I've been asked to have drafted a risk assessment for trades' staff undertaking repairs work in public toilets across the city. The trades’ have been undertaking this in pairs (two man working) without a risk assessment previously and/or a sound rationale by their managers as to why that should be the case. The Assessment I have written continues with the deployment of two persons and was based on a number of factors: • Some of the public toilets have needle disposal points so drug users will or may be present in and around the facilities. • Discussion with those persons actually doing the work and their experiences/knowledge. I’m being challenged to make the assessment say that two persons aren’t required and have been told that my assessment is based on stereotypes and not on fact. The question I put to that manager was… would it be reasonably foreseeable that sending a single person with valuable tools and equipment into a situation where drug users frequent present an increased risk of assault? It’s very difficult to evidence that we have a problem, i.e. we don’t have many reported incidents which to refer to, but I’d argue that is simply because we have deployed two persons for years as a control measure. Questions I have for my community colleagues are: Is my approach flawed? Do I need to provide hard evidence to support decisions? Has anyone else done anything similar and what controls did you include? We’ve covered everything else, so I’m not looking for information about drug litter, occupational hygiene, etc, the query is simply about the deployment (or not) of a second person. Thanks All

Hi MaxPayne, Your approach seems reasonable based on foreseeability and inclusion of the contractors experiences. What would be the contractors exposure to risk in terms of duration? Works undertaken during normal hours? Toilets operational during the works? May help evaluation. Simon

Thanks Simon; to expand, yes only carried out during the working day, I included a statement about hours of daylight where practicable. Toilets would be closed during mainetanace so put together a brief procedure to explain how that is done, i.e. make sure that the facility is cleared or perons. Work on the whole is basic repairs, broken taps, blocked drains etc, so on average only a few hours at most.

MaxPayne, Some robust control measures to justify one person working?! If the site is controlled, secure and in daylight hours, the risks associated with assault should be reduced. Maybe a one person operation isn't unreasonable with S&S controls in place. It could be something to evaluate on a site by site basis. The dynamics of each location could change the control measures necessary?

Why would you think that there would be a high risk (frequency) of assault? And by sending two people, are you halving the likelihood of assault. No previous history of assaults. Do people that use the toilets go in pairs? I am with the managers on this one. Safety in numbers - not this time.

I think I am in agreement with the idea that this should be a one person task, given all comments made previously. The trick here will be the transition between using two people to using one. There may be other reasons why the workforce may resist this change, such as simply having some company during the day (although I am just guessing about this 'resistance' - it may not be there in your case). I think you may need to put in a proactive programme where you actively ask the workers whether they have experienced any problems, so you can quickly gather evidence that the method is reasonably safe. Then ongoing monitoring and review if any problems. Interesting - thanks for sharing.

I think you have to put things into perspective here, if your cleaning the toilet behind the Wool Pack in Emmerdale then the risk is pretty low, but if your doing the same task in a city area the risk could be considered as significant

I seem to be repeating myself here, appologies

And not forgetting the people who keep these toilets clean....