Posted By fats van den raad Richard I don't think you have overstepped the mark at all. The smoking facilities you describe seem the same as ones I have seen all over the country. I would agree with your decision not provide seating in these areas especially for this person on the basis that visits to these locations should not be for extended periods of time (10 mins?)and that there are other (non-smoking) facilities with seating available to her.

Posted By Ron Hunter I agree entirely with your approach and the responses posted so far. I am intrigued by your reference to "her Risk Assessment" - I understand that particular risk groups must be considered when assessing tasks/activities, but would not advocate such an individual approach to formal risk assessment?

Posted By Zoe Barnett I'm tempted to send you one of the teaching aids I use when discussing tobacco in drugs education. It's a baby's feeding bottle filled with the same amount of tar that a baby will have in its lungs by the end of its first year if its mother smokes during and after pregnancy. There's about 350 ml of black, sticky tar (the genuine stuff, not just dyed water). I'm sure this lady would call herself a caring mother so perhaps if you showed her something like this she would be shocked into being a little less selfish. And before I get shouted at, I am an occasional smoker myself (although my real drug of choice is red wine. Merry Xmas!)

Posted By Peter Lee Ron, HSG122 "New and Expecatnat mothers who work A guide for employers" suggests that on notification of pregnancy, breastfeeding or birth the employer should carry out a specific risk assessment based upon the initial assessment. Regulation 16 of the Management regulations imply also this. How can you demonstrate that the Risk Assessment is Suitable and Sufficient if you dont carry out a specific assesment on the individual? Regards Peter

Posted By Ron Hunter Interesting responses on my 'individual risk assessment'point. So where do you all stop with this approach? Do you have individual assessments recorded for all your employees with temporary ailments & injuries, and for every individual with a particular disability? What about visitors and contractors (who could also be pregnant!) This seems to me to be turning risk assessment on its head? I'm well aware of duties under Regs 16(1) & 16(2) of Management Regs - they & the ACoP don't say you've got to record any of the arrangements you might make for a particular individual.

Posted By Rakesh Maharaj Richard, I am very curious to know what action you have taken (if any at all) based on the feedback above? Regards Rakesh

Posted By George Wedgwood Care for the individual is usually repaid in spades! The risk assessment will, when weighed up, give a balanced view which should indicate that you should have a shelter and that it should a few 'perch' seats in it for people to 'rest' on whilst slowly damaging their health. That we have a shelter at all, is an admission that our earlier assessment showed it to be necessary - the small problem is now that we failed to consider that a woman smoker might get pregnant and not wish to give up! Well it's her choice and maybe she can't - many have difficulty and we should consider what we do to help rehabilitate through training, counselling etc. It's actually cheaper to provide a perch seat! (See www.nobutts.com) George

Posted By Rob T Sometimes I actually despair at the interfering attitude of some people. Who the hell gives you the right to tell this woman that she shouldn't smoke whilst pregnant? What business is it of yours/anyone's other than her own whether she smokes or not. What if she decides to go further and have an abortion - do you think that's any of your business? Would you start lecturing her on right to life or other associated topics? That's a sight more dangerous to the child than smoking - don't you agree?? No - but then that isn't as bad as smoking to some people. Some of you seem to be saying that because she does something you don't agree with (none of your business), you should treat her with contempt and then go on to cause her (and the baby) distress by not providing a seat - OUT OF PURE MALICE to anyone who smokes! Professional Safety persons should attempt to get the best situation for all persons regardless of whether we like their lifestyles or not. Look at the IOSH aims and objectives - it doesn't say look after everyone except smokers does it? Oh yes and I'm back on line by the way. Any other subject but smoking and I will be as reasoned and polite as I've always been albeit with a touch of humour and tongue-in-cheek at times. Merry Christmas to one and all. Rob

Posted By Ken Taylor At the risk of sparking off another heated debate in response to Rob T, I do suspect that some of the earlier expressed views were based upon a concern for the unborn child - who certainly would not have been asked as to their approval of the activity - but who could be most affected.

Posted By Ron Hunter I don’t want to hijack your thread Richard, but feel I should respond to some of the others who’ve joined the debate. I do recognise the importance of identifying this risk group and recording the general & generic controls to be applied in relevant risk assessments for all our relevant and significant tasks and activities. Our controls in turn refer to our Policy and Procedures for new & expectant mothers. This will involve a dialogue between the employee and the (trained) manager in agreeing the modifications to workplace/activity, with appropriate review periods. Only in some instances, for the avoidance of doubt, would the detailed outcome be recorded. In some circumstances, the manager may (in conjunction with the employee) seek further professional advice via our occupational health provider. (Fair to say that the majority of pregnancies go full term with no particular complications?). I would not refer to this process as a formal ‘risk assessment’, and the findings would be confidential. Pregnancy can be an extremely dynamic condition – the health & ability of the individual can change on a day by day basis and to attempt to track this via a formal risk assessment process is I suggest impractical and unnecessarily bureaucratic. No, we don’t follow all that’s printed within HSG 122 (that’s guidance folks), but I do believe we have in place sufficiently robust procedures and a balanced and proportionate approach.