Surveying Property: Construction Health and Safety; Safety

Showing posts with label Construction Health and Safety; Safety. Show all posts

Sunday, August 24, 2014

CDM Regulations 2015 – Changes that will not please everyone!

….the proposed removal of the CDM Coordinator and replacement with that of a Principal Designer will result in plenty of debate. Currently the CDM Coordinator is an independent role under the CDM Regulations, which will be lost, as a Principal Designer will undoubtedly have other additional roles/duties within a project.

http://www.schlecht.com/safety

Consultation on proposed changes to the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM) were completed on 6^th June 2014 by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) with the aim of introducing Construction (Design & Management Regulations 2015 in April next year. In its consultation document the HSE set out a number of policy objectives which explain why an update to the current CDM 2007 is required:

·  Maintain or improve worker protection;
·  Simplify the regulatory package;
·  Improve health and safety standards on small construction sites;
·  Implement the Temporary or Mobile Construction Sites Directive (TMCSD) in a proportionate way (this is a European Directive);
·  Discourage bureaucracy; and
·  Meet better regulation principles.

HSE also cite external research into CDM 2007 within its consultation document which concluded:

· CDM 2007 was viewed more positively by dutyholders than the 1994 version; its broad structure was fit for purpose;
· Problems generally arose through mis- and over-interpretation of the Regulations; significant concerns remained, however, in several areas:
· The Regulations had not borne down on bureaucracy as hoped;
· The Regulations had led to an industry approach to competence which was heavy-handed and in many cases burdensome, particularly on SMEs;
· The co-ordination function in the pre-construction phase was not in many cases well-embedded.

Source: http://www.constructionsafe.co.uk/

Interestingly a number of the research findings above were also reasons why it was felt that the original 1994 CDM Regulations needed to be updated and it appears that the 2007 CDM Regulations have not addressed these issues. For example, ever since the introduction of CDM 1994 and I can remember this vividly, there have always been issues around bureaucracy. Initially, this was partially down to lack of understanding of the workings of the regulations and latterly it could be argued that this is a result of complacency. I can remember numerous occasions whilst acting as Planning Supervisor (Now CDM Coordinator, although this title will no longer exist under the new proposals), where documentation such as Designer’s Risk Assessments, Pre-Tender Health & Safety Plans and even Construction Phase Health & Safety Plans had became so generic that often information was copy/pasted with the wrong project title, works information, site address etc. This situation became ridiculous and large volumes of paper were being produced because that is what some thought the Regulations required. CDM 2007 does not appear to have solved this problem, as this remains an objective for CDM 2015.

CDM 2007 also introduced the need to ensure that duty holders were competent in their role. This put additional responsibilities particularly on Clients to ensure that those they appointed in the various roles had the skills and competence to carry out their duties. Competence checking is not a role exclusive to the Client under CDM 2007, however HSE cite this as a particularly bureaucratic process and propose the following within their consultation document:

We plan to retain a general requirement under the revision of CDM (new regulation 8) for those appointing others to carry out construction work to ensure that they have received appropriate information, instruction, training and supervision to allow them to work safely. This aligns with the general requirements under Sections 2 and 3 of HSWA.

HSE believes that the competence of construction industry professionals should be overseen by, and be the responsibility of, the relevant professional bodies and institutions

It will be very interesting so see how this will work in practice, particularly when there are Health & Safety incidents which require investigations by HSE, and especially how those appointing duty holders can demonstrate that ‘duty holders have received appropriate information, instruction, training and supervision to allow them to work safely’

In summary, the proposed changes to the current 2007 CDM Regulations are:

·  Significant structural simplification of the Regulations;
·  The replacement of the ACoP with targeted guidance;
·  Replacement of the CDM-c role with a new role, that of the ‘principal designer’;
·  Removal of explicit competence requirements and replacing with a specific requirement for appropriate skills;
·  Addressing areas of TMCSD relating to domestic clients; and
·  The threshold for appointment of Coordinators.

I am sure that the removal of the CDM Coordinator and replacement with that of a Principal Designer will result in plenty of debate. Currently the CDM Coordinator is an independent role under the CDM Regulations, which will be lost, as a Principal Designer will undoubtedly have other additional roles/duties within a project. A Client will effective lose an independent advisor who can provide them with a fresh perspective of Health & Safety issues and responsibilities under the Regulations, outside of other individuals within the project team.

Also, HSE estimate savings of £30 million each year as a result of efficiencies gained under the proposed new CDM Regulations. Although, there ‘could’ be savings made due to reduced bureaucracy, as previously discussed (although this is questionable) it is difficult to see how the removal of the CDM Coordinator will produce any savings. The title may be changing to a Principal Designer however the role and responsibilities remain. All that will happen is that the fee currently charged by CDM Coordinators will now be charged by Principal Designers.

What about those companies and organizations who provide CDM Coordinator services, some of which are exclusive to the role? Surely they must be extremely concerned by this proposed change. The role of a Principal Designer has very wide connotations and will prevent many CDM Coordinators from simply re-labeling themselves. Whereas CDM Coordinators may have expertise in health & safety related matters, in order to be a Principal Designer they would need a much wider skill set due to the implied skills of being a 'Designer'. No doubt some will be able to make this transition, however there will undoubtedly be others who fall by the wayside.

Another implication of the proposed replacement of the CDM Coordinator will be the requirement to update numerous pieces of documentation as well as re-drafting of Construction Contracts. This will also have a cost implication and will reduce cost savings at least in the short to medium term.

The new proposal for CDM 2015 also propose changes to the notification threshold for a construction project as well as introducing duties for domestic Clients for the first time, however ‘create the default position whereby duties that would fall on a domestic client instead fall to the contractor’. This in itself generates a number of concerns however the HSE state that they expect the new regulations to be discharged in a sensible and proportionate manner. It will also be very interesting to see how this works out in practice.

You can find more information about the proposed changes to CDM Regulations from the HSE by following this link (Link).

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with friends, family and colleagues who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.

Sunday, January 26, 2014

More Shocking Health & Safety Poor Practice Pictures! – Part 2

Despite the introduction of a raft of construction related health & safety legislation over the last 30 years, there still remains an unacceptable amount of fatalities, serious injuries and avoidable accidents and injuries within the UK construction industry

Source: http://www.worldofstock.com/

Just before Christmas I published an article which proved incredibly popular (Link) that highlighted the huge risk some are prepared to take when undertaking construction/maintenance works, with little to no consideration of their own health & safety. The article identified that the UK construction industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the World and although statistics show that improvements have been made in recent years, it is clear from the latest Health & Safety Statistics (HSE) statistics that there remains room for significant improvements:

‘There have been significant reductions in the number and rate of injury over the last 20 years or more. Nevertheless, construction remains a high risk industry. Although it accounts for only about 5% of the employees in Britain it accounts for 27% of fatal injuries to employees and 10% of reported major injuries.

Despite the introduction of a raft of construction related health & safety legislation, there still remains an unacceptable amount of fatalities, serious injuries and avoidable accidents and injuries within the UK construction industry. The previous article made reference to the ‘human factor’ which seems to be a inbuilt self destruct mechanism whereby we as human beings think we can expose ourselves to whatever risk we want because we are invincible! Sadly, this is not the case as statistics prove otherwise.

Below I offer some further images, which are widely available on-line, and provide some shocking examples of how little some people value their lives and how they are prepared to accept high levels of risk, by cutting corners. The images are taken from all over the World, not just the UK. Just like the first article, when you look at the images below I am sure you will ask yourself, ‘what was going on in that person’s head at the time’, a question that these people obviously failed to ask themselves:

http://professormungleton.blogspot.co.uk/

Source:http://www.outsource-safety.co.uk

Source http://www.building.co.uk/

Source: http://www.hireup.co.nz/

Source: http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with friends, family and colleagues who you think would be interested

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Health & Safety Poor Practice – Shocking Pictures! – Part 1

Source: http://www.personallicence.com/

Health & Safety in all of it’s different forms is something that everyone should be aware of, particularly for those who work within the construction industry who’s poor safety record has been well publicised for many years. The UK construction industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the World and although statistics show that improvements have been made in recent years, it is clear from the latest Health & Safety Statistics (HSE) statistics below that there remains room for significant improvements:

The latest results in construction show:

- 39 fatal injuries to workers. 12 of these fatalities were to the self-employed. This compares with an average of 53 over the previous five years – including an average of 18 to the self-employed (RIDDOR);

- about 3 700 occupational cancer cases are estimated to arise each year as a result of past exposures in the construction sector (CAN04);

- there were an estimated 74 thousand total cases and 31 thousand new cases of work-related ill health (LFS, 2012);

- an estimated 1.4 million working days were lost in 2011/12, 818 thousand due to ill health and 584 thousand due to workplace injury, making a total of 0.7 days lost per worker (LFS, 2012).’

These statistics are even more worrying when we appreciate that the UK construction industry over the last few years, has suffered with low output due to the global economic downturn, therefore resulting in a significant reduction in personnel within the industry. It would be fair to expect a natural reduction in fatalities and accidents due to less people working within the industry, rather than being able to relate this to the impact of regulation. Regulation is important, in fact essential, however its effectiveness will relate to the manner in which it is understood, implemented and enforced.

When regulation is introduced or updated there is an expectation that everyone will follow it because it becomes mandatory to follow. Human nature however seems to take a different view in that no matter how much regulation is introduced or how much (or little) training is given, there will always be those who decide to ignore it and prefer to cut corners and take risks with their lives. Legislation assumes that people will understand and follow it however, what is not accounted for is the 'human factor'. I have worked on many construction sites as a Labourer, a Bricklayer and visited sites as a Consultant. During my early years on site I witnessed some serious health & safety breaches, where operatives for some unknown reason would pay little regard to their own wellbeing or to the wellbeing of others, and would often take short cuts just to 'get the job done'. The attitude to health & safety of most of the operative on site at the time was that health & safety was a hindrance that got in the way of them doing their jobs. Although, I have seen a marked improvement is health & safety procedures on construction sites over recent years there still remains an 'ignorance' to health & safety by many, particularly the more experienced operatives who have been on site for many years. Take a look at the extraordinary clip below, which provides an example of how little value we can often place on our safety:

The images below, which are widely available on-line and you may have seen then before, however they provide some quite shocking examples of how little some people value their lives and how they are prepared to accept high levels of risk, by cutting corners. The images are taken from all over the World, not just the UK. When you look at the images I am sure you will ask yourself, ‘what was going on in that person’s head at the time’, a question that these people obviously failed to ask themselves. Part 2 will be published in the New Year with more examples similar to those below: