The Health and Safety Executive has insisted it is on track to bring far-reaching changes to the CDM Regulations into law by April 2015 – the last opportunity to pass new legislation before next year’s General Election.
In the industry, speculation has been mounting that the update now known as “CDM 201X” might be pushed beyond the General Election due to lack of parliamentary time – or even by political lack of enthusiasm for additional EU-driven regulation.
The delayed update to the CDM Regulations 2007 is intended to bring the UK’s health and safety management system fully into line with the EU Directive 92/57/EEC on “Temporary & Mobile Construction Sites”, first published in 1992.
But this will mean the HSE needs to find a way of extending the CDM Regulations to cover some domestic projects, raising the prospect of similar headlines to those that greeted the so-called “conservatory tax” .
An H&S insider said: “My perception is that the HSE have all their ducks in a row, but it’s being held back by the minister rather than the HSE. The introduction of CDM Regulations to domestic projects wouldn’t be an easy pill for Middle England to swallow.”
"The introduction of CDM Regulations to domestic projects wouldn’t be an easy pill for Middle England to swallow."
H&S insider
Other key features in the delayed update – originally due to be published for consultation in March 2013, ahead of implementation in 2014 – include the likely demise of the CDM coordinator role, with their responsibilities being taken on by the "principal designer".
There is also likely to be a drastic reduction in the size of the accompanying Approved Code of Practice, with more reliance on industry-produced guidance instead.
This week, an HSE spokeswoman insisted to CM that the HSE is making progress behind the scenes, although she did leave open the possibility that ministerial or political delay could still scupper the timetable.
The spokeswoman said: “We don’t yet have a date [for publication of the consultation draft] but we’re moving forward with the various processes that need to happen at government level, for instance we have clearance from the Regulatory Policy Committee [a non-departmental public body that scrutinises plans to introduce or repeal regulation].
“Then we will need to have it cleared by the minister [Mike Penning at the Department for Work and Pensions] and other parts of government. We’re not going to speculate on a date, but we’re still on track for it to be passed into law by April 2015.”
In a written statement, the HSE added: “We would like to thank the industry for its support during the development of the proposals and its continuing patience while we prepare for the consultation.”
The HSE’s commitment to the April 2015 deadline will be welcomed by the industry, but insiders have told CM that the HSE needs to publish the draft within the coming weeks if it is to be realistically achieved.
James Ritchie, head of corporate affairs at the Association for Project Safety, which represents CDM coordinators, said: “The longer they leave publication, the less consultation time there will be. At the moment, we have working groups in the industry producing guidance on documents that haven’t gone out to consultation yet.”
He also said: “The EU directive is being reviewed next year anyway, as construction practices have moved on in 20 years. It could be the government says let’s wait until the election’s over, then we can see what the EU is doing.” However, Ritchie stressed that this was personal speculation.
Vaughan Burnand, chair of the CIOB’s Health and Safety group, said that the HSE did not seem to be prioritising the update, although it was unclear why. “We were told [by the HSE], ‘we’re all carrying on, but take the ‘four’ away from 2014 and we’ll let you know’.”
“This is the last year of the government, and there is this idea that it mightn’t be until after the General Election, which is fairly shocking in my view.”
Dr Billy Hare MCIOB, senior research fellow in H&S at Glasgow Caledonian University and also a member of the CIOB committee, confirmed that the update was being referred to by the HSE and others as “CDM 201X”.
He also anticipated that the update could bring a major shake-up. “I would say the 2007 update was pretty ineffectual – the name was changed from planning supervisor to CDM coordinator but it didn’t change much. So I’m hopeful the new version with the idea of the principal designer, which gives the role more authority, is possibly a watershed.”
Main image credit: <a href=’http://www.123rf.com/photo_16906183_two-foreman-discussion-on-construction-site.html’>ndoeljindoel / 123RF Stock Photo</a>
Comments
Comments are closed.
The Principal Designer will, we see now from the draft legislation, to be someone who works with the Designer and who looks after the CDM work. It’s so obvious that most of the public will think the Principal Designer is the head of the team! Very confusing especially as he will not be designing anything at all.
Only last week I read an article in a magazine written by a senior architect at a large practice in London that said, “yes, we are already getting some of our chaps trained up in health and safety to do this role” !! This just spoke volumes in one sentence.
I can also envisage scenarios where the client or the builder draws the plans and then just gets on with the work. I have seen them do this on commercial works with no CDM-C so they will no doubt do the same on domestic projects. Most of them seem ignorant on the CDM Regulations and even if they do know about them, they choose to ignore them as it is, as they see it, another layer of people and extra costs added onto the budget. I can’t see how this blatant ignoring of the law will improve at all.
The 1994 legislation was more than adequate as it covered everything. This could have been altered easily to include domestic work which it should have done in the first place, but the Planning Supervisor role needed more power so that he could go on site and actually stop any practices that were dangerous, instead of only being allowed to tell the client to do something about a problem.
A name such as a ‘CDM Safety Officer’ or something similar would have been helpful.
There is no doubt a good CDMC can be helpful within a multi-disciplinary team, especially on larger projects.
There are regrettably too many who have, as Robert Hudson says, seen the role merely as a very lucrative revenue stream and produced functional non project-specific plans which are of no value.
The inclusion of domestic projects is welcome, it should have always been the case
If the role of the CDMC goes it will be a step back in time. The issue here is that a good CDMC does add to the process and saves lives, bad CDMCs don’t and I have seen a lot out there. The ACOP works if used correctly it’s all a question of time to do the job properly and experience to ensure you see and reduce the risks. Yes, put domestic in the same bag, it’s about time, but don’t give the role back to the designer. They didn’t want it when the regs first came out and they still don’t want it now. Keep a copy of this comment and in five years time if the regs do away with the CDMC role pull it out and you will be saying why did they do that!
My opinion is that the government will blunder, if bringing out new CDM quickly, due to EU review due. There is a clear need for separate CDMC professional, as designers already have millions of liabilities and tasks added by legislation these days.
This is going to be a sad moment in Construction Safety and future maintenance of buildings. Having a CDM-C overlook during the design process and construction phase keeps a regular check on H&S matters. This appears to be more politics than policy.
I shall not be sad to see the demise of the CDMC. It has never really been implemented properly and it has certainly created a very lucrative revenue stream which was never the intention.
The timescale is problematic, but the intentions of the changes are laudable. Domestic projects should always have been included, better coordination of H&S is essential and not delivered proportionately to date, and the function of design risk management will still need to be delivered. If Principal Designers do not have sufficient capability or experience they will need to employ CDM-Consultants who will need design and construction experience. Let’s hope that the new slimmed-down regulations and industry guidance will clear up all the differing interpretations of CDM 2007 .
A good CDM coordinator on a project can help and assist the design and construction team develop a building that is safe to build and maintain. It is only ineffective if a CDM Coordinator is appointed too late in a process to make a difference.
I would also like to know what is going to happen to CDM coordinators like myself who have done nothing but the Planning Supervisor/CDM Coordinator role full time since 1995….Suddenly there is no income/job. I have my own business and it is hard to make decisions about business strategy when 80% of the income may or may not be taken away. Is it time to leave construction altogether? There some big decisions to be made and not just by the government, but by a lot of people who may find themselves redundant!
The EU directive calls for a coordinator for health and safety matters – is this not the CDMC role but with a different title ?
The CDM-C role is being replaced by that of the Principal Designer (who we are led to believe by the HSE will have a very similar role to the CDM-C and may or may not actually be a designer ) and increased responsibilities on the client (who will no longer have the CDM-C to turn to for advice). In my experience in 20 years as CDM-C, there are very few designers who could or want to take on the role and responsibility for H+S and since the introduction of the original CDM Regs, there have been huge changes in legislation affecting design- DDA, explosion of Building Regs, Party Wall Act, BREEAM, constant planning changes etc etc etc. Designers have enough on their plates – even though design risk management principles should be intrinsic in design and theoretically the PD role not too difficult- and this factor has been constantly overlooked and airily dismissed at consultation by the HSE. Designers and clients have welcomed the added value and H+S knowledge offered by a good independent construction H+S professional/ CDM-C whose role is clearly defined unlike the proposed PD! The proposals are a politically driven fudge and the costs of the changes to be born by industry will extend far beyond the HSE’s assessments
About time too for the inclusion of domestic projects – does this mean homeowners that DIY there building projects and self builders have responsibility now? I still see builders building houses for clients with little or no regard for health, safety and welfare of the people carrying out the work. My view is that there is a wider pool of competent construction professionals that could be tapped into for CDMC role. on the contrary, I worked with one CDMC that never once thought it necessary to review the design of any of my projects I was working on..which was a bit worrying.
I find myself agreeing with James Ritchie’s personal view that it seems like political suicide to implement a reigme of H&S intervention on domestic works before a general election. I can see the headlines from the Daily Mail now……
Although personally I always though it an odd quirk of the regulations that ‘domestic’ clients were left out in the first place. When some of the most dangerous sites are the small domestic ones, as detailed by the latest statisitcs from the HSE.
I am delighted to hear that the role of CDM Coordinator is to be abandoned.
It does mean a loss of income to me, as a CDM Coordinator, but, in my view, it is unnecessary to have a separate role, with an extra fee, for the management of the CDM Regulations.
The management of the CDM Regulations should rest with either the principal contractor or the principal designer for a project.
Also, it is crazy that work to a rented house is subject to CDM Regulations but a privately owned and occupied one is not.
I await with interest for the consultation papers.
Giving the responsibility for CDM to the lead designer will be a disaster. As a Planning Supervisor/CDMC since 1995 I have only come across one or two designers who truly understand and properly implement risk control, and none who have practical working knowledge of the management requirements. Why can’t the HSE recognise that design teams spend hours reviewing BREEAM assessments purely because there is a piece of paper at the end of the process. Giving the CDMC the same responsibility to effectively “sign the project off” at tender and completion stages may increase my PII premium, but will also ensure all stakeholders, especially the client, properly implement the requirements. Simple!
As Paul Bussey has said Designers who do not have the capability or desire will look for people to undertake the H&S coordination on their behalf. There will only be a problem if the HSE are silly enough to restrict who undertakes the Principal Designer role and not allow sub-contracting of the role to a competent person.
Anyway we are seemingly in the hands of the politicians now.
What has been leaked out by the HSE will set construction back to pre 1994. Designers were not interested in applying the regulation when it was introduced then and I still see the same now under the 2007 Regulation. There is a case for the regulation to be looked at, but do not do away with CDM C’s give them more power by insisting they are appointed from day one, have to be part of the signing off of projects at different stages. By doing this, you will see late appointment disappearing and the CDM C being at the top table with influence on how Health and Safety is managed during the design process.
In my 12 years in the construction industry I’m yet to find a designer who considers the health and safety implications of their design. All awards focused. This is going to set the industry back years leaving buildings difficult to construct, manage, maintain and deal with at end of life. I work with designers on projects ranging from £1m-£200m, designers at that level still need support and guidance. Who is giving clients guidance on H&S in the future? Architects with no H&S qualifications?
So the statutory requirement will be removed yet the risk averse and professional client will still want an advisor to ensure Designers and PMs don’t cut corners…….Sell the good practice, technical know how and experience. It’s a saleable and valuable commodity to all …. apart from the bean counters. Many agree with the CDM C role whatever guise it may be forced to wear. Even some of the best Designers in the land don’t evaluate and design in line with the CDM pinciples and are grateful for some independent advice and sanity checks. A series of HSE tick boxes wont provide the service of a good CDM C. So let’s have some confidence in ourselves Long live the Design Risk Assessor, Principal Designer call ’em what you want. To coin a phrase “We are worth it” The best CDM Cs are construction design/build experienced operatives, not tick boxers.
Why can’t we use ‘normal’ projects job titles so at least the projects community will understand what all the fuss is all about.
Planning Supervisor and CDM-C are just another fancy title for a Project Manager. Principal Designer is another fancy title for a Project Engineer.
Some entrepreneur will see an opportunity to make ‘Principal Designer’ some sort of special animal and make a shed loads of money!
After all these years and we still haven’t learned anything.
It all appears a little garbled to me. What are the objectives I thought they included reducing injuries and ill health in construction? Yet reading the CD it is filled with the words, expect and low compliance. Does this mean HSE will not meet their objective and they find that acceptable?
If the highest number of incidents are on projects employing 15 or less on site, why change the method of gaining intelligence on this work by only notifying work employing 20 persons simultaneously?
Whilst much is printed about the failures of CDMCs, which I do take exception to, we did not all fail, what is does say to me is the HSE failed with clients, designers, CDMCs and especially all of the SME contractors who are still behaving as health and safety is not an issue.
Example Chimney breast needs pointing price submitted seems low “have you allowed for scaffolding?” response “if you want it done safely that will be 50% more” whose safety? Culture never changed quickly but without education and enforcement it is a lost cause.
No I think somebody needs to ask serious questions about the effectiveness of the HSE in the SME part of the construction industry.
As I review my notes I am sure many more points will come to the fore. One query I have is this about savings or health and safety, as it certainly has a lot to say about costs and benefits and little about the health and safety of workers and clients.
I agree with the need to do something to improve the awareness of H&S within many small builders that work in domestic residential property, and even for elements of maintenance and small works projects. Roofers are one of the biggest offenders as they at times cut costs hugely by not using the correct access equipment and simply work off ladders and cripples. Not sure on the rates of the intervention fees, as this could break some small builders; however, these changes are very likely to improve the HS awareness of general site operatives and smaller builders working in houses. As for the CDMC role, like much of H&S its a way of thinking as opposed to just another qualification or a bit more competency training. PMs/PCs and PDs have a lot to think about with their own responsibilities onsite and often appreciate the experience of a good CDMC. i’m on the fence for now until it commences, and we’ll see where it goes. As for those concerned about their jobs; a good CDMC will surely fit nicely into the primary contractors business’ (well the larger ones anyhow) to now manage the new requirements. Probably need quite a few jobs running to afford a full time CDMC though. On another plus, it will certainly be quicker without a CDMC but possibly not quite as safe – this now promotes / allows an element of self governance essentially.