Posted By Raymond Rapp A recent article in SHP (p10) gives me some concern. In what is described as the 'first succesful prosecution of its kind,' an architect was fined under the CDM Regs for so-called design work. He failed to ensure the health and safety of builders that contributed to them 'experiencing back pains' because in his plans workers had been asked to lift blocks weighing 36kg, and the permitted maximum is 20kg under CDM Regs. Before I pick holes with the offence, I would like to add that the architect was fined £500 and ordered to pay £1000 costs - not the full costs of £13,780 asked for by the HSE. Furthermore, the architect was ordered to undertake a HSE planning supervisor course, presumably he will have to pay for that as well. I am all for ensuring that those who have duties under the relevant stautory law are held accountable for their acts and omissions, but this case seems disproportionate to the actual offence. And I do wonder whether the HSE have picked a 'soft target' to highlight their crack down on construction and designers duties (see p4 SHP). Incidentally, there is no mention of the building contractors be held to account, so presumably they did not get prosecuted. Surely they were partly, if not equally at fault? I would be interested in what other practitioner's might think about this case and the repercussions, negative and positive that might result. Regards Ray

Posted By JAMES MM Ray The question I immediately asked myself is where was the supervisor who allowed this man to handle the blocks? Who has responsibilities for health and safety? We all do. Why did he manual handle blocks so heavy? Where was the manual handling risk assessment and was there no induction to pre warn this man about manual handling? I feel that there was a lot of management who could have stopped this happening if they were doing their job and had basic health and safety knowledge. What we have is a prosecution that shows the failure of everyone in the chain.

Posted By Raymond Rapp Dave and James - could not agree more with all your points. Alec - it is possible that there is more to this particular case than was actually reported. That said, you can only base a judgement on the known facts. Anyway, surely the HSE could have found a better and more serious design offence in order to 'set an example.' What about all those persons that have been killed due to poor design. Ray

Posted By Alec Wood Fully agree Raymond, there probably are many more serious breaches. We can speculate at the reasons for the prosecution, and those for not prosecuting in other instances, but if there was a clear breach then there is a case for prosecution. Speaking personally I hope this prosecution is not the last and that it raises awareness in design circles and leads to the responsibilities enshrined in CDM to be taken seriously by all designers, in turn leading to an overall improvement in the safety of construction workers - I guess we would all have that hope. Alec Wood Samsing Electronics

Posted By Pete Moran Robert..as I understand it the PS can only seek to influence designers in the process with the final responsibility being left to others. I for one am glad to see a prosecution of this type....far too often as a contractor we are asked to do things by a principal contractor that we should not be asked to do simply because those with financial interests at stake further up the CDM line conveniently brush their responsibilities aside. It is then left to us at the bottom of the chain to then engineer controls so that the work can be done safely, quite often at a cost to ourselves where items like blocks need re-specifying.

Posted By ken mosley The HSE recently stated that 70% of accidents in the construction industry have their root cause in the design. With this in mind it is difficult to reconcile that the majority of prosecutions are brought against contractors, usually on the basis of the immediate cause of the accident. This recent prosecution, which I feel will be the first of many, has arisen from the HSEs current initiative on designers. As you probably know last year Nick Rigby and a team of inspectors from the northwest carried out research that identified only a third of designers had sufficient knowledge of CDM to carry out their duties and only 8% had received any training in CDM. There were also other not very complimentary findings of the design fraternity. The incorporation of health and safety into the design process is a skill in short supply. In the 10 years we have had CDM there appears to have been a reluctance by designers to embrace the principles of CDM. Consequently, design is an area which sadly I feel has not adequately improved. Prosecutions are one of the ways that the HSE uses to raise the profile of an issue to achieve improvement.In this particular case I feel they are wholly justified.

Posted By peter gotch Raymond According to one report mitigation pointed out that the designer DID not specify over-sized blocks. In effect he pleaded guilty to an offence by not making positive comment as to a need for the avoidance of the use of "grunters" weighing more than 25kg. Any competent contractor should know this. I think the case would have been much more interesting if the architect had pleaded not guilty, as my guess is that if the case was defended competently in front of a competent bench, HSE would have lost the case. Recent conviction rate in defended HSE prosecutions relatively low, about 60%. Overall conviction rate very high cos virtually everyone pleads guilty for a variety of reasons including the misplaced assumption that all HSE prosecutions must be competent. Regards, Peter.

Posted By ken mosley Mr.Vesma's solicitor claims he did not specify the weight of the blocks. This is not unusual. Mr. Vesma would have specified the size, compressive strength and thermal value of the blocks. This is normal practice by a designer drafting a specification. The PQS would then have taken off the the blockwork and itemised the bill of quantities. What the designer we assume failed to do was check in the suppliers catalogue the weight of the specified blocks and carry out a manual handling risk assessment. This process would have avoided the injuries incurred and the subsequent prosecution. Clause 127(b) of the CDM ACOP states that designers should quote 'specify materials that are easy to handle, eg. lighter weight building blocks'unquote. It cannot get much clearer. In 1994 the RIBA wrote to Philip Oppenheim, the then newly appointed D of E minister, as part of their lobbying stategy on CDM. Their letter stated that 'This august body does not feel it should be encumbered with what has traditionally been the role of contractors, that is to manage safety'. Sadly this archaic attitude still prevails and designers continue to fail on a daily basis to carry out risk assessments. Contractors when they challenge designers on these issues are usually answered with 'we employ competent contractors to sort that out'. Mr. Vesma was lucky his fine was so low. He was ordered under sect.42 of HSWA to undergo training to acquire the skills that the law requires him to have. As he will have to fund the training himself it is assumed this is why the bench levied such a low fine.