Higher risk workplaces


This cross-cutting theme is now closed for comments.

You can read comments made since the start of the Red Tape Challenge in April 2011 below.

You can also still submit comments to the Red Tape Challenge inbox by clicking here.

These regulations aim to protect those working in industries such as construction, waste and recycling and certain areas of manufacturing, as they may be at higher risk of accidents.

You can find all 15 regulations that relate to higher risk workplaces here [opens in new window].

You can find all the regulations that relate to Higher risk workplaces below to the left.

Agriculture (Metrication) Regulations 1981

These regulations amend agricultural legislation by substituting metric units for Imperial units.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act 1956 (Repeals and Modifications) Regulations 1975

These regulations are largely repealed except for provisions relating to the creation of offences, the conduct of inquests and the making of the Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) Regulations 1974.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) (Amendment) Regulations 1990

These regulations impose requirements for new tractors to have an approved safety cab.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) Regulations 1974

These regulations revoke and consolidate earlier legislation regarding the fitting of safety cabs to tractors.

Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007

These regulations impose duties on clients and contractors in relation to construction work.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989

These regulations require that suitable head protection is provided to and worn by those working in construction.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Diving at Work Regulations 1997

These regulations impose requirements and prohibitions on diving contractors.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Docks Regulations 1988

These regulations impose health, safety and welfare requirements with respect to dock operations.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Docks, Shipbuilding etc (Metrication) Regulations 1983

These regulations substitute metric units for imperial units.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Freight Containers (Safety Convention) Regulations 1984

These Regulations require owners, lessees and others in control of freight containers used at work to comply with conditions of use.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Health and Safety (Agriculture) (Miscellaneous Repeals and Modifications) Regulations 1976

The regulations are a consequence of the amendment of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 by the Employment Protection Act 1975 and transfer responsibility for farm safety to the HSE from MAFF (Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) (or in Scotland, from the Secretary of State).

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Health and Safety (Foundries etc) (Metrication) Regulations 1981

These regulations have no effect as the provisions in the various regulations to which these regulations applied have been revoked.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Loading and Unloading of Fishing Vessels Regulations 1988

These regulations are intended to ensure that fishing vessels have safe means of access and are safe places of work.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Non-ferrous Metals (Melting and Founding) Regulations 1962

These regulations impose safety requirements on the casting of metals into moulds.

Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes (Amendment) Regulations 2010

These regulations amend the Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations 2010 to correct a drafting error.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations 2010

These regulations require an employer to notify HSE of the erection of a conventional tower crane on a construction site within 14 days of its initial thorough examination.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Prevention of Accidents to Children in Agriculture Regulations 1998

These Regulations prohibit the riding by a child on certain classes of vehicle or machine used in agricultural operations.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing Regulations 1960

These regulations impose safety requirements in relation to shipbuilding and ship-repairing.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Work in Compressed Air Regulations 1996

These Regulations impose requirements and prohibitions with respect to the health, safety and welfare of persons who work in compressed air.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:

163 responses to Higher risk workplaces

  • M Newland said on July 16, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    Working on the client side of smaller construction projects it all seems to be about paper work and paper work in its self never saved anybody from harm. The paper work is just a trail to use for audit, especially if something does go astray. I am finding that industry vested interests in promoting H&S consultancy and the alike now start to look for near incidents as we have become proficient at avoiding accidents. All the KPIs look too good so lets raise the bar and see what else we can catch people out on in H&S terms.

    H&S in most work places is simply a matter of common sense and proper controls, most workers do not want to injur themseleves so the focus should be on high risk industries and work roles and employesr who put their workers at risk through coercion and veiled threats etc.

    The cost of the H&S regulatory compliance in the UK must be collossal, it adds avoidable cost to almost all construction projects. We may wonder why it costs an excessive amounts to undertake simple works it could be because no one is allowed to step off the ground to undertake any work with out a ream of paperwork and some handrailed podium device.

    Simplify all the H&S regs and keep the in depth stuff to the workers and industries that need it which is not that many.

  • Vince Butler said on July 15, 2011 at 10:36 pm

    I didn’t finish my last post but touched the ‘submit’ button by mistake, this continues my previous point:

    As I was going to state, accidents are: “Unplanned, uncontrolled events that cause harm or have to potential to…..”

    Harm in a safety and health at work context is: “any injury or loss or damage to people, to the environment, to assets or to reputation.

    In order to reduce the opportunity to have an unplanned, uncontrolled event (an ‘accident’) it is reasonable to state we need a plan and to keep control.

    In any business function, be it finance, personnel, purchasing, logistics, customer care, projects, whatever function you could choose; having a plan and keeping control simply has to be the key to success. Safety management is no more nor less important than any other business function.

    A simple question: is safety expensive? The depiction this Red Tape Challenge and Lufsteadt Review are advocating is yes safety is expensive, that is why the web page photos and the “we act to get rid” statements are made.

    In actual fact ‘danger’ is expensive, safety is a pretty efficient method to run ones business or undertaking as quite simply it is about having a plan and keeping control.

    A poor or no plan and loss of control is dangerous, look what happened in the world banking collapse and some of the worst corporate failures in history.

    The plan I elude to is derived from the reasonable application of the UK’s pyramid of laws, ACoPs, guidance, industry standards, company policies down to site risk assessment worker engagement & involvement.

    No magic, nothing complicated, engage The right comptency and workers – have a plan and keep control.

  • Vince Butler said on July 15, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    I didn’t finish my last post but touched the ‘submit’ button by mistake, this continues my previous point:

    As I was going to state, accidents are: “Unplanned, uncontrolled events that cause harm or have to potential to…..”

    Harm in a safety and health at work context is: “any injury or loss or damage to people, to the environment, to assets or to reputation.

    In order to reduce the opportunity to have an unplanned, uncontrolled event (an ‘accident’) it is reasonable to state we need a plan and to keep control.

    In any business function, be it finance, personnel, purchasing, logistics, customer care, projects, whatever function you could choose; having a plan and keeping control simply has to be the key to success. Safety management is no more nor less important than any other business function.

    A simple question: is safety expensive? The depiction this Red Tape Challenge and Lufsteadt Review are advocating is yes safety is expensive, that is why the web page photos and the “we act to get rid” statements are made.

    In actual fact ‘danger’ is expensive, safety is a pretty efficient method to run ones business or undertaking as quite simply it is about having a plan and keeping control.

    A poor or no plan and loss of control is dangerous, look what happened in the world banking collapse and some of the worst corporate failures in history.

    The plan I elude to is derived from the reasonable application of the UK’s pyramid of laws, ACoPs, guidance, industry standards, company policies down to site risk assessment worker engagement & involvement.

    No magic, nothing complicated, engage workers – have a plan and keep control.

  • Vince Butler said on July 15, 2011 at 10:01 pm

    Misconceptions, poorly presented initiatives & reviews, political dogma and the market will decide what is best. Unreasonable, insensitive and very badly timed. Red Tape & Lufstedt aren’t setting a fair and balanced view. The photos used in the web front pages depict being swamped by documents, legislation and unneccesary paperwork. The emphasis seems to be that reasonably looking after workers is a bad thing when quite simply what is needed is have a plan and keep control.

    Safety management isn’t difficult or complicated and there isn’t any mystique to it. We are trying to avoid accidents at work; in it’s simplest

  • alan said on July 15, 2011 at 8:07 am

    Very simple Refocus the HSE to educate not just procecute.They are hell bent on pushing small companies to the wall with more and more rules and regs.The big companies have the resources and legal expertise to stop HSE Prosecution whilst the small busineses are vunrulable.
    Corperate man slaughter is a freightner for all concerned.

    • Terry Pike said on July 15, 2011 at 9:23 pm

      Sorry Alan, the only way to make people comply with the regs is to prosecute (i.e. speed cameras). The problem is that most prosecutions only occur after a fatality or really serious breach of the regs which is why companies get hit hard. If companies (both big and small) realised they couldn’t get away with anything there would be very few serious occurences to be prosecuted. The regs and guidance allows for smaller companies to manage H & S proportionately.

      Corporate Manslaughter only applies to “corporate” companies (not one man bands and partnerships) and shouldn’t frighten any company that oporates within the legislation.

  • Jonathan Andrew said on July 14, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    Withthe inclusion of construction, agriculture, forestry, it goes to show how not having enough HSE inspectors to enforce this legislation the fatalities and major injuries will continue to be the highest in any industry. We as a nation should be striving to be the best at keeping people safe while at work, and not mke the business of making huge profits a priority

  • Jim Kirkby said on July 14, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    The Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2007.
    I work for a global organisation that has tried very hard in the last few years to introduce a step change in H&S culture by introducing IIF / IFE.
    Every time there is a fatality in some part of our global activity, we have a global stand-down to be informed and to comment on the cause of the fatality (and to show respect to the lost colleague).
    What strikes me about most of these stand-downs is that a very high proportion of the incidents seem to stem from changes to approved methods of working, or complacency in going about routine activities. I therefore believe that CDM should be revised to include some sections making it mandatory to assess and control change to agreed working methods on site and also to introduce compulsory re-induction stages during a project to counter the effects of complacency in routine activities.

    • Vince Butler said on July 14, 2011 at 9:27 pm

      Jim, well put.

      Projects just starting, just finishing, moving from one distinct phase to another or the dynamics change for many reasons are the elevated risk situations.

      As soon as one goes ‘off plan’ then catastrophe is never far away.

      When reviewing low consequence – high probability safety events a common denominator is often:- last day at site, or last day before going off on holiday leave – being preoccupied with something else on the workers mind is a significant contributory factor.

      High consequence – low probability events and catastrophe has it’s embryo in lack of planning and loss of control often in multiples. One problem solved is another created often with control running away.

      Any project, even of modest size, risk and value that gets 20% behind the critical path timeline must have personal involvement of the Principal Contractors most senior directors to input governance and accountability to lead the plan and keep control.

      Human Factors play the most significant part when it is site project management that allows workers and contractors to improvise, short cut and don’t put the intellect into activity and coordination.

      Competence & resources assessments undertaken really simply, NOT 50 page pre-qualification questionnaires (PQQ’s) help significantly.

  • Teresa Wellwood said on July 14, 2011 at 10:14 am

    The Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2007. The construction work we carry out comes under these regulations and we often assume the role of Principal Contractor. These regulations are far too complicated and involve too much paperwork for the type of work we do i.e. groundworks, installing play equipment and surfacing. We find that clients and CDM co-ordinators demand excessive paperwork from us but often, they omit to provide us with the basic information such as pre-construction plans etc. We need simpler regulations for Minor Works because at the moment, we might as well be building skyscrapers as the level of questionnaire completion, on-site forms etc. is the same! Simplify these regulations.

    • ron hunter said on July 14, 2011 at 11:18 pm

      Teresa, the issues you describe are the fault of your Client and his other appointments (CDM-C) and not the Regulations themselves?

    • Terry Pike said on July 15, 2011 at 9:39 pm

      You’re right Ron, Teresa I suggest you read L144 cover to cover and then hsg259 the regs allow for smaller companies. In fact you should be managing H & S in the same way as any large company but to a lesser extent. The regs are right they are just being over interpereted.

  • Mark Emmerson said on July 13, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    No changes required.

  • Charles Wheeler said on July 13, 2011 at 11:33 am

    Since the implementation of CDM there has generally been a far greater involvement and interest in undertaking tasks safely on site. Whether this is due to CDM or not is difficult to determine but it appears that this regulation is working and working well.
    There are STILL too many individuals and even companies that want to do tasks cheaper and are happy to compromise safety to do this. CDM is one of the ways that keeps them in check.
    The down side is that there is still not enough enforcement and consequentially short cuts are still used to price work leaving those that price in the right way of doing it exposed in competitive bidding processes.
    MORE ENFORCEMENT PLEASE

  • Vince Butler said on July 12, 2011 at 8:50 pm

    Relevant, specific, valuable and proportional (RSVP) must be the test applied to documentation produced in order to comply.
    Several comments within these posts suggest reams of paperwork, the fact is if this is the case, someone must be doing something wrong.
    The CDM ’07 ACoP L144 in particular almost begs and implores duty holders to avoid excess paperwork like the plague. Competence & Resources and the right information to the right people at the right time is with the RSVP test applied is key.
    CDM ’07 Regulation 19 Contractors Notifiable Projects I suspect is breached in almost every circumstance and project ever undertaken in the UK. This needs the duty holder to communicate to contractors other duty holders and relevant parts of the construction safety plan which includes the time allocated to plan and prepare for construction. The regulation prevents the contractor from undertaking any work until they have been provided with the information listed in it. It simply doesn’t happen.
    The death rate suggested in several posts below is primarily down to inadequate planning and loosing control. Often managers, supervisors and those with influence and control at site look on whilst workers and contractors take risks, improvise and violate, the facts are some in charge openly encourage it.
    Risk Assessments and Method Statements (RAMS) seldom if ever have any relevance to the task being undertaken, the prevailing site work environment and the significant hazards, risks and dangers present. Again the test has to be RSVP when these documents are created and briefed propely to those they affect.
    Too much reliance is placed on operatives, craftsmen, workers and contractors using PPE when this last resort risk control never ever prevented an accident. Yes the seriousness of injuries may be reduced but not the prevention of the accident in the first place.
    Movement of the CDM coordinator duty away from the design and architectural profession across to the safety profession will help, the CDM ’94 Planning Supervisor role was an utter failure, CDMc isn’t much better.
    This new situation was suggested in the first draft of the amended CDM regulations and ACoP in around 2004, however, not in the final ACoP. There is a requirement that CDMc must have some formal safety qualifications suggested at NEBOSH National Construction Certificate which hasn’t happened by and large.
    The APS institution is definitely helping along with IOSH, however, the situation needs accellerating.

    • Dingayo Mzyece said on July 13, 2011 at 12:29 pm

      Vince, great threads of thought you’ve put up! The argument however is that risk should be dealt with at source, right? If so, do we need to go back to the ‘drawing board’ as often as possible during the construction phase? However, Regulations 14 implores on the client to maintain the CDMc and Principal Contractor until the end of the construction phase. What about designers; are they less important? What are your views on this?

  • Dingayo Mzyece said on July 12, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    The direct question that needs to be answered is “what achievement the CDM Regulations have made in the past 16 years? If the Client ensures that competent people manage the project, what then is the cause of accidents? It seems to me that it’s all ‘work in progress’ because lives are still being lost on construction sites. One wonders whether a fine is a lesson enough for history not to repeat itself. It’s sad that we seem not to look at the bigger picture to address the flaws in managing safety. Clearly the CDM regulations may have had very little influence to impede zero accidents in the construction industry. The brutal fact is that ‘one death is too many’ borrowing from Rita Donaghys (2009) report.

    • Vince Butler said on July 13, 2011 at 8:45 pm

      Dingayo, designers – well where do we start?

      The greatest volume of useless verbage comes from those with arguably the highest level of academic achievement in construction.

      There is some really useful, practical and sensible information freely available in the Safety in Design Guides and the HSE’s RED-AMBER-GREEN lists well supported by APS publications and other links on HSE’s construction website. Evidence of the really pragmatic and simple solutions being applied is often a struggle to recognise.

      What is said is no one really questions the recipies of design: the ingredients being a bit of building regs, a sprinkle of British Standards and hey presto! we have a design.

      The application of the Workplace (HS&W) Regulations 1992 doesn’t often sit comfortably with building regs and BS’s, in fact some directly contradict one another.

      Generally speaking construction safety practice is missed from a significant number of higher education syllabus, over time the situation improves. The main reason why still today we see commentary from designers stating the “Contractor will produce a method statement” to undertake some horror installation or maintenance activity directly as a result of a design decision, the consequence not recognised by CDMc.

      Do you kow we still have brand new buildings commissioned in 2011 with a light fitting over the stairs needing a scaffold built to change a light bulb, fact! Within construction, we also have immense amounts of roof mounted plant because of lack of ground space on the building footprint with no edge protection – the reason the designers and consultants forgot to include it when requesting planning…… No one will take on planners so we end up with a less safe option and massively more expensive to maintain safely.

      Whole life costing is a mechanism needing more work and intellect and maybe even an amendment to reg 11 of CDM ’07.

      Generally speaking and maybe being too simplistic; if a structure or building has a virtually zero cost to maintain, I expect it is safe to maintain, hence a small cost.

      As a rule of thumb, the more a building and it’s support services cost to maintain over it’s life, the less safe it probably is.

      Thanks or the opportunity to make the designer point.

  • John Angle said on July 12, 2011 at 11:21 am

    No change necessary

  • Simon Hunter said on July 12, 2011 at 10:45 am

    Health and safety legislation should be clear, concise and for want of a better phrase, idiot proof. Currently it is not. Reams of paper cross my desk every day that is (allegedly) meant to make the constructions sites that we work on safer places. It doesn’t because it doesn’t communicate well to the average worker on site. Make it simple and relevant

    • Red Tape Challenger said on July 12, 2011 at 11:24 am

      Thank you for your comment Simon. Making health and safety legislation more effective is one of the aims of this consultation and we would welcome your ideas on how this could be done. It would be helpful if you could suggest changes to specific legislation that you consider would make it more effective.

  • Carole Saunders said on July 11, 2011 at 10:03 am

    No change required

  • Sarah Davidson said on July 9, 2011 at 8:00 pm

    With regard to work being undertaken in prvate households, I believe that the requirement for P certificates for electrical wiring is onerous on the householder and afford the home owner with an additional cost burnden for certification, especially in the undertaking of the simpliest wiring jobs.
    Before this legal requirment home owners always made and assesment of their own competenecies and those employed to undertake work on their behalf and this P cert requirment now take this a step too far.

    • Red Tape Challenger said on July 11, 2011 at 4:07 pm

      Sarah.
      Thank you for your helpful comments about Part P certificates. These requirements are made under the Building Regulations and have not been included as part of the health and safety at work Red Tape Challenge as they deal with building integrity and not occupational hazards. Your comments will be passed on to the Department of Communities and Local Government who’s regulations will be in the Red Tape Challenge spotlight later in the year.”

  • Mr G Wilkinson said on July 9, 2011 at 10:41 am

    Building Regulations and CDM Regulations could be combined / replaced by a single new Building Act that covers all new building projects/building work. The act could build on the SSBA role of the appointed person who would supervise regulatory compliance on behalf of the client and would be a licensed role. Once an appointed person was in place the HSE and LA would not be involved freeing up limited resources to concentrate on those flouting the rules. The act could also cover the need to have a fire risk assessment in place once occupied – possibly allowing the repeal of the regulatory reform fire safety order. Finally a requirement for new buildings/building work to have a 10 year warranty with a need for 5 year building MOTs thereafter would ensure that buildings were maintained and boilers, electrical systems etc where checked and even that recommendations of EPCs where acted upon. So there we have it withdraw all current rules and regs and have one simplified BUILDING ACT that covers all work at all stages from inception to demolition including in-use and maintenance supervised by Appointed/Competent persons and enforced where necessary by LA/HSE.

  • Mr Gruffydd Price said on July 8, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    I am an architect and liaise on construction projects with CDM duty holders. The HSE approach is commendable and gurdance I have recived is always useful and appropriate. The main problem is badly trained CDM co-ordinators and advisors. They hide behind reams of generic H & S information to hide their ignorance and their fear of prosecution.Nobody reads the various statutory documents produced by them so potentially valuable information may be missed. On the other hand, I find many contractors have good awareness and procedures.
    I have been to courses put on by local authorities and again find an appalling ignorance leading to erronious advice. The key is training in my view with a focus on more intelligent assessment of hazards and less paperwork.

    • David Jones said on July 9, 2011 at 7:26 am

      The original concept of CDM was that it should be a ‘competence’ not a ‘profession’ and I recall Stuart Natrass and Kevin Meyers made that point right at the start. Things went wrong from the start when a small band of architects formed a company and created a profession. The rest of the industry simply left CDM to those ‘professionals?’ and the rest is history ~ except for the fact that the Carpenter Report actually named the organisations that the HSE then listed in the CDM ACoP Appendix 4 and appointing client think represents ‘competent if listed’ ??? ~ need to get back to basics, drop all the listings, strengthen the criteria, ensure anyone who operates in the industry is trained and can actually prove they meet the criteria, and train all clients to know how to check competence or, if they are a niaive client they must seek appropriate trained advice.
      On your point about LA training, some robust online training in 30 modules of holistic learning on CDM competence is available at http://www.CDM2007.org and this is now developed into the new CDM Award which is a QCF Level 4 National Accredited …

    • James Ritchie said on July 11, 2011 at 2:36 pm

      David Jones makes an interesting point regarding competence of CDM-Cs. To correct David, Stuart Nattrass actually said that the CDM-C role should be a ‘function’ rather than a ‘profession’ and things did not go wrong when a small band of architects formed a company but this is not the forum for discussing that viewpoint. A profession has never been formed and most people would agree that the role of the CDM-C still is a ‘function’. The majority of CDM Co-ordinators actually undertake a different role as their main job, be it an architect, engineer, QS, contractor or whatever. The problem is with Clients not appointing competent Registered CDM-C’s who have been ‘assessed’ against a proven standard such as the National Occupational Standard for CDM Co-ordination. Endless ‘self assessment online training’ does not actually prove any real competence to undertake the role well, merely an knowledge of ‘what it says in the book’.
      There is no substitute for real hands-on experience, knowledge and understanding of the construction industry.

    • Terry Pike said on July 15, 2011 at 9:10 pm

      Agreed Gruffydd. I found that when I was a contracts manager for a principle contractor the CDM-Cs were not in my view particularly competent or pro-active (with some exceptions). They were mostly worried about some small wording in the endless documents requested from the PC and once they had extracted a policy, old risk assessments and training lists and a construction phase plan you never heard from them again. On the other hand now I’m a CDM-C myself I notice the clients aren’t particularly interested in reading the documentation which is why I insist on a face to face meeting with a copy of L144 and the benefit of my years in construction and insist on site visits through the construction phase. PCs often just let you know what you want to hear so a decent meeting to qauge attitude often exceeds any information you get in the riems of paper PCs feel obliged to supply (I used to try to bury CCM-Cs in paper). I also agree contractors are often more than competent to do what they are good at

      The regs actually state that the CDM-Cs role is not to create unnecessary paperwork, perhaps this should be stated in bold type on page 1. None of this is particularly the fault of the regs but again interpretation and attitude perhaps the guidance should be altered to make it clear that competence involves experience and training and not paper.

  • Ivor Saxby said on July 8, 2011 at 4:55 pm

    Reduce the legislative burden on Storage Mines. At the moment Storage Mines suffer the full impact of legislation brought in for the coal mining industry. Coal mines are intrinsically hazardous and making ground as the coal face moves forward is an extreemely dangerous occupation. Storage mines use redundant mines to store material, they do not extract minerial which means that the hazard factor is much lower than extractive mines.

    If redundant mines were not used for storage they would become playgrounds for those who want to “explore” dangerous environments. Those who resurect these places deserve to have a reduced legislative burden to allow them to progress.

  • simon w finney said on July 8, 2011 at 7:57 am

    First – I am not in favour of these on-line surveys because the sponsor will receive such a wide range of views they can choose the comments that support their original view!
    Second – all corrent H&S legislation has developed over many years, it has developed because there was a need, it has developed because people were being killed whilst trying to earn a living and it has developed because people were being killed and injured because of the actions of themselves and others. We must fight to keep these laws and regulations to protect people at work. Third – bureucracy could be tidied up a little but as stated earlier, it’s there because a need was identified. Enforcement is not burdensome – health and safety is not a burden! Come on – what a loaded question!!! Finally , “should they be left as they are?! Answer – YES

    • Andy said on July 11, 2011 at 11:51 am

      My biggest gripe about effective health and safety management is the fact that the pound still rules. There are a lot of SME companies out there who are trying to do the right thing by health and safety and ensure they implement all control measures as far as reasonably practicable to protect people. Unfortunately not all companies do and most often than not it is these “chancers” who win the business. Some clients are still looking to get the job done and often don’t care how it is done as long as it is on or below budget. I would like to see projects being priced on an even playing field with regard to health and safety with minimum standards being set from the outset by the clients CDM co-ordinator based on legislative requirements and hierarchy of controls. If all companies were told what health and safety they must provide as a minimum then I believe this would eracicate a lot of the “chancers” out there and provide a safer workplace for construction people.

Bookmark and Share