Just looked on the HSE website and had a go at their new 'small low risk' shop risk assessment.

Is it just me or does anyone else get the impression the HSE is trying to downplay risks etc to satisfy the government and the baying media?

The risk assessment goes through several hazard types (slips,trips and falls etc) but surely by setting these hazards as a template their is no scope to address any specific hazards to the individual premises, no two buildings are the same!

What about asbestos, fire systems? I didnt see that mentioned anywhere.

The question is, would a HSE inspector see that risk assessment as sufficient in the event of an accident? I would say no, but they created it?

A perfect example is, one of the control measures you can choose for stock movement is 'staff shown how to lift heavy items correctly' now I know for a fact that that would not be sufficient... competent trainer, certification anyone??

"This tool allows those employers working in small low-risk shops to do their risk assessment quickly and easily."

IMHO the whole point of this is to start to make people think about safety who wouldn't otherwise bother, it's VERY easy to criticise. If you have a better idea fill out the consultation form and submit it to the HSE!

From experience I have worked in a number of small shops, when you have a staff of 2 people and a tiny shop how far are you really going to go?

I think the assessments may need a greater breadth of hazard and then point you to more information as needed.

From my experience of small shops the only ones in the whole street who had risk assessments were the ones I worked in :)

I agree that the dangers are that people might think this is compliant when it is not, I agree there are also situations where a lot more is needed.

The question is how do we start to get people to address this?

I have given contractors the HSE example risk assessments and told them I was amazed that they couldn't even produce something as good as the HSE give them for free!

Surely it's the same for inspectors, have you got a risk assessment.... Answer NO? But we give you one for free on our web site!

:)
Not sure where I am going with this, but I think it's a step in the right direction...

One point to remember is that these are examples for general guidance only. At least that is what the HSE will tell you. They are not risk assessments that you can copy for your particular environment. In fact, they may not even be correct as shown!

I know this because the example provided for a SME vehicle repair workshop shows the manager providing totally the wrong glove for use with solvents in the paint spray shop. When I pointed this out to the HSE the response was what I have stated in my first paragraph, i.e. that the measures shown should not necessarily be taken as adequate for the particular circumstance.

Whether the manager of the small vehicle repair shop would recognise that the example was wrong or would assume that what HSE had shown was correct is another matter!

Chris

Neil - I'm currently working in retail (major retailer) so I'll resound where I can

Is it just me or does anyone else get the impression the HSE is trying to downplay risks etc to satisfy the government and the baying media?

I don think so I think it an attempt to engage small retailers in the safety process - if the HSE are trying to downplay any retail risk - I can assure you they have not held any dialogue with Local Authorities who enforce!!! Not by the level of visits me and my other retail colleagues receive.

The risk assessment goes through several hazard types (slips,trips and falls etc) but surely by setting these hazards as a template their is no scope to address any specific hazards to the individual premises, no two buildings are the same!
Like I say it’s a start for small retailers 50% of the many thousands of accidents in retails are via ST&F's. The vast majority of others are associated to relatively low risk activities for staff and customers. The high risk stuff, such as construction, refit and maintenance is not covered here for obvious reasons.

What about asbestos, fire systems? I didn't see that mentioned anywhere.
I guess the omissions of ACMs is due to the many anomalies involved in area - could they get this information on a simple RA? Fire I guess they are leaving this for the RRFSO to cover.

The question is, would a HSE inspector see that risk assessment as sufficient in the event of an accident? I would say no, but they created it?
When HSE inspectors come on my construction sites they never ask for risk assessments - they just inspect - as for EHO's in the retail division, they rarely do either - just control measures.

A perfect example is, one of the control measures you can choose for stock movement is 'staff shown how to lift heavy items correctly' now I know for a fact that that would not be sufficient... competent trainer, certification anyone??
As this is aimed at small retailers would they ever have the resource for trainers and certificates - I guess not.

teh_boy

Farmers are a breed apart!

When speaking on gloves I nearly always demonstrate permeation by using the little Permea-Tec colour change pad, a single-use nitrile glove and nail polish remover. (I use this because most people can identify with it and, as it is sold to put on your nails, they have not considered its potential hazards.) The colour change takes place within about 10-15 seconds, although the inside of the glove (i.e. the surface not in direct contact with the chemical) remains perfectly dry. Later you can show how the glove appears totally unchanged.

I can usually tell with a group who has not considered permeation, simply by the expression on their faces!

I find this a most effective demonstration. It certainly seems to get a positive response.

The HSE document shows natural rubber latex gloves being worn underneath gloves used for physical protection for protection against solevents, paint thinners, etc. Even a good quality single-use nitrile glove will only provide splash protection against these chemicals, i.e. permeation breakthrough in seconds.

Chris

I agree with what you say, I think the tool needs to address the fact that there may be other considerations... However IMHO this is a good step forward.

I really really hope you have filled out the HSE feedback form on this, as that's the whole point of a consultation phase.

Neil, as the HSE say do it here, this must by definition meet the legal requirement.

Just a thought - or is it me being naive?

Who decides whether a particular office is actually 'low risk' or are we to assume that all offices, irrespective of the nature of the business, location (e.g. adjacent to a high risk production area), etc. are automatically low risk? Who, then, takes legal responsibility if in an office, as a result of the assumption of low risk, something untoward occurs that a more effective risk assessment strategy would have identified resulting in damage to health or injury? HSE? I think not, but probably the poor manager who was guided by this new, simplified concept.

Chris

Bob

You have echoed my thoughts. How is a manager in an office to decide if his operation if high, medium or low risk. What would be his situation if he just assumed on the basis of the HSE guidance, that his operation is automatically low risk and it turned out that part of what they did represented a risk that resulted in an employee becoming harmed. Would a defence of: "But the HSE guidance said that offices are low risk." be accepted by a tribunal or court? I can just see the disclaimer from HSE: "Yes but this is only general guidance and each manager must reach his own informed decision." Just the same response as I received when I pointed out the mistake in their example risk assessment.

Chris

I think the operative words are "small" and "low risk".

How small is small and how low risk is low risk.

Don't get too excited about risk assessment just look at what is in front of you.

The COMAH safety case for the site would take into account the office block.

Some good discussions on here,

I still personally feel that the HSE risk assessment (do it here) is not enough and even they would not accept it should something go wrong and it doesnt say anywhere through the process that more is required.

When it comes to small and low risk, how do you decide if you are small and low risk without doing a risk assessment?

deciding whether you do this 'low risk' risk assessment or something more in depth prior to actually assessing your risks is surely back to front?

Anyway its friday!!!!!!

http://consultations.hse...nsult.ti/shopriskassess/

Lets all respond to this and make it better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1