I know my answer but as most of you know my opinions are not always the same as everyone else's. Is it acceptable for a company to provide a risk assessment and method statement document prepared in the office and sent out to site before the start of work? If not acceptable what is the alternative?

Personally I think it is only acceptable if it is reviewed and made site specific before work starts. The problem with the Office completing the assessment and statement is that they will not necessarily be aware of the site specific issues or what is actually happening on site and dangerous assumptions could be made. We accept generic assessments as a guide to procedures and standards but expect these to be made specific for each job and/or location.

Thanks for the replies, all agreeing with my views. Next questions are: How do you make a generic document into site specific? Who does it? Are the workforce involved? Is it a requirement to have such documents signed as read?

Would it be a good idea to have a section at the bottom of a generic r/a or m/s with a heading "amendments to generic making site specific" with spaces for signatures, dates etc.

Interesting thread. Question. If a generic method statement and risk assessment is accepted in advance is this not tacit acceptance of the work method and hazards inherent within it? Following on from this, if a specific assessment is conducted prior to work commencing, how are compatibility issues arising from task related hazards and workplace hazards dealt with particularly when it necessitates a complete change of work method, competencies, equipment etc. I would imagine the answer would overwhelmingly be not to start work? However in practice, does/can this actually happen? Thoughts?

The next question is "What if the assessments and method statements are not on site when the work is due to begin?"

My RAs that are sent in advance of a site visit always are appended with a disclaimer statement, here it is:- This risk assessment has been completed to the best of my abilities based on my understanding of the task at hand and of the expected site conditions notwithstanding the fact that I have never attended this site. The (my company name) engineer(s) assigned this job will complete another risk assessment upon arrival at the site which will take into account all factors related to the task and the site location. This task and site specific risk assessment, accomplished on the day, will supersede this or any other risk assessment submitted in advance. This has always been a thorny issue for me. Most of our customers now require MS & RA to be submitted and approved before we can attend but any H&S professional knows that it's just about impossible to assess risks from behind a desk often several hundreds of miles away from the place of work. I feel fairly sure that in a large percentage of cases these documents are not really properly scrutinised - someone has been told that contractors cannot carry out works without submitting the docs so once submitted, even if they are far short of 'fit for purpose', then the necessary box can be ticked and the contractor can be allowed to complete the works. Incidentally, no-one has ever challenged my disclaimer. When I started to use it I was expecting loads of assessments to be rejected but it simply has not happened.

Can I just point out the inherent danger in Generic Risk Assessment? There was a case a few years ago where somebody was seriously injured by a grocery cage falling off the tail-lift of a delivery truck. Somerfield, the operator of the site, was severely and roundly criticised for using generic risk assessment; in this case the delivery yard had a camber, allowing the cage to roll sideways, something the generic RA had not taken into account. The judge was extremely displeased and his displeasure was reflected in strong criticism of the whole concept of generic RA, and a swingeing fine for Somerfield. It's all very well saying, 'well, the operatives could have modified the generic RA to take site considerations into account' but that begs two questions. The first is, how do you know your site operatives aren't robots, just marking time until day's end, and the second is, if they can modify a generic RA with insight and skill, why not ask them to complete a full RA and give them the necessary training/guidance? Me, I wouldn't touch generic RAs with a bargepole, John

Hi John, Can you please point me towards where you got your information from regarding the Somerfield case? As we process our deliveries in a similar fashion it would be useful to have other case studies to help support recomendations. The only case I am aware of envolved Budgens and their 3PL provider Gist which was put down the driver not being sufficiently trained as he was not the regular driver on that run.

If they are not present at the time of the job (The person shopuld have a copy with them) then the work does not commence, how would you be able to conform to the regs and Section 3 HASAW?

What are the potential consequences for not having a risk assessment present when work starts?

Can you state where it is written that risk assessments must be present at the workplace?

Thanks Heather

Bob, They are not my assessments but contractor's on sites I visit. I think they have become complacent regarding their assessments, even to the point where sometimes their documents are not on site. What I'm trying do do here, with quite some success, is gather support for my thinking, most, if not all replies have supported me. You know the odd occasion when the client or CDM-C questions what you recommend, that's what this is all about. Thanks to everyone for your contributions.

It is clear from the various responses that there is no perfect articulated safe system of work. As a general comment, over reliance on documentation is not the way forward either. Method statements come in different guises, good, bad and indifferent. A well trained workforce will help overcome any shortcomings in work documentation. Generic method statements are suitable for repetive type work that is generally low risk for trained operatives. Addendums are used where there is a known variation to the work and not covered in the generic method statement, which of course should be brieffed to those carrying out the task. Dynamic RAs can can be used in conjunction with method statements where the hazards may not be known until arrival on site. They are generally used as a prompt to ensure a SSoW is put in place. Simples.

Chris, (To take this back to the original question) It would be perfectly acceptable in all but the most unusual circumstances to have a contractor commence (and complete) the work without ANY risk assessment/ MS on site. IF your question is intended to slant towards Construction, I would suggest that this Industry goes too far on many occassions. >The onus on ensuring competency rests with the person appointing, and much of this should be done >before the contractor is anywhere near the Site. If it is YOUR site (And site conditions etc.) that give rise to the issues, then there is an equal onus on you to participate in arriving at a safe system of work. >There are too many instances of insistence on paperwork to suit the client/auditor/enforcer, where none of the paperwork adds value (the competent personnel are not likely to make reference themselves to the MS). Points for discussion obviously, and there will be those who disagree. I think the craziest example I heard recently was of the LA Grounds Maintenance division who welded a document holder to all their ride-on grass cutters to keep Risk Assessments, COSHH etc. handy for the operator to refer to! In my view, that's just daft. One of the above threads suggests a "caveat" approach to 'red lining' the MS of others (electricians I think it was). That argument could surely be taken forward to gas, structures, work at height, special plant and other engineers? Is there a suggestion that in "some" instances it is OK to think we know better than the competent people we have appointed?