How to survive

•It is far too long at 119 pages

•It is far too complicated – ACoP has 64 pages
•It ‘gold-plates’ a perfectly efficient Directive
•It creates a ‘straight-jacket’ of legal duties
•CDM coordinators often don’t work properly
•Clients have little interest
•Designers do not know what to actually do to comply
•CDM 2007 overlaps with other legal duties from other laws
•Worst of all – it is not enforced
•Layer 1 – Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
•Layer 2 – Management Regs 1999 (originally 1992)
•Layer 3 – CDM Regs 2007 (originally 1994)
• Not what Robens intended – but that was 1972
• Product of the Government lawmakers of the
time nervous about enforcement
• Saddled with “so far as is reasonably practicable”
• Saddled also with Section 40
• Does cover employee duties and senior
management duties
• Does not mention ‘education’ in the HSE duties
•Not what the EU Directive said
•Does contain Reg 5 which is excellent
•Most people fixate on Reg 3 but miss an important
feature in the same Regulation
•Good Reg on information for employees
•Good Reg on capabilities and training
•Good Reg on imminent danger and danger areas
•This depends on how well accidents are investigated – which I
think is not to a high standard. Investigations can be very poor.
•Accident and incident investigations can be too hurried and too
shallow
•They can be biased according to the viewpoint of the person doing
the investigation
•The can be under-resourced as a work activity and there rarely is a
‘model’ form of approach to this work activity
•Investigations often avoid the consideration of ‘human factors’
because of a lack of expertise
•Outcomes of accident/incident investigations are rarely properly
shared within companies and across the whole industry
•There may not be a clear understanding of the ‘influencing’
environments
•Workplace environment
•Natural environment
•Social/cultural environment
•Technological environment
•Economic/productivity environment
•Managerial/supervisory environment
•Communications environment
•Systems/paperwork environment
•Contractual environment
• Accidents and cases of ill health at work cannot happen unless
persons at work have been exposed to either a hazard or a risk
• How far hazards and risks are present on a construction site is
crucial to the understanding of what accidents might happen. A
“risk-free” construction site is impossible
•Ill health in construction is a far bigger problem than accidents
•Accidents and cases of ill health at work are the last things you
should count up in any attempt to ‘measure safety’ because they
are the FAILURES of the health and safety systems put in place
Let’s have a quick trip to :

• New Zealand;
• South Africa;
• Sweden;
• USA
“Every employer shall take all practicable steps to ensure the safety
of employees while at work”

“All practicable steps” means all steps to achieve the result that is
reasonable practicable to take having regard to (a) the nature and
severity that may be suffered if the result was not achieved; (b) the
current state of knowledge about the likelihood that harm of that
nature and severity will be suffered if the result was not achieved;
(c) the current state of knowledge about harm of that nature; (d)
the current state of knowledge about the means available to
achieve the result and (e) the availability and cost of each of these
means.
“Every employer shall provide and maintain, as far as is reasonably
practicable, a working environment that is safe and without risk to
the health of his employees”
“Reasonably practicable” means practicable with regard to –
(a) The severity and scope of the hazard concerned;
(b) The state of knowledge reasonably available concerning that
hazard or risk and of any means of removing or mitigating that
hazard or risk;
(c) The availability and suitability of means to remove or mitigate
that hazard or risk; and
(d) The costs or removing or mitigating that hazard or risk in
relation to the benefits deriving therefrom.
“The work environment shall be satisfactory taking into account the
nature of the work as well as the social and technological
development in society (and) work conditions shall be adapted to
people’s differing physical and mental abilities (and) technologies,
work organisation and job content shall be designed is such a way
that the employee is not subjected to physical strain or mental
stress that may lead to illness or accidents. Forms of remuneration
and the distribution shall of working hours shall be taken into
account in this connection”

“Employers shall investigate work-related injuries and continuously

investigate the hazards of the work activities and take the
necessary measures to correct the same”
The systems in the USA depends on their “occupational health and
safety standards” which describes “means, methods, operations, or
processes reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safety or
healthful employments and places of employment”.

“Each employer shall comply with occupational safety and health

standards promulgated under this Act” “Each employee shall
comply with occupational health and safety standards and all rules,
regulations, and orders which are applicable to his own actions and
conduct”

Their 1970 Act is about the third of the size of our UK 1974 Act.
I venture to suggest that we are -
(a) losing the ‘big picture’ on health and safety;
(b) over-fixated on complying with over-complex legislation;
(c) we need fresh ideas and approaches about what works in health
and safety terms; and
(d) health and safety outcomes would be better if we adopted a
“multi-systems” approach

Herewith are a few personal suggestions ........................

•Prediction is utterly proactive and vital to all health and safety
•Good predictions need people with considerable experience and
expertise
•Predictions should start before any design work commences
•Research into what has happened in the past it not only desirable
but necessary
•Predictions need revisiting if new information comes to hand
•In undertaking predictions one is aiming to determine the correct
‘perception’ of risk – and this might not be obvious
•Don’t forget ‘big events’ along with accident scenarios
•We could be taking civil, mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, control
systems etc
•Inevitably this means dealing with ‘specialists’ so the need is to
acquire some basics in order to ‘talk the same language’
•Try and pin-point exactly what really is ‘safety-critical’
•While trying to get to grips with any jargon, resist the temptation
to claim expertise - which would be not proper or right
•Is the technical system is, is it proactive or reactive ?
•Is the purpose of the system to gather information ?
•If people are to make judgements based on this information – are
they competent to do so ?
•If measurements are involved have predictions been made as to
what is to be expected ?
•If there is a test regime involved, how and where are tests to be
taken and at what frequency ?
•Who needs to know about the test results ?
•Management and engineering must go together
•Management is also about leadership and profile in h&s
•Mix a bad manager and bad engineering results in disaster
•Managers need skills and knowledge but often know little about
health and safety
•Managers are usually hired on the basis of having done a similar
job before
•Before hiring managers time and effort needs to be taken to find
out how much they know about health and safety
•Managers’ skills rarely ‘come naturally’
•Accurate records of education and training in health and safety are
vital – note ‘education’ and ‘training’ – two different things
•Any ‘new-starts’ need a training needs analysis to pinpoint gaps
•Regular updates on health and safety should be part of every
employee’s progress. Professionals need CPD in health and safety
•Regular exposure to good ‘outside’ health and safety courses may
‘re-calibrate’ in-house thinking and practice
•The wrong course at the wrong time is a waste of everyone’s time
and money, but there are poor quality courses out there.
• If laws are not enforced then human nature is such that some will
ignore them, and this devalues the good work that others do
•If laws are unclear then stand up and say so. Bad law is no good to
anyone
•Reputational risk is something that many companies take very
seriously
•A site visit by an HSE Inspector is unlikely unless something has
gone badly wrong. The HSE has a huge selection of laws it can use
•There is no law of nature that says construction industry accidents
will always go down. Everyone has to play their part
•I have no doubt in my mind that designers can do a great deal
more than they do at the moment
•Don’t neglect to keep all necessary records
•Be particularly careful about records for key safety-critical
operations or processes and matters of competence
•There are statutory records to be kept as well
•Devise some sort of ‘alert’ system which will highlight matters
when recorded results fall outside predictions
•Risk assessments and method statements are NOT admin matters
but are the very basis of devising ways of keeping people safe at
work on any construction site
•Establish who needs to see what records and how often –
somebody needs to keep an eye on the ‘big picture’ across any
construction project
john@safeconstruction.net