IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Proposed changes to the Construction Design and Management Regulations (CDM) 2007.
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I am very much aware of the other thread re this issue but would like to ask specifically is there a proposed replacement to the CDM C? This link just came into the mailbox but doesn't give enough information, in my opinion. It could be a little dangerous to just state no more CDM C without saying more. http://www.iosh.co.uk/ne...ews/hs_legal_update.aspx
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
A lot of what is currently being written about the proposed changes is pure speculation.
Yes, it looks like the CDM-C role will disappear however don't forget that the role of planning supervisor disappeared few years ago and was replaced by the CDM-C. The HSE and the APS have for a while been discussing the removal of the role and the replacement with a design phase health and safety coordinator role. From what I have read so far, again hearsay and speculation, this seems like a stronger role that has the potential to actually have an impact.
A few other proposed changes include, the removal of the competence assessment criteria: potentially dangerous I feel.
......and, the implementation of a complete CDM blanket to cover all schemes including domestic: again dangerous, has the potential to drive smaller building firms and smaller schemes "under-ground" thus reducing H&S considerations on site.
Still, it's a way off yet, we are very unlikely to see any changes until 2015.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As things stand currently no, there will no replacement dutyholder for the CDMC.
Prior to construction works commencing it is proposed that current CDM duties will sit with the design team. During construction with the Principal Contractor.
There was talk of a project preparation manager role but it was envisaged this again would more sit with a contract administrator/clients agent type role rather than a dedicated H&S person.
However, within the european directive on which these proposed changes will be based there is a requirement to appoint a named individual responsible for health and safety matters (on what will be the new f10 form) at all stages of the project. This person will obviously change when design progresses to construction. Whether this requirement will be retained in the new regulations no one knows. Really its all speculation at the moment but the one thing that is pretty certain is the dedicated CDMC role will be removed.
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
An unfortunate choice of words in the IOSH bulletin perhaps.
If there is to be change (and that's by no means certain) then I understand that the Parent Directive will be enacted essentially verbatim into UK statute. This means that the CDM-C duty holder role at design stage becomes the Project Supervisor.
The parent directive also requires a Project Supervisor to be appointed for the Construction Phase.
Seems likely in practice that this will mean 2 different appointments.
Good news for the APS is they can still run with the same name!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
paulw71 wrote:
However, within the european directive on which these proposed changes will be based there is a requirement to appoint a named individual responsible for health and safety matters
Is there? Where? The TMCSD has a coordinator for safety and health matters, but it doesn't need to be an individual - it's a "natural OR LEGAL person" (article 2 e and f, my emphasis), which would allow it to be an organisation, would it not? So where is the requirement that there be a named individual?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I see the IOSH article in the OP is merely reiterating the statement from HSE given by Nicola at #5 above (page 4, paragraph 15). A statement sure to cause confusion!! It would have been better to state that the CDM-C role would be redefined (and retitled (again) if that's what the regulator deems best). The Parent Directive still refers to "coordinators" (appointed by the Client or the Project Supervisor) and the functions of the CDM-C still have to be carried out - the UK cannot abandon the requirements and principles of the parent Directive! Parent Directive at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu...992L0057:20070627:EN:PDFPersonally, I think a perfectly god set of workable Regulations are being redrawn entirely for political gain - at great cost and to the detriment of the Industry. The "Regulations" seem to be perceived as somehow responsible for issues arising from what in some quarters is seen as an unpopular ACoP. It is a relatively simple matter to revise an ACoP. Then again, I don't think the ACoP is to blame either -rather the disproportionate and tick-box manner in which it is too often being applied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I'm just wondering now who will have responsibility for the H&S File if the CDM C or whoever is only responsible for the pre project time and PC for during the project?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
H&S Files: Article 5 of the parent Directive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
With the repeated delays in the publication of the consultation draft, I get the impression that something has gone very wrong with the drafting these Regulations.
With no news and careers at risk, speculation is bound to be rife; however from my observations over past changes to the CDM Regulations, these tend to occur within a mid-parliamentary time-window and arguably the current one has now closed. I suspect in May 2015 we are likely to have new government, even if we have another collation made up of the current parties, and with the European Commission Review, it is probably going to be a while before the current CDM structure is tackled again.
My assessment is that 2015 is far too optimistic and 2016-17 or even 2018 are where these changes are likely to occur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
achrn wrote:paulw71 wrote:
However, within the european directive on which these proposed changes will be based there is a requirement to appoint a named individual responsible for health and safety matters
Is there? Where? The TMCSD has a coordinator for safety and health matters, but it doesn't need to be an individual - it's a "natural OR LEGAL person" (article 2 e and f, my emphasis), which would allow it to be an organisation, would it not? So where is the requirement that there be a named individual? I am ever so sorry. A thousand apologies. Within the European directive on which the new regulations will be based there is a requirement to appoint a named individual or "organisation" responsible for health and safety matters. All better now ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
paulw71 wrote:achrn wrote:paulw71 wrote:
However, within the european directive on which these proposed changes will be based there is a requirement to appoint a named individual responsible for health and safety matters
Is there? Where? The TMCSD has a coordinator for safety and health matters, but it doesn't need to be an individual - it's a "natural OR LEGAL person" (article 2 e and f, my emphasis), which would allow it to be an organisation, would it not? So where is the requirement that there be a named individual? I am ever so sorry. A thousand apologies. Within the European directive on which the new regulations will be based there is a requirement to appoint a named individual or "organisation" responsible for health and safety matters. All better now ? I don't really understand the tone of your answer. Your previous statement explicitly stated that the directive required a named individual and so far as I knew the directive did no such thing. So I asked where the directive made that requirement. If someone makes a statement claiming a legal requirement I didn't know about, it seems to me a reasonable thing to do to ask where or how the requirement occurs. Now you have confirmed that this requirement does not in fact exist, I think there's no problem. I'm sorry my question apparently upset you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
achrn wrote:paulw71 wrote:achrn wrote:paulw71 wrote:
However, within the european directive on which these proposed changes will be based there is a requirement to appoint a named individual responsible for health and safety matters
Is there? Where? The TMCSD has a coordinator for safety and health matters, but it doesn't need to be an individual - it's a "natural OR LEGAL person" (article 2 e and f, my emphasis), which would allow it to be an organisation, would it not? So where is the requirement that there be a named individual? I am ever so sorry. A thousand apologies. Within the European directive on which the new regulations will be based there is a requirement to appoint a named individual or "organisation" responsible for health and safety matters. All better now ? I don't really understand the tone of your answer. Your previous statement explicitly stated that the directive required a named individual and so far as I knew the directive did no such thing. So I asked where the directive made that requirement. If someone makes a statement claiming a legal requirement I didn't know about, it seems to me a reasonable thing to do to ask where or how the requirement occurs. Now you have confirmed that this requirement does not in fact exist, I think there's no problem. I'm sorry my question apparently upset you. No, I have not confirmed this requirement does not exist. The wording has merely been clarified to establish that this can be undertaken by an organistation as well as an individual. However the directive does recommend an named individual on the project notification as a point of contact to simplify matters. Your response did not "upset" me, but the manner and tone of some of your other responses to this and some of my other postings on the future of CDM (of which I am well aware are merely heresay at this time) tend to come across as being more interested in belittling the poster than being of any use to readers of the forum. If aspects of my posting are incorrect, unintentionally misleading or inaccurate, then I am happy to be corrected. That is of course the purpose of the forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
paulw71 wrote:
No, I have not confirmed this requirement does not exist. The wording has merely been clarified to establish that this can be undertaken by an organistation as well as an individual.
OK. So you're saying the directive does require a named individual to be the coordinator, but it doesn't require that it's a named individual - it could be an organisation? I'm afraid I don't see saying that it doesn't have to be a named individual as a "clarification" of a statement that it needs a named individual. It looks like a contradiction, not a clarification, of the first statement to me. Can we start again? In your view, does the the European directive (by which I believe we are talking about the TMCSD) contain a requirement to appoint a named individual responsible for health and safety matters? If the answer is yes, please can you indicate where the directive makes that requirement, because I have not found the requirement for myself when reading the TMCSD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
"However the directive does recommend an named individual on the project notification as a point of contact to simplify matters".
I'd be obliged if you could quote the article that states that please Paul?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Article 2
(e)‘coordinator for safety and health matters at the project preparations stage’ means any natural or legal person entrusted by the client and/or project supervisor, ►C1 during the project preparation stage ◄, with performing the duties referred to in Article 5;
How can a "natural" person be more than one person or not described as an individual? Even conjoined twins would be seen as two seperate natural persons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Also, Annexure III of the directive outlines the notification format where it clearly states one is to record the name(s) of the Safety and Health Coordinator.....this would infer from Article 2 (e) that it would either be a named "natural" or "legal" person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I think the tone adopted towards paulw71 leaves much to be desired and apologies may be in order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
6foot4 wrote:Article 2
(e)‘coordinator for safety and health matters at the project preparations stage’ means any natural or legal person entrusted by the client and/or project supervisor, ►C1 during the project preparation stage ◄, with performing the duties referred to in Article 5;
How can a "natural" person be more than one person or not described as an individual? Even conjoined twins would be seen as two seperate natural persons. They can't. But an organisation is a legal person, and the directive says any natural OR legal person. So an organisation can be the coordinator and an organisation is not normally an individual. My understanding is that this has been agreed by all parties in the discussion - teh directive does not require an individual as coordinator for health and safety matters. (As an aside, the directive does not require just one coordinator anyway - article 3 has "The client or the project supervisor shall appoint one OR MORE coordinators for safety and health matters" (my emphasis), so it's double certain that it may not be a single individual.) I too would like to know where the directive recommends a named individual. I don't find that in the directive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
achrn wrote:6foot4 wrote:Article 2
(e)‘coordinator for safety and health matters at the project preparations stage’ means any natural or legal person entrusted by the client and/or project supervisor, ►C1 during the project preparation stage ◄, with performing the duties referred to in Article 5;
How can a "natural" person be more than one person or not described as an individual? Even conjoined twins would be seen as two seperate natural persons. They can't. But an organisation is a legal person, and the directive says any natural OR legal person. So an organisation can be the coordinator and an organisation is not normally an individual. My understanding is that this has been agreed by all parties in the discussion - teh directive does not require an individual as coordinator for health and safety matters. (As an aside, the directive does not require just one coordinator anyway - article 3 has "The client or the project supervisor shall appoint one OR MORE coordinators for safety and health matters" (my emphasis), so it's double certain that it may not be a single individual.) I too would like to know where the directive recommends a named individual. I don't find that in the directive. For emphasis, Annexure III of the directive outlines the notification format where it clearly states one is to record the "name(s)" of the "Safety and Health Coordinator".....this would infer from Article 2 (e) that it would either be a named "natural" or "legal" person. The "natural" person could be employed by a "legal" person, and in most instances there would be a "legal" person involved who would employ the "natural" person. This then ties up with current arrangements for assessing "organisational" and "individual" competence. Should you appoint a "legal" person if they do not have "individual" competence to deliver the service?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
6foot4 wrote:
For emphasis, Annexure III of the directive outlines the notification format where it clearly states one is to record the "name(s)" of the "Safety and Health Coordinator".....this would infer from Article 2 (e) that it would either be a named "natural" or "legal" person. The "natural" person could be employed by a "legal" person, and in most instances there would be a "legal" person involved who would employ the "natural" person. This then ties up with current arrangements for assessing "organisational" and "individual" competence. Should you appoint a "legal" person if they do not have "individual" competence to deliver the service?
The directive says that the coordinator should be a natural or legal person. An organisation is a legal person. Therefore an organisation can be the coordinator. The notification format does not modify this. The requirement is to notify the name of the coordinator - so you fill in "Bloggs and Co Ltd" (or whatever) - organisations have names, so reference to a name does not imply an individual. What I would like to know is where the directive recommends that there be a named individual as a point of contact. I can't find that in the directive, but it has been stated as a fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Having had a brief look at the directive it appears to me that there can be more than 2 coordinators appointed, one or more for the project preparation stage and one or more for the project execution stage.
Appointment of coordinators — Safety and health plan — Prior notice
1. The client or the project supervisor shall appoint one or more coordinators for safety and health matters, as defined in Article 2 (e) and (f), for any construction site on which more than one contractor is present
Cats among pigeons springs to mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
achrn wrote:6foot4 wrote:
For emphasis, Annexure III of the directive outlines the notification format where it clearly states one is to record the "name(s)" of the "Safety and Health Coordinator".....this would infer from Article 2 (e) that it would either be a named "natural" or "legal" person. The "natural" person could be employed by a "legal" person, and in most instances there would be a "legal" person involved who would employ the "natural" person. This then ties up with current arrangements for assessing "organisational" and "individual" competence. Should you appoint a "legal" person if they do not have "individual" competence to deliver the service?
The directive says that the coordinator should be a natural or legal person. An organisation is a legal person. Therefore an organisation can be the coordinator. The notification format does not modify this. The requirement is to notify the name of the coordinator - so you fill in "Bloggs and Co Ltd" (or whatever) - organisations have names, so reference to a name does not imply an individual. What I would like to know is where the directive recommends that there be a named individual as a point of contact. I can't find that in the directive, but it has been stated as a fact. Fair enough, the directive does not implicitly say you must name an individual, but it doesn't say one can't. If for whatever reason there is no "legal" person involved, the "natural" person would be named. In a local context, the HSE prefer a named contact on the notification i.e. the email address will contain an individual's name. Phoning up "Bloggs and Co Ltd" and trying to talk to "Bloggs and Co Ltd" especially if said company employs 5000 people makes life quite difficult. They will need to speak to someone such as Joe Bloggs who will represent "Bloggs and Co Ltd".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Oh dear. Just over 2 1/2 hours and it will be Friday!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
6foot4 wrote:
Fair enough, the directive does not implicitly say you must name an individual, but it doesn't say one can't.
Doesn't say the coordinator mustn't wear a hat made of lime jelly either, so should we leave unchallenged claims that the directive requires coordinators for safety to wear a hat made of lime jelly? Should we take this silence on the part of the directive as a recommendation that coordinators wear lime jelly? More seriously, adding in requirements not found in statute and claiming they are required by law is (in my opinion) the root cause of most of the bad reputation of 'elf en safetee'. It's certainly the cause of many of the problems with CDM - client organisations and CDM-Cs demanding more than the law requires is what has turned a very good principle (that designers consider the implications of their design) into a bureaucratic quagmire that often adds no value. It is my strong that people saying "the law requires this" or "the directive requires that" or even "the directive recommends the other" when the statutes in question do no such thing should be challenged to justify their assertions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
achrn wrote:6foot4 wrote:
Fair enough, the directive does not implicitly say you must name an individual, but it doesn't say one can't.
Doesn't say the coordinator mustn't wear a hat made of lime jelly either, so should we leave unchallenged claims that the directive requires coordinators for safety to wear a hat made of lime jelly? Should we take this silence on the part of the directive as a recommendation that coordinators wear lime jelly? More seriously, adding in requirements not found in statute and claiming they are required by law is (in my opinion) the root cause of most of the bad reputation of 'elf en safetee'. It's certainly the cause of many of the problems with CDM - client organisations and CDM-Cs demanding more than the law requires is what has turned a very good principle (that designers consider the implications of their design) into a bureaucratic quagmire that often adds no value. It is my strong that people saying "the law requires this" or "the directive requires that" or even "the directive recommends the other" when the statutes in question do no such thing should be challenged to justify their assertions. Sorry, just to clarify my statement, I wasn't alluding to something that wasn't mentioned in the directive and should have phrased that in a better way- the directive does require you to name either a "natural" person or a "legal" person or both, given the role can be undertaken by more than one. It is CLEAR that individuals CAN be named. From your previous comments on the directive, and in contradiction to your argument, you have equally added your own opinion regarding there being a preference for a "legal" person to be appointed in terms of the directive - where does it say that it has to be a "legal" person named in the directive?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
6foot4 wrote: From your previous comments on the directive, and in contradiction to your argument, you have equally added your own opinion regarding there being a preference for a "legal" person to be appointed in terms of the directive - where does it say that it has to be a "legal" person named in the directive? I believe that I have done no such thing. Please either withdraw your accusation or justify it. It is actually my view that an organisation is preferred (by me), but I don't believe I have ever claimed that the directive makes such a recommendation or preference. Please indicate where I have said that it does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
achrn wrote:They can't. But an organisation is a legal person, and the directive says any natural OR legal person. So an organisation can be the coordinator and an organisation is not normally an individual. My understanding is that this has been agreed by all parties in the discussion - teh directive does not require an individual as coordinator for health and safety matters. My comment was based on your earlier statement which could be read as you establishing fact rather than only putting across your opinion, in your words above I quote: "teh directive does not require an individual.....", and this could therefore lead one to the conclusion that the only remaining option for a client when appointing a coordinator would be to appoint a "legal" person when there is clearly also the option to appoint a "natural" person which could be an individual or individuals. Clearly, the lines between opinion and fact have become blurred, and I have judged your statements in the manner in which you have judged others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
6foot4 wrote:
My comment was based on your earlier statement which could be read as you establishing fact rather than only putting across your opinion, in your words above I quote: "teh directive does not require an individual.....",
So I said that the directive does not require an individual (a statement that is true) and you have decided to report that as me saying the directive recommends (or prefers) that the coordinator is an organisation (a statement that is not true). The statements "it doesn't have to be an individual" and "it should be an organisation" are different - they don't mean the same thing as each other. I didn't mean the latter when I said the former. Strangely, when I said the former, what I actually meant was what I actually said - the TMCSD does not require that the coordinator be an individual. That's what I said, and that's what I meant. No more. No less. Please don't claim I said something I did not say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
achrn wrote:
So I said that the directive does not require an individual (a statement that is true)
But that statement is not true and somewhat misleading. The directive says to appoint either individual(s) - read "natural person" or legal entity/entities - read "legal person". Therefore the directive requires either option to be appointed, or possibly a combination of both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
6foot4 wrote:achrn wrote:
So I said that the directive does not require an individual (a statement that is true)
But that statement is not true and somewhat misleading. The directive says to appoint either individual(s) - read "natural person" or legal entity/entities - read "legal person". Therefore the directive requires either option to be appointed, or possibly a combination of both. "You must do A or B" means that you need to do one of the two options, but it does not mean you need to do both. Nor does it indicate a preference for one or the other. So if you are told you must do A or B, it is true to say that you don't need to do A, because you could do just B. You could do B, not do A, and you would have satisfied the requirement that you do A or B. So when the directive says you must appoint either a natural person or a legal person to be the coordinator, it means you do not have to appoint a natural person to be the coordinator. You could choose to appoint a legal person who is not an individual natural person, and then you've done what the directive requires. Since you have done what is required without appointing an individual natural person to the role, it is clearly true to say that it is not necessary to appoint an individual natural person to be the coordinator. Does that help?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
achrn wrote:6foot4 wrote:achrn wrote:
So I said that the directive does not require an individual (a statement that is true)
But that statement is not true and somewhat misleading. The directive says to appoint either individual(s) - read "natural person" or legal entity/entities - read "legal person". Therefore the directive requires either option to be appointed, or possibly a combination of both. "You must do A or B" means that you need to do one of the two options, but it does not mean you need to do both. Nor does it indicate a preference for one or the other. So if you are told you must do A or B, it is true to say that you don't need to do A, because you could do just B. You could do B, not do A, and you would have satisfied the requirement that you do A or B. So when the directive says you must appoint either a natural person or a legal person to be the coordinator, it means you do not have to appoint a natural person to be the coordinator. You could choose to appoint a legal person who is not an individual natural person, and then you've done what the directive requires. Since you have done what is required without appointing an individual natural person to the role, it is clearly true to say that it is not necessary to appoint an individual natural person to be the coordinator. Does that help? Yes. So using your words as a foundation, but if we flip it the other way - you could choose to appoint an individual natural person who may or may not be associated with a legal person and then you've done what the directive requires.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
6foot4 wrote:
Yes. So using your words as a foundation, but if we flip it the other way - you could choose to appoint an individual natural person who may or may not be associated with a legal person and then you've done what the directive requires.
Yes, you could choose to appoint a named individual. I have never said you can't (or even that you shouldn't). The fact that you could choose to appoint a named individual in no way affects the statement that you don't need to appoint a named individual. I said that the directive does not require an individual. That statement is true. You have said that statement is not true. In this respect you are wrong, but I think I've run out of ways to explain it any more clearly. I have never said the directive prohibits or discourages appointing a named individual. That statement would not be true, which is why I have not said it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
achrn wrote:paulw71 wrote:
However, within the european directive on which these proposed changes will be based there is a requirement to appoint a named individual responsible for health and safety matters
Is there? Where? The TMCSD has a coordinator for safety and health matters, but it doesn't need to be an individual - it's a "natural OR LEGAL person" (article 2 e and f, my emphasis), which would allow it to be an organisation, would it not? So where is the requirement that there be a named individual? You last question appeared to indicate you did not think there was any requirement despite your preceding sentence stating that it could be an option. I think we can put this to bed now as you have clarified what you have been trying to state. The delivery of your point caused me some confusion. Thank you for making it clearer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
6foot4 wrote:[
You last question appeared to indicate you did not think there was any requirement despite your preceding sentence stating that it could be an option. I think we can put this to bed now as you have clarified what you have been trying to state. The delivery of your point caused me some confusion. Thank you for making it clearer. What I have been trying to state is exactly what I have repeatedly stated - namely that the TMCSD does not require that the coordinator be a named individual, despite some people claiming otherwise. The TMCSD does not require that the coordinator be a named individual. Do I understand that you now agree with this statement, despite previously saying it is incorrect (eg, at post #30)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
achrn wrote:6foot4 wrote:[
You last question appeared to indicate you did not think there was any requirement despite your preceding sentence stating that it could be an option. I think we can put this to bed now as you have clarified what you have been trying to state. The delivery of your point caused me some confusion. Thank you for making it clearer. What I have been trying to state is exactly what I have repeatedly stated - namely that the TMCSD does not require that the coordinator be a named individual, despite some people claiming otherwise. The TMCSD does not require that the coordinator be a named individual. Do I understand that you now agree with this statement, despite previously saying it is incorrect (eg, at post #30)? No I do not agree with that statement. However, I would agree with the following statement: The TMCSD does not require that the coordinator be a named individual if there is a legal person named.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Gentlemen, might I suggest that, once the TMCSD is enacted within UK Legislation, your issue is moot?
In the UK, the legal definition of 'person' is given in the 1889 Interpretation Act as:
“Person” includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate".
It seems highly unlikely that the UK would translate verbatim the wording that you chaps are debating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
ron hunter wrote:Gentlemen, might I suggest that, once the TMCSD is enacted within UK Legislation, your issue is moot?
In the UK, the legal definition of 'person' is given in the 1889 Interpretation Act as:
“Person” includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate".
It seems highly unlikely that the UK would translate verbatim the wording that you chaps are debating. The debate was not centered on how it was being applied in a UK context, but merely what is stated in the TMCSD. This has relevance because in turn, as you are aware, the TMCSD as it stands would always influence proposed changes to the CDM Regs 2007. Local UK legislation would impact on it too, but I was not debating how this could influence the potential changes to the CDM Regs 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
6foot4 wrote:achrn wrote:
The TMCSD does not require that the coordinator be a named individual. Do I understand that you now agree with this statement, despite previously saying it is incorrect (eg, at post #30)?
No I do not agree with that statement. However, I would agree with the following statement: The TMCSD does not require that the coordinator be a named individual if there is a legal person named. OK I give up. You don't agree that the TMCSD does not require that the coordinator be a named individual but you would agree that the TMCSD does not require that the coordinator be a named individual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
achrn wrote:6foot4 wrote:achrn wrote:
The TMCSD does not require that the coordinator be a named individual. Do I understand that you now agree with this statement, despite previously saying it is incorrect (eg, at post #30)?
No I do not agree with that statement. However, I would agree with the following statement: The TMCSD does not require that the coordinator be a named individual if there is a legal person named. OK I give up. You don't agree that the TMCSD does not require that the coordinator be a named individual but you would agree that the TMCSD does not require that the coordinator be a named individual. Look, we are getting hung up on symantics and therefore I don't agree with the notion that one can simply state that there is no requirement to name an individual as coordinator under the TMCSD without including a caveat in the same statement. To do otherwise, adds to the confusion in my opinion. Giving up on a debate because you cannot get the other party to accept your point does not make you right. So I am happy to agree to disagree on this matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Proposed changes to the Construction Design and Management Regulations (CDM) 2007.
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.