Posted By Ciaran McAleenan Arran, Firstly I am encouraged to note that a principal contractor is being proactive in health and safety by vetting any sub-contractors that he intends using in future contracts. I am sure that he is not alone in this process. Whatever your or your clients concerns are at this stage that is a positive point to note. Whether the system he is using is the best available technique is always a debatable point since most of us tend to hold subjective opinion on that one. I gather from your posting, however, is that he is using a system that if applied equally to all prospective sub-contractors should be fair and equitable. I will now address what I understand to be the concerns that you have raised; 1. The principal contractor’s vetting scheme is an internal company matter. The Client (CDM definition) is the person that will ultimately need to be convinced of the competence (technical, safety, financial etc) of the principal contractor and any nominated sub-contractors. Having a vetting scheme in place might help the decision making process but a competent Client will not take it on face value. 2. It is the responsibility of the principal contractor to ensure that he has engaged a competent H&S consultancy to operate the vetting scheme. (Remember that holding IOSH or IIRSM membership does not guarantee H&S competency no more than not holding it proves incompetence). 3. The vetting scheme is a contractual matter between the principal contractor and potential sub-contractors. If any of the sub-contractors feel the H&S consultancy is breaching confidentiality, operating outside of its remit or acting in a manner that creates a conflict of interest they should raise the matter with the principal contractor. Finally for your information the IOSH, the Construction Industry Federation in NI and the major Client organisations (Government Agencies) have been working together for the last couple of years to produce a 3rd party H&S accreditation scheme for contractors. The scheme is well advanced and with any luck will be operational in 2001. This should go a long way towards allaying both your and your clients fears and in the long run the contractor you refer to might find it more cost-effective to use this process. Regards Ciaran mailto: ciaran@confinedspaces.com

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith MIOSH RSP Peter Gotch , Your point is very interesting and I am glad you made it. Our client (Z sub-contractor) has since run a financial check on the vetting consultant Co. (Y) and we have subsequently discovered that in a very short period of trading,(Y) has developed a very interesting financial history. It would certainly be interesting to know if the consultant Co. (Y) now has any Professional Indemnity Insurance . Unfortunately I cannot elaborate on details of this story, however our client has indicated that they certainly will not be handing over the £500 vetting fee. In relation to Ciarans point, The principal contractors vetting scheme is an internal company matter, as the principal contractor is a public listed company, surly this is also going to be a shareholder matter under the Turnbal reforms. Another point Ciaran made, It is the responsibility of the principal contractor to ensure that he has engaged a competent H&S consultancy to operate the vetting scheme, however in this case it does not appear to have been adequately undertaken. I am aware that H&S consultancy vetting is now a growing industry and I am also aware that there are a growing number virtual H&S consultancy who dont directly employ any Health and Safety Practitioners, but sub-contract all their work out. If I were a solicitor, this type of practice is prohibited under the Law Societies Solicitors Practice Rules. Unfortunately any-one can call themselves H&S consultants. Has CDM now moved on to another chapter, where the sub-contractor has now to vet the competence of principal contractors vetting sub-contractor, before they submit themselves to being vetted for sub-contractor competence. Interesting.

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith Allan, You hit the nail right on the head with this one, however it was a big name in construction with their own safety department which fell for this particular scheme. Sub-contracting, sub-contractor or contractor vetting appears to be a new growing industry and I have also discovered one local authority undertaking this practice. Anything outside the scope of your famous text book, like OHSAS 18001 Certification completely throws them. On one famous occasion, I saw one contractor rejected via one of these schemes because as they quoted, "there is no such thing as BS 8800". On another occasion I saw a contractor being asked to submit COSHH hazard data sheets. Also, what VDU assessments have you undertaken? What is a Statutory Instrument? In terms of your list of overheads, you did not mention the Professional Indemnity Insurance which they are very unlikly to have. Interesting and frustrating, it is and we cannot win !

Posted By ken Parker In responce to my last message my apologise for the failure of my spell checker. I didn't use it.i am not trying to be predantict, rude, smart or anything else. this forum for up and coming H&SC personnel can notbe beaten. My main gripe is about que jumping and the way that some of the professionals / gurus treat it at the expence of us lesser qualified people who just want to learn. Usining the web can be expensive whilst you are still studying to be competent/ qualified.I don't like having to go through threads time and again that I have been through because of que jumping.

Posted By peter gotch Ralph, You will find guidance in Reports 172 and 173 published by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) "CDM Regulations - Practical guidance for clients and clients' agents" "CDM Regulations - Practical guidance for planning supervisors" An example questionnaire was deliberately not included in these Reports as they are trying to make the point that enquiries should be horses for courses. Seasons greetings, Peter.