Smaller low cost areas: In my experience the better contractors who try to compliant are very regularly, and its becoming the norm, losing work to those contractors who do not care because their clients are not enforced nor do their clients care about anything except the bottom line Larger higher cost areas; In my experience larger works are higher profile so they cannot hide as easily so have systems in place; some very good others not This is a very general reply as there are many individual cases that do not fit the norm and irrespective of any law that U introduce unless it is enforceable and enforced etc then its a waste of time and effort

I would agree there are continuing problems with implementation, awareness and understanding however this is surely not the "fault" of the Regulations. Where there are "good" Clients, there has been a general progression towards improved practice filtering down to the smaller contractor appointments- "Supply Chain Pressure" and all that. Where the culture is poor I would suggest there has been little change in attitude since 2007. If it comes to that, the same could probably be said If you were to reference other key legislation dates of 1994, 1992, 1974 or even 1966! For some, price alone will determine who gets the job.

I work for Clients, Principal Contractors and sub contractors (not all at the same time), and have also done some CDM-C work so have experience with CDM? "He who pays the piper calls the tune" springs to mind as the larger Client with more money to spend employs PCs that are able to charge a higher fee and therefore can afford better H&S. On the other hand the Client that has a smaller budget will screw the PC right down, and the subby has to follow suit or lose the work. Small shop fitting companies do not generally employ a competent H&S officer/adviser in house and rely of bits and pieces of knowledge from "somebody in the office". Or else they employ a company to occasionally visit their projects and produce a report. Not usually a negative report as - paying the piper comes back into play. I find that companies that employ a health and safety person to visit sites regularly, and act on findings right away the management of H&S is far better than if left to a site foreman who is also a hands on worker. My opinions.

Jay There are indeed many issues with the CDM Regs which leave a lot to be desired and I will try to frame them a succinctly as possible. Projects tend to be driven by Clients who often exert an unhealthy influence on the PC with regards to time, planning, design, resources and so on. The PC rarely complains, simply because you don't bite the hand which feeds you. Some of these pressures are then cascaded down the line to sub-contractors and it becomes a vicious circle. For small projects it could be argued that the CDM Regs are too onerous and costly to implement. For example, projects of £100k or less. I have been involved in a number of small projects which only just qualify for a notifiable project and builders who predominately work in the domestic field find the CDM Regs difficult. Rightly or wrongly, there is a considerable gap in terms of safety between domestic building work and commercial activities, perhaps too large. Construction work in general is driven by cost. When tendering for projects it is normal practice to offer a contract to the lowest bidder. However, it is not 'rocket science' that those who bids are lower often cut corners on health and safety to save money. The tender process can be insidious, especially when other undesirable machinations are thrown into the process, like the organisation's AFR which is often economical with the truth. There you have it - Ray.

I have to agree with BOD (Post 3) If implemented properly and used and understood by all the project team it has massive benefits in ensuring a safe & healthy workplace. Having advised within in the Construction Sector for PC's and Sub-contractors both in the Public, Private and Utility sectors the implementation of the Regs correctly is cash driven and if the Client are keen and have H&S paramount and are eager to be involved at site level these in general are well run sites. Alternatively if a Client or PC's main objectives is the % of profit the project will bring ultimately the easy savings are made by the reducing H&S or by implementing the minimum. When a site has an onsite H&S Advisor things are quickly picked up and rectified (i;e finger on the pulse), where smaller projects rely on a consultant visiting sites fortnightly/monthly these do tend to be favourable reports as highlighted earlier (biting the hands that feed you). I personally feel that some CDMC's contracted by Clients through consultancies do not give projects the required involvement, and by turning up for a monthly meeting with project minutes is adequate or what as been explained to me in the past, that is the package they have paid for, this seems to be more of a problem in the public sector and social housing construction projects as there is little in the way of policing the jobs internally, H&S Advisors with a construction bias. The implementation of the Regs would also be better if SMSTS was the minimum for site supervision. Rant and thoughts over.