Whilst I am sure this isnt a precendent below is a link to a recent HSE prosecution where one of the issues raised was the PC`s failure to ensure the suitability of sub-contractor method statements. Regards http://press.hse.gov.uk/...owing-platform-collapse/

While it isn't a CDM/principal contractor case per se, the Associated Octel case deals with a not dissimilar principle.

St George South London Ltd (SGSL), the principal contractor for construction work at the site, was today (9 January) fined after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) identified a number of failings. IMO you would be wrong to ignore the prosecution, to me it means the PC should be checking the RAMS. I know what I would be doing in future.

Ray makes a couple of good points and in particular the gift on hindsight is a powerful tool in the HSE’s tool box, and that a contractor may (not always) be brought in because the PC doesn’t have the necessary expertise for that particular aspect of work. The PC merely checking the RAMS would in those circumstances seem something of a folly. Looking at the OP, it strikes me that what any organisation may claim that they are going to do within a RAMS, policy, SSOW etc etc etc may be different (slightly or substantially) from what they or their workforce actually do in practice. The usual rules of contracting out work should apply, whether a project comes under CDM or not. You should have reasonable (robust) procedures for appointing competent contractors and supervising (this might include but is not limited to checking RAMS) the contactor/contract. Whether it is reasonable that the client (under CDM this could be the PC) to check and if necessary query or insist on changes to RAMS is debatable (as per the point about the competency of the client to do so) and depending on the size, duration and complexity of the project, this could become something of a life’s work. I would have thought that a client might be best protect themselves from prosecution as the result of a failing by a contractor, by having appointing competent contractors and ‘supervising’ the contract. Checking the RAMS will not in itself do this. There are any number of cases where 'clients' have been prosecuted for what is on the face of it a failure of the contractor (although clearly the prosecutions case is that the client either failed to appoint a competent contractor or failed to properly supervise them), Associated Octel is a case in point.

In my experience, reviewing RAMS is the norm. It's a good clean way to control the work and how it gets done. It's also an effective communications tool and your best friend if everything goes south. IMHO - it's one of the most effective tools in the box. @RayRapp - I would point out that I'm not reviewing the specialist activities or tasks, more specifically the hazards introduced or faced by, the contractor, as a result of being on our site.

I occasionally do site safety inspections and as far as RAMS are concerned first I look to see if every contractor has provided their RAMS then I look to compare the written MS with the actual method work being carried out. If there are any deviations I stop the work for a chat with the worker involved.

Currently working with a client, contractor under CDM, who is being prosecuted as a result of an accident involving a sub-contractor they employed. Main issue is RAMS.

Thank you for your comments and discussion. However, coming back to the main topic and summarizing your posts. You are not aware that PC was prosecuted after reviewing contractors RAMS, when they were found unsuitable by local enforcing authority after accident.

Surely if this is a Construction project and the CDM regulations apply the enforcing authority would be the HSE. If the LA is the enforcing authority there would be no PC.

Well yes, but I was only really reiterating what I had already said myself in #8; only in a different way! We aren't at odds on this. Are we?