Selective hearing – CDM 2015
The Health and Safety Executive’s consultation on CDM 2015 garnered 1,427 responses which HSE has claimed gave them ‘a strong case to proceed’ with the implementation of CDM 15 broadly as proposed.
However, HSE has stated that “among the 1,427 responses received, some 65 per cent were received from either CDM co-ordinators or from the entertainment sector (which was not the target of the consultation) whose responses are effectively campaigns”. It went on to state that while HSE acknowledged the difficulties for the entertainment sector, more weight was given to ‘representative’ responses. It was quite clear from the content of the report that absolutely no consideration was given to the points that would have been raised by the 400 respondents from the events and entertainments sector.
Presumably therefore, the ‘strong case’ was built on the 35 per cent of ‘representative’ respondents who came up with the answer that the HSE was looking for. Of the total responses not considered 28 per cent were from the events (entertainment) industry. How can HSE maintain on the one hand that they were not the target of the consultation and on the other insist that these regulations will still apply to that industry? How is an industry to respond to the prospect of the imposition of a weighty piece of health and safety law that never applied to it before, if not to organise itself so that it can form a view and respond in a coherent way? This is not a ‘campaign’ it is a legitimate response by an industry to a public consultation process; a ‘campaign’ is writing angry letters to your MP and The Times.
The response to Consultation Document 261 posed 20 questions requiring individuals to respond and necessitating the analysis and consideration of some serious and complex issues. The 400 event industry responses came from individual business leaders in the industry, some at director level, and safety professionals who are experts in their respective fields across TV, entertainment, theatres, exhibitions, festivals and sporting events. These were not ‘unrepresentative’ and these are the same professionals on whom HSE will presumably rely to draft the relevant guidance to the new regulations. Will their views be summarily dismissed in this process too? All these individuals took time out of their busy working lives to give serious consideration to a public consultation process only to have their views and their responses high-handedly discounted.
With the CDM co-ordinators there is an obvious issue. It is easy to see why they would not respond favourably to a proposal in which their role will be cut, however, this was a public consultation process and they were entitled to have their views considered, not arbitrarily dismissed en masse as being partisan.
The events industry broadly agrees that CDM 15, which never applied before, is fundamentally ill suited to the industry as a whole and the costs of implementing it will be disproportionate to any benefits. HSE thus far has not articulated a case to show that these regulations are a necessary imposition on an industry that is vital to Britain’s economy at a time when the Government is supposed to be paring back over burdensome and unnecessary regulation on businesses.
The key questions here, however, are what is the point of a public consultation process when the public body concerned ignores the answers that inconveniently do not the support the legislation it is proposing to bring in? And how can we have faith in future consultations on health and safety legislation?
Simon Garrett is managing director of X-Venture Global Risk Solutions and author of the G-guide, a guide to global standards of health and safety at exhibitions.
Selective hearing – CDM 2015
The Health and Safety Executive’s consultation on CDM 2015 garnered 1,427 responses which HSE has claimed gave them ‘a strong case to proceed’ with the implementation of CDM 15 broadly as proposed.
Safety & Health Practitioner
SHP - Health and Safety News, Legislation, PPE, CPD and Resources Related Topics
Revisiting the London Olympics 2012 – a gold medal for safety
‘With stunts there’s a lot of moving parts’: Overseeing safety in the entertainment industry
Generic risk assessments not suitable for task
Why are we surprised at this response from the HSE? It’s going to be a complete dogs dinner!
Well done Simon for putting into words my thoughts, so far I have been pretty speechless!
As you pointed out many of us have taken unpaid time out to comment on the regulation only to be effectively ignored. The people and organisations trying to be involved in the production of good legislation unfortunately are being swept aside by what appears to be nothing more than politics.
Does IOSH have an opinion on this?
Its clear to me that the government had made up its to kill off health and safety with total disregard for the consequences that this will cause. We will see an increase in Accidents, fatalities and injuries it this is allowed to go ahead. The people who are involved at the sharp end are being completely ignored yet again
I am in complete agreement with the comments made…in fact the writer took the words out of my mouth… The Government is going to get its way regardless of the consequences and I see a vision of HSE in the future being an organisation that will be laughter at by safety professionals… Don’t say we didn’t tell you… You are in danger of loosing respect…
Simon Very good points raised, particularly the ‘campaigning’ and the time some of took to respond with a disregard for comments made. There is also a surprisingly low number of certain dutyholders (524 submissions) that responded, based on current membership levels (apathy rules?). So to sum up, the costs were wrong, ACOP’s can be quick to revise (has there ever been a worse reason for removing an ACOP!), there ‘may’ be competence issues for the PD role, and the co-ordination role may well be delegated in the first two years….etc..we will just crack on with the changes. And to sum… Read more »
If I could stick my neck out and play devils advocate for a second – I think the HSE is saying (albeit in a bit of a clumsy way that has understandably been misinterpreted I think) that it is disregarding the entertainment sector’s feedback because this general consultation on the topic was concerned with whether or not the proposed law is fit for purpose for the traditional construction sector – and our feedback from entertainment scews that picture if factored in. And I think our issue in entertainment is not whether CDM2015 is appropriate or not to traditional construction (it… Read more »
This article has highlighted something that has been obvious to some of us for some time: that HSE will ‘bend’ the consultation process to get what it wants – or, more likely perhaps, to get what its political masters want. In the summary of the responses to CD242 on whether to exempt the self-employed from H&S duties, HSE stated that the CD “consulted on 4 options”, which it then proceeded to describe. It then stated that the CD “did not ask which option was preferred or to rank them”! It seems from this that HSE didn’t really want to consult… Read more »
The Consultation Process has for many years now been nothing more than lip service. The Blair years reduced it to a case of “you have been consulted so everything is alright and we can do what we wanted” and the coalition has continued that process. You’re right about the selective interpretation of the facts and responses but then did you expect anything else? The whole ‘consultation’ was a typical Orwellian farce, “are you broadly in favour of motherhood and apple pie or would you prefer slaughtering the first born?” Hmm difficult to fully address that in a yes, no, maybe… Read more »
As a CDM Co-ordinator I responded to the consultation to remind HSE that 1994 designers did not show any interest in picking up the H&S batten and in 2007 HSE viewed the CDMC as a key advisor to the client. Obviously the work I have done for the last 20 years did not deliver any benefits to the client, designers or the construction industry, and I agree that our voices have been ignored (although at least there is now talk of a transition period. Something that should have been in from day one on the consultation). With regard to the… Read more »
I agree with the writer. It feels like the HSE were just going through the motions of the consultation but had no intention of acting upon the responses given. Of course the majority of the responses were from CDM Co-ordinators! Joe public doesn’t care about it as most of the time they have nothing to do with them. Who were they thinking responses would be from? Nurses? Teachers? HSE will love the increase in the fee for intervention when the change comes in though and they walk onto every site and start the clock as no safety documentation is present… Read more »