The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM) have been with us since 1994, since when they have been revised only once, in 2007. The original Regulations had gone some way towards putting responsibility for safety where it could most effectively be handled, starting with the design, while also ensuring that no one in the supply chain, including clients, could wash their hands of safety.
The 2007 revision had as its main objective improving the management of risk. The aim was to simplify the Regulations to improve clarity; maximize their flexibility to suit the vast range of contractual arrangements in construction; make their focus planning and management, rather than the plan and other paperwork; strengthen the requirements regarding coordination and co-operation, particularly between designers and contractors; and to simplify the assessment of competence both for organisations and individuals.
Research was carried out in 2010, commissioned by the HSE, to support another revision, and the results have just been published. The two key questions were to what extent the 2007 revisions met their objectives, and what the cost implications for the construction industry have been.
A clear message came from the respondents, which is that there has been a financial cost to the industry of implementing the Regulations – but it has been money well spent. It must be encouraging that respondents, including clients, consider that construction design, management and site practices have improved between 2006 and when the new research was carried out. General conclusions from the research were that CDM 2007 and its associated Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) have gone a long way to meeting objectives, but some concerns remain within the industry.
Some respondents were concerned at their interpretation and implementation, especially in relation to the ACOP. It was found that there was little if any conflict between the Regulations and construction contracts but there was a need for more guidance on how CDM should work on repair and maintenance contracts. For multiple contracts, it was hard to determine who the principal contractor is. And not all procurement routes are fully addressed by the Regulations. Most worrying perhaps, it was felt that CDM 2007 does not fit naturally with the structure of today’s construction industry.
An important finding is that industry practice has a significant influence on how CDM is implemented, which leads to a clear warning given in the report that economic pressures could undo at least some of the good work that has been achieved since the Regulations were first introduced. This has led, says the report, to instances of price being more important than competence, early starts on site and compressed timescales. ‘These all limit the time and resource available for co-ordination and co-operation,’ the report says. ‘In the current economic climate, contractors, designers and co-ordinators are not always confident enough to say “no” to a client.’ Can the HSE find ways to make a contractor’s ‘no’ on safety grounds something that price considerations cannot overrule?
Nick Barrett
Editor