I am intrigued by the proposed removal of L21 the Management regs ACOP. And specifically the need to conduct a “Risk Assessment”, encompassed in the ACOP section attached to reg 3. The actual regulation does not require a “risk assessment” to be produced, merely for the employer to make a “suitable and sufficient assessment” and so forth. It is only in the ACOP that the need to produce a “risk assessment” is made. What is my point? Well, I have a hunch that the need to write a risk assessment can and often does become a block to actually assessing risk in a given situation. It becomes a formulaic, process bound piece of work that all too often becomes a problem as work proceeds. The need to provide detailed RA’s BEFORE a contract is let, the files of RA’s that we know sit on office shelves unread, the constant requests for “templates” in these august chat rooms….. Perhaps the removal of the ACOP detail will allow a more holistic, imaginative risk based approach to assessing the risks employers introduce to the workplace and to employees? I am NOT advocating getting rid of Risk Assessments whole sale, simply saying the processes and need to record everything “just in case” can be a burdensome and in many cases inefficient way to identify and manage risk; the words and intention in the reg itself are sufficient guidance, the ACOP is an extra (and costly) straight jacket that restricts proper risk and hazard control. Maybe the removal of the ACOP should be welcomed?

Brian, Your point is accepted, but, it does not say significant risk should be recorded in a specific Risk Assessment document. There are other ways and documents where significant risk can be recorded, Jim

Bob I've no doubt your observation about 'no guide to measure against' is well intentioned yet it's not entirely valid. In many respects, the absence of a guide in legalese can actually support Loftstedt's advocacy of scientifically based safety, with scientifically validated standards and guidelines becoming relevant guides that are well beyond the domain of merely legal interpretations. For example, the Handbook of Standards and Guidelines in Ergonomics and Human Factors ed. W Karwowski, CRC Press, 2006, has many entries directly relevant to safety practice, just as the ACOP to which you refer also includes numerous paragraphs that are rooted in ergonomic research.

OK - not that I'm trying to be controversial but it is Friday... I have always been intrigued by the almost universal 'you gotta do a risk assessment'.. With the always implied (and often stated) corollary that you need to reduce the risk... But my reading of the Regs has never agreed with this interpretation... The Regs are quite clear for me that the ONLY reason you are doing the assessment is "for the purpose of identifying the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions and by Part II of the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997." [query - why has the reference to the FP(W) regs not yet been updated in the L21 on HSE's website?] In other words - if there are no "requirements or prohibitions" imposed by "relevant statutory provisions" - then you don't need to do anything else (under these regs...). There is no general duty to assess risks with a view to reducing them (except in so far as this is 'implied' by H&S@WetcA)... All you are required to do by this regulation is to find out what laws apply..... Which is a very different task to assessing and recording significant findings of all hazards.... What do others think here? I believe that removing the ACoP - which only confused the issue by suggesting there was an obligation to assess and reduce - is a good step, because it throws us back to the 'so far as is reasonably' etc of the parent Act - which is better worded and should (by now) be better understood... Just a thought. Steve

Oh for a 'like' button to save my weary fingers! XDeeps, achrn, RH The H&S profession - including IOSH and especially the NEBOSH Certificate - have made RA into a monster. Would like to think that the changes will be positive, but I fear the path is too long and deeply trodden . .

While not wanting to be controversial... I'm shocked at the number of posts on here asking for "a risk assessment for XXX", as if RA is a "thing" that has to be on the bookshelf, rather than a process that has to be performed.

I too spend time trying to explain to people that risk assessment is not a form to be completed but a process to be carried out. I don’t care about the form, whether it starts life as blank sheet of paper or an Excel or Word proforma I can’t see the point of a risk matrix that tells you that something might be safe (review risk assessment after 6 months- what’s all that about?) A risk assessment is a simple process to look at a piece of work and for the users to decide whether it is safe or not. The problems occurs when the someone sues the employer and the first question you get asked is “Show us the risk assessment for this activity.” And if you don’t have a piece of paper to wave around in the air the impression you are given is that you are doomed. Actually the risk assessment is only relevant if the claimant can establish that the inadequacy of the assessment actually directly led to the injury. In most case I have come across the RA is neither here or there, it’s the controls that matter no the RA in most cases. So we spend time filling in forms for others. Try to approach risk assessment in a rational manner but when our workers go onto another employer’s site we get lumbered with pages of irrelevant bilge designed by some one in an office who has no idea about what we are doing. Rant over. It’s the heat about 28 C with 60% humidity.

I agree completely that risk assessment is a process, but the format a written assessment has never been specified by L21, its always been the requirement to record the significant findings and it still is. I don't see how removing L21 will change this?

stillp, we are on the same page - I agree with you, all I am saying is the "Risk Assessment" format may not be best suited to recording the outcome of assessing the risks in some scenarios...Maybe a policy or some other record is better. Jim

Agreed. RA is something you do, not something you have. My pet hate on this forum is the common requests for a risk assessment fo some task, or, worse, an RA for someone with mobility problems, epilepsy or similar, as if there could be a "one size fits all" solution. I appreciate that in many cases these posters are just asking for help, but I'd have more sympathy if they were asking for, e.g., a list of hazards associated with a particular activity, or guidance on how epilepsy affects the risks to be considered.