Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 – 2 and a bit years in

1. Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 – 2 and a bit years in Anthony LeesConstruction Policy Unit

2. Context • Size of industry • Unique features • Decline in fatal accidents • International perspective • Recessionary effects • Safety culture • Rule based

3. CDM 2007 – Setting the SceneLegislative Development – the 1960s • Safety Regulations from the 1960s • Prescriptive, irrelevant, outdated, focused on detail • Concentrated on actions, not controlling risks

4. CDM 2007 – Setting the Scene Robens Report 1970 – 72 • “Too many employers, managers and workers are still inclined to look rather too much to state intervention and prescription” • “…and rather too little on to their own positive interests, responsibilities and efforts”

5. CDM 2007 – Setting the Scene Robens Report 1970 – 72 - recommendations • Recommended a transfer of responsibility from the regulator to those who create the risk • “The primary responsibility for doing something about the levels of occupational accidents and disease lies with those who create the risks and those who work with them” • “Regulation must discourage reliance on the state to regulate and instead encourage personal responsibility and voluntary self-generating effort”

6. Drivers for modern legislation

7. Drivers for modern legislation

8. TMCS Directive 1992 • Temporary and Mobile Construction Sites 92/57/EEC • Established a number of roles and principles: • ‘Client’ • ‘Project supervisor’ • ‘Health and Safety Plan’ • ‘Health and Safety File’ • ‘Prior Notification’ • ‘Trigger Points’ • ‘Minimum Health and Safety Requirements’

9. CDM 94 – Setting the SceneHistory Two part implementation of the directive: Construction (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1996 – to deal with the activities themselves Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 1994 – to deal with the management issues.

10. CDM 94 - Aims • Strategic approach to health and safety on project design, planning, preparation and execution • Effective risk management throughout the whole project • Procurement of better, cheaper projects that do not harm those who build, use, maintain or demolish them – ‘whole life’

11. CDM 94 - Under-implementation • Trigger point for appointment of co-ordinator for health and safety • Under TMCS ‘any construction site on which more than one contractor is present’ • Under CDM 94, >30 days or 500 person days – same trigger point for prior notification • Domestic clients excluded • Active decision by Health and Safety Commission at the time • Infraction risk?

12. CDM 94 – early feedback • Unclear, over-complicated • Not flexible enough for different contractual arrangements • Emphasis on bureaucracy at expense of planning anad management of risk • Too little emphasis on communication, coordination, integrated teams • Competence assessment unclear • Client role insufficiently strong

13. CDM 94 - revision • 2001 – ACoP revised • 2002 – discussion document ‘Revitalising Health and safety in Construction’ • 2005 – formal consultation • 2007 – CDM 2007 in force

14. CDM 2007 - aims • a) simplifying the regulations to improve clarity and so making it easier for dutyholders to know what is expected of them; • b) maximising their flexibility to fit with the vast range of contractual arrangements; • c) making their focus planning and management, rather than the plan and other paperwork, to emphasise active management and minimise bureaucracy; • d) strengthening the requirements regarding co-ordination and co-operation, particularly between designers and contractors to encourage more integration; • e) simplifying the assessment of the competence of organisations.

15. Early review of CDM 2007 • In force 6 April 2007 • At same time, parliamentary debate ‘against’ new Regulations • Lobbying by small businesses – perceived to be too burdensome • Attempt to overturn CDM 2007 unsuccessful • Commitment given to early review • Review after 3 years instead of 5 • Evaluation starting April 2010 • HSE currently preparing for evaluation

16. CDM 2007 evaluation - context

17. CDM 2007 evaluation – key tasks • Has CDM achieved its aims, and • Has it caused reduction in risk and changed behaviour in the way intended?

18. CDM 2007 evaluation – evidence sources • Baseline study (2005) • Regulatory Impact assessment (RIA) (2006-7) • Pilot dutyholder survey (2009) • Dutyholder survey (2010) • Construction Industry Advisory Committee (CONIAC) working group (2009-10) • Focus groups (HSE Inspectors) (2009-10) • Stakeholder events (2010-11) • Economic analysis of costs and benefits (2010-11)

19. CDM 2007 evaluation – analysis • Mixture of qualitative and quantitative analysis • Considerable uncertainties based on cause/effect • HSE committed to publishing results • May result in legislative amendment

20. CDM 2007 evaluation - challenges • Bureaucracy caused by matters outside HSE control • Small and medium enterprises – SMEs – 2/3 of fatal accidents are on non-notifiable sites • Small and occasional clients • Continued European interest – infraction? • Quantifying benefits, identifying cause and effect • Potential change of government – deregulation potential

21. CDM 2007 evaluation – timetable • Q2-3 2009/10 – pilot survey • From q4 2009/10 – identification of evidence sources, planning resources • Q4 2009/10 – HSE Board approval • Q1-Q3 2010/11 • Industry survey • Economic analysis/ RIA evaluation • Stakeholder and focus groups

22. CDM 2007 evaluation – timetable • Q4 2010/11 – reporting back to HSE Board • Q1 – 3 2011/12 – public consultation on options for change (if needed) • ~2012 – amended Regulations (?) • 2013 – UK report back to European Commission on implementation

23. CDM 2007 evaluation – initial thoughts • Regulations are simpler and easier to understand, better laid out • More flexible – but is that being applied? • Limited effect in reducing bureaucracy – some people ‘get it’, others don’t – bureacratic approach can throttle effective coordination • Some success in increasing client responsibility – but patchy (who’s the client, anyway?) • Positive effect on competence – but only partly driven by HSE • More needs to be done to influence SMEs

24. CDM 2013 ?

25. Your views? • Client role? • Effectiveness of coordination and communication? • Bureaucracy? • SMEs? • Competence assessment?