Could you post where you read this? Thanks

http://www.legislation.g...si/2015/51/contents/made !

In force on due date unless voted down in either of the Houses of Parliament.

Who is going to lobby the parliament to ask for CDM 2015 to be annulled when the key representative bodies (APS & RIBA) as such did not have significant objection to the new regs? The only hot potato may be the domestic cleint duties. One can argue, that even if it takes up to 2 years for RIBA members to become competent to fully undertake Principal Desgner duties, in the long run, that may be more effective than the CDM-C. You need to read the detailed Explainatory Memorandum and the Impact Assessment and have the data/ key organisational bodies to robustly lobby parliament to annul it. Anecdotal examples will not do. http://www.legislation.g...s/uksiem_20150051_en.pdf http://www.legislation.g...dfs/ukia_20150042_en.pdf

On what basis? What, specifically, does anyone that's suggesting they shouldn't happen consider to be bad law that should result in the regulations being repealed?

That's really helpful. Numerous legal experts have presumably also read both and advised the government that these regulations do comply with the directive. In what way do you think the new regs do not comply with the directive? Most of the rest, I think you're just saying that the impact assessment under-estimated the costs. I don't see that as being sufficiently in error to repeal the regulations. Since the prime objection appears to be that the regs now apply to sites with two or more contractors, and that criterion is in TMCSD, don't you need to be campaigning for repeal of TMCSD, rather than repeal of CDM2015?

Am I the only one to support the new CDM15 introduction? It did one thing that really needed to be done - getting rid of the notion of a professional CDMC being necessary to the safe performance of the project. Yes there are flaws notably around competency but even this has a benefit if the endless PQQ schemes come to an end, we can return to the sanity of clients being forced to make proper assessments of those they are choosing to do work. When we bear in mind also the high number of independent self employed contractors on a site working for a single contractor organisation then the issue of application to two or more contractors is pretty soon met. Even local independent builders have to subcontract out some work, eg the electrician, the plumber, the gas fitter, the plasterer, the decorator etc etc. So what is the issue? Maybe this could be the start of a new era of responnsibility

Whilst I can appreciate what you are saying I think it`s worth noting that all "lead designers/designers" have had duties with regards to health and safety under the current and previous iterations of the CDM Regs and whilst some have dealt with it effectively a lot havnt. I cant see this changing just because you give them a new title and new responsibilities. They chose to ignore a lot of the old ones ! Whilst RIBA have said they will be bringing a degree of risk management and health and safety into their future sylabus for architects this will only be to minimal level and will probably take years before it filters into the industry(if it ever does). There is a lot of CDMC bashing on here, some justified and some not IMO. The reality of these regs is they are putting the initial project health and safety responsibilty into the hands of a group of people who, mostly, are ill prepared, under experienced, unwilling and not qualified to deal with it.

From my point of view, the reality of these regs is that they put control of health and safety in design into the hands of people that can actually do it and are actually doing it - designers. Can't do? Co-ordinate.

How many of the CDM-C's on those projects were capable of designing those projects? How often do you take the word of someone that can't actually do it about what the best way to do it is (whatever 'it' might be)? It's a recurrent theme on this forum that when producing method statements, or risk assessments, or procedures, you should consult and pay attention to the people doing the work. When it comes to incorporating safety into the design process, however, all of a sudden the people actually doing the work - designers, the people designing - are untrained incapable morons and not to be trusted. They aren'ty interested in safety. They aren't capable of considering safety. Only the magnificent CDM-C, out of whom the sun doth shine, is capable of managing safety during design. Why does the principle of listening to the people that are actually doing (and actually capable of doing) the work apply to the factory floor, but not to the design office?

An interesting thread, with a wide range of opinions! There is a suggestion above that organisations such as APS have not been lobbying Parliament over these proposed changes. This is totally wrong, as APS members who have followed the articles in Digest magazine and numerous member e-bulletins will know. APS has been heavily involved in lobbying activities with both main parties throughout this whole process but there has been little doubt throughout that CDM2007 would definitely be replaced with CDM2015, whatever lobbying takes place. Therefore, the APS emphasis has more recently been in discussing with HSE and others, during the lengthy consultation process, how the original draft Regulations might be improved - in this respect many changes have been achieved (e.g. introduction of a transitional period, reworking of the Impact Assessment, reintroduction of a smaller ACoP etc). APS is currently running a series of 17 regional CPD events for its members giving detailed information and advice on the new Regulations and the accompanying L-series Guidance. These seminars have been completely sold out and this week we will be following these up with a second series of CPD sessions (again 17, held regionally), free to APS members, outlining in some detail how APS is responding to the changes and how they will remain as our members' partner for the future. Rob Strange OBE CEO The Association for Project Safety

http://www.legislation.g...015/51/introduction/made It all over for CDM-C. RIP

So, a designer who is not skilled in H&S has a duty to appoint an H&S consultant at the design stage. Simples. But does CDM2015 say that?

I guess it's all water under the bridge now...but the CDM-C role could have stayed as an independent person removed from both the Client and PC for impartiality. In many large organisations who adopted the role of the CDM-C an absolute numpty was appointed as the CDM-C - making it a pathetic joke. 2015 here we come...

Walker, I raised it yesterday with the Web-team. I suspect it is a hang-over from his previous role. Good to see you Rob.