The HSE is planning a “complete overhaul” of the CDM Regulations – including removal of provisions relating to competence, and introducing duties for domestic projects – rather than the fine-tuning indicated by its review last year.
This is according to the Association for Project Safety (APS), which called the changes – revealed by the HSE in a presentation to the North West CDM Support Group on 25 February – “unnecessary and drastic”.
The meeting was attended by APS president Richard Habgood, who noted from the presentation that the HSE intends to make the following changes: removal of both regulation 4, relating to competence, and the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP); introduction of CDM duties for all projects on which more than one contractor is working; replacement of the design-phase duties of the current CDM coordinator with a new ‘project preparation manager’.
Designer, principal contractor and contractor duties appear to be remaining more or less unchanged, says the APS, adding that the project notification threshold will remain the same as under CDM 2007, even though this differs from the European Union’s Temporary & Mobile Construction Sites (TMCS) Directive.
One of the most contentious changes is likely to be the introduction of CDM duties for all projects, commercial or domestic, where more than one contractor is working on a project. According to the APS, on these projects, one of the contractors will have to take on the equivalent duties of the CDM coordinator for the construction phase.
At the presentation, the HSE said it would be concentrating on improving the construction industry’s understanding of the TMCS Directive, reducing pre-qualification bureaucracy and replacing the ACoP with a series of guidance notes.
Although the exact detail of the new regulatory package will not be known until May 2013 at the earliest, when it is presented to the HSE Board, the APS suggests that the Government’s policy on revising the Regulations “demands a complete overhaul based on a copy-out of the Directive, irrespective of the quality of the existing CDM Regulations”.
It adds: “These proposed changes fly in the face of the HSE’s own CDM review and the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations in Professor Ragnar Löfstedt’s report, both of which suggested the CDM 2007 Regulations were working well, were not broken, and only required minor changes in the way they were understood and being implemented.
“While there is still quite a way to go with finalising the revised Regulations, an industry consultation period still to be had, and a likely implementation date not until October 2014, the wheels could yet come off the trolley with the Government’s approach to Europe uncertain and the TMCS Directive itself due for review by the EU next year.”
When contacted by SHP for a response, the HSE’s chief inspector of construction, Philip White, said: “It is a matter of public record that the HSE has been asked to revise the regulatory package that comprises the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007, the accompanying Approved Code of Practice, and supporting guidance. To that end, we have been talking to a wide variety of stakeholders in various forums prior to the public consultation planned for later this year.
“The HSE is committed to maintaining, or improving standards of worker protection, and we have been at great pains to tell stakeholders that this principle underpins the work we are doing to revise the package. At the same time, we have to set our proposals in the context of broader reforms to the health and safety system as a whole, and the factors that are shaping these reforms.
“We plan to put our proposals to the HSE Board in the spring. In the meantime, we will continue to tell stakeholders what is planned and listen to their comments, and will keep them informed of developments.”
The APS concluded: “While a desire for a reduction in bureaucracy and a drive for simplicity should be applauded, it should greatly concern the Government and the general public that these unnecessary, drastic changes could seriously undermine and set back the excellent progress made in health and safety risk management by the construction industry.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The HSE need to go even further to remove the current CDM system in full. No CDM-C has saved one single life or even reduced a single event on site – the current system simply creates paperwork that nobody ever reads!
The proposed scrapping of the CDM-C role should be greeted with the popping of champange corks across the land.
Money wasted on these poorly drafted regulations should be redirected then spent on real on site safety not paper.
In response to Paul F I suggest you look at the HSE figures that are freely availible on the HSE website. Under CDM 1994 the fatal figures were in decline. Since the introduction of the current system with CDM-C the offical figures show a clear upward trend. When you consider this is during a period of lower construction activity the benifit of the CDM-C function is shown not to be working.
Construction workers require real safety measures not pointless people who produce needless paperwork!
HSE needs to follow the requirements of the EU Directive. The needless CDM-C is not part of the EU Directive and never has been a part of the core function of CDM required under the Directive. It was a paper generation exercise by HSE that has been shown to have failed.
Every pound in construction spent on a CDM-C is a pound wasted that should have been directed to real health & safety measures within the construction industry.
No CDM-C = £ for real safety improvement
Doing away with the ACoP and adopting numerous regulations and guidance documents will not adress the failure of domestic contractors to be aware of thier obligations as Duty Holders. (And some of the other well known contractors)
You only have to look at the failure to adopt WAH Guidance and Regulatory compliance.
ACoP`s set a minimal standard, new guidance will need to be enforced.
Amd in defence, AFARP will be rigourously adopted by defence teams?
Do you suppose the amended CDM reg`s will encourage the guy in the picture to adopt Hi Vis?
Would be a good starting point I think, or is that too simplistic an effort?
The latest HSE statistics show that 40 workers were killed and more than 3,400 were seriously injured in falls from height in 2011/12. (Just WAH – appalling figures)
Admittedly they were not all on Notifiable Projects. But many were major players in industry.
Whom had enless paperwork to justify thier existance?
And O/H figures are equally disturbing.
Competence, risk awareness,and supervision thereafter are key to reducing these figures.
Endless reams of paperwork do not aid this
Regardless of titles of individuals charged with being desiganted duty holders, unless they all comply with those duties, little difference will be made.
CDM works when all participants collectively work together, as we are endlessly advised by the Olympic example?
I do not recall any comment about CDM not being adequate for the Olympic Example, yet it needs wholesale review? Odd that?
What CDM needs is Duty Holder complaince, and when not, enforcement, which rerely occured previously?
HSE Stats show between 1999-2007 258 people were killed from falls from height
and in 2011/12 40 were killed,
CDM which has been around in various forms since 1994 seems to be failing at an increasing rate in an econimic downturn?
It is not the regulations at fault, it is the lack of compliance driven by cost and incompetence that needs addressing.
We have introduced endless card schemes with little assitance to reducing these figures.
So competence assessment seems flawed to me?
I have just read an article on Construction related deaths. Watering down these regulations are going to cause a massive increase. Standards are going to reduce. The loss of good CDM-C’s are going to see less emphasis on risk reduction, buildability and future access and maintenance. I have to agree with APS these are a massive step back in the standards within the construction industry.
The lack of competency will dramatically increase in the industry with clients opting for cheap labour.
Do you have statistics to back up those comment A D Thompson. Maybe you only deal with ticky box CDM-C’s doing absolutely nothing.
I completely disagree with your statement, absolute rubbish and an insult to those of us who do actually take the role serious and strive to make a difference. I know that having a big input with the design team can result in significant hazard elimination. Take away the regs and we will have buildings difficult and unsafe to maintain, demolish and build.
and to conclude, it will give designers a free reign to design and construct some dangerous structures. from my experience there is a lack of H&S knowledge among designers and clients that is going to lead to an increase of incidents during construction and in maintaining completed projects
In my opinion, they should be giving the CDM-C a greater role on projects, not diluting the duty to other contractors on a multi occupancy sites(reading the content above). I’ve been involved in many projects in the past where the CDM-C has played an active role in the project, acting as an impartial liaison on HS&E matters.
I don’t see the point in absorbing their responsibilities from them now, yes there are some tick box CDM-C’s out there, but not sure this is the answer.
Since the introduction of the CDM C the amount of paperwork for the onsite Health & Safety Advisor seems to have quadrupelled thus tying him to his office desk, rather than him being on site site coaching and helping workers. And as for the removal of competencies i think there are enough workers on site who don’t know the meaning of Stop or Duck.
Why are we scrapping over the CDMC and what he/she should or should not be doing. We all know that the party with the greatest influence on any project is the Client.
The duties of CDMC or Project Preparation Manager or what ever title is decided, should stay, as should the other duty holders duties. We are all aware of the problems with the current regs and they should be reviewed/revised. However, this should be carefully considered before being finalised. We all need good, clear concise regs
AD Thompson – So are you suggesting it is CDM-C’s that are to blame for an increase in construction related deaths? Could it not be that because margins are so tight corners are being cut. I have seen standards slipping on sites in general. That is Contractors protecting profit margins. The HSE have highlighted the value of good CDM on the Olympic village. Yes there are some pointless box tickers out there, fact.
I strongly believe the CDM-C role should be involved more in the construction…..
Continued.
What we really need is good independant H&S advice on site to drive up standards. Not pro-contractor H&S reports that are not worth the paper they are written on. The CDM role should have more input in raising standards onsite and throughout the whole construction phase. Standards are slipping and slashing regulation is going to make it worse!