Posted By Allan Petrie What is the situation legally regarding who should be doing a risk assessment? We have a situation where the company has to do a risk assessment for a series of procedures and we have been told by the H&S officer that we are to do the risk assessment. Do we have to be trained as 'risk assessors' and therefore be competent? I am working through the Nebosh GC and my understanding is that you have to be trained to be a risk assessor. I have recently been trained as a COSSH assessor, therefore I would now be deemed competent to do COSHH assessments, but prior to this I would not have been classed 'competent'. Any comments appreciated. Thanks

Posted By Adam Jackson Bear in mind that training in "risk assessment" does not automatically imply competency. An individual may understand the practicalities of risk assessment after training but unless they understand and can appreciate the hazards in a given workplace they will not be able to assess them appropriately and therefore would not be competent. For example, I am something of a genius at risk assessments in for example agriculture but stick me in a BNFL nuclear plant and although I am both competent and experienced in risk assessment I doubt I could do a satisfactory one there. So, competency has two strands - the practicalities of "risk assessment" (training) and an understanding of the workplace and its hazards. If you have done a NEBOSH certificate and are experienced in the workplace requiring risk assessment personally I would say you are competent.

Posted By J Knight I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed in this thread about RA training not necessarily equipping people to carry out assessments. The CIEH course (Principles and Practice of RA) is very good, very thorough, but I have on many occasions put people through it, awarded them a pass, and then found them very unwilling to actually risk assess in a workplace. This has happened to people whose knowledge and experience equips them very well to arrive at a reasonable determination of risk and to determine control measures. People sometimes seem to be deterred by the vocabulary and the process, and the idea that what they are doing is bound up in law. Before anybody comments, I agree it could be a reflection on my training, but I actually think it is to do with excessive formality, and the simple fact that a qualification in a small aspect of H&S does nothing to dispel people's anxieties around decision making in situations of accountability. So I don't like RA training courses much, to be honest. Oh yes, and when you determine suitability for carrying out RAs, don't forget advice about best practice guidance; this seems to me to be the best way to tackle the inevitable subjectivity and at least bring some consistency to bear, John

Posted By Barry Pearce There seems to be a common thread of advice here. Compentency is judged on qualifications (training), experience and knowledge of the work/process being assessed. The nature and extent of the risk must also be considered. My view of competency is that it is a sliding scale. Simply ask yourself the question: Is it it reasonable to expect (this assessor) to be able to conduct a suitable and sufficient assessment with their current level of qualification, experience and knowledge? As a previous 'post' pointed out - quite often compentency can only be judged when something has gone wrong. Well, short cicuit this and imagine something has gone wrong and look at the compency issue from that perspective. Use the very useful "what if?" question.