Posted By John Murphy
I thought it might help to provide some explanation about some of the points you raised. (I am pleased I managed it without the need for you to rewrite or rephrase as suggested)!
Point One.
· If you are a safety professional you will be aware that sole traders and those who employ fewer than 5 people are exempt from having their policy and arrangements in writing. I am sure you are aware the CHAS scheme has a questionnaire for those who fall into this category and it is one that contains a statement of intent the sole trader or employer must sign up to. It would or could be anti-competitive for us to insist that someone falling into this category has a written policy etc. our approach also reflects the guidance provided in the CDM ACoP when dealing with sole traders etc.
· Many of the smaller businesses of the type to which you refer do in fact submit full policies and go through a full (five employees or more) assessment because they recognise the need to be able to demonstrate the higher level of compliance. That is their choice.
· CHAS is not and does not purport to be an approved list of competent contractors. CHAS is a tool in the contractor selection process that negates the need for our clients to undertake unnecessary and time-consuming duplicate first stage competency assessments.
· Importantly, (as mentioned by Bob) the client will undertake a second (project or job specific) stage assessment normally at invitation to tender if it is deemed necessary. We have produced guidance for our clients on what is required at the second stage that again effectively follows the guidance in the CDM ACoP. This second stage assessments concentrates on a number of issues including taking up of health and safety (not technical) references, confirming there is continued access to competent advice, cooperation and coordination arrangements and includes an area where the contractor can identify any significant shortfalls in their previous experience or, the risks associated with the project which they have not managed before, and include an explanation of how these shortcomings will be overcome. (Thus not debarring them from the opportunity to do that work for the first time). The level of assessment at this stage is proportionate to the level of risk associated with the job or project.
· The contractor’s page in the database also describes the type of work or works they have applied for and makes available, on line, for client users a copy of the contractors completed questionnaire and the assessor’s findings (There is also other information available to them such as their compliance track record).
· Our assessors are all practising safety professionals trained to the CHAS standards and will always bear in mind, when doing the assessment, the size of the company and the type of work they undertake. We do not apply the same level of expectation for a painting and decorating company employing 5 people as we would for a demolition company employing the same number of people.
You will see from this, any business will be subjected to an appropriate level of assessment for the type of work they do.
Point 2.
You are right in that we do ask for information relating to where a business accesses competent health and safety advice. We rely on a business making an application to us to be open and honest in their replies. We are clear that there are occasions where the business and in some cases their advisers are less than honest and will try to cheat the assessor. However, we do not see it as our role to police the integrity of the vast majority of businesses that are honest in their replies to us.
Importantly, again, because of anti-competition rules we cannot insist at any stage of prequalification that a business must take on the services of a safety consultant for example. The rationale behind our question and the associated standards including how we use this information are described on our web site. (http://www.chas.gov.uk/chas/Downloads/AssessmentStandards.doc) - First page.
If there is any doubt as to access to competent advice then the assessor will check it out with the person or organisation named as their competent advice. (There are many examples of when this has been done). Your judgement that it takes just 20 seconds to check this out is well wide of the mark in my experience.
Point 3.
Of course CHAS and other third party schemes are subject to a duty of care. The CHAS scheme and its assessors are subject to considerable scrutiny including quality control checks. The results of those QC checks are promulgated in the database (in the relevant contractors page) with a three monthly summary report published for clients and assessors in the database.
In addition, a client can call in any assessment for their own audit if they so wish (this must be within 8 weeks of the completed assessment). Finally, a contractor failing their assessment has a right of appeal too.
You identify rightly there is always the potential, for a contractor (or their adviser) to make false statement. Regulation 4 (1)(a) and 4 (1) (b) of CDM are explicit that it is a criminal offence to accept a duty holder (including a contractor) appointment or engagement unless they are competent. ACoP 201 goes on to state, “Doing an assessment requires you to make a judgment as to whether the organisation or individual has the competence to carry out the work safely. If your judgment is reasonable, taking into account the evidence that has been asked for and provided, you will not be criticised if the organisation you appoint subsequently proves not to have been competent to carry out the work.
ACoP 207 also makes clear that “Alternatively, organisations may use an independent accreditation organisation to assess their competence against the elements of the core criteria. Where this route is adopted, both clients (with the help of the CDM coordinator for notifiable projects) and organisations putting themselves forward for assessment should satisfy themselves that the accreditation body is using the criteria in Appendix 4 as a basis for the assessment, and that the assessment process is robust enough to give the assurance necessary to ensure compliance. Relevant trade associations should be able to advise you on which schemes are suitable”.
Forgive the verbatim extracts but I think it is important this is in context.
Point 4. Though not made by you, but valid all the same.
The HSE and industry generally, not just the construction industry, were very widely consulted on CDM 2007. It is they who came to the conclusion that, when assessing health and safety competence there should be no requirement to carry out site-based assessments as part of the stage 1 (or stage 2 for that matter) assessment.
Personally I agree with this view because of the resource implication and cost, especially the cost for the sole trader and smaller contractors. Importantly it is something our 300 client users and the schemes national management board also agree with. The cost benefit of a site-based assessment is minimal because they are so expensive to undertake. When and if they are needed they should, in my opinion, be undertaken by the client after the short-listing process.
I hope this has helped to clarify some of the points you have raised. There will always be a difference of opinions on assessing competence but what we believe we have achieved in our scheme is an acceptable level of assessment (for the first stage) that more than 300 client users accept as appropriate. It is acceptable to them because they accept two fundamental principles of our scheme, the first that we will help small businesses who might fail to achieve compliance while at the same time avoiding unnecessary and costly duplication for both contractors aned clients.
Regards
John