Health and Safety Executive Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 – 2 and a bit years in Anthony Lees Construction Policy Unit

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

CDM 2007 – Setting the Scene Legislative Development – the 1960s Safety Regulations from the 1960s Prescriptive, irrelevant, outdated, focused on detail Concentrated on actions, not controlling risks

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”

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”

Drivers for modern legislation

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’

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

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’

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?

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

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

CDM 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.

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

CDM 2007 evaluation - context

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

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 ( ) Focus groups (HSE Inspectors) ( ) Stakeholder events ( ) Economic analysis of costs and benefits ( )

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

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

CDM 2007 evaluation – timetable Q /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

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

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

CDM 2013 ?

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