Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By steve e ashton
From the APS website:
The Early Day Motion .... against the CDM Regulations was today (Thursday 10 May 2007) considered by a Delegated Legislative Committee and the motion resoundingly defeated following a vote unanimously in support of the Regulations.
So no joy there then...
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi Steve, yesterday was not an EDM, but the original EDM was referred to the "third delegated legislation committee" that debated the matter. There was no vote. The outcome was:- "Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the Committee has considered the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (S.I. 2007, No. 320)." You can read the entire (approximately one hour) debate that has been on the website since yesterday afternoon at:- http://www.publications..../deleg/dg03070510-01.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pugwash
The debate at Jay's link is worth a read, if only to appreciate what a muddle it appears to be.
The Conservatives are claiming that the early day motion to annul the Regulations was the only means available to them to get a debate. Mr Selous said "It is absolutely not my intention to vote against the regulations....... There is a set form of words for the early-day-motion that has to be tabled to achieve that. I personally think it unfortunate that it has to include the phrase “annul” the regulations. Were it up to me, I certainly would have chosen to use a different word. My party and I are wholly committed to the highest possible standards of health and safety. Had we not tabled the early-day motion, there would have been no opportunity to debate these important regulations."
It appears a bit bizarre. I thought that all Regulations were open to scrutiny and were laid before Parliament before they came into effect to allow time for debate if anyone had objections. Surely an EDM is not the means by which this is normally done. Can any recent Diploma candidates enlighten me?
P
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
The impression that I got from this debate, was that the opposition on this occasion had not sought the best informed advice and therefore where on their back foot throughout it.
Perhaps we now have an opportunity to turn this situation around and invite these decision makers along to the Grange in order to show them the good work that the Institution and its Members actually do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi For details on EDM refer to:- http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/p03.pdf"EDMs tend to fall into several distinct groups. First, the Opposition may put down an EDM to pray against statutory instruments. Many appear in the name of the Leader of the Opposition or of another opposition party. This is how the Opposition gives public notice that it may seek to secure a debate on an SI; this type of EDM is generally the only one which can lead to a debate. Under Standing Order No. 118, the Government may refer a statutory instrument subject to negative procedure [see Factsheet L7] for debate in a standing committee once a motion for its annulment has been tabled."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Perhaps this paragraph says it all
"I have a central point to make to the Minister: I urge her to do more to integrate health and safety in construction with the planning permission and building control regime. Every year, some 605,000 planning applications are made, of which up to 200,000 will be deemed as F10s, which means that they will be notifiable to the Health and Safety Executive, at which point the provisions in the regulations will become enforceable. That leaves a little more than 400,000 applications, some 200,000 of which will be for domestic planning, to which CDM will not apply—an interesting point in itself, to which I shall return soon. That leaves just over 200,000 planning permission applications for non-domestic premises, to which the regulations will not apply."
It is clear the shadow minister had not been properly briefed as he would then know that only 25% approx are brought into effect by notification and the remainder are always enforceable - notifiable or not. The rest of the debate continues with both sides showing a lack of real understanding of what the regulations are actually stating.
Yet again we also see the spin of the phrase "I have met with" implying formal meetings but in reality are no more than a brief passing conversation.
Our political masters truly show themselves worthy of respect. OUCH - just bitten my tongue stuck in my cheek!!!
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.