The contractor should ensure the safety of himself and others before undertaking the works, if he has written a specific MS/RA for the works, then he should do the works as per that MS/RA. If he felt his safety was going to be affected then he should not have done the works.

The contractor is extremely experienced in the work but is not health and safety trained. I believe this is part of his problem as he sees the health and safety officer as more knowledgeable in H&S so has to back down. He also wants to stay in the client's good books. If something went wrong and the operative was injured what do you think the HSE would say if they investigated.

Seen as its a verbal agreement to proceed with the Clients requirements, I can assure you the Client woulnt be long in prodcuing the first MS that the contractor produced, should something go wrong. In my experience, for example with Tower Cranes, I do not under any circumstances comment on different ways that they could do their works, as far as I am concerned they are specialist contractors who do the job, they have been trained, if anything I stick to them to find out more. If I were the contractor, I would ask the safety officer and project manager to have a meeting to discuss. The contractor must be happy to conduct his works, and just because the client says jump he doesnt need to. If this is his line of business then he knows best.

Scaffolders are the best, (worst for safety some times), at sticking up for themselves, and if they dont like it they walk. I do understand where the contractors is coming for thought, kepping the Client happy, but at least his has voiced his concerns to someone, so he does therefore care, and is not just doing the job for money alone.

Firesafety, what exactly does 'but is not health and safety trained' mean? Based on the above comment, the following comment 'puts the operative in a higher risk situation, in the opinion of the contractor' suggests the contractor does have a level of health and safety training? Are you able to provide more information on the work and procedure itself?

Not health and safety trained means no formal H&S courses apart from CDM undertaken by one project manager. However they are well experienced at what they do. He has asked me to act as their safety consultant so just new to the company and their works. The work involves tying up cruise ships when arrived at port. I have not seen the set up myself but it involves using a ladder with harness, the problem is when the ropes are tensioned there is a risk of the rope breaking producing a whiplash effect. The contractor wants his man off the ladder and out of the way in case of whiplash, he would be in danger of being hit by the loose end. Safety Officer wants him on the ladder with harness. There is no logical reason for the man to be on the ladder during this process. The man on ladder part is not in the method statement. jarsmith has got the same impression as me in that the safety officer is leading the contractor away from their RA/MS without taking ownership. I believe that the safety officer should write the method statement himself for the contractor to follow, if he insists in that method.

Then again there are many experienced and competent contractors who can readily demonstrate a safe method but do not have the necessary skills to write that down effectively. Are MS necessarily the be-all and end-all?

Similar to Ray's comment, maybe the client's safety bod saw deficiencies in the contractor's management arrangements. Alternatively, maybe the client has knowledge of recent accidents / incidents involving the preferred method chosen by the contractor, who knows? Ultimately, the client can refuse whatever he likes! The contractor can adopt an alternative method (if he is happy to do so), or walk away. Whatever method the client has instructed, it must be based on risk assessment. Therefore the contractor should be able to satisfy himself if the alternative method is an acceptable risk level or not (and if he is capable of doing the work in this way). Like Ray I have batted back many a RA / SSW due to lack of effort resulting in lack of meaningful health and safety specific information. This is an important gateway in permitting contractors to commence work and more importantly, refusing them - if they are a liability!

OK so far we have all (including me!) offered opinions - not seen many suggestions about resolving yet. Not sure I have any real answers to that one. Get both to sit down and discuss the original risk assessment and system of work and why its being changes and see if an agreed compromise can be reached. Sounds easy but!

Which side of the argument is this aimed at? If the client then there is already one, alleged competent. (I haven't met him yet). If the contractor - well he has asked me to be that competent safety adviser and be the one to sort this out with the client's safety manager.

Fire safety, I think the only sensible option is to sit down with both parties and agree the safest way to carry out the task. Then for the Contractor to produce his RAMS and for the Safety Officer to approve it. The Safety Officer needs to be happy the task is being carried out safely on behalf of the client and can offer advice if he wants. If he is insiting it is done in a completely different way then in effect they are working under instruction and could become Labour Only Sub Contractors insead of Bona Fide Sub Contractors. There is a big difference with regard to liability when it goes wrong! I would suggest you use a search engine and look at the difference, it is a very fine line and often stepped over, particularly in construction. Regards Clive

No Bob I haven't met him yet. I may or may not get involved with this project but if I do I'll update this thread. Thanks all for your input.