CDM 2015 and the missing ACOP – do we need it or not?

Christian McCale, project director at construction site safety specialist Innov8, on whether the industry needs an updated Approved Code of Practice for CDM 2015.

Christian McCale

At its most recent meeting in mid-November 2015, the Construction Industry Advisory Committee (CONIAC) concluded that the majority of its members thought that the latest CDM 2015 did not require an Approved Code of Practice (ACOP).

Although the final decision on whether or not an ACOP will be produced will be made by the board of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), it now seems likely that it will follow CONIAC’s recommendation that the case for an ACOP has not been made.

When CDM 2015 was introduced in April 2015, the HSE produced a guidance document, L153, to accompany the new regulations, but this was not as comprehensive as an ACOP. In addition, the CITB, acting in conjunction with CONIAC, published official guidance for principal designers, designers, contractors, and other roles included in the new legislation.

In August 2014, an HSE board paper had indicated that producing a shorter, “signposting” ACOP was also under consideration. The general perception was that, as with the old ACOP, by complying with its instructions, a dutyholder would be able to demonstrate that it had done enough to comply with CDM 2015.

Between then and late last year, this was understood to be the HSE’s position – until the minutes of the CONIAC meeting were published, suggesting that this initial view of the need for an ACOP has changed.

What we are now seeing seems to go back much further than the introduction of CDM 2015, and essentially are a consequence of the HSE review of ACOPs that was undertaken after the Lofstedt Review of health and safety regulations in 2012.

This introduced a set of principles for producing future ACOPs that were designed to provide users with confidence in how to comply with a specific law or regulation. Importantly, this review also required that any new ACOPs should be shown to add value, be considerably shorter and be “signposting” in nature – and it is against these measures that the need for a new CDM ACOP is now being determined.

As part of this consultation process, CONIAC reported that the majority of its members thought that the CDM regulations were already well established and that an ACOP would not add any value.

It expressed the view that an ACOP would not meet the needs of SMEs, and would be confusing for smaller dutyholders and domestic clients. In addition, it was thought that the general inflexibility of an ACOP could block progress, because the lengthy process associated with any amendments would not respond quickly enough to changes in practice and innovation as they became available.

CONIAC members also put forward views in favour of an ACOP, which largely reflected its special legal status. This allows concerns to be raised without fear of victimisation, reinforces messages about employer duties and provides the only true and definitive benchmark for compliance.

However, in its conclusion, CONIAC pointed out that with the huge range in size and nature of construction projects carried out, a single, short signposting ACOP would be unlikely to bring greater certainty to compliance and the management and control of risks than is provided by L153.

Furthermore, it claimed that developing a number of separate ACOPs for sub-sectors would only serve to duplicate, confuse and proliferate guidance.

Until the HSE board makes a final decision, this is where matters currently stand, but it may be worth reflecting that when CDM 2015 was introduced, part of the rationale was to eliminate previous confusion and clarify precisely when CDM is applicable, particularly in relation to the domestic market.

As a result, the current regulations now capture all construction activities and have de-coupled the duties required of a CDM coordinator and principal contractor from when a project is notified. 

This means that the CDM regulations are now required to be understood by a greater number of people to ensure compliance for all types of construction activities. As a result, there are many who would say that there has never been a greater need for sub sector guidance and the clarification of the regulations to be provided. 

CONIAC did acknowledge this position in its report, highlighting the need for additional Q&As issued for inspectors as an addition to L153, having more additional FAQs on the HSE website, and producing proportionate guidance by industry sectors without the involvement of the HSE to contextualise what is necessary to comply with duties within the sector depending on the size of the business or project.

The previous ACOP had a series of questions which specifically targeted the competency needed to undertake a CDM role. This has now changed, with the new regulations requiring individuals/organisations to have the necessary “skills, knowledge, experience and capability” to undertake a role.

In practice this can be a very grey area and until test cases emerge, the lack of an ACOP offering examples or a more defined application means the task of assessing who to employ for a specific task is very difficult and open to interpretation, only really making reference to PAS 91 and Safety Systems in Procurement (SSIP).

Overall, there would certainly appear to be a case for having greater clarification, direction and examples of best practice in all of the construction scenarios now covered by CDM in order to ensure the provision of more clarity and transparency in the application of the regulations.

Whether this information is best provided in an informal context or included in an ACOP is the nature of the debate now being carried out.

Although CONIAC’s view on this is that there is no evidence that compliance or prosecution outcomes will be affected by the lack of an ACOP, there are many still asking the question whether this is really the time to be without an ACOP, given the expansion of CDM and the numbers of fatalities and accidents still affecting the construction industry.

The ACOP jury is out and the construction sector awaits the HSE’s decision with considerable interest.

Christian McCale is a project director at Innov8, Innov8 is a specialist in CDM (Construction Design and Management) and construction site safety solutions, and part of Lucion Services, a specialist in risk management.

More details at www.innov8safetysolutions.com