35. Memorandum submitted by 4 U Recruitment
Ltd
I have received a draft copy of the above Bill
from the CPA, a trade association that our company are members
of.
I am the managing director of a recently established
employment business specialising in providing construction plant
operators throughout the UK. I have worked in the industry since
January 1997, previous to this I was a student in university.
I view myself to be a competent recruiter and expert in my chosen
recruitment field.
As a new business the Bill worries me as to
"where the buck will stop". Our company are members
of both the CPA (Construction Plant Hire Association) and REC
(Recruitment and Employment Confederation) and I am sure that
they will be providing feedback on an issue that has been in debate
now for some time.
I fully understand my responsibilities as the
person responsible for Health and Safety within my organisation
and my premises, but without correct consultation with two industry
sectors that "hire out people" (plant hire included
as the operators are not working on their own employers premises)
I believe that legislation will be passed that will make it impossible
for these two sectors to function properly unless legislation
is clearer on where we stand.
I have copied this memorandum to senior contacts
at both the REC and CPA as the recruitment industry has already
witnessed the McGinley/Balfour Beatty ruling last year that resulted
in a higher fine for the recruitment agency than the main contractor.
While there were clear issues with training and competence of
the poor lad that lost his life, in this case with an inexperienced
person put a severe risk without correct training and instruction
we (recruitment and plant hire) are hiring people to clients every
day without any control or supervision over what happens to them.
All we make sure is that they have received the correct training
and hold the CPCS (Construction Skills Competence Scheme) card
for the plant that they are operating and that satisfactory work
references as to their suitability to the clients requirements
have been properly obtained. There is a danger that so much of
what the Employment Agencies Act Regulations sought to attain
could be taken away in the "grey areas" of health and
safety law.
I have been involved with several near misses
in my time in the industry and on occasion was informed that I
was getting too involved by the client. However no one should
go to work to die. Where do we draw the line on where responsibility
lies? If I hire a plant operator to a client who works on the
side of a canal and ground failure takes place due to the client
failing to carry out an adequate risk assessment and the person
drowns, am I guilty under the Health and Safety at Work Act? It
is not reasonably practicable to ask the main contractor or subcontractor
for every risk assessment before the hire commences. Indeed risk
assessment is an ongoing process as the job changes and develops.
I do not want to shirk my responsibilities.
All I want to know is what they exactly are?
31 March 2005
| 
