Currently I work within the Rail Industry which follows the HASAWA 1974 / CDM 2007 and has Industry specific rules/regulations to comply with. Under section 2.1 of the HASAWA states: It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees. I would take it from this statement that it means I can visit them at various places to ensure they are working safely and have all the necessary facilities provided However in CDM it sates under duties of the PC regulation 22 (L) It states” take reasonable steps to prevent access by unauthorised persons to the construction site” As I have staff employed I would take it that I’ am authorised as long as I follow protocol and get any induction/ briefing required hence the ACOP (170) expands. To state: “Only people who are explicitly authorised, individually or collectively, by the principal contractor, should be allowed access. The authorisation may cover the whole site or be restricted to certain areas. Authorised people should have relevant site rules explained to them and undertake any necessary site induction, and should comply with site rules and co-operate with the principal contractor. ” After going through all the correct protocol and Signing into the site and meeting my Staff. However on walking around I start to note problems. 1. No site induction / briefing 2. Client staff about to go to a position referred to as “on or near the line” without a Coss (This was challenged and corrected 3. Asking both the Project and Site manager if I could look at the CPP as I had not seen one. Both responses were unbelievable (what’s that (they were not joking)) More to the fact that after my conversation I was asked to leave site without being able to visit my staff. Both CLIENT and the PC promote best practice (Lifesaving Rules, CIRAS, Close Call) and various of Behaviour based Safety. Would it be reasonable for the PC to remove a safety representative without giving reasons. I would like further advice / guidance from members.

My heart sinks when I see posts sprouting regulations. Could it be you did the same thing on site and they saw you as an irritation?

Regulations aside: I agree you have a responsibility to ensure your company's employees are safe at their workplace and you can only do that if you can assure yourself procedures are in place and followed.

I personally don't get involved in work with Netowrk Rail, but I did advise a client who wanted to, and the information I obtained was that, to work directly for Network Rail, you need to go through the Achilles Link-up Accreditation Scheme. When you are Link-up approved, you then need to obtain the Network Rail Principle Contractor's Licence. and, quoting the source I used: The 'Network Rail Principal Contractor Licence' is only ever issued to companies working within the 'Rail Industry', who have subsequently been singled out and 'Proposed' through the 'Network Rail Supply Chain Process'. Once selected, and in order to become approved, suppliers need to satisfy the requirements of the 'Scheme' itself by taking part in a 'Two-Stage Audit' process. In the broadest of terms, having a 'Network Rail Principal Contractor Licence' enables suppliers within the Rail Industry to work directly for Network Rail and / or as the 'Main Contractor'. So, 118ncg, whoever is working on the site, you should firstly ask to see these licences. I expect they require compliance with current CDM requirements. John

THE PC licence displayed is OOD. Yes we do have to jump through hoops.

Perhaps if we all spoke in plain English instead of 3 word acronyms we might be less of an irritation

.................Would it be reasonable for the PC to remove a safety representative without giving reasons. I would like further advice / guidance from members. No, in my opinion. Reason for expulsion or removal from site without good reason should be challenged. You have a right to be heard and to hear the reasons advanced. Jon