Charlie Hutchison's letter (NCE last week) prompts me to write in support of Robert Benaim's eminently sensible and, in today's HSE/CDM obsessed climate, brave letter (NCE 3 June).
I may have missed it in the current correspondence on designer safety responsibility, but one thing does not seem to have been brought out, although Benaim hints at it.
That is, the form of procurement has the major influence on the roles and responsibilities of the parties to the contract and their professional advisors.
One only needs to consider differences between, say, design and construct procurement and traditional ICE or similar standard forms.
It seems illogical to apply a 'one size fits all approach' to the extent of a designer's responsibilities for construction safety. Benaim is absolutely right to say, in effect, that the designer's responsibilities must be consistent with his or her ability to influence and control the construction process. I cannot see why Hutchison should take issue with this perfectly logical argument.
Chris Lilley (M), The Tile House, 10 Burts Lane, Long Crendon, Bucks, HP18 9AJ