Seeking thoughts and opinions regarding what is a truly "Suitable & Sufficient Risk Assessment". Consultants believing payment is based upon volume rather than quality should not reply! Should we have multiple pages of text addressing each and every possible danger (Slip/Trip/Fall, Asbestos, COSHH, CLAW, EAW, PUWER, LOLER etc.) in a single document for each and every task and item of equipment in the business OR accept real world practicality to eliminate duplication e.g. "Unauthorised Personnel must not operate this equipment" as a line item in every single document produced and continue with a single multi page addressing the headline issues for the business site (Noise, dust, lighting etc.) and then follow this up with task / equipment specific RA's looking at the unique aspects in relation to each? And who are these RA's really meant for - Insurers/Inspectors/ISO assessors (a glorious dust covered file to prove prowess) or the education and training of employees? In which case Quantitative understood by a few or Qualitative understood by the many? The recent education of a line manager by an external consultant (chosen by others) has prompted the debate and I wish to nurture their new found enthusiasm for "elf and safety".

From a past NEBOSH paper: "For a risk assessment to be deemed suitable and sufficient, it should identify the significant risks arising out of the work activity, it should identify and prioritise the measures that need to be taken to comply with the relevant statutory provisions, it should be appropriate to the nature of the work and, finally, it should be such that it remains valid for a reasonable period of time." I know it's not much of a description but it is as close a you are going to get... As for your second paragraph I would be looking to take it back to basics. Risk Assess each task that is carried out (bering in mind the legislation that you have identified). Record the SIGNIFICANT findings in your risk assessment. This will mean that for some work tasks there is no recroded assessment as there are no significant risks. Apologies if that comes across patronising, I have a belief that H&S should be kept as simple as possible for all to understand - which leads on to your last question nicely. Risk assessments can be for any and all of the people you mentioned. They may never see the risk assessment and there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever. As long as they are aware of what they need to do and how they can conform with the controls then there is no need to see it. However, we show our risk assessments to all of our guys. Yes, inspectors will want to see them and that's fine but I always write mine in plain English and am guilty of using industry related jargon to ensure that the guys who do read our assessments know what the hell I am talking about. An inspector can be educated and can ask questions, but when the paperwork is on site the guys who are there need to know what it means. I hope that has answered your questions although I am sure that other people will think differently to me!

I find that the following helps get this into perspective: “A risk assessment is nothing more than a careful examination of what, in your work, could cause harm to people, so that you can weigh up whether you have taken enough precautions or should do more to prevent harm.” Taken from: “Good Practice Information Provided by EU-OSHA”, September 2009. Risk/exposure management is then what you do about it! Chris

A risk assessment may be deemed suitable and sufficient until something goes wrong - then it obviously wasn't. Or is that hindsight bias? :-)... And I agree with A Kurdziel, forget the enforcers, it's for you not them. But in the end it'll be the enforcers who decided this issue if the worst should happen. I for one don't find this a very happy place to be, but I live with as I guess we all do. Graham

A great many thanks to all respondents - your replies have echoed my personal beliefs and understanding of what should be delivered, who by, who for and why. Now comes the task of keeping enthusiasm high whilst undoing two days of external conditioning :-( ... Graham I too believe you never truly learn anything until you get it wrong (life experience over cotton wool & bubble wrap every time) - so yes suitable and sufficient until found wanting.

Just to echo a point on RA that has been mentioned above. The most important stage of the assessment process (in my opinion) is identifying the hazards, if you fail to identify a hazard how can you possibly put control measures in place, suitable and sufficient. I investigated a small fire in an engineering workshop where petrol/oil soaked rags caught fire from the sparks underneath the bench grinder. Fire was not identified as a hazard in the risk assessment.

Aargh, ha ha sorry about Round thug! Finger and iPhone don't fit :o)

Yes there was a FRA, however it had not been updated or reviewed for some time. During the investigation it was difficult for me to make judgements or comment on the FRA, as I concluded that the rags (or any other combustible materials) were not always located beneath grinder. Note: The RA for the grinder was done a few weeks before the incident, and should have identified all of the hazards including fire.

John W - I empathise with your condition. When I suffered a company issued BlackBerry I too had Fat Finger / Predictive Text Syndrome, now luckily back to just my own Dyslexic Fingers. Think the last time I recall being called a thug was some twenty years ago with plenty of unrepeatable alternatives in the intervening years ;-)