This issue Top spot Topics05 SERVICES AND POLICY

12 PRACTICE MATTERS

16 GUIDANCE & REGULATIONS

19 CONSTRUCTION NEWS

20 HSE NEWS

20 MEMBERS’ LETTERS

22 CASES & CONVICTIONS

24 INFORMATION: THE LATEST

02 IN CAPABLE HANDS

09 CONSULTATION TIME IS COMING

15 NEW DIRECTORS ON BOARD

So far it has done so with considerable success – ensuring that, over its 18years of existence, it has established itself as the industry leader in UK construction health and safety risk management and provision of competent people to discharge the CDM duties placed on the industry. So, even though (as we go to press) we still do not have a new CDM consultation package on which to target our thinking there are some aspects about the future that we can focus on – and get on with implementing - so that whatever the HSE puts in front of us the industry will be better prepared for

that future and better served in terms of effective construction health and safety risk management.

We all want a more effi cient construction industry and we all want a simplifi ed CDM process and to achieve this we need to ensure that capable people are available to provide the specialist co-ordination and advice that the design team, designers and contractors need during the design-and-planning as well as the construction phases of projects.

Above all we need to be able to fi nd and engage these specialists – and let’s be clear about it they are specialists, whether their background is design, constructing or construction health and safety, or any combination of these – and for anyone engaging them to be confi dent that they are capable of effectively and effi ciently discharging their risk management duties without having to engage in extensive, bureaucratic assessments of those capabilities.

So what we obviously need is an industry agreed body and framework for assessing and listing construction health and safety risk specialists who can provide the advice, guidance and co-ordination - on one, or both phases of construction projects - that will be needed whatever the new regulatory package requires in terms of “who does what and how”.

Construction health and safety co-ordination and risk management will be needed and it takes knowledge and skills as well as time and effort to implement these – so there will be jobs to be done and there will have to be people to do these jobs. We just have to make sure that they are easier to fi nd and engage than last time around. APS has as its strap-line “Shaping and sharing best practice in construction health and safety risk management”. So, let’s get on with some more shaping!

shaPing The fuTure

10 I 13Shaping and sharing best practice in construction health and safety risk management ISSUE 25

Since its very inception APS has always tried to grab hold of the future by looking to see what support those working in construction health and safety risk management might need and getting on with providing it.

We all want a more effi cient construction industry and we all want a simplifi ed CDM process...

comment

Those who bleat that CDM Co-ordinators are a waste of space, cost us dear and contribute nothing to our industry are easy to listen to and hard to dismiss – for there have been some in the industry who have wasted their, and everyone else’s, time on paper exercises that contributed little to improving health and safety in construction.

in caPable hands

But those bleaters cannot explain the considerable improvements to our death and injury performance that have been demonstrated over the years since CDM regulations were introduced, nor can they explain the very considerable gains made as a result of application of construction health and safety risk management during the Olympics construction programme – just one example of projects where CDM has aided better management, better delivery and lower accidents and injury statistics. The CDM Regulations have, without doubt, proved themselves – and proved the value of effective CDM Co-ordination and design and construction risk management.

As has been said before the big CDM issue is getting rid of the “less than competent”, not getting rid of the work that needs to be done to co-ordinate and reduce risks. The other issue is getting rid of the bureaucracy that has surrounded aspects of CDM construction risk management – a bureaucracy fed by the legitimate fears that without demonstrable evidence, if things go wrong, those charged with offences would be unable to defend themselves. That latter fear will not just ‘go away’ - but the other issues could - and should.

The Gordian knot could be cut, very simply, by deploying a listing of capable –knowledgeable, skilled, experienced and committed - people who would be able to deliver the construction health and safety risk management that will be required – whatever a new regulatory package contains. So, direct and relatively simple selection and appointment of ‘capable’ people becomes a critical issue for on-going construction health and safety risk management and co-ordination. We just have to be ready to decide what the

“capability” thresholds are for each of the providers of possible services that may be needed.

Anyone who understands the nature and complexity of the construction industry will also understand that the specialist knowledge, skills and experience required to effectively provide design and planning and / or construction phase health and safety risk management and advice are not the lot of all designers, contractors or even health and safety professionals. Even design risk management during design (and aspects of construction risk management during construction) will often require a wider range of knowledge and experience than is part of the normal knowledge and skills sets for many designers and constructors and It may well be time to make sure that designers’ best friends are available to help them deal with design risk management more effectively than has been the case to date

The need to manage these construction risks requires specialists in these areas – people who have what is needed and have committed themselves to providing these skills and services – so that design teams and contracting organisations can obtain those specialist skills either from direct employees or from consultants.

So, all service ‘supply’ options need to be considered – remembering that this is an industry where one size has never fitted all – so that the industry can ensure that, whichever route is taken, capable people are available to deliver the required services and so that those appointing them or working with them, should be confident that they are capable of discharging their duties. This, of course must be as a result of a recognised, industry (and HSE) supported listing of persons, (or registers of suitably qualified and experienced individuals held by other organisations, like those established by, APS) together with, perhaps a job specific interview and evidence of relevant project experience.

The challenge then is to help the industry achieve this – a challenge which we now know APS has already embarked upon meeting - firstly, by talking and discussing options with the IIRSM (as previously reported in the Digest), secondly by engaging others in the industry and thirdly by engaging with these ideas at the 2013 Convention in Belfast and across the membership of APS during the forthcoming CDM Consultations. So - “Shaping and sharing best practice in construction health and safety risk management” – which is uniquely APS.

For further information see

www.aps.org.uk02 I comment digest ocTober 13

As has been said before the big CDM issue is getting rid of the “less than competent”, not getting rid of the work that needs to be done to co-ordinate and reduce risks.

digest ocTober 13 comment I 03

The ‘recovery’ is, as we all know, very spotty – and could take an awful long time to affect (improve!) fee and employment levels in many design offices and construction firms. One of the first things to be cut from many company, and personal, budgets was ‘training” and CPD. One of the last things to get back into the budgets are those same two items, so requiring the industry to set aside large sums of cash and large amounts of time, for consultations, CPD and retraining is not going to help. It could cost jobs – after all, that money might otherwise be deployed in employing people – and it will cost time, which is more money. Can we afford it yet - or should that remain one of the ‘belt tightening’ areas that the Chancellor referred to? If that is the case someone needs to ask the HSE to consider the timing of these changes.

A second thought – and more worrying – is that the HSE might think (we don’t know yet, we haven’t seen the Regulatory

Impact Assessment (RIA) that will go with the CDM Regulations consultation package) that eliminating the CDM-C is going to reduce the costs of CDM. If that is the case it must assume that those taking on the CDM co-ordination duties (the Principal Designer, the last we heard) will not be paid for doing that work and will be expected to do it as part of their existing duties, or will be paid less. This change of ‘labelled’ person may well lead to an assumption by clients that they have been let off the hook (“You are a designer so will obviously do the principal designer co-ordination – no extra fee by the way”) and that this aspect of CDM is now a ‘no cost’ item. The inevitable consequence of that is, of course, a few thousand people no longer having a job to do – and given that most CDM-Cs are basically full time CDM-Cs that could mean a large rise in the jobless total and a cost in terms of employment income of many millions – perhaps as much as £150 to 200million for

APS CDM-Cs alone. So, yes a reduction in the costs of CDM – but a massive cost in social and other terms. How would that be reflected in the RIA?

Whilst we don’t think that this is what will necessarily happen – the construction health and safety risk management has to be carried out and we know it takes time and resources to do it – it is possible that we will see an artificial cost reduction but with a concomitant hidden increase in costs to designers, which looks good but actually does no-one any good – least of all the construction health and safety risk management which could end up being the poor relation in the designers’ workload priorities. Less is not more when it comes to work!

Has anyone asked the politicians if this is what they want? Maybe we should be writing to our MPs and asking them if this is really what is needed at this point in time – if ever!

JusT a couPle of ThoughTs

There was no further news on when the package might be published but an early October date was thought possible – and one prior to the APS Convention nervously hoped for. However, hot off the press information suggests that the consultation package may not now be issued until later in October.

One of the consequences of this delayed publication has been the difficulty that organisations have had trying to prepare for those consultations – with seminar roll out dates being changed week by week. Currently APS is advising those who have signed up for the consultation seminars to keep an eye on the dates for the rolling programme (published on the APS website)

– which is doing just that, rolling, and rolling! We do not have any details of the reasons for the delays in publication, but suspicions abound, not least that changes at the top have led to recognition that the regs changes may have gone too far; suspicions that they have not gone far enough and suspicions that, like last time around, the RIA doesn’t demonstrate a high enough level of probable improvement / benefits in industry take up – plus of course, nervousness about the political impact of inclusion of many domestic projects in CDM. In other words no-one knows and we wait in limbo. Meantime, the Chief Exec of HSE, Geoffrey Podger, has moved to New Zealand (and the former

Chief Inspector of Construction, Kevin Myers, has taken over his role, pro tem) and, of course, Philip White (former Chief Inspector of Construction), who was at the helm when most of the changes were being put together, has been replaced by a new Chief Inspector of Construction, Heather Bryant – who has had to pick up his tab. So, no-one “up top” who was in charge of the change and development process is still in place!

One obvious comment though, ‘nil points’ for project management and meeting promised deadlines!

When the Digest went to press the industry was still waiting for the HSE to publish the CDM Consultation package that has been so long expected.

sTill no cdm consulTaTion Package

Especially now that a fragile, but perceptible, recovery seems to have begun – and we have the Chancellor’s word for that – do we really want to impose another ‘unnecessary’ cost on the industry?

The ‘recovery’ is, as we all know, very spotty...

In the last issue of the Digest I was at pains to advise you that we have detractors. Of course we have - such is life. But for me to be the only challenger to a crass statement said in an open forum held in London recently that “we all know all our problems with CDM are caused by CDM Co-ordinators, and before them, Planning Supervisors” is telling me, and through this medium, telling you about the up-hill battle we are facing and have had to face.

At that important pan industry forum, it was a matter of record that not one member flew to “our defence”, and it was at this forum that I finally realised that all of our previous arguments have probably been lost. We need to recognise, now more than ever, that there are forces at work across our construction industry not content to allow us to continue.

But if we can set aside the hysteria surrounding our ‘self interest’ and ‘self preservation’ towards perpetuating (so

many aspects of) the CDM Regulations introduced in 2007 we could develop an understanding and respect for impending change:

• Out must go personal and corporate entrenched attitudes and in must come our collective recognition for less regulation and less paperwork.

• In order for APS to survive we must focus on what our industry needs by becoming inventive, open minded, and aware of the opportunities that will present themselves.

One such opportunity will be the outcome that we will be developing from the UK Construction Industry Forum that we co-staged with the IIRSM and held on the 2nd October at the CIC in London, whereat we asked all industry representatives present to contribute to an industry need to create a common performance standard and our mission to identify and establish a sustainable supply chain of capable and

credible construction health and safety risk specialists.

Other opportunities will allow us to develop more specialist products and services (intellectual, virtual, and hard) in order to meet our changing world, as well as possibly developing a new role so that we can play our part as an important contributor to future construction industry strategies such as those that seek to increase performance efficiencies, reduce cost, and BIM.

In advance of any firm proposals to remove the CDM Regulations of 2007 we need friends, and that has been my focus since becoming your President. In life I’ve always had respect for another person’s viewpoint that is different from mine. APS now needs to do the same and build upon its reputation for being a proactive organisation that actually delivers an amalgam of its mission and positioning statements to shape and share and continuously improve and promote the professional practice of construction health and safety risk management.

Bridges are being built (as can be seen by the support we had for the 2nd October 2nd Forum) to discuss ways and means to identify and establish a sustainable supply chain of capable and credible health and safety specialists for the UK construction industry.

Now if we can all pull together during the consultation period for the proposed 2014 CDM Regulations, and bring some positivity to the fore, I am absolutely convinced that we won’t be cast adrift and/or sold down the river without an engine, a sail, or a paddle.

So let’s do it!

PresidenTial ProsPecT“exTincTion beckons” – oh no iT doesn’T!APS President, Richard Habgood provides his view of the route ahead for APS:

04 I comment digest ocTober 13

digest ocTober 13 service and policy I 05

services and policy

APS and the IIRSM invited a wide range of key construction industry stakeholders to a forum, welcomed by the HSE, held at the Building Centre in London on the 2nd October. Key stakeholders had identified that the construction industry requires a common standard for construction health and safety risk specialists and the discussions centred on industry leading experience and opinion to help identify standards and shape development to meet industry needs to ensure a credible and sustainable role.

Key discussion points included:

• Learning from the past/What does UK construction industry require?

• What will the credible standard be?

• How can we ensure acceptance?

• How can we support construction strategies to ensure benefit to UK health and safety performance?

• How can we minimise bureaucracy and reduce cost?

• A programme for introduction

aPs and iirsm acTThe Association in conjunction with the International Institute of Risk and Safety Management (IIRSM) has recently held hosted a UK Construction Industry Forum on the need for a capable and identifiable specialist in construction health and safety.

convenTion 2013 - belfasT: “The fuTure of consTrucTion healTh and safeTy” With the consultation process for the proposed new CDM Regulations delayed yet again – this Convention provides the perfect opportunity to:

• Look at some of the successes and failures of CDM and such-like systems for reducing health and safety risks in construction;

• Identify the critical issues that we should be homing in on in the consultations

• Hear from industry leaders on the possible and desirable changes and how they all see construction health and safety developing over the coming years

• Have your own say on how you would like to see CDM changing

We may be irritated that the consultations have again been delayed – but if we grasp the opportunity that this delay sends we can use it to even better prepare ourselves for the task of ensuring that an effective CDM package is eventually produced by

identifying the issues that are critical to successful and construction health and safety risk management. We can also use the opportunity to make new constructive suggestions – and think about ways and means of capturing the buy-in of other key players in the industry, so that this time around we solve the problems of the past and avoid building in new problems for the future.

The 2013 APS Conference in Belfast is being sponsored by Belmont International Limited, one of the APS Professional Indemnity Scheme providers.

The Annual Awards Dinner Headline Sponsor is Construction Safety UK Limited.

‘‘ ‘‘Key stakeholders had identified that the construction industry requires a common standard for construction health and safety risk specialists

... we can use this opportunity to even better prepare ourselves for the task of ensuring that an effective CDM package is eventually produced

aPs agm – daTe changeThe APS Board has taken the decision to move the AGM to the 26th November from 6pm-8pm, at the Quality Hotel in Birmingham, following Council Meeting. This means more time can be spent on its deliberations than is normally available prior to the Annual Awards Dinner at the APS Convention. The likely date for the AGM will be at or about the next meeting of Council – and formal notice will be issued in due course. Meantime please note that this meeting will not now take place in belfast as previously intimated.

waste bin

06 I waste bin digest ocTober 13

aPs WebsiTe: uPdaTed and refreshed design A new version of the APS website has been developed to provide members with a better experience of the site in use. Users will have:• A refreshed design, with a stronger

image

• Clearer navigation with easier tracking of where you’ve been

• Clearer and more attractive presentations

• Direct personalised link to your own regional pages (if logged in)

rePeal of siTe WasTe managemenT Plan regulaTionsAs we know the Government intends, through the Red Tape Challenge, to remove regulations which are either ineffective or hold back growth.

Following consultation on the proposed repeal of the construction Site Waste Management Plan Regulations (2008) – based on an impact assessment that demonstrated that repealing the Regulations should provide a reduction in the regulatory burden to business without any signifi cant environment impact - DEFRA has recently confi rmed that the Regulations will be repealed, as of the 1st December, 2013. However, the value of Site Waste Management Plans has been underlined in the consultation response, as we note below (with our own italics):

“relationship with the construction industry: The construction industry is a key driver to the UK economy and DEFRA has worked closely with the industry to develop best practice in dealing with waste. DEFRA is keen to increase the focus on resource effi ciency and waste prevention allowing businesses to make the most of the cost savings possible through action in this area. We are confi dent that many in the industry are fully aware of the concept of reducing waste and the associated saving this provides and are taking signifi cant steps to embed these into construction industry practices.

Through industry initiatives such as ‘Halving Waste to Landfi ll’, businesses have already made strides to manage waste effectively on site and so the onus will increasingly be to reduce waste in the design process. SWMPs and guidance will still be available for those that fi nd them useful.

However, more work is needed to reduce the amount of waste arising in the fi rst instance. This means the design phase of construction is vital in achieving the aim. SWMPs tend to be produced after the design phase, and so only had a limited effect on this. We support the industry’s increasing focus on reducing construction waste by designing and managing it out, and the involvement of designers in the work of the Green Construction Board waste subgroup in delivering this aim. In addition, WRAP is looking to address this issue in the construction supply chain with a new responsibility deal with the construction industry that focuses on designing out of waste. We believe that such work will support Defra’s aims to reduce the amount of waste arising whilst allowing the industry the freedom to fi nd the solutions that will work best for them.”

ed: The APS guide “Advising clients about site waste management” therefore still has particular value and relevance - even though some of its references to regulations etc have now been superseded. APS produced this guide to enable switched on CDM Co-ordinators to add another string to their construction bows – especially given the potential synergy between CDM co-ordination and construction waste management. Copies of the guide are available from APS in the usual manner – via the website shop!

‘‘

‘‘

We are confi dent that many in the industry are fully aware of the concept of reducing waste and the associated saving this provides...

digest ocTober 13 service and policy I 07

The morning half-day seminar will be on:

consTrucTion risk managemenT – The Wider PersPecTive Health and Safety Risks are not the only consideration for Clients and Project Teams. Construction Risk is a much broader subject and construction clients need to consider a far wider perspective of Risk Management. Good CDM Co-ordinators need to have an appreciation and understanding of these risks if they are to have empathy with their clients and designers. By doing so, CDM-Cs, Designers and Contractors are better placed to provide advice on the correct solutions for projects.

Consideration should be given to the following areas to realise the full benefit that risk management can provide:

• Project planning risks – finance, land purchase…

• Quality, cost, time risks

• Dealing with project scope and change management

• Legal, social and environmental risks

• Supply chain, procurement and contractual risks

• Project objectives and success criteria

• People and information management

• Information management

• External influences

• Planning and building control

• Whole life cycle risk management

This half-day seminar will provide an insight into these issues and will be invaluable to those wishing to develop their services to their clients.

sPeaker: Peter Campbell of Risk Advantage Limited. Peter is a risk management consultant in the defence, communication, aviation, transportation, construction, local and central government sectors. Peter has authored a number of books and guides on risk management including the Cabinet Office Guide to the Management of Risk and the BS31100 Code of Practice. He is currently working with Thomas Telford on implementing risk management into the NEC Engineering and construction contract environment.

The afternoon half-day seminar will be on:

TemPorary Works: scaffolding is scaffolding - isn’T iT? The HSE is keen for CDM Co-ordinators and Designers to have a better understanding of temporary works of which the most common form is probably scaffolding. Can you recognise different types of scaffolding and whether or not they have been designed or constructed correctly?

This half-day seminar is ideal for CDM Co-ordinators, Designers and Construction Managers who wish to broaden their base knowledge of scaffolding and understand the principles of scaffold design.

It will cover:

• Scaffolding design

• Which type of scaffold should be used in different situations

• Understanding limitations

• When a Temporary Works Co-ordinator is required for scaffolding operations

• TG20:08, SG4:10 and other best practice guidance

• How to spot good/bad scaffold design/erection etc.

• Where to find out more about temporary works design

sPeaker: Des Alford, CMIOSH, MIIRSM, RFaPS of M.E.L. Health and Safety Consultants Limited. Des is a Chartered Member of IOSH and a Registered Fellow of the Association for Project Safety with over 30 years’ experience in the construction industry.

He has worked on many notable projects including Wembley Stadium, Peterborough Hospital, the Liverpool Arena and Conference Centre, Kings Cross Station and the Olympic Stadium to name but a few. He is an energetic and passionate trainer delivering IOSH, ConstructionSkills (CITB) and bespoke courses to a wide and varied client base.

naTional cPd auTumn 20132 half days seminars held back-to-back on one day. Detailed information on locations, dates, costs and making bookings can be found on the APS website.

services and policy

Good CDM Co-ordinators need to have an appreciation and understanding of these risks if they are to have empathy with their clients and designers.

08 I service and policy digest ocTober 13

This archive provides an extensive history of the Association and demonstrates that on many issues APS has been ahead of the game, time after time. If bored of an evening, a read of back copies in the archive could be the way to while away an hour or two – but for those who want to track how, for instance, APS has reacted to and led discussions on regulations change and the like – this is an invaluable resource.

Another interesting aspect of this archive is the long list of cartoons produced by Hellman – many of which still have traction as comments on issues and times – so often in that great British lampooning tradition. We look forward to perhaps seeing an ‘APS Great Moments’ publication being produced from that material. One to give to honoured colleagues, guests and friends perhaps!

aPs neWsleTTer and digesT archive on-lineAll issues of the APS Newsletter (1995 to 2009, 69 editions) and Digest (2009 to present, 25 editions) will be available via the APS website to registered members (who have logged in).

services and policy

Similarly each who was an NER (Nationally Elected Representative on Council) will be replaced with newly elected NERs. This provides an excellent opportunity for new blood, new attitudes and different experience to be heard on Council – and for those regional members who have been itching to make their voices heard, to now be able to do so. This was one of the original and fundamental principles of the founding fathers of APS – a mechanism to ensure that new blood would keep moving onto Council and onto the Board. It was also a reason for establishing NERs on Council – to provide an opportunity for those who had not risen to regional Committee Chairmanship also to be able to make their contribution to the Association’s debates. To some extent this has worked and no doubt eventual changes to governance will make further efforts to ensure that new blood (and grass roots representation) continue to be brought into APS policy and oversight structures.

Of course, there could be a temptation for those demitting office as Board members to return to Regional Committee helms – and so appear again at Council and even on the Board - but that must be an exception that proves some rule or another! Perhaps in eventually revising the

governance these aspects of movement and refreshing of leadership should be re-examined - after all if one person stays at the helm of a Region, year after year, decade after decade, they prevent new blood coming forward and act as a disincentive for anyone else to really get involved in the Association’s work. This presents a difficult conundrum – the association does not want to lose the input of the talented and enthusiastic, but equally it needs to nurture input from those newly joining the association and its regional committees. Perhaps what we need to ‘encourage’ is for those at the top to act as ‘talent spotters’ and ‘mentors’ to potential new Regional Chairmen, and to quickly give way to younger, less experienced members – so that they develop their contributions to APS. Without that, attitudes and directions may hardly change and APS will be the poorer for it. Like we said a difficult conundrum – so any ideas?

neW blood for council:One of the direct consequences of Council members being elected to the Board is that each of them who led an APS Regional Committee now has to be replaced in that Region and a new representative comes onto Council.

Perhaps what we need to ‘encourage’ is for those at the top to act as ‘talent spotters’ and ‘mentors’ to potential new Regional Chairmen, and to quickly give way to younger, less experienced members – so that they develop their contributions to APS...

This provides an excellent opportunity for new blood, new attitudes and different experience to be heard on Council...

digest ocTober 13 services and policy I 09

making a difference

consulTaTion Time is comingThose with long memories may easily call to mind a number of the issues that have been discussed in past editions of the Digest about the possible CDM Regs package that will be thrust in front of us soon – and to which we will have to respond, preferably both as individuals and an organisation.

On the other hand as we have been discussing these issues for so long (pace HSE) it might be difficult by now to recall them all. So, to help jog the memories, here are a few extracts from past editions of the Digest to provide a starting point for the consultation responses:

caPabiliTy: “Basic indicators of competence and resources, on their own, are not enough – what Clients need, and the industry should therefore strive to provide, is a system that enables selection based on competence, resources and commitment which together provide the capability to deliver the required service.

“So how is that commitment demonstrated? Well, to put it simply, by membership of an organisation that not only ensures basic levels of competence, qualification and experience, but also ensures that its members keep up to date, have access to industry standard / best practice guidance and Forms of Appointment and provide the means of delivering tailored schedules of project specific resources linked to that Appointment. In other words Registered Members of APS...

“Competence on its own is a red herring and if the ACoP is amended to reduce, or eliminate, guidance on competence then Registered Members of APS should grasp the baton of capability and run with it! That is exactly what Clients need and what the industry should be focusing on.” (Digest 16, April 2012)

To imProve healTh and safeTy for consTrucTion Workers: We need to -

• Shout from the rooftops that good legislation (such as CDM2007) works when managed by competent and well resourced duty-holders who work together in the spirit of co-operation and co-ordination

• Spend more time and effort to understand what causes construction workers to suffer from ill-health and make the causations unacceptable - in the same way that we no longer send children up chimneys to clean them!

Past President, John Banks (Digest 16, April 2012)

Third Time lucky: “Those who are concerned about the health, safety and welfare of the construction workforce must worry, however, that we might end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater,...

“So, when then HSE Board decides, towards the end of this year, whether or not to move forward with consultation and implementation of this new package it is, as Löfstedt made clear; “vital that any changes do not result in a diminution of current standards which may have unintended consequences for effective health and safety regulation of the construction industry”. (Digest 17, June 2012)

healTh: “We also need to use this (last?) opportunity to tackle the problems of health – especially on smaller projects and sites - for despite the ‘big boys’ shouting about successes in minimising ill-health, the improvements in this area of Health and Safety have flat-lined – on the HSE’s own admission. Even if there were to be a big ‘health’ campaign enforcement manpower constraints mean that very few sites would be visited. What we need is some means of ensuring that health issues are looked at effectively on each and every site. The current system is not working – so it behoves us all to come up with practical ideas for developments to the current regime that could make a difference and the notion of a “CDM-C Plus” being the eyes and ears for construction safety and health issues during the construction phase is just one.” (Digest 18, August 2012)

ill-healTh: “In any case, we have to make sure that the regulations really do tackle the very costly consequences of ill-health in construction - far more important to UK plc budgets than ‘picking’ at bureaucracy - and we have one more chance to do all this. Another partial success would be unforgivable – as would having to implement a new set of regulations that then have to be changed to meet Directive revisions!” (Digest 21, February 2013)

10 I services and policy digest ocTober 13

consulTaTion Time is comingcomPeTenT PracTiTioners: “Over many years APS has consistently argued that performance standards be used to establish a level of competence and that those who meet those performance standards be registered. It is the ethos which underpins our membership criteria in that it not only establishes a recognisable standard by which the practitioner can be measured, but also provides clients with a source of “pre-qualified and demonstrably competent” practitioners.

“The benefits of this approach are such that ISHCCO, on which many EC countries are represented and with which APS has been involved since its inception, is giving serious consideration to adopting APS standards as the basis for setting standards throughout the EC. It would be ironical if the HSE on the one hand moves closer to the requirements of the Directive whilst on the other hand ignores the principles of performance standards and registered practitioners which many other countries in the EC are considering for adoption. Perhaps the solution for the HSE might be to consider referring to such standards as a simple basis for competence assessment of co-ordinators.” Former APS Chief Executive, Brian Law (Digest 19, October 2012)

grasP The oPPorTuniTy: “It is better to be prepared for an opportunity and not have one than to have an opportunity and not be prepared.”

“It must …. be the case that established industry standards will be absolutely critical if there is no approved code of practice published with the new regulations. So far APS is the only organisation that has recognised the need, and has delivered the means, for safety practitioners in the construction industry to be provided with competence validation, performance standards and backup services (the sorts of things that all APS members take for granted …..). So members who can develop their skills and knowledge ……. will be in pole position to grasp any new opportunities that might arise out of the new CDM Regulations.” (Digest 20, December 2012)

early aPPoinTmenT: “The fact is that, even now, 44% of CDM Co-ordinator appointments are made during late stages of design, or later, (APS Survey data) and only 17% appointed before design work begins. These figures are very similar to those obtained by APS in a 2004 survey (see Practice Notes 4/04) – where 45% were appointed during late stages of design, or later, but where 24% were being appointed before design work begins!

“This lack of progress is a major stumbling block to the effectiveness of the regulations and has to be addressed next time around – we simply need “before design work begins” to be the requirement. Virtually all of the problems identified with CDM regulations could be ameliorated by early appointment of competent CDM Co-ordinators – they would be there to advise, assist, apply sensible competence checks, ensure design risk management is engaged at the outset and ensure effective co-ordination.” (Digest 22, April 2013)

comPeTence and cosTs: “...my experience of nearly 30 years in the construction industry is that additional paperwork is actually generated in inverse proportion to the competence of the person. A competent designer, co-ordinator or contractor ensures that only necessary paperwork is generated. Less experienced practitioners tend to generate more paperwork than necessary in an attempt to cover themselves for any eventuality.

“Placing the role of the design or construction phase health and safety co-ordinator with the lead designer is unlikely to reduce costs for the client or industry. Whoever undertakes this role will end up, in some way or another, charging the client for the work they do. It is likely that significant costs will be incurred by the construction industry in retraining practitioners and the preparation of new guidance to take account of the revised regulations.” James Ritchie, APS Head of Corporate Affairs (Digest 23, June 2013)

The key for members: “The key, I think, will be for our members to be recognised as construction safety risk specialists belonging to our preparation or design stage registers and/or belonging to our register for the execution or construction phase. This is my vision for the future of APS under current proposals being touted around ... but, as they say, the devil is in the detail and until we see this, everything is speculation.” APS President, Richard Habgood (Digest 24, August 2013)

A competent designer, co-ordinator or contractor ensures that only necessary paperwork is generated.

44% of CDM Co-ordinator appointments are made during late stages of design...

digest ocTober 13 making a difference I 11

making a difference

He has been involved with the South African Council (the SACPCMP) in developing registration frameworks and assessment criteria for them.

He now gives us a run down on what is believed to be one of the world’s first systems for licensing of Construction Health and Safety practitioners.

inTroducTion: Where many countries around the world grapple with the idea of how to go about regulating and policing the so-called construction health and safety practitioners operating within their various built environments, South Africa has actively and positively embraced the government’s “South African Council for the Project and Construction Management Professions (SACPCMP/ www.sacpcmp.co.za)” recently launched registration framework and seems to be leading the way in this respect. The council’s “Construction Health and Safety Task Team” - made up of a number of strategically positioned private, voluntary and government organisations within the South African built environment, launched a registration scheme for Construction Health and Safety Agents on the 1st June 2013, which is to be followed by registration of Construction Health and Safety Managers and Construction Health and Safety Officers from the 1st August, 2013.

The souTh african council for The ProJecT and consTrucTion managemenT Professions: This statutory body has traditionally registered the categories of Professional Construction Project Manager, Professional Construction Manager and the relevant candidature categories for these. This council is the youngest of six specialist built environment councils which receive its policy guidance from the main steering Council for the Built Environment (CBE). Due to numerous repeated industry requests and the high levels of construction incidents and accidents experienced in South Africa, it was decided that construction health and safety practice must “find a home” and be seriously considered as a new profession. (ed: HSE, please take note!). A “Construction Health and Safety Task Team”, made–up of a number of South African construction related organisations developed professional categories of registration for construction health and safety. These are: the Construction Health and Safety Agent, the Construction Health and Safety Manager and the Construction Health and Safety Officer, with structured candidature routes for each of these professional registrations.

consTrucTion ProJecT sTages and scoPe of Professional services and deliverables The construction stages are “Stage One – Project Initiation and Briefing”, “Stage Two – Concept and Feasibility”, “Stage Three – Design Development”, “Stage Four – Tender Documentation and Procurement”, “Stage Five – Construction Documentation and Management” and “Stage Six: Project Close-out”, with the Professional Construction Health and Safety Agent delivering various applicable services and

deliverables across all six construction stages on behalf on the Construction Client and the remaining two professional categories providing applicable services and deliverables from stages four to six.

All three of the professional construction health and safety category level services and deliverables are mirrored in the existing Construction Regulations (2003) and the proposed amended Construction Regulations (2013), the latter of which is to be promulgated at the end of October 2013. Another brief, simultaneous government regulation is also proposed, and this will name the SACPCMP as the statutory body for all competent construction health and safety practitioners to have to be registered and licensed with in order to practise in the South African built environment.

in conclusion: I believe that this is going to have massive future implications for Construction Client procurement methodologies and increase the level of litigious action within South African construction industry. This will also create positive opportunities for training and development within the industry, increase the required level of awareness and, most importantly, reduce the high levels of incidents and accidents within our industry sector.

licensed To PracTiseAnton Krause, PrCHSA is a registered CDM and DRM Member of APS and is also the chairman/executive director of the Association of Construction Health and Safety Management (ACHASM) in South Africa.

Due to numerous repeated industry requests and the high levels of construction incidents and accidents experienced in South Africa, it was decided that construction health and safety practice must “find a home” and be seriously considered as a new profession.

This will also create positive opportunities for training and development within the industry...

12 I practice matters digest ocTober 13

making cdm fiTGillian Birkby, APS Legal Adviser and Partner in Fladgate LLP offers comment on another CDM issue:

There is an endless variety of contractual arrangements and the one-size-fits-all approach of legislation such the CDM regulations will inevitably give rise to difficult questions from time to time, where a project does not seem to fit with the CDM structure very well.

Take, for instance, a case where a utility company is carrying out some advance works under the New Roads and Street Works Act. After that, the Highways Authority will be carrying out its own major works. How does this fit with CDM? Who is the client and what is the project?

First, is this one project or two? If the works are carried out closely one after the other, that may be just a question of logistics, and working out what is the most effective way of ensuring high standards of health and safety for both the advance works and also the highways works subsequently. If both sets of works are likely to last longer than 30 days, even if they are treated as two separate projects, both will be notifiable. The usual issue

about “one project or two” therefore falls away. After a long struggle, utilities are finally beginning to understand that they have duties under the CDM Regulations in relation to their works, so if they apply CDM appropriately, they should achieve this standard both for their work force and members of the public who are affected by the advance works.

Whether this is one project or two, it is quite possible that there is more than one client. In a sense, the advance works by the utility are carried out for the Highways Authority, to enable them to carry out their

own part of the overall project. However, it may make sense for the utility to treat itself as the client for the purpose of the advance works and the Highways Authority to do so in relation to the highways works. This could be achieved by the use of regulation 8, and by a sensible allocation of duties between the two entities. There may be interfaces between the two sets of work, or the health and safety file for the advance works may be relevant. At the very least, the utility should be able to produce reliable plans showing where the utility runs are now situated.

Applying the CDM regulations in this kind of situation, and many others, is not a straightforward task. When all other analysis fails to provide an answer, the solution must be the one which has the best chance of achieving the overall purpose of the CDM regulations.

Take, for instance, a case where a utility company is carrying out some advance works under the New Roads and Street Works Act. After that, the Highways Authority will be carrying out its own major works. How does this fit with CDM? Who is the client and what is the project?

‘‘ ‘‘After a long struggle, utilities are finally beginning to understand that they have duties under the CDM Regulations in relation to their works...

digest ocTober 13 practice matters I 13

practice matters

Pii insurance via aPs James Ritchie points out that PII cover is more than just picking up payment for legal costs:

“All professionals owe a specific duty of care to their clients. Legal liability no longer depends only on establishing that the professional person has breached the duty of reasonable skill and care and that a client has suffered a financial loss. Furthermore we do not have to have a ‘consideration’ involved; the duty is owed whether a fee is received or not.

Legal liability can arise under the terms of a contract, through tort (the common law duty of care owed by one person to another) or under statute. A professional must exercise the reasonable skill and care of a person in that profession, whether or not this is clearly set out in the contract and whether or not a fee is charged for the services. If the professional’s actions or advice fall below this standard of reasonable skill and care, then the professional will be liable to the client or even a third party, if that third party falls within the ‘class’ of people to whom the professional owes a duty of care.

Precedent was set in Henderson v Merrett Syndicate Ltd (1995) that anyone who sets themselves up as a specialist in an occupational field owes a duty of care in tort as well as in contract; so no escape!

APS requires all members to carry Professional Indemnity Insurance however, not all PII policies are the same, so to make compliance easier, APS has put two suitable, brokered, schemes in place.

Why is Pii so imPorTanT? Every time you provide professional advice to clients you are exposed to the risk of being sued in relation to that advice, even if you believe the advice you gave was correct. A professional indemnity insurance policy will protect you both in respect of the cost of defending a claim and also in respect of any compensation that may be awarded for the financial loss that may have been suffered. Reputation is critical for APS members, so it is vital that spurious claims are defended and that any legitimate claims are dealt with quickly and sensitively to protect the consultant’s relationship with the client as far as possible.

All professional service providers need to consider the protection that professional indemnity insurance provides them in respect of their reputation and most importantly, their firm’s balance sheet. In an ever more litigious society it would be a brave business person who considers that their business is sufficiently ‘low risk’ that the relatively low cost of a good PII policy is not warranted.

exPosure To claims Claims can come from all directions and the costs can be significant. For example:

• A client incurring a financial loss following an accident at their site, which the client has put down to failings by the CDM Co-ordinator in the preparation of Pre-construction information for the construction of a new factory;

• A client being fined for failing to implement current health and safety legislation due to negligent advice from its CDM-C

so WhaT musT a Pii Policy include? To meet the membership requirements of the APS, you must have both professional indemnity insurance and legal defence insurance cover on such terms and for such amounts as are compatible with the scale and extent of the Professional Services you provide. Your professional indemnity insurance cover must be on an each and every claim (any one claim) basis.

noT all Pii Policies are The same APS believes there are 5 critical things to include in any policy:

• The policy should be on what is called a “civil liability” basis; this means you will be provided with the broadest insurance cover available;

• The limit of cover purchased should be on an “each and every claim” or “any one claim” basis as opposed to a single policy limit for the whole policy year;

• The legal defence costs provided by the policy should be provided in addition to the chosen limit of indemnity, rather than included within the limit of indemnity;

• The policy should include full cover for claims arising from bodily injury and property damage;

• The policy excess should apply solely to the payment of a claim and not to the defence costs.

14 I practice matters digest ocTober 13

Whilst different insurers provide alternative wording in their policies, it is important that these 5 key issues are covered.

In addition to this APS believe that you will probably also need Employer’s Liability Insurance (if applicable), Public Liability Insurance and Directors and Officers Insurance against breaches of the Companies Act (if applicable). These items should be included in any policy under the APS PII Scheme alongside:

• Collateral Warranty cover

• Civil Liability and Defence costs

• Awards by Ombudsmen

• Loss or Damage to documents

• Compensation for Court attendance

• CDM-C and other H&S Legislation defence costs

• Adjudication and Arbitration, and

• Prosecution defence costs

Meeting your prosecution defence costs: Many PII policies will only cover you if the claim against you is from a client. The growth in regulation however means you could quite easily find yourself being prosecuted by regulatory bodies such as the HSE under legislation such as the Health & Safety at Work Act, the Corporate Manslaughter Act or the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2007. Again, the APS PII Scheme policies should cover you for this eventuality.

Finally… It is very important to discuss the level and type of cover you want with

any prospective insurer to make sure the policy meets your needs. Both of the APS PII Scheme insurers provide differing additional insurance benefits, over and above those mentioned above, so be sure to discuss and set out your requirements clearly and obtain a quotation from both providers. They are there to help you.

find out more at: https://www.aps.org.uk/aps-pii-scheme

This article has been prepared from original guidance documents written by the APS PII Scheme Providers: Paul James of Legalrisks Professional Indemnity Limited and by Belmont International Limited.

Pii insurance via aPs

By the Author:- Andrew Townsend For two decades I have struggled with the problem that the generalised models of what caused or prevented accidents did not fit what I had observed in the workplace. The event that finally triggered my putting fingers to keyboard was the under-reporting of 3 day injuries by contractors and engineering staff of Network Rail. Fear of losing work had inhibited reporting: what should have been a reduction of risk had turned into an avoidance of blame. I determined to find out and document why. What I discovered was that much of what was accepted as universal truths was based on incomplete research or assumptions. However I believe that it is bad form to only criticise without providing alternative ways of thinking. So I explored data not normally used by the safety professions and found that this did match my experience. I finish the book by advocating ‘curiosity’ and the freedom to explore new ideas as essential parts of finding better ways of managing safety. Whereupon my publisher, in essence, called my bluff and asked for a second book showing how curiosity can be

turned into meaningful action. The second book ‘Standing Back from the Detail’ will be published in October 2014. Its timing and content are intended to maintain the evolution in understanding of project safety.

By the Reviewer:- Greg Brown This is more than a good book, it is a good read. It should become an important focus and reference.

For anything to improve questions have to be raised. Many in our industry, having had a diet of received (health and safety) wisdom from the HSE, from earlier academics and through health and safety learning could well see this as a heretical work. It challenges accepted norms, it questions why we should do so, but does this in a readable and engaging way. It is well researched, well supported with data and weaves together concepts of “safety culture” and “behaviour” as well as our empirical experiences of health and safety.

Most importantly it challenges individuals, businesses, enforcers and nations to grapple with tough questions. Has the effectiveness of “ the (HSE’s) regulatory

approach” run its course? As our safety performance has plateaued in this period is this coincidence or for other reasons?

We have to take a brave look at things and ask “What can I do?” rather than saying “it’s always been this way”, because Andrew also takes you to a place where he recognises that UK construction’s performance is actually good. (But could be better.)

As Andrew concludes “The one thing that characterises the whole debate (on health and safety) is the partisan use of incomplete data”.

This is more than a bid for further research and much, much more than the pursuit of finitely defined numerical parameters and explanations sought by an Engineer. Such suggestions would deflect and demean the importance and relevance of this work.

What comes over loud and clear is that we all have to do something about this. Very few stones are left unturned by this book, read-on, reflect and react and be a part of the paradigm shift.

‘safeTy can’T be measured’ goWer Publishing lTd, 2013 (isbn 978-1-4094-5311-6)

digest ocTober 13 practice matters I 15

neW direcTors on boardThe recent decision by APS Council to park changes to the governance of APS meantime led to an immediate election of new Directors to the APS Board – an election that involved many members of Council - in standing and in voting.

This is exactly what this industry needs today. We need to be at the heart of the current dialogues and debate for changes. I will strive to demonstrate in everything we do, we fight for our principles, improve our profile, create new changes and open up new opportunities for APS and its members.

As the saying goes, a year is long time to be a director and two years is an eternity. I will use this time to influence fundamental changes in the organisation, and put forward compelling alternatives where working for change would actually bring about change. Not the usual call to work harder but strengthen and position APS to withstand any current and future challenges.

I will work hard to pursue the best returns on all matters related to the management of APS. However in making such decisions, I will endeavour to have high regard to the impact of these decisions on our members.”

stella clutton-saunders:

Stella has been a member of APS since its very earliest days and been active and enthusiastic throughout that time:

“In the role of Director my objectives will be to secure the position established by APS over the last 18 years, continue CDM-C services to existing clients because the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 has not changed even if CDM 2007 is reviewed, work towards opening new markets for CDM-C services for those projects where 2 or more contractors are to be employed and to assist designers tasked with additional CDM duties. We have to strive to get the safety and health message to those companies with 5 or less employees which constitutes nearly 75% of our industry, maintain APS core competencies and continue setting the CDM co-ordination bench mark in construction.

“I believe that we have to listen to members/practitioners at the coalface and dialogue with Government and HSE to safeguard standards already set. We must support the APS Board of Directors,

APS Council and Operational Management Team to bring about these objectives and see “team” operating at all levels, Board – Council, Council – Regions, Regions – Members etc.,

“I have 30 years experience as an architect and Planning Supervisor / CDM-C in private practice and local authority, I have been Chairman of the APS Wales CPD Committee for 4 years, and NER to APS Council for 2 years. I am the Past President of South Wales Construction Safety Group and currently also a Director of Constructing Excellence Wales.”

John nielsen:

John, 50 this year and as busy as ever, is a former Chairman of the North East region of APS and also a former Board

member and was an NER on Council at his election. John is currently chair of the marketing committee:

“During my time with APS I have seen the Association develop into an organisation standing at the forefront of construction health and safety risk management. However we are under extreme threat at this point in time and I consider that my skills can be of assistance in protecting the Association and its members whilst also grasping at the opportunities that are becoming available.

“I am a founding partner of a successful consultancy with 14 staff, and still involved in carrying out the CDM-C role such as Durham Cathedral developments and Lynemouth Power Station outages. I am also vice chair of Constructing Excellence NE, Chair of the BIM HUB NE and CIC NE and sit on the CIC Executive Board as Nations and Regions Champion. Through these forums I am integrally involved with regional and national institutions that we urgently need to link with –ICE / RIBA / RICS / RTPI /CIBSE etc.

I believe that fundamental changes are coming to the APS and whole construction industry. We have to ensure the Association is in the right place at the right time - which means looking outwards not inwards.”

what cdm means to me

The results of the election were that the following Directors were elected for the period 1st October 2013 to 30th September 2015:

• Bobby Chakravarthy

• Stella Clutton-Saunders

• John Nielsen

• Murray Thomson

• Harry Turkington

• Anthony Vozniak

To give you an insight into these new Directors we are providing short profiles of each of them in this Digest – using material drawn from their election statements. We will also be asking each of them to contribute to the “What CDM Means to me” series in future editions of the Digest.

Meanwhile, APS now has a full crew with which to tackle the issues that lie ahead, so we welcome all of them on board!

bobby chakravarthy:

34 year old Bobby was Chairman for the North East region of APS until he took office as an APS Board Member:

“I believe in APS, its energy, vision and passion for health and safety in construction. Our values call upon us to care about the lives of people we will never meet. We do things that no other construction organisation can do or will do.

16 I practice matters digest ocTober 13

murray Thomson:

Another NER elected to the Board of the Association 65 year old Murray made a notable contribution to the

development of the APS Awards scheme which he promoted enthusiastically:

“As a lead CDM-C within CDM Project Safety Ltd, a private company in Scotland working in the public and private sectors, I am well aware of the challenges currently facing the APS and the concerns of the Membership relative to the anticipated changes in legislation and the possible impact on continuity of workload – challenges that my company faces and which need to be met head on.

“As a former Director of the APS, I am also aware of the relationship between the Board of Directors and the OMT. It was with this background that I supported the devolution of the decision making process at Council as is evidenced by the Governance Structure Report, prepared in my role as Chair of the Governance Committee.

“During my time in this position I developed an excellent working relationship with Brian and latterly Greg on the Governance Committee and James in my role championing the APS National and Student Awards initiatives.”

harry Turkington:

Another long involved member of APS, Harry (74) has served on NI Committee since 1995, holding the Office of

Regional Chairman since 2008 and attending Council meetings, Conventions and Workshop Sessions. Harry was recently appointed to the APS Governance Working Group, reviewing existing structures and compiling proposals to reshape APS. He has also served on the CIC NI Region, (since 1997) as a Board Member, promoting APS in Construction Risk Management and as a Chartered

Engineer & APS Registered Member (since 1994) and self-employed H&S Consultant he has acted as Planning Supervisor / CDM-C on Projects raging £0.5m - £56m for over 30 years as Project Manager and CDM-C.

In Harry’s view APS must aspire to become better organised to respond speedily and effectively to changes in legislation, keeping APS at the forefront of construction safety expertise by strengthening relationships/association with professional bodies, enhancing members’ abilities to provide the best Construction Health & Safety Risk Management service and most importantly ensuring members are best equipped to provide Clients and Lead Designers with CDM Co-ordination.

Tony vozniak:

38 year old Tony has over 20 years relevant experience in construction and civil engineering, during which

time he has worked for both Consultancies and Principal Contractors; undertaken the roles of Designer, Planning Supervisor, CDM-C and more recently management of CDM. He has held many strategic and leadership roles within the construction and rail industries, including senior positions on the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) Safety Policy Group, the Infrastructure Safety Liaison Group (ISLG) and company representation at the Civil Engineering Contractors Association (CECA). Tony has actively engaged with the APS organisation and its members over many years, and has demonstrated his commitment through chairing the APS Midlands Region, attending Council, assisting in Working Groups and continually representing and promoting APS at many events (Safety Expo, BIM Workshops etc).

As both a Civil Engineer and Health & Safety Professional, Tony will bring significant business experience and knowledge to APS to help provide the strategic support and direction of the organisation.

geT in Touch: From 1st October Contact details of all APS Directors have been available via the website at: https://www.aps.org.uk/council-board-regions.html

droning onIt’s not something that APS usually drones on about (recently drones have been given a bad name due to their military use as killing machines in war zones) but a service provided by Cyberhawk uses drones that provide a different ‘intervention’. This can reduce risks and save lives and injuries by eliminating physical survey work at height in dangerous and unsafe locations.

Aerial Surveys using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) offer a range of advantages:

• Used for land surveys they can provide

• High Resolution Orthophotos

• Digital Elevation Models

• Aerial Panoramic Images

• Route Surveys

• Construction Progress Imagery

When employed for inspections they can be used to examine, or survey, for example:

• Transmission Towers

• Chimneys and Cooling Towers

• Very High Structures

• Dams

• Areas not readily accessible on foot or by vehicle

The use of UAVs can be more cost effective than traditional topographic surveys and than manned aerial sur-veys and can provide better data pot-entially combined with hi-res photog-raphy. Imagery will usually be more detailed and more up-to-date than Google Maps and can be obtained with a fast project turnaround.

More information can be found at www.thecyberhawk.com

‘‘

‘‘I am well aware of the challenges currently facing the APS and the concerns of the Membership

digest ocTober 13 guidance and regulations I 17

guidance and regulations

‘‘

‘‘

Revision of the text to make it easier for duty holders to understand and comply with their legal duties

The main changes can be found in the consultation document at:

www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd259.htm

The significant revisions and other changes of note that have been made are as follows:

• Revision of the text to make it easier for duty holders to understand and comply with their legal duties;

• Revision of the text to take account of the introduction of REACH and Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation (CLP);

• Moving information on the principles of good control practice from an annex to the guidance associated with Regulation 7;

• Clarification of the requirements of Regulation 9, relating to thorough examination and test of control measures.

The draft of the ACoP will be prepared for approval by the HSE Board and subsequent publication of the revised ACoP is due by November 2013.

cd259 – coshh regs consulTaTionThe consultation on the COSHH Regs has now ended and it would seem that the ACoP will now be changing.

droning on aif videos from The 2013 safeTy

AIF has just published a list of the videos it made at the Safety & Health Expo in May, these include:

aTlas: Using a specialist contractor for lightning protection

bsif: Competent fall protection installer scheme

edge Protection federation: New safety concepts in edge protection

faseT: Selecting a competent safety netting contractor

guest speaker: “I never thought I’d end up in a wheelchair” Paul Blanchard

hse: Löfstedt - Findings, Outcomes and Actions

ladder association: Guidance for Ladders & Steps: Simples? Ladder Training for Occasional Users

Panel discussions: Mind the Gap: Where do we still need to focus? Finding the ‘Holy Grail’ two years on

Pasma: Pas 250: The New Standard for Low Level Access PASMA Pavement Licence guidance - PASMA at SHE 2013

saema: Information for duty holders Training courses for people who work at height

Wahsa: Question and Answer service for professionals Website guidance for professionals

YouTube links to all of these videos can be found at https://www.aps.org.uk/page.php?id=496

documenT managemenT sysTems

The value of this on an annual basis is around £557m a week.

EDM Group, the information management specialists who commissioned this research, believes that this problem is going to get worse as employees have to cope with more information and data than ever before.

Other findings include:

• 2% of the workforce – some 491,000 people – spend over five hours every week looking for lost documents / information at work. 9% (2.2 million people) spend between three and five hours every week doing this.

• One of the main reasons is that people now have to deal with far more data and material at work than ever before. 56% of people claim that they receive more information at work than they did three years ago

• 18% of people claim that they have seen an increase of over 50% in the amount of information and data they receive at work over the last three years

The APS “Guide to the Management of CDM Co-ordination” provides excellent guidance on document management - which is critical to co-ordination and tracking of risk change.

New research has revealed that the average employee wastes an hour-and-a-half a week looking for documents and information they have misplaced.

2% of the workforce – some 491,000 people – spend over five hours every week looking for lost documents

18 I healthy portions digest ocTober 13

healThy PorTions

Further to the item on Construction Dust in the last issue of the Digest the HSE has now issued:

cis 69: controlling construction dust with on-tool extraction: www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/cis69.pdf

hsg 53: respiratory Protective equipment at Work: www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/hsg53.pdf

Chris Lucas, of HSE’s Health Risk Management Unit recently commented on dust, saying:

“Construction dust is not just a nuisance, it is a serious risk to workers’ health. Regularly breathing in even small amounts of dust over a long time can cause life-changing and life-threatening lung diseases, including cancer.

“Common jobs like cutting or grinding concrete, chasing out mortar, drilling in enclosed spaces or sanding wood can be high risk if not properly controlled.”

more consTrucTion dusT

Design and construction of safe stairs has a significant effect upon daily life and there are specific requirements in the Building Regulations. Unfortunately, there are innumerable accidents every day both in the home and in public places. A new CIRIA guide “Safer stairs in public places - assessment of existing stairs” (C722), aims to provide sufficient information for non-experts to make an initial assessment of stair safety leading, where necessary, to a more detailed investigation.

The importance of stair safety is emphasised and the main issues are outlined and discussed. Advice is provided on how decisions are made on the need for improvement, noting that stairs are not required to meet current regulations and standards retrospectively but are required (under various health and safety regulations and legal requirements) to provide a reasonable level of safety.

The guide is available from CIRIA as a 60 page paperback - (ISBN: 978-0-86017-725-8).

assessing sTairs in Public PlacesCIRIA has recently published a guide to safer stairs in public places.

Working with clients throughout the UK and internationally, Bryan & Armstrong Ltd is a specialist recruiter, supplying professional candidates on an interim and permanent basis across the following disciplines:

If you are looking for a new job, or planning to recruit, contact the specialists

0207 129 7075 cdm@bryan-armstrong.com www.bryan-armstrong.com

Paul Armstrong 07921 004 919 paul@bryan-armstrong.com

Marc Bentz 07535 748 738 marc@bryan-armstrong.com

Steven Bryan 07881 913 565 steven@bryan-armstrong.com

recruitmentbryan & armstrong

��

�

��

�

CDM Fire Safety

Health & Safety Asbestos

Environmental Quality Management

digest ocTober 13 construction news I 19

construction newsbim neWsCIC: A suite of 61 National Occupational Standards (NOS) relating to Building Information Modelling can be viewed on CIC’s website at http://old.cic.org.uk/standards/nosfinder.aspx

Each NOS describes the competencies required to do a particular job or role and the suite of standards can therefore be used to identify training needs, skills gaps and develop job descriptions.

fee for inTervenTion fines: £1m in 2 monThs According to business law firm, DWF, the HSE fined firms more than £1m under its Fee for Intervention scheme (FFI) between February and March 2013.

According to various reports DWF made a Freedom of Information request that revealed the third set of invoices issued by the HSE under its FFI scheme had passed the £1m mark.

Under the Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations 2012, which came into effect in October 2012, those found not to be compliant with health and safety laws are liable for recovery of the HSE’s related costs, including inspection, investigation and taking enforcement action.

According to the reports, the third batch of invoices signified a £232,000 increase

on the totals collected in the preceding period, with the construction sector seeing the largest increase in invoices, 68%, followed by manufacturing at 28%.

In the last issue of the Digest we reported that DWF had established that FFI charges resulted from about 60% of inspections – which are likely to increase in number given the cash cow result that this regulatory change has produced.

In the last issue we reminded members of the value of the FFI service provided by the Association – and we do so again. You could be in the firing line!

bryan & armstrong

20 I hse news digest ocTober 13

hse siTe bliTz

During the month long initiative, the HSE carried out unannounced checks at sites where refurbishment projects or repair works were underway with inspectors visiting construction sites to that ensure high-risk activities, such as working at height, and work which could result in exposure to harmful dusts, were being properly managed. They also checked that basic welfare facilities, such as toilets and handwashing facilities, had been provided if they were needed.

Despite a welcome reduction in the number of people killed in 2012/13, construction workers remain nearly four times more likely to be killed at work than the average worker. An estimated 70,000 builders are currently suffering ill health as a result of their work.

The campaign aimed to drive home the message to those working in the industry that poor risk management and a lack of awareness of responsibilities are not only unacceptable, but can cost lives.

Heather Bryant, HSE’s new Chief Inspector of Construction, said:

“Too many people die or are seriously injured every year on Britain’s construction sites as a result of entirely avoidable incidents.

“Just as importantly, workers are unnecessarily being exposed to serious health risks, such as asbestos or silica dust, which can have fatal or debilitating consequences.

“Often we find it is smaller companies working on refurbishment and repair work who are failing to protect their workers through a lack of awareness and poor control of risks.

“This initiative provides a chance to engage with these firms to help them understand what they need to do, so they can put in place the practical measures needed to keep people safe.

“However, let me be clear - if we find evidence that workers are being unnecessarily and irresponsibly put at risk we will not hesitate to take robust action. Companies who deliberately cut corners can expect to feel the full weight of the law.”

digging your oWn grave?An APS member who is employed by an “Electrical Networks Distribution” company wrote to ask for a view on the safety issues concerning connection upgrades to customer premises where, to reduce costs for the customer, the company may allow their customers to “dig” their own cable trenches in their gardens (premises) as well as digging joint bays next to / adjacent to the company’s assets (cables).

This, they were told, seems to be general practice within the industry.

“However my thought process on the matter, is as follows, (but the legal department of the company takes a different view):

“It is acceptable to allow the trench excavation if this is away from our cables but it’s not acceptable to allow excavation / digging in or adjacent to our assets (which are live) – given that there are such high restrictions to meet in undertaking the same works.

hse news

Poor standards and unsafe work on Britain’s building sites were targeted in September as part of a nationwide drive aimed at reducing death, injury and ill health in the industry.

... workers are unnecessarily being exposed to serious health risks, such as asbestos or silica dust, which can have fatal or debilitating consequences.

... if we find evidence that workers are being unnecessarily and irresponsibly put at risk we will not hesitate to take robust action

Email your letters and queries to

info@aps.org.uk

“We provide advice about the compliance in accordance with “HSG 47” and provide a ‘guide’. We also send out a “technician” to identify our cables and mark these, but at the end of the day the customer is not likely to be wearing any “PPE” and will not have received the training our “field operatives” have had!

“In my view therefore, this is not an acceptable practice and there are also issues regarding ‘CDM’ compliances – given that some premises are in fact business sites - but this is not always picked up.

“The Company’s legal department has taken the stance of passing that liability to the “premise owners by providing this data and advice”.

“Your guidance on the matter would be most helpful, as I believe the new Regs will be including “Domestic Premises”?”

APS passed this query to the APS Legal Adviser, Gillian Birkby who responded as follows:

“This is a complex and difficult issue; it will be interesting to know if there are any statistics about accidents occurring while the “customer” is digging a cable trench.

“It is of course helpful to reduce costs for the customer as long as it does not mean that the distribution company is conducting its business in a way that exposes customers to risks to their health and safety.

“There seem to be three different scenarios:

1. The digging of the trenches is carried out by or for a business, in which case the CDM regulations will apply as appropriate.

2. The excavation is carried out by a building contractor on behalf of a domestic customer, in which case the building contractor will owe various duties, and hopefully have a certain level of competence.

3. The customer themselves digs the trench. This is potentially the most risky of the three scenarios. Much will depend on the exact wording of the guidance provided and whether it is, for instance, written in plain English with lots of diagrams showing good and bad practice, or whether it is a somewhat less user-friendly document. The customer has chosen to apply for the connection and it is arguably therefore their choice whether to dig the trench themselves or ask some else to do so.

“The distribution company needs to take sufficient steps to protect its own assets, particularly those which are live, from over enthusiastic digging, because this could affect not only the customer, but also others in adjacent property if there is a power outage as a result.

“If there was an accident while an individual customer was carrying out the

trench digging, it would be a question of looking at all the circumstances, including what information had been made available to the customer and in what format, whether the technician had checked to see that the customer understood the guidance etc. and whether it was foreseeable that there would be a cable in the exact position where it was found.

“No definitive answer can therefore be given to the question whether this practice should be allowed, partly because circumstances will vary. The proposed revised regulations may affect this, and should be studied carefully with this issue in mind, once they are published.”

digest ocTober 13 members’ letters & queries I 21

This is a complex and difficult issue; it will be interesting to know if there are any statistics about accidents occurring while the “customer” is digging a cable trench.

members’ letters & queries

22 I cases and convictions digest ocTober 13

ToTal collaPse fines

The buildings were reduced to rubble and neighbouring properties sustained serious structural damage.

Ethos Construction Solutions Limited, of Chesham, and sole director Pritish Lad, from Middlesex, were prosecuted after an investigation revealed a catalogue of serious issues.

Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard that Ethos Construction, led by Mr Lad, was the principal contractor for a major project to renovate and refurbish a self-contained block of 14 buildings on Fulham Road to create 56 new apartments and 13 commercial units. However, two adjoining properties collapsed without warning on a Sunday in January, 2011. Fortunately the weekend timing meant there was no work activity and nobody was on site.

The fallen rubble and debris took several days to clear and Fulham Road was partially closed for several weeks whilst neighbouring buildings, some of which had been left in a ‘dangerous’ state, were checked and made safe, and a Prohibition Notice was put in place to stop the resumption of the renovation project until the site was declared as safe and stable.

HSE inspectors identified a number of safety failings in investigating the collapse. These included:

• Allowing existing structures to become weak and unstable. There was evidence of renovation activity within the collapsed buildings, including work on party walls and the demolition of rear extensions.

• Not assessing whether there was any evidence of a collapse risk.

• No temporary works plan for workers and no checks on whether workers were sufficiently trained and competent to undertake the work.

• The storage of large piles of bricks on several floors of still-standing buildings, which posed a potential over-loading risk.

• The poor installation and positioning of building props.

In addition, HSE also identified further issues elsewhere, including: an unsafe excavation up to 3 metres deep running the entire length of the development site; risks concerning working at height; fire risks because flammable materials were poorly stored and controlled; a failure to provide suitable emergency exits; insufficient fire detection and fire fighting equipment and inadequate site security. Two further Prohibition Notices were served to immediately stop unsafe activity.

Magistrates were told there was overwhelming evidence of dangerous working practices and poor planning and management, for which the principal contractor and director were ultimately responsible as duty holders.

Ethos Construction Solutions Limited, of High Street, Chesham, Bucks, was fined a total of £14,000 and ordered to pay a further £9,000 in costs after pleading guilty to six separate breaches of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and a single breach of Work at Height Regulations 2005.

Pritish Lad, 34, of The Avenue, Hatch End, Pinner, Middlesex, pleaded guilty to five separate breaches of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and the same Work at Height breach. He was fined a total of £9,500 with costs of £6,750.

dickensian siTe

John Pinn was refurbishing two Victorian terraced properties in Cardiff, in November 2012 when the failings were uncovered by an HSE inspector following a complaint.

In a prosecution brought by HSE Cardiff Magistrates heard that Mr Pinn visited the site every day and would have been aware of the dangerous conditions his builders were working in. When the HSE inspector visited the site, he found both houses had been gutted and additional floors were being installed. There were large, unprotected holes several metres deep in the floors that posed a danger and unprotected open edges on all three upper floors of both houses, where workers could easily have fallen to the concrete basement floor below.

General site conditions were described by HSE as ‘Dickensian’, with substantial accumulations of combustible waste, no fire-fighting or fire-detection equipment, electrical distribution boards with water pouring over them and no welfare facilities, such as a working toilet and basic washing equipment.

The court was told that Mr Pinn also failed to notify HSE that he had started a construction project likely to last more than 30 days. He had not appointed a Principal Contractor or a co-ordinator to plan, manage and monitor the work. The HSE was therefore unaware that the site existed until the complaint was made.

John Pinn, pleaded guilty to two breaches of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and one breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and was fined a total of £4,600.

A Plymouth property developer put the lives of builders at risk by letting them work near unprotected holes up to nine metres deep at a “Dickensian” site in Cardiff.

A Buckinghamshire construction company and its managing director have been fined for multiple safety failings following the total collapse of two large properties on Fulham Road, in Westminster.

HSE inspectors identified a number of safety failings...

General site conditions were described by HSE as ‘Dickensian’...

digest ocTober13 cases and convictions I 23

cases and convictionsdesigners fined

direcTors ProsecuTed for Worker deaTh failings

Sonny Holland, sustained multiple head injuries in the six-metre fall at Whitehall Place in April 2008. He died in hospital the following day.

Andrew Geer, 48, from Ashford in Kent and James Basquine, 60, from Dunstable, were responsible for the scaffold and for the young worker’s safety. The pair were sentenced at Southwark Crown Court in September after an HSE investigation found serious failings with the structure, and with their management of the work taking place on it.

The court heard that Sonny was working as a trainee scaffolder for Andrew Geer Scaffolding Ltd, now in liquidation, which was owned by Messrs Geer and Basquine.

The company in turn had been sub-contracted to undertake scaffolding work by Andrew Geer Ltd, also owned by Mr Geer, and which has also been wound up.

Sonny fell backwards through a hole in the scaffold as he was dragging a ladder beam backwards to pass to a workmate. HSE inspectors established that there was nothing in place to prevent or mitigate the fall, such as a guardrail or safety harness. They also found the trainee was inadequately supervised and had received no formal training for working safely at height.

Andrew Geer was fined a total £5,000 and ordered to pay £1,000 towards prosecution costs after being found guilty

of two separate breaches of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. He was declared bankrupt in 2010 and was deemed as having no disposable or future income in order to pay a higher penalty. James Basquine was also fined a total of £5,000 and told to pay £1,000 towards costs for being found guilty of the same breaches. He too is bankrupt with limited means.

Summing up at Southwark Crown Court Judge Taylor said both Mr Geer and Mr Basquine were “equally culpable in respect to this incident” and that the sentence imposed was “not a measure of the life of Sonny Holland”.

The two men, both joiners, were shoring up the arch after it became unstable due to the removal of some masonry on one of the support pillars. One fractured a foot and the other injured his back in the incident at a former toffee factory in Ouseburn, Newcastle, in February 2011.

The HSE prosecuted Brims Construction Ltd, the principal contractor for the project, and designers Cundall Johnston and Partners LLP after an investigation into the collapse identified safety failings.

Newcastle Magistrates’ Court heard that brick pillars adjoining the archway had been weakened after ‘pockets’ were created in the masonry to hold steel

beams, which were being installed as part of a major refurbishment of the former confectionary building. The court was also told that the removal of the masonry caused the arch to become unstable, as the pillar had acted as a buttress.

The condition of the arch was brought to the attention of Brims’ site foreman who instructed the two joiners to shore it up. They devised a plan of work, but it was not reviewed by Brims to check that it was a safe method of working and whilst work was underway, the archway collapsed onto the two workers.

HSE inspectors found that Cundall Johnston and Partners LLP had not provided information in its designs to ensure that those carrying out the work would have known removing the masonry would cause the archway to become unstable. Brims Construction Ltd also failed to plan and manage the work to deal with the unstable archway safely.

Brims Construction Ltd, of Austin Boulevard, Quay West Business Park, Sunderland, was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £5,000 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 22(1)(a) of the Construction Design and Management Regulations 2007.

Cundall Johnston and Partners LLP, of Horsley House, Regent Centre, Gosforth, Newcastle, also pleaded guilty to a breach of Regulation 11(6)(c) of the same legislation. The company was fined £1,000 with costs of £7,000.

Speaking after the case HSE Inspector Keith Partington observed that: “Fortunately the injuries suffered by the workers were not serious. However, it could have been a lot worse as around two tonnes of brickwork fell down when the arch collapsed. … “This incident could have easily been avoided. …. if the designers had ensured sufficient information was available in the drawings it would have alerted those carrying out the work to the potential dangers to start with …. “

Two firms have been fined after a brick archway weighing two tonnes collapsed and injured two workers during a major refurbishment project.

‘‘‘‘Fortunately the injuries

suffered by the workers were not serious...

The co-directors of a former London scaffolding firm have been prosecuted after a trainee worker fell to his death from a poorly constructed scaffold in Westminster.

... found guilty of two separate breaches of the Work at Height Regulations 2005

24

APS 5 New Mart Place Edinburgh EH14 1RW

General enquiries: 08456 121 290 Enquiries (non-UK calls): 0044 (0)131 442 6600Email: info@aps.org.ukFor further information see: www.aps.org.uk

information

APS Production Team:Editor: Nick Charlton SmithDesign: r//evolution 0191 499 8415

ISSN 2042-1974

To meeT The requiremenTs of The equaliTy acT 2010, The aPs digesT can be accessed in alTernaTive formaTs by conTacTing aPs.

CopyrightThe ownership of copyright of this material is asserted by the Association for Project Safety Ltd. Any infringements of copyright may be actionable by the Association.

Views expressed in the APS Digest are not necessarily the official view of the Association, nor do individual contributions reflect the opinions of the Editor. Whilst every care has been taken in the preparation of this Digest, the publishers cannot be held responsible for the accuracy of the information herein, or of any consequence arising from them.

The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills confirmed that in the case of a transfer taking place, employers would be able to renegotiate changes to collective agreements one year after the transfer, provided that overall the change was no less favourable.

Under TUPE, employees’ terms and conditions are protected and are generally not allowed to be changed by reason of a transfer. However, under the new rules and the Acquired Rights Directive, employers will be allowed to make amendments to terms and conditions, which are set out in collective agreements, from one year after the transfer.

With all that is happening in the industry and the changes that APS will have to face the APS Board has taken the decision to move the AGM to the 26th November from 6pm-8pm, at the Quality Hotel in Birmingham, following Council Meeting. This means more time can be spent on its deliberations than is normally available prior to the Annual Awards Dinner at the APS Convention.

The study, conducted by www.versapak.co.uk, polled 1,452 workers from various professions from around the UK as part of research into workplace security.

The study initially asked the question ‘Have you ever stolen from the workplace?’ which revealed that more than a quarter (27%) had done so. The majority of this was attributed to what could be regarded as petty items such as ‘stationery’, which 79% of these respondents confessed to having pinched. 33% confessed to taking ‘petty cash’ and 29% admitted to ‘stealing items from the workplace kitchen’ such as cutlery, plates or utensils. However 28% of these respondents who admitted to stealing from work also said that they had taken things ‘over the value of £100’, with 12% claiming to have taken more than ‘£1000 worth’ of items owned by their employers.

In order to determine whether this honesty was down to morality or the fear of getting caught, the study then asked ‘Would you steal from work if you were certain you weren’t going to get caught?’ which yielded higher results as almost half (48%) said that ‘yes’, they would if they were certain that there wouldn’t be any consequences.

When asked why this was the case, the most common answer was because they felt that the company ‘wouldn’t miss the items’ they were taking (37%). 29% felt that because they worked so hard it was ‘their

WorkPlace ThefTAccording to the results of a survey of British-based employees, 27% confess to having stolen from work in the past, with stationery being the most commonly pinched item (79%).

TuPe changes

aPs agm – daTe change

right’ to take some items. 24% said simply that if they saw there was an ‘opportunity to benefit from’ then they would take it. Of those who said they wouldn’t steal from work (57%), the most common answer was the straightforward reason that ‘stealing is wrong’.

‘‘‘‘

Under TUPE, employees’ terms and conditions are protected and are generally not allowed to be changed by reason of a transfer.

27% of employees have stolen

from work in the past