Under the CDM Regulations 2007, the principal contractor on notifiable projects has a duty to properly plan, manage and co-ordinate work during the construction phase in order to ensure that the risks are properly controlled. The regulations do not state that the principal contractor has to be on site when the construction works are taking place. As the regulations state ‘principal contractors are usually the main or managing contractor’, providing they have adequately managed, planned and controlled risks, produced a robust construction phase health and safety plan and carry out the site induction for sub-contractors, does the principal contractor have to maintain a presence on site for the duration of the construction phase?

Thanks for the reply RayRapp, For example - A principal contractor produces a construction phase plan, identifying the site risks, controls, arrangements for communication, first aid responsibilities etc etc. They produce risk assessments and method statements. The principal contractor then appoints one contractor to conduct the works on their behalf. The regulations also state "Principal contractors don’t have to undertake detailed supervision of contractors’ work." If the PC continues to monitor an review, but is not on site 100% of the time, is this failing to fullfill their duties?

Stevel, thank you for your comments, Assuming the works are of a minor nature, what is to to say that there are not suffient management arrangements in place if the principal contractor decides to appoint one competent contractor to undertake the works on their behalf? Obviously ensuring they have their own site manager, first aiders etc All arrangement would be in place regarding communication, consultation, inductions, training on site, review, monitoring etc

But if there is strict arrangement that the contractor provides on site management, with the principal contractor monitoring the works, surely they have planned, are managing and monitoring the works? management would be adequately resourced, competent and with the numbers adequate to the risk. The regs are open to interpretation, and it doesnt not say this cannot be done. It goes without saying that if strict arrangements were not in place then the principal contractor would not be discharging their duties; however, with arrangements such as those outlined above, in my opinion the principal contractors duty has been fullfilled

Stevel, thanks for that, very interesting. It would be good to find a criminal case similar to that one, as the main focus of my question is that of the interpretation of the CDM Regs (criminal law) And as per ron hunters comment regarding the clients contract, we can assume for now that the client wouldnt mind the proposed arrangement.

Whilst CDM might state "Principal contractors don’t have to undertake detailed supervision of contractors’ work", the term 'detailed' means what it says on the tin. I don't think this infers abdicating all site responsibilities. It would also depend to some extent on the CPP and what arrangements the PC has made for site supervision, reporting of incidents, first aid, welfare arrangements etc. Talk about a can of worms. The principle of CDM is that the PC is responsible for site safety. I'm not convinced the PC can obligate this duty without some level of site supervision - just my opinion.

I undersatnd that many Principal Contractors employ self-employed agents to run a project and manage a project on their behalf, behaving as they are full time employees...how is this different to employing a sub-contractor?

Thank you all for your input, this has been a very lively discussion! Its good to ask such questions as should this situation ever occur, a more well rounded answer can be given. I guess at the end of the day it comes down to interpretation. Many thanks, J

In the end the answer is thus YES and NO but with caveats!!!! Bob