The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
David
Wilshire
Alexander,
Danny
(Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)
(LD)
†
Challen,
Colin
(Morley and Rothwell)
(Lab)
†
Cruddas,
Jon
(Dagenham)
(Lab)
†
Ennis,
Jeff
(Barnsley, East and Mexborough)
(Lab)
Gauke,
Mr. David
(South-West Hertfordshire)
(Con)
†
Heppell,
Mr. John
(Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's
Household)
†
Holloway,
Mr. Adam
(Gravesham)
(Con)
†
Joyce,
Mr. Eric
(Falkirk)
(Lab)
Kawczynski,
Daniel
(Shrewsbury and Atcham)
(Con)
†
Kemp,
Mr. Fraser
(Houghton and Washington, East)
(Lab)
†
Kramer,
Susan
(Richmond Park)
(LD)
†
Lancaster,
Mr. Mark
(North-East Milton Keynes)
(Con)
Mackinlay,
Andrew
(Thurrock)
(Lab)
†
McGuire,
Mrs. Anne
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Work and
Pensions)
†
Raynsford,
Mr. Nick
(Greenwich and Woolwich)
(Lab)
†
Selous,
Andrew
(South-West Bedfordshire)
(Con)
Stringer,
Graham
(Manchester, Blackley)
(Lab)
Geoffrey
Farrar, Sara Howe, Committee
Clerks
†
attended the Committee
Third
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Thursday 10
May
2007
[Mr.
David Wilshire
in the
Chair]
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007
8.55
am
The
Chairman:
May I remind the Committee that this is a very
narrow matter, rather than an opportunity for a general discussion on
health and safety
matters?
Andrew
Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the Construction (Design and Management)
Regulations 2007 (S.I. 2007, No.
320).
It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. Wilshire. It
does not seem long since we were in this Room or one very like it under
your chairmanship. I know that you will be fair and good humoured with
us, as you always
are.
It is absolutely
not my intention to vote against the regulations. The Committee has
been convened under the negative resolution procedure. There is a set
form of words for the early-day-motion that has to be tabled to achieve
that. I personally think it unfortunate that it has to include the
phrase “annul” the regulations. Were it up to me, I
certainly would have chosen to use a different word. My party and I are
wholly committed to the highest possible standards of health and
safety. Had we not tabled the early-day motion, there would have been
no opportunity to debate these important regulations. I will explain in
the course of my remarks that there are additional measures that could
be taken to make health and safety even better in the construction
industry—the subject under discussion this
morning.
The
House spent more than 700 hours discussing the fox hunting Bill. It is
a matter of great regret that health and safety legislation receives so
little scrutiny in the House. The hour and a half that we have this
morning is a welcome and important opportunity to debate and to
scrutinise these matters, to probe Ministers on the issue, perhaps, in
certain circumstances, to ask them to go further and faster, to
question why one approach has been taken when perhaps another could
have been, and to seek assurances about the implementation of the
regulations. I hope that those remarks are helpful in setting the
scene, explaining why we are here and outlining my intentions for the
debate.
Mr.
Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab): May I, for
the sake of propriety, draw attention to my declared interest in the
Register of Members’ Interests as chairman of the Construction
Industry
Council?
Which
industry bodies did the hon. Gentleman consult before he laid down his
prayer seeking to annul—it was to annul—the regulations?
Did he consult the Construction
Confederation and the Construction Industry Council? Did he consult
those people in the industry who know just how important instilling a
safety culture is to achieve a reduction in
fatalities?
Andrew
Selous:
Yes, indeed. I met the Construction Industry
Council. They came to see me here. I had a meeting with them in the
very Room where we are today. I met representatives from the
Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, who I am meeting later
today. Indeed, I have consulted widely. If the right hon. Gentleman
will allow me to set out my remarks, I will go through that, but in
answer to his
question—
Mr.
Raynsford:
Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Andrew
Selous:
I allowed the right hon. Gentleman to intervene.
In answer to his question, I consulted the construction industry. I
have been to meet the Health and Safety Executive in Rose court. I have
met representatives from the Institution of Occupational Safety and
Health, as well as
others.
Andrew
Selous:
I will make a little progress and the right hon.
Gentleman—
Mr.
Raynsford:
On a point of
accuracy.
Andrew
Selous:
Very
well.
Mr.
Raynsford:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He says
that he has consulted the Construction Industry Council. I chair the
Construction Industry Council. I spoke this morning to the chief
executive of that council, who assures me that he has had no meeting,
no approach and no consultation from the hon. Gentleman. Will he now
please reconsider the answer that he gave the Committee, because he may
be misleading the Committee?
The
Chairman:
Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw
the word
“misleading”?
Mr.
Raynsford:
I did say that the hon. Gentleman may be
misleading the Committee and I asked him to
reconsider.
The
Chairman:
Would you add
“inadvertently”?
Mr.
Raynsford:
I would happily add
“inadvertently”.
Andrew
Selous:
I have met representatives of the construction
industry. There may be more than one body, but I have met
representatives of the construction industry who are thoroughly
committed to these regulations, so I have shown due diligence. I am
absolutely satisfied that I have met representatives of all sectors
that have an interest in the
regulations.
The right
hon. Gentleman made the slightly churlish point that I used the word
“annul”. He has been in the House for many years and
knows well that there is a set form of words, over which the official
Opposition have
absolutely no choice, that triggers a debate. He knows that we would not
be here had that not happened, and I now wish to get into the substance
of the debate without taking further interventions for a
while.
Construction is
the sector in which there are the most fatalities and serious injuries.
In recent years, there has been a decline in the number of accidents,
which has been good news. In 2005-06 there were 59 fatal
injuries to construction workers, compared with 69 in 2004-05. However,
so far in the current year there have been 78. I am advised that the
figure may come down after the Health and Safety Commission has done
its full assessment, but the fact remains that construction is our most
dangerous industry to work in, accounting for the largest number of
fatalities, followed by agriculture. That is why I will propose
additional measures that the Government could take to bring down the
number of fatalities and to spread the net even wider than they intend
to do with the
regulations.
I
should like to examine the outcome of the regulations and what they
will achieve. It is important to do that, as is shown by an article in
this month’s issue of Civil Engineering by a
Mr. Alasdair Beal, who is a chartered engineer thoroughly
involved in such construction projects as we are considering. He makes
the point that following the introduction of the Construction (Design
and Management) Regulations 1994, which were brought in by a
Conservative Government, as was the Health and Safety at Work
Act 1974, for the first seven years there was no decrease in the number
of fatalities per year. It was only in 2002 that there began to be a
dip in the figures.
That is nothing new—the
Health and Safety Executive is itself aware that the 1994 regulations
did not lead to an immediate and sustained reduction in casualties. The
fall from 2002 onwards might be attributable to other measures and
perhaps to improved safety procedures on construction sites. The
monitoring of the 2007 regulations, which came into force last month,
is extremely important so that we can see whether they are having the
effect that we want them to have.
I ask the Minister to consider
a review of how the regulations progress. Will she agree to have such a
review before the summer recess in 2008, which will be a couple of
months after the end of the first year of their implementation? It will
be fairly early days, I know, but she could look back on the first year
and make publicly available her view and those of the Department and
the Health and Safety Commission on how the implementation has fared,
so that we can learn early lessons and, if necessary, tweak the
regulations to make them work even better.
I would like to press the
Minister on whether it is possible to provide more support to
construction clients—those having building work done—in
order to make the regulations more effective. Let me give her two
examples of where that is done already in different sectors across
Government. In the agricultural sector, the Health and Safety Executive
has already a downloadable software package that takes farmers through
a step-by-step guide to how they should implement the industry’s
health and safety regulations. Has she asked the Health and Safety
Commission to provide a similar step-by-step software package that
would help construction clients to implement the regulations? The Inland
Revenue provides another example. It has a downloadable software
package to help people through their tax returns. The regulations are
complex and providing support to help people to implement them would be
useful. At the moment, I cannot see much of that nature available to
construction
clients.
Smaller
businesses are concerned about the complexity of the regulations. The
Forum of Private Business undertook a survey and found that it takes an
average of 14 hours per month for businesses to comply with current
health and safety regulations—two seven-hour working days. It
has concerns about the complexity and amount of administration that
would be required to implement the
proposals.
I have a
central point to make to the Minister: I urge her to do more to
integrate health and safety in construction with the planning
permission and building control regime. Every year, some 605,000
planning applications are made, of which up to 200,000 will be deemed
as F10s, which means that they will be notifiable to the Health and
Safety Executive, at which point the provisions in the regulations will
become enforceable. That leaves a little more than 400,000
applications, some 200,000 of which will be for domestic planning, to
which CDM will not apply—an interesting point in itself, to
which I shall return soon. That leaves just over 200,000 planning
permission applications for non-domestic premises, to which the
regulations will not
apply.
I propose to
the Minister that the regulations go further and faster and that their
scope be widened. The Health and Safety Executive is looking into the
matter, but as far as I am aware there has been no progress. The
minutes of a Health and Safety Commission meeting on 17 October
state:
“It also
felt that work already begun with the Department for Communities and
Local Government (DCLG) in relation to potential for integrating the
Building Control, Planning and CDM regimes should be taken forward; and
that early Local Authority involvement was
important.”
I was
delighted to see that, but we need more to be done. If the design and
management requirement of the regulations had to be met to receive
planning permission, the advantage would be that planning permission
would not be given if satisfactory health and safety concerns were not
evident in the proposals put forward to the local planning
authorities.
I am
well aware, as are other hon. Members, of the capacity constraints
within local planning authorities; there are not enough planning
officers and the system is under pressure. The solution is that
planning permission and the granting of building control are charged
for by local planning authorities. Those authorities have the means to
set the requisite fees. None of us wants fees to be larger than they
need to be, but they could be set at a level to provide a stream of
income to employ the necessary planning officers. Planning permission
and building control would not be given unless the design and
management requirements of CDM were
satisfactory.
Mr.
Raynsford:
The hon. Gentleman has put forward an
extraordinary proposition. He accepts that the planning system is
already heavily overburdened, yet he
is suggesting a substantial increase in the responsibility of planning
officers who have no technical training to make the type of assessment
necessary under his proposal. Has he consulted the Royal Town Planning
Institute, of which I am an honorary fellow, about these
proposals?
Andrew
Selous:
The hon. Gentleman has a wide variety of posts,
but I am not sure that his argument fully stands up because he will be
aware that the regulations require an army of planning inspectors and
co-ordinators—
Andrew
Selous:
If the right hon. Gentleman did me the courtesy of
allowing me to answer his question without interrupting me, it would be
appreciated. There is a requirement for a vast increase in planning
co-ordinators to implement CDM, so there will need to be training,
planning and extra professional development to supply the required
number of planning co-ordinators.
Mr.
Raynsford:
Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Andrew
Selous:
No, I will not. I will finish my point in my own
time. I have given way a couple of times to the right hon. Gentleman
and I may well again, but I will make my point in my own way.
The advantage of ensuring
greater scrutiny in the planning permission and building control
regimes is that clients would know where they were and building
projects would not get off the starting blocks unless the issues
covered under the CDM regulations were fully taken into
account.
There are
also some legal issues relating to clients. When we talk about clients
we need to have very small businesses in mind, for example a
hairdressers—all constituencies have a hairdressers within them.
Such businesses will only occasionally undertake building work and will
have no inherent knowledge in relation to planning. They are not repeat
clients who undertake a lot of building
work.
Having the
certainty of giving the plans to the local council and knowing that
they had been approved, that they were fine and that the project could
proceed would be much more satisfactory than what is proposed. At the
moment, such businesses would have to appoint a planning co-ordinator.
We are assuming a knowledge and expertise and putting responsibility on
very small businesses—remember that 99 per cent. of businesses
in this country employ fewer than 49 people. We are not talking about
large repeat clients or large construction
products.
Linklaters,
the well known solicitors firm, has made available a legal opinion that
it is happy to put in the public domain. I should like to quote from it
because it is instructive on a number of points and makes my point. The
firm would like a greater alignment of the CDM regime with the planning
and building regulations approval process:
“Since a one-off client
will have no construction or design expertise, the amount of influence
he will be able to exert over
health and safety matters is unlikely to be significant, especially
where that client is a relatively small
entity.
The Approved
Code of Practice acknowledges that many clients know little about
construction health and safety and will have to rely upon the expertise
of others but this does not change the fact that such clients will
still be accountable should something go wrong. In addition to criminal
liability, the scope for civil liability under CDM 2007, including a
client’s civil liability, is greater than it was under the
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations
1994.
The
client’s duty under regulation 9 (which will apply to all
projects, whether notifiable or not) is extremely broad. While clients
can encourage co-operation between project participants and actively
emphasise the importance of health and safety in a general sense, when
it comes to the details of what is actually required, most clients
(including repeat clients) are unlikely to have the expertise to know
what that is. For example, how will a client without design or
construction expertise know what constitutes suitable project
management arrangements to ensure that any structure designed for use
as a work place has been designed taking account of the provisions of
the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 which
relateto the design of, and material used in, the
structure(regulation 9(1 )(c) CDM
2007)?”
Mr.
Raynsford:
Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Andrew
Selous:
Not at the moment. The quote
continues:
“Some
of the client’s duties require the client to take
‘reasonable steps’ but others are absolute duties, such
as the duty under regulation 16 in relation to the start of the
construction phase where a project is notifiable. Under regulation 16,
the client must ensure that the construction phase of a project does
not start unless the principal contractor has prepared a construction
phase plan which complies with CDM 2007 and the client is satisfied
that the requirements as to the provision of welfare facilities will be
complied with during the construction phase. These matters should be
the responsibility of the principal contractor and any other
contractors since they are in the best position to manage the risk and
can price for it in their tenders. Although the CDM co-ordinator has a
duty to give suitable and sufficient advice and assistance to the
client on undertaking all the measures he needs to take to comply with
CDM 2007 for the project, it is the client who will be liable should a
problem occur. Responsibility should be allocated to those with the
necessary expertise. It is difficult to see how the health and safety
aspects of projects will be improved by imposing greater duties on
those with no relevant knowledge or expertise. It may even have a
negative
impact.”
There
is an issue of perverse incentive. If small businesses are worried
about the additional civil and criminal liability that may apply to
them should their construction, refurbishment or extension go wrong,
they may decide not to go ahead with that work. That might mean that,
because of the business’s concern about liability issues,
conditions for its workers end up being less satisfactory than if the
building work had gone ahead. I continue with the
quote:
“The new
client duties are extremely broad but relatively little guidance is
given as to what they will require in practice. If clients are to be
given greater responsibility, what is needed is detailed practical
advice for different types of clients on different types of
projects.
Some aspects
of CDM 2007 are to be welcomed. For example, the issue of the timing of
the appointment of the CDM co-ordinator has been clarified. However,
the new legal requirement as to timing will not in itself necessarily
ensure that appointments are not made late. For example, first-time
clients are unlikely to know that it is their duty to appoint a CDM
co-ordinator until/if informed of the duty to do so by an architect. It
is possible that by this time they may already be in
default. The Construction Clients’ Group have made the point that
the CDM regime should be aligned with the planning and Building
Regulations approval process. We consider this to be a sensible
approach if it would ensure that practical guidance is given to clients
at the earliest possible stage.”
Those are important points. As
I said, there is an issue of perverse incentive. It is important to put
those points on the record, so that we are absolutely clear about the
nature and scope of the regulations that we are bringing
in.
I repeat my
earlier points to the Minister. I should be grateful if she said a
number of things when she responds. First, will she kindly give the
Committee an update on what action she, her Department and Lord
McKenzie of Luton will take to ensure the fullest possible integration
with the planning and building control regimes? Indeed, as the right
hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich may wish to note, the Health and
Safety Commission itself says that it wants that to happen; those
calling for such integration include not only me as Opposition
spokesman, but the Health and Safety Commission. We see good intentions
and excellent aspirations, but we want delivery, which, we believe,
could do more to improve health and safety and reduce fatalities and
injuries, about which we are all concerned, than the current
regime.
Secondly, in
view of the poor impact of CDM 1994, will the Minister kindly ensure
that a review of the progress of the regulations is put into the public
domain after a suitable period? I have suggested one year, although if
she and her officials think that it should be two or three, that will
be fine. We could then be aware of what progress has been made and what
further action is needed to ensure that we are making the gains in
health and safety that we all
want.
Thirdly, will
the Minister say whether anything more will be undertaken to help
businesses—particularly small businesses, which form the vast,
overwhelming majority of businesses—to comply with these
complicated issues? I have already said that it takes a small business
owner an average two working days a month to comply with current health
and safety regulations. It is beholden on the Department and the Health
and Safety Executive to provide every possible assistance to businesses
to ensure that they can comply with the regulations as fully as
possible. I should be grateful if the Minister addressed those three
points.
9.24
am
Susan
Kramer (Richmond Park) (LD): I thank the hon. Member for
South-West Bedfordshire for clarifying why we are here. I must confess
to having been somewhat startled that this statutory instrument was
prayed against. I fully accept that health and safety is a very
important issue and needs to be debated, but I suspect that that needs
to be in a broader context—a Westminster Hall debate would be
extremely
appropriate.
I
say also to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps there has been some
misunderstanding. I went to his party’s press office and looked
through the trade press. In fact I have an excerpt from an article
written by Dan Stewart published on 1 May in Building. The
impression seems to have been that the debate was called in order to
oppose the statutory instrument. The article says that there might not
be a vote, but that
“if Ministers decide to vote, the
Government will vote for the motion, and the Opposition
against.”
I was rather
startled by that. There were a lot of pictures of David Cameron. The
implication seemed to be that it was part of a regulatory cost-cutting
exercise.
Andrew
Selous:
I ask the hon. Lady to take what I said at face
value. A set form of words is required in order to trigger this debate.
Had we not used them, we would not be here today. It is as simple as
that.
Susan
Kramer:
I fully accept the integrity and intent of the
hon. Gentleman. Certainly, he has laid out his concern clearly and, if
I understood correctly, has put forward proposals essentially to extend
some of the regulations into the domestic construction arena, about
which I have not had the opportunity to
think.
Andrew
Selous:
The hon. Lady misheard me. I did not talk about
domestic planning. That is another subject. From the figure of 605,000,
I took out the 200,000 domestic planning applications, which left us
with 200,000 business building extensions, which are not covered. That
should be a source of concern, particularly as the bulk of
accidents—75 per cent.—happen on smaller sites. They are
not covered by the regulations, and I think that Members on the
Government Benches should think seriously about
that.
Susan
Kramer:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
Indeed, I had misunderstood him. As I said, however, it is an
interesting point that I had not thought about. I suspect that the
industry will want to make a significant point on that, and I shall be
glad to listen to it when it
does.
I do not pretend
to have any expertise in health and safety. My office got on the phone
to talk fairly extensively to people who we know in the industry. I was
incredibly impressed with concerns throughout the industry about health
and safety and by its desire to see a significant decline in the number
of deaths on building sites. One of the engineers pointed out to me
that
“there are a large
number of serious debilitating injuries each year which are less widely
publicised as well as occupational issues for long term exposures which
are rarely spoken of and all of which must be addressed—CDM2007
goes a long way towards
this.”
Over and over,
such concerns were reflected throughout the industry. We found that the
regulations were generally welcome—the sense was that they would
replace prior cumbersome and bureaucratic regulation that was not
particularly effective or clear. It was felt that the new regulations
were a sensible and balanced way forward. That was the general summary
that we received.
We
tried to sort out who was pro and who was critical. I was impressed
that the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Institution of
Civil Engineers and the Institute of Structural Engineers are strongly
in favour. One organisation is always a touchstone: the Federation of
Small Businesses. Of all the groups in the world, it most detests
regulation, but it was pretty happy and felt that the regulations were
balanced. I cannot quote it because I did not take down what it
said word for word. Essentially, it felt that its conversations with the
Health and Safety Executive had taken the regulations to a sensible
place, and that it would be comfortable with the regulations,
particularly when the industry guidelines had been issued.
That gave me great comfort in
coming to the debate today. However, some groups are
critical—the Forum of Private Businesses, the Construction
Clients’ Group and the British Property Federation are the main
ones. They are concerned about the burden that might fall on very small
businesses—fish and chip shops were used frequently as an
example. I take comfort from the fact that the size of a project has to
be fairly significant for the regulations to apply. I therefore think
that the vast majority of small businesses will not be faced with an
untenable requirement to have or hire in a knowledge base that is not
part of their normal
capacity.
The other
criticism that seemed to surface was that the regulations would stifle
innovation, particularly because they encompass designers. I am in
favour of innovation but health and safety considerations are just as
important in an innovative design as in a traditional one. I hope that
our designers and construction companies are good enough to be able to
manage that
combination.
Concern
was expressed that new entrants into the construction industry might
find it harder because they would not have the sort of established
track record that could give comfort. That must be monitored and
considered, but the problem in the British construction industry in the
next decade or two will be a shortage of people available to do the
work, rather than construction companies being without work. There will
be a lot of new players coming into the industry, so the timing of
getting a framework in place seems
appropriate.
I am a
Londoner, and the great spur is the Olympics. Between that and
London’s various transport projects, never mind the demand for
housing, it will be boom time in this neck of the woods. That will have
an impact on the availability of construction expertise in the whole
country, so all over the country new firms will come into being and
expand. Many of them will come from other countries, which may or may
not have good health and safety regimes, so having a coherent regime at
this time strikes me as even more
critical.
I
see no reason to remain on my feet any longer, Mr. Wilshire,
because I think that you have got the sense of where my contribution is
going. I wish simply to add two little things on which we should like
responses from the Minister. One is monitoring, because prior
regulation has not had the success that we would have liked. It behoves
us to understand how the new regulations will be monitored to ensure
their success.
The
integration of the planning system and building regulations is widely
supported, and everybody recognises that there are so many different
institutional bits that it will take a lot of thought, time and effort
to work out how on earth all the pieces should be put together. The
picture is fragmented and complicated, and that jigsaw puzzle will have
to be carefully formed. However, I join in saying
that that is an important direction of travel, and the
Minister’s comments on it would be welcome.
Interestingly enough, most of
the people whom we were able to reach on the phone raised the issue of
penalties. They said that it is important that regulations be enforced
and that people think that they will face a penalty that matters. I
therefore wish to raise with the Minister the matter of enforcement and
ensuring that people feel that there is a genuine incentive to do what
is needed. There is now an opportunity to do that holistically across
the life of a project, and that is
important.
Several
hon. Members
rose
—
The
Chairman:
Order. I call Mr. Raynsford. Perhaps,
in view of his previous declarations and the example used by
Mr. Selous, he could start by telling us whether he is a
member of the national hairdressing
council.
9.34
am
Mr.
Raynsford:
Thank you, Mr. Wilshire. I have no
connection with the hairdressing industry, but as a former Minister
with responsibility for construction, I have given a lot of attention
to the issues at hand over many years and subsequently maintained close
contacts with many in the industry. I hope that I can speak from the
basis of some knowledge of the
subject.
Andrew
Selous:
I owe the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee
an apology. In fact I met the Construction Confederation. I confused
the bodies after he mentioned the Construction Industry Council. The
Construction Confederation describes itself as
the
“main representative
organisation for building and civil engineering contractors within the
UK construction industry, an umbrella group consisting
of”
organisations that I
shall not go through. If you will forgive me, Mr. Wilshire,
that was the organisation that I met. I apologise to the
Committee.
The
Chairman:
Order. That matter having been cleared up, I ask
the Committee to leave it
there.
Mr.
Raynsford:
May I express my appreciation to the hon.
Member for South-West Bedfordshire? The reason for my intervention was
that he was perhaps giving an incorrect impression. I stress that the
Construction Confederation is the main body representing contractors,
the Construction Industry Council is the main body representing
professionals—designers and others—and the Construction
Products Association is the main body representing manufacturers. Those
are the three main umbrella bodies in the industry. They come together
through the Strategic Forum for Construction, chaired by James Wates,
which has played an important role in promoting a safety culture and
strongly supports the regulations. I stress that before I give way
again.
Andrew
Selous:
For the record, I met James Wates at the meeting,
so perhaps I was in part correct, if he was wearing that
hat.
Mr.
Raynsford:
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has met
some key players in the industry, because my reading of today is that
we are going through a process of the Opposition trying to get away
from their embarrassment at having tabled an early-day motion and
prayed for the annulment of the regulations. I have to say to him that,
if he had wanted a debate, one in Opposition time or Westminster Hall
was perfectly possible, and we could have had a wide-ranging debate. We
are here specifically because there is a prayer from the Opposition
seeking to annul the regulations, which would be a serious mistake. I
am delighted that he now does not wish to pursue the line that his
party implied to
Building magazine, in which it was quoted as
saying that it would vote against the regulations, as the hon. the
Member for Richmond Park made
clear.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(Mrs. Anne McGuire):
Will my right hon. Friend
join me in welcoming Opposition input to the debate in Westminster Hall
next week on construction industry fatalities, which will perhaps give
us an opportunity to discuss some of the issues raised this morning in
a far wider
context?
Mr.
Raynsford:
My hon. Friend makes a good point that there
are always opportunities in Westminster Hall. Next week is a good one.
We should consider the issue seriously. As the hon. Member for
South-West Bedfordshire rightly highlighted, the construction industry
has an unfortunate record on health and safety over many years. Some
2,800 people have died from injuries received in construction work over
the past 25 years. That record is of deep concern to the industry and
all those connected with the industry are determined to change
that.
The CDM
regulations that we are debating today are an improvement on and an
amendment to regulations that were introduced in 1994. The hon.
Gentleman said that those regulations did not perhaps make much of an
impact in their early years, but he accepted that there have been
significant improvements in health and safety since 2002. He did not
pursue the reasons for that, but it is important for the Committee to
be aware that in 2001 the Deputy Prime Minister convened a health and
safety summit for the construction industry to highlight the problem
and to secure commitments from industry leaders and trade unions about
achieving a health and safety culture that would drive down the number
of fatalities, serious accidents and illnesses—illness as a
result of exposure to chemicals and other materials is also a critical
issue.
That summit
was pivotal in creating a climate where the industry has been working
much more effectively and in a more integrated way to achieve
reductions in fatalities and to improve the health and safety culture.
Despite such progress, we all know that, in 2006-07, it looks as though
there will be a short-term increase, which is very regrettable. There
is no possible case for any relaxation in our drive to attack the
problem of health and safety in the construction industry and to
achieve safer working
practices.
The process
by which the regulations have been produced has been lengthy and has
involved extensive consultation since 2002. The Health and Safety
Executive published a discussion document in 2002
setting out proposed changes to make the regulations less bureaucratic
and to ensure that all parties, including clients, work together to
have a huge impact on health and safety.
The practice
of leading from the top, where the lead is taken by the client, senior
contractors and lead designers, is crucial in creating a safety
culture. An interesting recent example of that was the Jubilee line
extension. That huge project, which cost about £3.5 billion, was
dangerous—tunnelling is always dangerous—but was
completed without any fatalities. That is almost unprecedented, and
reflects the strong health and safety culture being driven by the
client and the main contractors.
The client’s role is
crucial. Those who say that it is unreasonable to impose an obligation
on clients do not understand that clients have a key role to play. They
are not exposed to potential penalties that they do not understand
because, as all hon. Members who have studied the regulations will
realise, designers and contractors are obliged to alert clients to
their responsibilities. The regulations achieve an interlocking series
of relationships to ensure that all parties in a construction contract
understand and meet their health and safety obligations. That is why
clients should be part of the picture. That obligation is not
unreasonable, and the many clients who have been involved in the
consultation recognise the importance of their role and that they
should be part of the
process.
The
suggestion of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire that the
industry is somehow unaware of what is coming and that people are
unprepared for the regulations is very wide of the
mark.
Andrew
Selous:
The right hon. Gentleman is completely right to
say that the industry is aware and prepared. My point is that most
businesses are small businesses that get involved with building work
only very occasionally and that we must help them to comply. We should
consider how we can enlarge the scope to ensure that all the works that
they undertake are covered, because many are
not.
Mr.
Raynsford:
The hon. Gentleman has given various quotes, so
perhaps I may quote Keith Clarke, who is the chief executive of Atkins,
one of the country’s leading consultancies, and who also happens
to chair the health and safety committee of the Construction Industry
Council. In a briefing, which should have been sent to all members of
the Committee—I hope that the hon. Gentleman has seen
it—Mr. Clarke
wrote:
“Over
the last few months there has been a huge commitment by all sectors of
the industry to understand the new regulations and prepare to implement
them. There have been literally hundreds of lectures, conferences and
training sessions on the subject all over the country. There is
currently a strong impetus to understand and implement CDM 2007, which
is based on our fundamental belief that this is a sensible revision to
the law. If the regulations are revoked this will inevitably be seen as
a lack of political commitment to health and safety in the construction
industry, at a time when the number of fatalities is again
increasing”.
That
is a clear commitment from someone who understands—from the
design perspective as well as the contracting perspective, because he
was previously the
chief executive of a major contractor—the importance of all
elements in the industry working together in a co-ordinated
way.
That support is
reinforced by the evidence submitted by the Royal Institute of British
Architects, to which the hon. Member for Richmond Park referred. Its
briefing says:
“The new regulations
make explicit what was previously implicit—the need for all
those involved in construction to co-operate and take proper
responsibility for their health and safety responsibilities. The
regulations clarify the respective roles of designers, clients and
contractors and, in doing so, will further professionalise the
construction industry as one which takes its responsibilities
seriously.”
That body has
a great deal of experience and understands the importance of everyone
pulling together.
The
briefing goes on to make another important
point:
“It is
no argument to say that the new regulations will impose
disproportionate burdens
on”
small and medium
enterprises
“and one-off
clients. Most clients—whether individuals commissioning a
domestic project or a board of school governors leading a school
rebuilding programme—will only be a client once. Just as they
will have to have to familiarise themselves with and adhere to planning
controls and Building Regulations, so they must discharge their health
and safety obligations for the sake of those individuals on the
construction site. Clients often need help: the regulations and
accompanying documents provide a framework within which they can work
and receive advice.”
The
truth is that the regulations are the product of considerable attention
and care given over time by all those with an interest in promoting
health and safety in construction and in reducing the number of
fatalities and injuries sustained on construction sites. This is not a
case of unnecessary regulation, as some people might suggest. It is a
case of sensible regulation that is much more proportionate than the
1994 approach and that seeks to encourage a common sense of
responsibility among all parties in order to achieve the outcome that
the regulations are designed to
achieve.
The
regulations have been warmly welcomed by all the major bodies in the
industry, which have been consulted. It would send an entirely perverse
message were the Committee to do anything other than endorse the
regulations wholeheartedly, so I sincerely hope that they will be
passed. I am glad to hear that the Opposition will not now vote against
them. I hope that we can move forward, recognising that the regulations
are essential to achieve a greater health and safety culture in one of
our most important
industries.
9.46
am
Mrs.
McGuire:
It is a pleasure for me to serve as a Minister
under your chairmanship, Mr. Wilshire. Many a long day I
remember when I was a Government Whip and you were an Opposition Whip.
We had a constructive relationship on this Committee Corridor, not
least on the Proceeds of Crime
Bill.
The
Chairman:
I hope that the Minister is impressed by my
relative silence these days.
Mrs.
McGuire:
I am, but I have to say that I think your taste
in ties has become a bit dull since you became a member of the
establishment. Anyway, I am delighted to be here and to see you in the
Chair.
I share the
incredulity of the hon. Member for Richmond Park and my right hon.
Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich as to exactly why we are
here this morning. I appreciate that the hon. Member for South-West
Bedfordshire has explained to some extent why we are here, but I
suspect that what we have seen this morning is a feat of political
athleticism, with the Conservatives rowing back from a position that
they established when they laid down the initial
prayer.
I hope that
the hon. Gentleman will accept that there is cynicism as to why we are
here this morning, because only a few days ago, on 27 April, when there
was another opportunity to deal with important issues relating to
health and safety in relation to the Health and Safety (Offences) Bill,
which is about increasing the penalties for breaches of health and
safety regulations, the Opposition used almost exactly the same
argument as to why they wanted to scupper that legislation, which was,
“We are looking to scrutinise this issue
properly.”
I
accept the hon. Gentleman’s sincerity here this morning, but on
two occasions in recent weeks we have seen the Conservative Opposition
attempt to flag up, as some sort of regulatory burden on small
businesses, the issue of health and safety. I therefore hope that he
will take the message back to those on the Conservative Front Bench
that the next time they want to use a parliamentary procedure to deal
with an important issue of health and safety, they should think first
about the message that they are giving, because undoubtedly, despite
the fact that he has pulled back from the original position, the
message that has been given here this morning to the construction
industry, to clients and, let me be frank with him, to cowboy builders
is that the Conservative Opposition want to annul regulations that are
about improving the health and safety of workers in this
country.
Andrew
Selous:
I am grateful to the Minister for accepting my
sincerity on the issue, but I make the point to her that it is our
concern about the cowboy builder element of the market that has led us
to make what I hope she considers are constructive proposals. I know
that she will tell me why she does not want to go down the road that I
have proposed, but my proposals on building regulations would catch the
cowboy sector, which would come under the notifiability provisions of
the regulations. I hope that she will deal with that in her
speech.
Mrs.
McGuire:
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that
those who support the regulations have said that there has been
extensive discussion on the regulations over a long period. I accept
his position, but we are committed to improving health and safety in
the construction industry, which, as he has said, is one of the most
dangerous industries in Britain. The industry employs 7 per cent. of
the working population and is responsible for 25 per cent. of fatal
injuries and 16 per cent. of major accidents. I would have hoped for a
spirit of unity to improve the health and safety record in the
construction industry, and that would not have included
what is frankly a mischievous use of a parliamentary procedure. The
Opposition have given out a message that is unhelpful in dealing with
the very issues that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted this
morning.
I
hope to deal with the points made during the debate.
[
I
nterruption.] I do not know if the hon.
Gentleman wishes to intervene or if he just wants to chunter from a
sedentary position. I will let him chunter.
The regulations are not
intended to add to the administrative burdens already placed on
businesses. On the contrary, they are intended to reduce those burdens
and to provide the capacity to bring greater benefits to
business—particularly small business. We should be careful as
regards what we ask clients to do under the regulations. Is there
adequate protection for the client’s workers and members of the
public? Has the contractor provided welfare facilities—somewhere
for the workers to go to the toilet and somewhere for them to wash
their hands? If people are working on a roof, has the contractor
provided a scaffold? Providing those facilities is not exactly rocket
science. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in
religious matters. If he reads Deuteronomy, chapter 22, verse 8, he
will see that it
states:
“When
you build a new house, put a parapet around the roof; otherwise, if
someone falls off, you will bring bloodguilt upon your
house.”
That shows that
health and safety regulations are not exactly a new
concept.
The
difficulty is that the Opposition give out the message that on health
and safety issues they immediately see regulation and burden, whereas
we see the welfare of the construction worker. I hope that the debate
has been a learning experience for the hon. Gentleman.
As the hon.
Member for Richmond Park said, we all recognise that construction is
currently a boom industry that has tens of thousands of people working
in it—particularly because of major projects such as the
Olympics and Paralympics, Liverpool city of culture, and, I hope,
Glasgow becoming the Commonwealth capital in 2014. Such a growth in
building projects generates the need for competent and skilled people,
and we need to keep those people safe. That means putting
responsibility for their health and safety in the hands of those best
placed to influence the
issue.
Contrary to the
comments of some bodies that have been highlighted by the hon.
Gentleman, the regulations are not ill conceived or hastily thrown
together and that has been demonstrated by my right hon. Friend the
Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. The regulations were developed over
four years. I would give the position of the Opposition more respect if
they had been involved in the discussions held during that time.
Instead, they have come in at the tail-end of a long process that has
included all the stakeholders. The regulations have been revised and
looked at again and again in order to refine them. Despite that, the
Opposition have decided, at this stage, to use an annulment procedure
in the House. As my right hon. Friend has clearly said, there has been
widespread support for the regulations. However, to be fair, that does
not mean that all the details have been accepted. There are still
matters on which organisations consider there is some room for
manoeuvre.
Of course, as
the hon. Gentleman said, the industry generally supported the 1994 CDM
aims and principles, but it was critical of them. That is why we
initiated the consultation. There were two construction summits in 2001
and 2005, and at last year’s “Buying For Life”
event for public sector clients the Government made their views clear.
Along the way, there were all sorts of opportunities where the
Opposition could have intervened and given us the benefit of their
wisdom on this matter.
We want the
Government to be an exemplar of construction client behaviour,
particularly regarding procurement. I know that my right hon. Friend
the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich was crucial in achieving some of
the developments in that area when he was a Minister. At this point, I
pay tribute to him for the amount of work that he did when he was a
Minister.
To be frank,
we now appear to have almost unanimity on this matter, despite what we
thought when we arrived here this morning. I would like to deal
specifically with some of the issues that were raised. Regarding the
integration of the planning regime, which the hon. Member for Richmond
Park and the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire mentioned, that
will, of course, take time to achieve. I think that the hon. Lady
identified that it would take time, effort and energy across the
industry to ensure that integration happens.
The hon. Gentleman raised the
issue of monitoring. Baseline research has already been carried out and
the Health and Safety Commission intends to evaluate the CDM 2007 in
line with the current better regulation guidance. Research has also
been commissioned on the effectiveness of the CDM
messages.
Andrew
Selous:
I am grateful to the Minister for responding to
the points that were raised by the Opposition. I wonder whether she
could say a little more about the first issue that she mentioned, the
integration of CDM with the planning and building control regime, which
the HSC itself said in the 17 October minute it wants to see. Can she
give us a little more idea of the timetable, or commitment, so that we
know when we will arrive at that integration? At the moment, it is just
an aspiration and there is real worry that we have duplication here. If
we can fuse those two processes, we will see improvements.
Mrs.
McGuire:
I do not want to detract from what I have said. I
will not give specific time scales this morning, because, as all of us
would acknowledge, in working with a range of stakeholders and
recognising some of the implications of integration, we must give that
process the time that it requires. However, it is very much on the
HSC’s agenda.
May I also highlight the issue
of the small hairdresser? As the hon. Member for Richmond Park pointed
out, we are talking about projects that take over 30 days. I do not
know what kind of small hairdresser the hon. Gentleman goes to; I go to
a pretty small hairdresser, who, I have to say, does a lovely job. A
30-day project for that small hairdresser would be a significant
building project, as for any small business. Therefore, in trying to
highlight the issue of the small hairdresser or small shop, he is again
in danger of giving out a negative message about where the impact
of the measure will be felt. I hope that he would think again about the
sort of message that he is giving out to small businesses.
I find it interesting that the
hon. Gentleman is asking for a widening of scope. HSC has considered
whether that area should be part of the CDM regulations. In fact,
HSC’s assessment—I think that it would be shared by the
industry—was that to widen the scope would be disproportionate
to the risks on small sites. People may have different views on that
issue, but that is certainly HSC’s assessment at the
moment.
Regarding the
review of the implementation within the first year, although the hon.
Gentleman raised that issue in his opening remarks I was pleased to
hear him clarify his views in a later intervention. He is now drawing
back from the first year, and saying that the review could be conducted
over two or three years. I think that he would accept—I hope
that he realised this after his initial contribution—that a
review at the end of one year would be far too soon for a formal
review. Obviously the HSC will keep the regulations under review and we
will be commissioning research long before the usual five-year
review.
Regarding the
support for construction clients, the Construction Clients’
Group is drafting guidance for them. There is comprehensive guidance in
the approved code of practice. A couple of hon. Members
mentioned information and the HSE is reissuing the information sheet.
It will be free and also on the HSE’s
website.
I am
delighted that the hon. Gentleman has rowed back from what appeared to
be a nuclear option on this set of regulations. CDM 2007 is a great
leap forward in the way in which we are codifying our regulations and
the messages that we are giving out to the industry, particularly in
relation to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Richmond Park about
migrant workers who perhaps come from a country which does not have
such a culture of health and safety regulations. We do not want people
to take advantage of that lack of cultural environment in terms of
health and safety to undermine our work on health and safety in the
construction industry over many
years.
I
am delighted that the Opposition are not going to press the regulations
to a vote. I am delighted also that they have listened to the pleas of
the industry. I know that the Leader of the Opposition’s emails
have been well used over the past few weeks to identify the views of
the industry. The CBI, the TUC, the construction industry professional
bodies, the National Association of Shopfitters and Uncle Tom Cobley
all think that this is a good thing and that these regulations are a
step forward—some would even call them a leap forward—in
dealing with health and safety issues in the construction
industry.
I leave the
hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire with this final piece of advice
and I do not mean it in a patronising way. The next time that the
Conservative Opposition want to look at health and safety issues,
perhaps they should reflect just a little longer on the messages that
they are giving out when they appear to oppose what is a sensible way
forward in developing a health and safety culture in our construction
industry.
10.3
am
Andrew
Selous:
I shall be very brief. We have had a satisfactory
conclusion to this debate. It was never our intention to vote against
these regulations. I have said all that I can say. I thank the Minister
for the way she has responded and I ask her to reflect on some of our
requests, so that we can monitor this important
issue.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the Construction (Design and Management)
Regulations 2007 (S.I. 2007, No.
320).
Committee
rose at three minutes past Ten
o’clock.
