Posted By Steve Conway
Garry

I had a discussion with a colleague last week about the same issues you raise in your posting.

While it is important to focus on the outcome, i.e. the protective measures put in place, there are situations where we need to demonstrate to others how we got there. I'm not convinced that the examples provided would provide proof that a suitable and sufficient assessment had been made. For example I would be looking to see how the risks arise and the potential consequences described.

I do however like that the examples don't use a rating system.

Steve

Posted By Bob Youel

The HSE are playing a political game at this time as they want to make H&S easier re paperwork - I wish them well re this area

However when in court/with your insurers etc you need as much evidence as you can get - depth being a part of that evidence

Posted By Darren J Fraser
I think they are a good starting point, especially for a small business that is not sure what is required , or just wants to clarify the information from an appointed competent person.

However they are just that a starting point and an example, I too would expect to see a greater detail of information.

Posted By J Knight
Me I like them; they look very much like the ones we use but are even simpler. The only problem I can see is that based on our recent contacts with Fire Officers they aren't going to buy the very rudimentary fire stuff for the motor vehicle repair shop. Right now it seems that nobody is interested in simplifying RAs under the RR(FS)O, and we are under pressure in some quarters to use a commercial 'methodology'; something which is not required in the RRO or its supporting publications.

Anyway, that's an aside. Its about time HSE put RA back to what the ACOP has always said it should be; of a level of complexity appropriate to the environment and the risk,

John

Posted By Pete48
As the great Colin Chapman once remarked. "design simplicity and then add lightness". Seems appropriate to me.
If the purpose of your risk assessments is to enable you to feel comfortable about mounting a defence in court, then produce as much paper as you wish. It may be your downfall as much as your support of course.
If, however, the purpose of your assessment is to sensibly manage and minimise risks, then produce only that needed to help you achieve that objective. It is this second point that I see the HSE examples as demonstrating. No need for numbers, matrices, complex narratives, divers references to obscure legislation, codes and standards. Just recording where you are, where you need to improve together with how and when you will improve. It also clearly talks about what research was done to support the assessment and links to available codes, guidance etc that identify the required controls.
Of course any generic style of example is unlikely to be comprehensive but to suggest they would not be "suitable and sufficient" and are therefore in some way devalued is a leap too far for me. The web page clearly tells you that simply adopting them without further thought is not suitable and sufficient.

Posted By Chris Jerman
Having discussed this at length with the HSE unit responsible for the new assessments, I understand that they are attempting to give an example of what 'good enough' would look like for a small employer. However, once again it's a case of what they don't say rather than what they do. They agreed that risk assessment has many uses beyond what was originally thought of way back in the early '90's and an organisation has to decide what it wants from the undertaking of assessments. For us, 5 steps simply doesn't work; our assessment model is still simple but highly effective at communicating (up from the branches) the most significant issues to a board level across many sites and functions. However, for Mr X and his corner grocery store, it has functions that he would never need. He can see his entire empire from the till. He doesn't need assessments to communicate any higher - he's the Boss. My argument was that in effect, the new examples were less risk assessments (as there is no element of actual conclusive assessment in them) and more workplace inspections and control documents. They agreed. My suggestion was that for small employers, they'd be better served by a 'guide for small employers' with a prediction of the typical problems / issues that they will undoubtedly encounter and some suggested controls.The list is pretty obvious. This could have example inspection sheets in it etc. I have to ask what is to be gained from risk assessment in a more formal manner from these companies? If you want evidence that they have looked, thought and acted you are more likely to get them on board with 'tick box' assessment than something that has to be created in the first place.
My final point was that when ever you see example assessments they always look relentlessly good. in other words, there's nothing wrong. This in my view makes they inclusion of additional control measures fairly pointless. They are going to work on some examples that paint a less rosy picture and then the controls will make more sense to the reader.

Posted By Andrew Joule Land
Garry,
I agree, however, they are examples.
my personnal opinion is that in a lot of cases risk assessmnets, for some, are as a tick in a box.
The examples are almost one liners and i was taught that a risk assessment may be a simple statement or depending on the complexity of the process or activity be a very detailed document almost like a method statement and also may have to refer to other assessments that require to be in place and take into consideration that in putting the controls from an assessment that you do not create other hazards.
If the mitigating action is identified as on the lines of "vigilant supervision should be in place" it ain't worth a thing when the man with the curly white hair says that the risk assessment did not fully take into account all the hazards of the process

Posted By Diane Thomason
I completely agree with the HSE's philosophy here, and the message they are trying to give, but I have 2 concerns about these assessments.

1. The depth in them is less than HSE inspectors look for, in my experience.

2. The examples include "one-liners" for manual handling and chemicals. For these, we are supposed to do specific RAs under the relevant regs - manual handling and COSHH - and the specific factors to take into account in these RAs are spelled out.

As they stand, the examples would not be S&S for the specific regs.

I discussed these examples with an inspector, who implied that they would be "top-level" RAs to be expanded as necessary.

For the more general issues I quite agree that in the examples given, the risks do not justify lots of detail, matrices and all the rest.