Posted By Robin V Boughton
Of course 'Risk Assessment' contributes to health and safety. It is not 'rocket science' as every individual in this world undertakes many risk assessment as they navigate their way through an often dangerous environment that is called life. Regulation three of the MHSAWRegs requires that only significant risks are assessed and the identified control measures implemented.
It is the mis-interpretation of what is 'significant' that causes the problem in what is a systematic approach to managing hazards wether inherent or introduced to the workplace.Having to follow a defined protocol makes people stop and think about what they are doing and that must contribute to their's and others safety.
I have seen risk assessment for really trivial mundane tasks that are not necessary and tend to give the whole process a bad name in terms of both the 'value' and the cost.
The first question in any assessment process should be is this hazard significant in terms of its possible effects. Forget backside covering by including everything it is not necessary!
Hope this helps!

Posted By Raymond Rapp
I think you will find that the term 'significant' risk was in the original 1992 Regualtions and has been ommitted in the revised 1999 Regs and probably not by an oversight. Even the HSE are aware of possible litigation for failing to provide appropriate legislation. Hence of one my arguments that risk assessments have 'lost' the intended concept.

I agree far too many minor risks are now included, but perhaps for good reason. In the case of Griffiths v Vauxhall Motors(2003)the company were found to be in breach of Reg 3 MHSW Regs for failing to provide a suitable and sufficient RA on a piece of equipment. Most would argue that the equipment would have been considered to be a minor risk. Sadly, we are living in a 'claim and blame' era, and it appears to me that h&s is caught up in it. In common parlance it is known by the acronym ACE (and the A does not stand for anatomy...)

Ray

Posted By Geoff Burt
Ray

I wasn't aware 'significant' had been dropped from the regs, indeed I wasn't aware it was there in the first place.

The words 'suitable & sufficient' are used.

You may be getting mixed up with the guidance & ACoP where it uses (still uses!) the words ' insignificant risks can be ignored'. Which means only 'significant' risks need to be looked at.

Whilst a small number of people risk assess everything in sight the vast majority treat the topic as it should be ie proportionate to the risk. And, importantly, the level of risk .... should determine the degree of sophistication.

My experience points to risk assessment as being an invaluable tool - in the right hands. You'll always get the ones going OTT - frequently on this forum!

Geoff

Posted By k p connor
We all know that there seems no place for common sense in health and safety in recent years. The developing science of risk assessment using statistics, human reliabilty etc. is enlarging the problem. The basic concept surely must be to be proactive in identifying, and preventing serious hazards becoming an accidents. I would agree certain over reactions to minor hazards are becoming an overload on the systems. I was once asked to carry out, and write a RA and procedure for a fitter of numerous years experience, to flatten a small piece of metal plate with a hammer. I concluded that the main hazard was where the hammer would end up after presenting the fitter with the procedure.

Posted By Mike Miller
Yeh! and Shipman Hung himself Thats good too! Just Need Huntley and Carr to do the same. Just a thought!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted By Geoff Burt
You'll give yourself a headache Ray!

Posted By Ian Waldram
There seems to have been much discussion so far on the paperwork - but that isn't the actual risk assessment, merely the 'record of significant findings'.

In a very recent HSE training package on Slips/Trips there are the wise words "Its the action as a result of the risk assessment process that matters". I know lots of people will be able to quote Inspectors who behave as if the paperwork is the most important thing, but really it isn't!

Posted By John Allen
To get back to the original question risk assessment was an important step forward when it was introduced. For years as a safety practitioner I was asked "We are going to do X. You tell us if it's safe." Usually I had no idea what X was and wheter or not it was safe. Now the people who create the risk have to sit down and work out what it is and what the control measures are. This was Robens original idea if you can remember back that far.

Since the Regs came into force two things have happened. Firstly the diligent employers have assessed all the "significant" risks and some have moved on to the insignificant risks and this is what has given the process a bad name.

Unfortunately the majority of employers have done nothing at all. I am still asked to investigate accidents where clear and very significant risks have not been assessed at all. Occaisionally the risk has been assessed but poorly and the risk assessment locked away in a drawer and not shown to the person at risk, far less ask him to get involved in assessing it.

Of course the latter is unreported by the media who would far rather publicise "safety going over the top" than "employee needlessly injured by failing to assess and control the most obvious of risks".

Hopefully the attachment of civil liability to reg 3 will help to improve the situation. the simple fact is that despite the claims made in the media and repeated parrot fashion in most bars we do not live in a "claim culture". People are still being injured in circumstances that could be prevented and if they do claim at all their compensation is typically low and does not meet the full cost of their losses.

Posted By Nigel Hammond
I was the Risk Assessment Officer for the Corporation of London. It was my job to advise, train and give a big push on risk assessments.

Directors who thought risk assessments were a waste of time proved they were a waste of time. Those who thought they were useful proved they were useful!

It's like many things in life - if you embrace something with energy and enthusiasm, you are likely to get something positive out of it. If you take a negative outlook you'll set everything up to fail.

I am concerned that if us health & safety advisers take a sceptical or cynical outlook on the basic tools of health & safety, then how do we stand a chance of motivating non-health & safety professionals?

Posted By Sean Fraser
There's another element to risk that we often seem to miss out, highlighted by Eddie Newall's request - attitude to risk.

How many of us consider the human element beyond training? The hazard remains the same - the risk controls adopted are usually based on the unconscious presumption that those involved are going to apply good sense when working. However, if we had three people doing a task and all were ultra cautious, then the risk is reduced without any further interventions. If we had three chronic gamblers (over-exageration for illustrative purposes only!) who have a laissez-faire attitude to risk, then it is significantly increased. Add to that the general understanding of risk and hazard perception, and off we go again.

The problem comes back to adequate understanding and practical application of knowledge - if people do what they are told to believing that it is safe as a result, they aren't questioning why we do it that way. But if they understand what the hazards are, and are constantly challenging the why and not the how things are done, then we will all work together to make the workplace and activities safer for everyone.

Over-documentation might look good on the surface - but we all know it isn't used and therefore isn't effective. A thourough understanding of "why" would alleviate the perceived necessity of alot of what we write down.

After all, as has already been pointed out, the first and only thing a Risk Assessment really needs is - before you start, think!

Posted By Fiona Cowan
Once again, is it not a case of commitment from the top being important in helping create a culture of acceptance of the value of the process of risk assessment in an on-going and active manner.

It might be extremely difficult to get managers to commit real time and effort to carrying out risk assessments etc where findings are dismissed by very senior powers as safety once again takes a budget cut and the same managers see safety as someone else's job.

Your point about different managers making a difference is extremely valid Nigel. In recent training courses, the committment of the manager can be seen at worker level for example in sections where all staff know where and how to refer to risk assessments and others where the esitance of such documents let alone their relevence is unheard of.

Posted By Wilf Archer
Great question.

I think everyone agrees that a ‘suitable and sufficient’ Risk Assessments MUST be an active part of every job. However the determination of suitable and sufficient is a totally subjective decision based on the perception of the person carrying out the risk assessment. Unfortunately when something goes wrong ‘suitable and sufficient’ is determined by everyone else. So in the interest of self preservation the original author of the risk assessment tries to make sure that all bases are covered. This unfortunately creates a tome of paperwork and the risk assessments tend to take a life of their own and grow exponentially. This then creates another problem because there is an inverse proportionality between the number of sheets of paper to the risk assessment and its likely benefit to the workforce. In one organisation I needed a COSHH Assessment for the dust exposure blown off the Risk Assessment file box as I was sure it exceeded the 10mg/m3 exposure for airborne particulates. :-)

In order to overcome the problem of shelves full of dusty multi-paged and detailed risk assessments not being read I produced a 1 to 2 page Pick and Mix Risk Control system. This had the advantage of the supervisor/workforce picking out relevant Generic Task related documents that combined to cover the entire job i.e. Putting up the Christmas decorations in the local High Street required several documents to be assembled – (Working in a Public Thoroughfare; Working at Height; Use of Elevated Work Platforms; Work in Adverse Weather; etc). The accumulated documents highlighted the controls and specific consideration necessary to perform the job safely. They also formed the basis for the manager’s toolbox talk.

The advantage is that the documents can be assembled to create a specific risk assessment that is not only suitable and sufficient but also up to date.

So in answer to the question:
Do risk assessments actually contribute towards health and safety or have they become nothing more than 'paper safety' exercise?

Yes Risk Assessments do contribute to health and safety if the workforce consider them relevant but they very often become just a paper exercise if they don’t. I often hear from fellow health and safety colleagues that “…Risk Assessments are not their responsibility…” which is technically true but it is our responsibility to give appropriate support and advice. So if the Risk Assessments have become just a paper exercise then we should look at the advice and support we are giving.

Wilf Archer

Posted By Wilf Archer
Hi Raymond

I hope you noticed the smiley face after the dust assessment :-) I didn't really carry one out.

But the idea behind my comments were that RA should be an integral part of the pre-work programme otherwise they are just a paper exercise. Perhaps Risk Assesments are a necessary evil on the road to producing a Safe System of Work, etc.?

Regarding Christmas Decorations: The example was used to show that when installing the Christmas decorations across the busy Main street where I live my managers asked for a Risk Assessment. I felt like you that we tend to get bogged down producing pointless bits of paper that only gather dust so I pulled together (in consultation) a series of Pick and Mix control documents. This allowed the manager to then create a relevant risk assessment and discuss this with the employees.

Because they are used we now have a Win-Win situation. The solution is far from perfect but at least managers are now thinking about safety before commencing the job.

Wilf