The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) plans to shelve a new Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) for the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations SI 2015/51 have been rejected by trade unions.
HSE officials tried to persuade the Construction Industry Advisory Committee that an ACoP is not necessary. The Committee, whose members include trade union and industry body representatives, were presented a paper from an informal industry consultation which indicated that there was no case for the introduction of a new ACoP.
The HSE failed to persuade trade unions Unite, the GMB and UCATT that the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations SI 2015/51 should not have an accompanying ACoP. Consequently the HSE board will be informed that no agreement can be reached. A decision as to whether a new ACoP will be developed for the Regulations will be decided by board members in January.
Initially in 2013, when the HSE were considering revisions to the Construction (Design and Management) (CDM) Regulations, it was proposed that the existing ACoP would be replaced by HSE guidance. Their argument was that an ACoP would prove to be too complex to be useful to those who need it most. Only a third of respondents agreed that the ACoP should be withdrawn.
It was then decided that if a new ACoP could be shown to ''add value'', then one should be developed. But any new ACoP would be significantly shorter than the original and direct its users to other guidance.
The paper presenting the findings of the HSE's consultation stated that respondents believed the principals of CDM are well understood across the industry and an ACoP would fail to meet the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises as the 2007 ACoP had also failed.
However the consultations findings have been widely criticised by unions. National health and safety adviser at Unite, Susan Murray, believed that the arguments made for not having an ACoP, for example courts not relying on them to determine guilt, were unsubstantiated. Concerns were also expressed by GMB's national health and safety officer, Dan Shears, as if a high hazard industry like construction did not have an ACoP then other industries may follow suit. Whilst Trade Union Unite added that the HSE's recommendation 'was not worth the paper it is written on'.
Representatives for trade association Build UK and the Construction Clients Group said that members needed to listen carefully to their trade union colleagues. Although Jason Rowley, a representative from Build UK added he didn't believe an ACoP was detrimental.
Arguments in favour of the new ACoP focused on their legal status and the ''greater certainty of compliance that it could provide''. However the HSE questioned the validity of this argument, stating that a new ACoP would be ''unlikely to bring greater certainty to compliance and the management and control of risks.'' They also added that because approval for new ACoPs and amendments to them are subject to a public consultation before then being signed off by a minister, the ACoP would not be responsive enough to changes in practice and innovation.
For more information, see the:
