The sad death of a demolition worker on a Mayfair project last month came shortly after warnings that construction’s fatal accident rate, which had maintained a straight line on the graph in the downturn years, was at risk of rising. Baroness Donaghy, author of the One death too many report, voiced concerns in The Observer that an influx of inexperienced site workers, plus the commercial and staffing pressures of a rising market, could soon impact on the accident rate.
Let’s hope these warnings, previously raised by the HSE’s chief construction inspector Heather Bryant and construction unions, are timely reminders of the constant need to improve safety rather than accurate premonitions. But even if the fatality rate resists the impact of higher output, 34-year-old father of two Dainius Rupsys still represents just one week in the current toll of one death a week.
Rupsys was killed on a central London project, a £250m residential conversion where McGee was on site (its website carries the ill-timed news that it is due to receive a RoSPA 2014 Gold award for occupational health and safety). And as with the death in November of Richard Laco on Laing O’Rourke’s Francis Crick Institute site, the national news media was there. On the afternoon the accident occurred, the Evening Standard was reporting in real-time, the Daily Mirror ran a live blog, and the story was picked up by the Huffington Post.
With today’s apps, news of Rupsys’s death would have reached, unprompted on millions of tablets and smartphones, people with no connection to construction, reinforcing their opinion that the industry is dangerous, and going to work there a risk-laden lottery. As a factor influencing individual’s career decisions, and those of teachers, parents and relatives, a widely-reported fatality like this can undermine all the gains the industry is making in promoting itself as a positive career choice.
It also happened on a major site, despite the much-quoted statistic that 70% of construction fatalities happen on smaller sites (defined by the HSE as less than 15 workers). It might be that the industry’s major challenge lies on raising safety standards on smaller sites, but the major reputational risk lies in high-profile sites that focus media attention.
So where does that leave the CDM 2015 revisions? It’s hard to see that reshuffling roles and responsibilities will have much direct effect on driving down accident rates: what CDM 2007 couldn’t achieve is unlikely to become easier next year. On the sub-15 worker sites that are now subject to CDM, there will be a new regime of construction phase plans, and additional responsibilities for contractors. The fear is this won’t add up to more than a paper exercise. That said, CDM 2015 – backed by Fees for Intervention – is the only new safety initiative in town. But is it enough?
Elaine Knutt, editor
