Posted By Frank Penny Hi folks! In the course of university life my fellow students and I often discuss ways that we would improve the appalling H&S stats that we see in the construction industry. From my on site experience of construction projects it appears that quite often the key stakeholders in projects ie client & designers (as project originators) use the mechanisms of CDM to provide a paper chase by which they can abrogate their responsibilities to subordinate levels in the contractual chain. Where cost is a key issue on a keenly priced project H&S is not given the detailed attention that it should be. One of the solutions that I feel would help relieve the pressure on the site manager to supervise H&S is to appoint a new breed of permanant / semi perm Clerks of Works with a specific responsibility for advising on & ensuring that construction processes are carried out in the safest manner possible. Who pays for this? The client, as project originator must take ultimate responsibility! What do you think folks, would it work? if not why not? What are the alternatives? I realise that along with this solution there other proactive measures can be taken, changing the attitude and culture through education at site and board room level is essential. Good night all Frank Penny Look forward to reading your opinions.

Posted By Frank Penny Thanks for the insight Ken. I hadn't thought about the contractual implications, I am sure the QS's and the legal beagles would be rubbing their hands together in anticipation of some fat fees sorting that one out, maybe it would have to be a joint appointment with powers to advise either or both parties of breaches of safety code. I have a sneaky feeling that government might try to introduce something like this in the near future. I think they will be looking to have a sum set aside as % of the tender cost, to pay for this CoW type person. Michael Meacher touched upon it in his address to The Construction Safety Summit last month As government is the largest single procurer of construction works, (33% of industry,£20 billion next financial year), they really should lead by example in the allocation of these sums and appointments of the advisors. I do stll feel that clients and designers see safety as a problem for the contractor solely, to address once the programme is underway. In the light of recent promises of more stringent and rigorous prosecution of senior parties to contracts, the appointment of the CofW type safety advisor would safe guard the interest of all stake holders, the appointment of an impartial professional advisor can only be of benefit to the project as a whole. As you are probably aware M&S strive for Zero accidents on all of their works, the closer they get to that the more efficient their projects are becoming. As I understand it M&S have a safety advisor on site every day on major works, with the authority to insist on safer procedures being carried out. regards Frank

Posted By Graham Kearsley Frank, Great idea. The big fall down would be paying for the extra person. Just as a matter of interest, do you have a copy of the CDM amendments? I can't seem to be able to track them down. If you do can you let me know how to get old of them. Graham

Posted By Larry Meager I am sure that there are those amongst us that consider that the terms Safety and Construction are mutually exclusive terms. I think that you are heading in the right direction when you recognise that the client has a moral and legal obligation to set the terms and on site culture when they direct how the contract is to be drafted. Tight construction timelines by themselves encourage risk taking in the people supervising and carrying out the work. I have seen high risk construction jobs completed on time, under budget with an impeccable safety record when the client, his/her representative and the contractor have a genuine and real committment to achieving safey excellence. There are many in the construction industry that see safety is a cost not the real benefit it can really be. Just as mangement sets the tone for a contracts performance, the nature of the inductry generally attracts transient labour. This in itself precludes many employers from being able to invest effort into ensuring that employees have the time and support to take the time to guard their own welfatre.

Posted By Richard We've tried the CoW approach - it doesn't work. I was in his office complaining about H&S breaches so many times that I was told to stop!! Richard