I felt a great deal of dismay at reading the star letter in the current SHP. The writer appeared to be part of a large contracting organisation and was arguing for clients to monitor safety on site and that CDM should require this.

I have always held that the long consultation re CDM2007 was absolutely correct to place the management of safety on site with the PC. Clients do not necessarily have construction experience and it would be wrong to place such an onus on them. If a PC cannot manage safety then they should admit their incompetence and resign the contract- a contract they should not have tendered for.

If we turn to the SWMP 2008 regs we find clients signing up to the Site Waste Management Plan, with the PC, with committments to manage waste properl;y etc and even here they do not monitor the management of the plan and waste streams so why expect Safety to be monitored when it is not explicit in the regulations?

PCs who want clients to monitor H&S on site - whatever next. When contracting the last thing I needed was a client who thought they knew better than I about construction safety. As for the CDMC doing it then one must start to look for some chinese walls to protect confidentiality and conflict of interests.

Bob

Bob and Ray,
I have never been a CDMC, or at my age and just a mere electrician, never will be, but I agree with what your saying here.

As I see it we are all responsible to the safety of each other but in order to assume that responsibility people need to be trained. For the life of me I cannot understand how a client can have that weight thrust on them. As you say, the client is welcome to pass comment etc and ask why a site is in such a mess and demand action to be taken, but as I understand it, the CDMC should ensure that all parties such as the client, designers and PC and sub contractors work together to ensure health, safety and welfare?

I'm a little new to this so any advise would be welcome

Bob

I'll stick to Zimmy ...two Bob's is one Bob too many :-)

We have a band!
ZimmyBob

I shall probably do a reply to letter of the month.
As someone representing Clients during the consulation process one point we were trying to make taht all parties failed to take on board was that arround occasional ad hoc clients, of non notifiable projects relying on SME builders. I would not expect a shop keeper or solicitor to carry out a site inspection of the building site - and as for byuilders picked up in yellow pages ..bring on Dom and co "Rogue traders". Clients of smaller projects are on a hiding to nothing.

And for bigger products, how do things work for design and build operations, very often the CDM C - and Client are last to be considered.

Problem with CDM, its scope is to big but I cannot think of anything better.

Bob

Fair comment and having been one of the IOSH members wanting CDM 2007 debated in Parliament because of deficiencies (HSE's reluctance to differentiate between Construction Clients (such as large commercial landlords) and Clients of Construction (such as SME's the Sarah Beeneys etc as identified in the latter Property Developers Campaign) and not being given right of reply following the criticism of the process in SHP , I can appreciate your concern at not wanting discussion in that forum.

However, SHP has raised the subject and I feel that the whole topic should be revisited - HSE did promise review in 2010 andI believe that Constructing Excellence have identified through a survey that CDM 2007's success may not have achieved what it set out to.

Incidentally, arising out of the EDM process we were able to get iOSH representation on the Strategic forum H&S Group.

I am happy to discuss offline at dthoma17@caledonian.ac.uk

David Thomas

I think I have mentioned this before but one of my tasks is to visit shopfitting programmes on behalf of the client. This was organised by the CDM-C in coordination with the client due to some safety concerns on a few sites some years ago.

I will say that the standard of H&S three years ago involving some 6 PCs was very poor but is now quite high.

In my opinion there is a lot of good in this arrangement, even though it is outside the requirements of CDM.

This is not to criticise other PCs as I know some have excellent safety standards, I also work directly for PCs so I would say that wouldn't I?

I'm a bit puzzled and have put this post in seeking enlightenment.

When I was involved in the drafting stages of the original CDM Regulations my understanding was that its main aim was to try and link responsibility for health and safety from the client who puts up the money, through the Designers, Principle Contractor, contractors, sub-contractors and to workers on the site.

From reading the letter it seems the writer is saying that, in her view, clients should confirm that ‘the arrangements in the construction phase plan are being adhered to’. I cannot see what is unreasonable about this.

In the HSE guidance leaflet NDG411 on the CDM 2007 Regs for clients it states:

‘You need to make sure that suitable arrangements are in place throughout the whole project.’

‘The type and level of checks needed depends on the work being undertaken and the risks involved. You may need help for more complex and high risk projects.’

‘ …. CDM 2007 only requires you to check that suitable management arrangements are being followed.’

The HSE guidance sounds to me like they are advising clients to ‘monitor’ that the managing of the construction phase plan is adhered to, as the writer suggests. How else is the client supposed to ‘make sure that suitable arrangements are in place throughout the whole project’?

In the final paragraph of her letter the writer states:

‘….. I agree that clients should not be carrying out site inspections ….’

Are some people arguing that the client should just not bother monitoring whether the plan is being adhered to or not? Is any client interest in the construction phase now 'poor practice' - did this change come in with CDM2007? As the letter writer has expressed her opinion, not IOSH's, how does this reflect on IOSH? Since when has the letter pages of SHP become the official policy document of IOSH?

On a technical note, SHP is published by UBM Information Ltd under the in London, not IOSH HQ.

Cheers.

Nigel

Dear NigelB

Your enlightenment is below:

Page 18 of the ACOP under the heading "What Clients don't have to do" states at 8.3 (f) " Clients are not required or expected to: .... employ third party assurance advisers to monitor health & safety standards on site......."

The July 2011 letter sets out an approach of excessive gold plating of safety that is giving the industry a bad reputation. The major review of safety in the UK set out in the Young Report highlighted poor advice via gold plating as a problem across all sectors.

Clients need to focus on their duties under CDM as they have the biggest influence in the way a project is run. The shifting of time, money and other resources away from the core CDM duties onto gold plating has been proved in all sectors of safety to be dangerous.

Just to put in my bobs' worth, it actually misses the point entirely. The client should be focused on their duties in providing adequate resources for the project. Unfortunately too many do not allow adequate time or money for many projects and the CDM (C)'s do not challenge / contest these points. The PC is left to manage the contract as best he can whilst meeting his responsibility for safety of all throughout all stages. I have no problem with a client raising site safety issues during site visits, its good to have different eyes seeing things. A reassuring chat with the client affirming that you will address all safety issues will normally suffice, as long as any actions required are carried out.The CDMR is good legislation IF ALL duty holders carry out their responsibilities!

How should a client react when his CDM-C reports the PC carrying out unsafe working on his project ?

Choose one of the following or provide an alternative suggestion.

1. Sack the PC?

2. Visit the site and meet the PC with CDM-C and thrash out the issues?

3. Employ a construction safety competent person to undertake an assessment of the site works and provide a report to the client?

4. Ignore the report from CDM-C?

He could notify the client of his concerns, and keep a record.

Otherwise you could look for answers similar to my selection.

Whose duty is it to appoint competent contractors?

Surely that person should be checking on
Performance.

and afew points me are missing. CDM2007 also includes construction in a multitude of industrial scenarios. I also think CDM 2007 should include input frfom the end user as it incluses the life cycle of a building and a CDM C used to building a hospital may have no understanding of say a China Clay loading facilities.

Maintenace of said industrial locations would have different operational issues needing managing than a hospital or office block. I always insist that the Client/end user must also therefore be involved in the design process.

CDM is a team approach with the team being bigger than the scope of CDM

Bob

Its not about bashing CDM....

As someone actively involved in the consultation last time the onus of the consultation was to put more responsibility on the Client rather than the PC........... by the way, everyone keeps talking about PC... how about non notifiable.

All the comments made here were made AS representations to the HSE as part of the consultation process and ignored.

Its a shame, as the concept of CDM and life cycle mananagement incorporated in the process is so sensible, but alas is not working and that is from personal experience.