Posted By Bob Pedley I received a copy of the latest version of the CONIAC 20 July 2006 Annex 4 draft CDM 2007 ACoP this week. It looks pretty good but I was disappointed by the fact that IOSH does not get a mention. In the appendix 4 on competence, "Note 1: Chartered membership of a recognised construction related institution", is now a recommendation specifically for the new Coordinator role. Fellowship of Association for Project Safety, Membership of Institution of Planning Supervisors feature. Is any one from IOSH flying the flag??

Posted By Dave Daniel The last member of the institution of planning supervisors I met insisted on my client complying with the "asbestos at work act" whatever that was, even after I pointed out his error to him. To say his knowledge of H&S was scanty would have been a kindness. If this is competence then I should pack up and go home.... There was a recent thread asking what IOSH might do to support the Olympics in 2012. Perhaps making sure that planning supervisors actually are competent as the law requires might be a good start, and excluding IOSH qualification seems to be a recipe for disaster. On the face of it there is a serious case for IOSH challenging this issue of a "construction-related" qualification. This smells of protectionism. If you did a CDM job on the railways for example, I doubt that a construction qualification would be appropriate, and likewise if you undertook a CDM job in a factory. Are you listening Moderators? Perhaps a quiet word onwards might be in order. There IS something useful that IOSH can do!

Posted By afleckney@tiscali.co.uk Is there a web link to the document? Andy

Posted By afleckney@tiscali.co.uk Thanks Bob Andy

Posted By Robert K Lewis You probably need to register yourself onto the CDM forum as I get updates via there from the HSE. Bob

Posted By Terry Price The HSE said it will be put up on the web next week Terry

Posted By Ciaran McAleenan Dear all The debate on which qualification or which institution can lay claim to delivering competence fails to understand that we derive our competence through a variety of routes and when the time comes to deliver a project for a client we need to measure competence against the clients and/ or the regulatory requirements. (Note CDM proposed not only requires the client to establish competence before offering commissions but it all requires individuals or organisations to be assured of their own competence to deliver before accepting it). With reference to the core document COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 92/57/EEC, upon which CDM is derived consider this… * Competent co-ordinators (preparation stage) need to have sufficient skills, knowledge, experience, authority and resources to perform the duties outlined in Article 5 (a) through (c), with reference to the particular construction project. * Competent co-ordinators (project execution stage) need to have sufficient skills, knowledge, experience, authority and resources to perform the duties outlined in Article 6 (a) through (f), with reference to the particular construction project. There is no reference to qualification or membership of a professional body but clearly there is a need to have “a sound working knowledge of health & safety in construction work, a thorough knowledge of the design process and experience of the site processes likely to be involved in the project and in future maintenance, refurbishment or demolition”. If designs are to be such that they can be built, used, maintained and eventually demolished in a manner that will not cause harm to the construction workers or users then the debate on competence needs to be focussed on the skills needed to deliver. If the various Institutions are to do justice to the process and to themselves they need to ensure that in pushing the core competence requirements they avoid any hint of self-interest. This will demonstrate true professionalism. Regards Ciaran COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 92/57/EEC Web link: http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31992L0057&model=guichett “Article 5 Project preparation stage: duties of coordinators The coordinator(s) for safety and health matters during the project preparation stage appointed in accordance with Article 3 (1) shall: a) Coordinate implementation of the provisions of Article 4; (b) Draw up, or cause to be draw up, a safety and health plan setting out the rules applicable to the construction site concerned, taking into account where necessary the industrial activities taking place on the site; this plan must also include specific measures concerning work which falls within one or more of the categories of Annex II; (c) Prepare a file appropriate to the characteristics of the project containing relevant safety and health information to be taken into account during any subsequent works.” “Article 6 Project execution stage: duties of coordinators The coordinator(s) for safety and health matters during the project execution stage appointed in accordance with Article 3 (1) shall: (a) Coordinate implementation of the general principles of prevention and safety: - when technical and/or organizational aspects are being decided, in order to plan the various items or stages of work which are to take place simultaneously or in succession, - when estimating the period required for completing such work or work stages; (b) coordinate implementation of the relevant provisions in order to ensure that employers and, if necessary for the protection of workers, self-employed persons: - apply the principles referred to in Article 8 in a consistent manner, - where required, follow the safety and health plan referred to in Article 5 (b); (c) make, or cause to be made, any adjustments required to the safety and health plan referred to in Article 5 (b) and the file referred to in Article 5 (c) to take account of the progress of the work and any changes which have occurred; (d) organize cooperation between employers, including successive employers on the same site, coordination of their activities with a view to protecting workers and preventing accidents and occupational health hazards and reciprocal information as provided for in Article 6 (4) of Directive 89/391/EEC, ensuring that self-employed persons are brought into this process where necessary; (e) coordinate arrangements to check that the working procedures are being implemented correctly; (f) take the steps necessary to ensure that only authorized person are allowed onto the construction site.”

Posted By David S Burt Bob, I opened a thread on this very subject on the Internal Business Forum on the 21 June and I must say that to date I have found the responses very disappointing. The reason for opening the debate on the Internal Business Forum is because I believe this is a matter that needs to be discussed by the people who are most likely to be affected by the outcome i.e. IOSH Members. I am starting to think that the Safety Professionals who work in construction are a minority group within IOSH. This conclusion is based on 150 views and 8 responses (one of which was mine) to my posting over a month ago and 651 and 13 responses in under one day on this forum!

Posted By David S Burt Robert I found it very refreshing that the Olympic Delivery Committee has made a really positive statement on the Standards of Health and Safety that will be applied during the construction of the facilities for the games. The full text can be read on the latest news section of the IOSH Web site. I also fully support the statement that Lawrence Waterman has made on this subject in his role of Head of the ODA Health & Safety Team. My understanding of the revised CDM Regulations is that they will not be in place until later this year and they will not be retrospective. By that time the contracts for the construction activities related to the Olympics will have been let and therefore the numerous works relating to both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Projects will be carried out under existing legislative requirements. This means that despite the revised ACOP not recognising Chartered Safety & Health Practitioners as being competent to undertake the role of Project Coordinator (as defined Appendix 4 of the current soon to be accepted draft ACOP),currently defined as the Planning Supervisor, Competent IOSH members should still be able to take an active, productive role in assisting the ODA and Lawrence in achieving their goals. Perhaps there is still hope for members of IOSH to be seen to be making a valuable contribution to Health & Safety in the construction industry.

Posted By Roland Crane Just a quick note. At a recent IOSH Branch Seminar on the changes to CDM, a member of the audience asked the speaker (a senior HSE Inspector), what the HSE's view was on comments made by APS on the new changes. His answer, We do not recognise APS! I am now confused!

Posted By Robert K Lewis I have seen agency contracts of employment that purport to provide PPE and then charge the person if it is not kept in good condition and needs replacement!! This included rubber gloves. I do think it about time the HSE and the EHO, as applicable, took this problem on board. The agencies often state to employers that they provide such as PPE then pass the cost to the poor employee. Bob

Posted By David S Burt Roland, Two points: 1. Could someone explain to me what the provision of PPE to Agency workers has to do with the proposed Draft CDM Regulations that are due to be implemented next year? and 2. What hope is there for IOSH if the HSE do not recognise the APS who are actually named in Appendix 5 of the current and likely to be introduced CDM ACOP? IOSH are not considered as being worthy of a mention in the ACOP.

Posted By Paul Bradford I do not agree that Principal Contractors would be best placed to fulfil the role of Co-Ordinator nor do I think that Designers are suited. Both the PC and the designers have their own agenda (be it cost or fanciful ideas about design) I do believe that the PC should be dovetailed into the design team as they are best placed to advise on builability and advise on aspects of the design which may prove difficult to construct from a safety point of view. One of the main functions of the Planning Supervisor is to question aspects of the design from a safety stand point without an agenda on cost, quality or appearance etc. I do believe that the current PS organisations are best suited to evolve into the new Co-Ordinator role. P

Posted By Simon R The HSE have today issued a press release regarding the involvement of the Steering Group involved in drawing up the guidance documents for CDM2007. Towards the end it lists those involved on the steering group and includes 'Institution of Occupational Health and Safety' (sic) It also includes the following paragraph: "The steering group welcomes the input of all sections of the industry and particularly encourages other bodies involved in developing guidance to submit proposals to the CONIAC steering group. Anyone wishing to contribute should contact the Chair, Kevin Fear (mailto:kevin.fear@citb.co.uk 01485 577451) or the secretary Stephanie Rafferty (mailto:Stephanie.rafferty@hse.gsi.gov.uk 020 7717 2163) in the first instance. " Now is the time to get our concerns and comments heard - so let's get to it! The full document can be found at: https://www.gnn.gov.uk/c...,674,708,683,706,718,674 I hope this causes some revisions and alleviates some of the causes for debate that have been ongoing for some while. It's down to us as Members of IOSH to state our case , and for IOSH to put it for us There has surely been enough debate within these fora for the 'powers that be' to have gleaned an idea of what the membership feels. Regards Simon

Posted By Advanced Safety Paul I must disagree with your thought that the current Planning Supervisor organisations are best suited to the role of the Co-ordinator. I do however agree that no single profession can assume this role. However, i dont see the Association of Planning Supervisors (oops! conveniently changed)encouraging members not to solely assume this role. I am sorry if i sound biased against APS, but i am afraid that this has been built on the experience of dealing with Planning Supervisors on various sized projects for the last 10 years. A quick example! I have been delivering a number of seminars over the last 6 months, based on the proposed changes to CDM and its possible impact on all duty holders. The seminars have been, aimed at, and attended by Designers and Structural Engineers (at my clients request). During the delivery of the seminars, i found that many of the attendees had assumed the role of Planning Supervisor and many were members of APS. Their general lack of understanding of the current regulations came as such a shock to my client, that we adapted the semiar to include the current regulations as well! Again, i am not setting out to pick fault with APS, but i really dont feel that any single body should be representative of this role. Try the ICE Register, this is a real assessment of competence that i feel should be encouraged more, and is certainly endorsed by the HSE. (No, i am not registered) I know this will leave me open for the APS firing squad, but that is my view. No back to polishing my Trowel and staightening my Stabila!

Posted By Paul Bradford In the company I work for there are Planning Supervisors from varied backgrounds with various different skills and competencies. As a whole Organisation, yes the PS is competent as a "WE" not each person as an "I". More emphasis need to be placed on the Planning Supervisor as an organisation and not as a single employee. To be competent, one needs to know their own boundaries and limitations and ask for help or assistance from other colleagues with the necessary knowledge. Therefore I cant see how any one person can be truly competent (unless they are know it all's). I certainly know when to tap in to the knowledge and resources of colleagues and when to make use of the diverse range of skills within my organisation if need be. If in doubt it makes sense to ask for help. I dont think any of us are above requesting help or assistance from others.