Allan, I would go along with that up to a point. I would say that SSIP schemes meet stage 1 of the competency criteria and should be accepted as such. However, I have assessed contractors who have attained SSIP accreditation within a specialst field but had no experience at all in the area of construction that they were tendering for (e.g. Electrical contractors tendering for major structural and pipeline schemes). PH2

I suspect that the issue of competence will not even appear on the 2014 CDM Regulations other than the word.

Allan I don't think we need to replace CDM2007 any more than we needed to replace CDM1994. What's needed is for HSE to enforce CDM proportionately targeting the top end of the supply chain i.e. clients and designers. A few targeted prosecutions of large clients for appointing CDMCs MUCH too late and appointing incompetent contractors would go a long way to making CDM work much better.

I understand the CDM Regulations will mirror that of the Temporary or Mobile Construction Site Directive 92/57/EEC. The republic of Ireland currently work under the directive as Project Supervisor for the Design Process. I would interact with these regulations quite often and SSIP is quite often a benchmark for PQQ in the early stages and all Principal Contractors are assessed accordingly. It is important to note that all hazards so far as is reasonably practicable are mitagated prior to handover to the principal contractor so the risk is not transferable that said if a hazard such as a via duct running under through the site was not raised at the early design stage then a penalty to the client will arise through cost and time will ensue. Another Point is that AFI form is signed by the client and the client forwards this to the HSA at the early design stage. When the Principal Contractor and Project Supervisor for The Construction Stage is appointed he then has to submit a AF2 form to the HSA that work is to commence on site. So will CDM 2014 align itself with TMCS directive and remove notification by the CDM Co-ordinator or indeed will it be time to change the CDM Co-ordinator name to the Project Supervisor for the Design Process (PSDP) which also works closely with that of the Principal Contractors Project Supervisor for the Construction Stage (PSCS) It will be interesting to see how CDM 2014 gel the Client requirements through the Designers appoinment into the SSIP process into appointment of the Principal Contractor with the CDM Co-ordinator acting as the glue.

With the HSE being tasked to re-write the CDM Regulations just based upon basic text within the Mobile Construction Site Directive, where is all the secondary legislation going which came out of the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 is going to go and how another new Statutory role (Project Supervisor for Design and Construction Phase) is going to impact on the APS application for Chartered Status?

quote=ron hunter] As for the APS, CDM-C role etc, much depends on just how closely the HSE want (or are directed) to translate the Directive. The Directive is concerned with the "moveable feast" that is the Project Supervisor. Nothing (in theory) stopping the UK from retaining the Designer and CDM-C roles?

ACoP already contains a template for CPP Ray. Site Inspection Checklist used to be in HSG150, maybe still is? And our old friend the Safety Method Statement - on which health and safety law is entirely silent! In the most general of terms, for Notifiable Projects, the initial CPP should BE the Method Statement. i.e. the PCI should highlight the Project Specific Risks and should require that these are specifically addressed in the CPP. That is one of the basic principles of CDM. Sadly, it hardly ever comes to pass, usually because the whole exercise becomes a cop-out of generic twaddle. On that basis, I'm wholly against generic templates. Good Project examples, yes, but not templates -beloved of bureaucrats and the bane of a sensible, Project specific and proportionate approach. On the wider debate, Lofstedt and others would have us believe that poor compliance in the SME construction sector is somehow the fault of poor Regulations. Nonsense of course. Compliance is dependent on good enforcement by the regulator, but first and foremost compliance is down to supply chain pressures - always a stated objective of HSE. Unfortunately the big boys in this supply chain seem to be obsessed with "tick box" compliance via CSCS and repetitive and restrictive PQQ issues - not forgetting the cheapest quote of course!