment should he be providing ?
Should he be inspecting the condition of equipment that other trades bring onsite ?
If he doesnt do any/all of the above and someone gets injured is he then for the high jump ?
If someone gets injured and this small jobbing builder is found to have no H&S experience, skills, knowledge, quals and didnt get external advice is he for the high jump ? The list goes on.

I thought the point was to reduce bureaucracy.

No. If I was I would have said, "small jobbing builders should be exempt from H&S laws". I tend not to flower things up.

What I am saying is that CDM2014 fails to reduce bureaucracy as intended and fails to save money as intended.

I also fear that at the small end of the construction market it will have the reverse effect to what was originally intended. The effect on small builders will mean to maintain compliance with a more onerous set of regulations and increased responsibilites will mean increased prices to clients, who will in turn go to cheaper less reputable builders who completley side step H&S.

Paul

In similar situation about this time last year.

Part of ceiling of small bedroom collapsed. Get out insurance surveyor who confirms no sign of water ingress through roof and roofspace. Old age - original ~1880 lath and plaster construction. In theory old enough for anthrax to be a possible risk.

So get out plasterer who recommends take down rest of ceiling and replace with plasterboard base. Done

So get out painter to paint new ceiling and repaint walls etc.

Meantime, storm.

Painter returns to find water dripping through new ceiling and around light. Also water ingress through glass cupola roof at head of staircase.

So get out roofer to fix slates.

Need stairhead scaffold to fix cupola.

So get out scaffolding contractor. Tube and fitting to enable access by roofer, plasterer to fix cracks (which probably dated back to 1960s when building converted into flats), painter. (Scaffold by far the greatest part of the costs).

Scaffold stripped, painter paints lower part of staircase and hall area. By this time plasterer deemed by proposed regulations to be PC (unless domestic client dictates otherwise) has left the site.

How much does plasterer know about the high risk activities involved in the roof work and scaffold erection/stripping - or for that matter that a simple zip up aluminium tower wouldn't provide safe access for various trades? Doubt that plasterer is familiar with HSG33 or SG05.

paulw71, tend to agree with you. I also suspect a lot of jobbing builders will ignore the regulations as they already ignore a lot of other legislation or force the appointment of a separate Principal Designer.

Carrying on from the above, if a domestic Client is unaware of the CDM2015 (as they probably will be) and the jobbing builder chooses to ignore them (or is unaware) and no official appointments of PD or PC are made and there is an accident on site, the Client could end up in court.

It's my understanding the domestic client duties will transfer to the contractor. Whatever the case, you can be sure the domestic client will not end up in court.

Oops, Sorry Ray - Just read a bit more. You're right.

I recently had a G floor extension built paid for by the Council on a Disabled Facility Grant.

The council appointed a designer who drew the plans etc.

They appointed the contractor who carried out the work, not notified to HSE.

When the work was getting near to the 30 days I informed the council they would hqve to notify if it went on much longer as they are the client but they argued that I was the Client.

I won the argument by using procurement as a reason they were the client, they were also paying the bill.

The contractor used mostly cards-in labour but had a subby electrical contractor, there was also a floor layer who I appointed, meaning three contractors in all.

Now for my question:

As I understand the CDM 15 this project would have required a Lead Designer, Principal Contractor and formal letter of appointment by the Client (the council).

The Lead Designer, who drew the plans would compile and issue the PCI to the PC.

The PC would be required to compile a H&S File for issue to the Client.

The floor layer I appointed would have to provide competence check details to the PC and/or client via myself, (the floor was laid prior to the electrician and joiner finishing their work).

The above would be required even if the project was not notifiable?

pawlw71 & Ray Rapp along with others have got it right especially the;-

"So, it's a case of carry on regardless............. and the ..........." I also fear that at the small end of the construction market it will have the reverse effect to what was originally intended. The effect on small builders will mean to maintain compliance with a more onerous set of regulations and increased responsibilities will mean increased prices to clients, who will in turn go to cheaper less reputable builders who completely side step H&S" .......comments


NB: Domestic clients have in the past (when we had a HSE) been prosecuted under law for the poor management of construction activities/in-activities on their person home site!

I am going to wait until the law actually arrives before I make any comments and as for the various guides etc. that are about ....... well enough said as how can U provide guidance when the law has not yet been finalized!!!

Unlike Acts of Parliament, Regulations do not have to go through all the stages that a Bill has to, and are simply laid before the Parliament suing the "Negative procedure" i.e. become law without a debate or a vote but may be annulled by a resolution of either House of Parliament. Even if there is a challenge, there will be enough votes for the resolution to be defeated.

The last time there was a debate for health & safety regulations was in 2002 for the Asbestos at Work Regulations that introduced an explicit duty to manage ACM etc.

Can anyone else confirm this?

My understanding is that regulations enacted under a enabling Act (e.g. HSWA) are laid before Parliament for 40 days? and if there is no objection then by de facto they are passed and become law(my words BTW).

The last debate I can recall was for a private members' Bill for the introduction of Directors Health and Safety Duties, which failed miserably due to less than the required amount of MPs in the Chamber for the second reading.

For details on how "delegated" legislation such as Statutory Instruments are dealt with in the parliament, refer to:-

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/delegated/

http://www.parliament.uk...efing-papers/SN06509.pdf

Bob

NB: Domestic clients have in the past (when we had a HSE) been prosecuted under law for the poor management of construction activities/in-activities on their person home site!

Do you have any details please as I must have missed these?

This is where health and safety needs to be sensible - despite the HSE's best efforts to over complicate matters. A basic generic CPP could be produced which would cover the work and used over again. After all, one film set is not going to differ much from another. I don't think anyone will be chasing up a H&S File.

"Regulations" are usually and generally drafted by Civil Servants and are not subjected to the Parliamentary scruitiny (committee stages & debates inc HOL) requred by a Bill.

Regulations can be "passed on the nod". Perhaps this is a reason why so many are so poorly drafted and confusing.

Jon

carrwood

The draft Impact Assessment in CD261 claimed that CDM 2015 would save £28m per year.

Final IA only claims £19.6m per year (and is probably grossly optimistic) and admits to £3m costs to domestic clients per year - since the vast majority of domestic client projects can be expected to continue to be significantly non-compliant (hence why the majority of fatals and REPORTED major/specified injuries are on sites with <15 workers - as has always been the case, whatever CD261 claimed) the £3m costs will be heavily skewed to the compliant.

As you imply from the time you have taken to read draft L153, the costs of familiarisation / training are wholly unrealistic in both versions of the IA. Again these costs will be heavily skewed towards the compliant. We've got six staff spending significant time on working out the implications for our company, rewriting systems, developing update training etc.

While we are rarely a CDM client (except for relatively minor maintenance etc), we will be fulfilling the role of all the other CDM duty holders, so systems need to cover all angles.