That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (S.I., 2007, No. 320), dated 7th February 2007, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th February, be annulled.If you're wondering what the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 are, they basically make the client responsible for health and safety in building projects. What this means at the lowest level is that when householders, for example, employs a builder to convert their loft, they as the "employer" are responsible for the health and safety of the builder.
At the higher level on building contracts, it means that the contracting client is now responsible for providing the builders with welfare facilities on site, and is ultimately responsible for their health and safety rather than the builder's direct employer.
Essentially, what this means is if someone, for example, agrees a construction contract with someone like Balfour Beatty, Balfour Beatty would no longer be responsible for their own employers when working on site.
Having read up on the regs I can see why the table has been motioned. The regs are just burdensome and ill-thought out nonsense, but then I hate the Health and Safety fascists as is well known. Bring back personal responsibility!
8 comments:
Not sure your interpretation is correct. We'll see. But is already the case that most PM/QS Consultants offer a H&S Supervision Service also and that has been the way for a long time.
We had a builder's labourer fall on his back due to the way his employer had set up the site. He didn't come back. I think he was fine but the builder realised he was not site savvy.
My partner is a PI and CN lawyer and we very much doubt this interpretation is correct.
Goodness. that means...all these road building, government offices, speed camera, government IT and all the other projects that makes.... the GOVERNMENT responsible.
Didnt think I would ever see that happen.
Sorry Chris, but the client is to become far more responsible under these regs. A quick googling shows it.
"My partner is a PI and CN lawyer and we very much doubt this interpretation is correct."
argumentum ad verecundiam btw.
The most disheartening thing is that the regulation is described as SI 2007 No 320, and was issued on 07 February 2007.
Does this suggest that there were 319 OTHER SI's issued between 01 January 2007 and 06 February 2007?
This is legislative incontinence on an heroic scale.
anything to do with the slap headed twat doing his own contracting work on his house?
We were waiting for the supposed CDM revolution in Liability insurance of Contractors in the insurance Industry but it has come and gone without anyone noticing any difference whatsoever in the way Claim fall on the Employer . It is really only relevant as a difference when , as you usually would , you have a chain of sub contractors and was supposed to se a one stop point for inspections of site Health and Safety.
In practice Employers Liability is pretty much strict Liability pf the Employers so a question of blame rarely arises seriously . To avoid an actual H and S prosecution, provided the main contractor applies some now paperwork they are no more in the frame than they were and nowadays the company who operates as the main Contractor will quite often be a specialist in handling this and other paperwork sub contracting out the entire physical work .
So as so often other than a further waste of time and money nothing was achieved and the safety of the employee is best looked after by the Insurance Surveyor who has an interest and the contractor who also carries an excess and the likelihood of becoming uninsurable following prosecution.
It was all bublt up as a “Paradigm “ shift in responsibility but has been unnoticeable . I `m afraid getting rid of it will change very little in terms of personal responsibility unless the whole Employers Liability Act was reconsidered .
Here it is a compulsory insurance , on the continent it is handled by Workers Comp state schemes often . In Ireland however it is just a policy like any other.
I missed this , and it is rather interesting I must say well done that Dizzy
Whats all this comment moderation , has it always been this way I thought not...I expect I`m wrong
Post a Comment