Professional advice is sought from fellow H&S practitioners on the following matter that I am attempting to resolve with a public authority (client).

The background:
Facilities services are generally managed in-house and this issue relates primarily to the control of contractors engaged in engineering projects, buildings refurbishment and new build.
In essence the clients’ project managers appoint the principle contractor who then delivers the project.

The facilities department has an estate manager, 3 building project managers and an H&S advisor who manage the above mentioned works.

The project managers initiate the works but do not take ownership of any H&S matters relating to the project. For non F10 notifiable works, all method statements and risk assessments relating to the departments works are sent to the H&S advisor to review for robustness / compliance and the H&S advisor then issues an authorisation for the works to commence.

A competent CDM-C reviews and advises on Construction Phase H&S Plans.

The clients’ project managers having no interest in any of the risk assessments or method statements. Neither do they challenge any of the principle contractors regarding site management or conditions on site when they visit the projects for various reasons.
All H&S matters are the duty of a single H&S advisor.

The argument:
The H&S advisor has proposed the following: That the H&S advisor provides training and support to specified facilities department staff so that they are competent to review contractors’ risk assessments and method statements, to issue Work Authorisations and Hot Works Permits, and to induct contractors to sites.

The Estate manager contests this as …. It transfers responsibility, and potentially work load, to project managers. Secondly it may be argued that there is a conflict of interest if the people being hurried by the organisation to get jobs done are the same people who are authorising H&S matters.

The H&S advisor has argued that H&S compliance is the responsibility of all staff and in particular those who manage projects as they have an overall responsibility to manage all risk associated with the project and when necessary to seek advice and assistance from specific professionals as and when required. This being best / common practice. The H&S advisor to audit, train and support as required.

The facilities director has asked both parties to present a more formidable case for him to make a decision on what direction the organisation should take.

Whilst I go about compiling a response I would be most grateful if anyone could provide further advice and direction.

Regards,
Ed. Tech IOSH

As the FM is in house and procures these works, would say they are acting as and on behalf of client ergo do you think they meet the CDM regulations for clients duties. There seem to be systems in place to meet some requirements apart from who manages/monitors the work whilst it is underway.
Any enforcement would look at duties and practice in place so these need to be robust and cover relevant areas. There is nothing to stop a person wearing a number of hats under CDM as long as competence is proven and time and resource to undertake the roles is available so probably no conflict (maybe politically though).
I think where it could fall down here is the clients role of ensuring and monitoring operations on site, especially if a lengthy job (safety of public etc). Where is the contact with the PC daily/weekly etc to ensure operations are as described within the contract of works or are they 'left to it', as you say a project manager should possibly be undertaking what it says in their title (maybe a look at the job description may help to determine their boundaries).
Although it is the remit of the PC to look after safety on larger jobs the client still needs to know how/what is happening and it is the smaller FM jobs which can be more problematic than a larger job, they need visits for and on behalf of the client as most of these works impinge on peoples working life as it is generally not a fully enclosed area as construction sites.
A difficult one - but the client will retain overall responsibility for these operations as procurer of the works and would need to ensure the missing bits are covered by someone and they as client get to know about it via monitoring reports etc whether external or internal