Had a meeting with a Company Solictior who wanted to see the Risk Assessments that I have been completing for my site. I don't have a stand alone 'lone working RA', but in the work activity which involves Lone working, I have included standard controls / additional controls for Lone Working in this area. I have also done the same with Noise, instead of having a stand alone Noise RA, I have included it with the 'Work Activities RA'....I have been told to go and do separate Noise / Lone Working RA, as they won't hold up in court, and I'm wrong for doing it that way, even though Ihave addressed these areas through Work Activities...Im I in the wrong, as I always thought, as long as they issue was addressed, and controls / additional controls highlighted, then I was on right path???

Can see both sides of this. Personal preference is that an RA covers an operation / task so for example if a machine in a work area is noisy then the controls for this hazard are identified within the specific documentation. Conversley a stand alone concept RA for lone working acts as a reminder to management for the odd occassion when they ask Bob to finish off a job then lock up or Rita to open up early which can be a range of different hazards to those Sue sampling in a remote unoccupied part of the site could be exposed to.

Hi jon joe, You don't really need a separate risk assessment for lone working. HSE's view is that working alone isn't a risk in itself, but it can make the consequences of other risk events more serious. So if its covered in your general RA you might well not need to do anything else. Noise is a different matter, as it has its own regs and does need a more technical approach. If you have anything like a noise issue at work you should do a separate risk assessment. Of course, if your assessment is that you have no noise problem then you have nothing more to do.... John

Here's my two-penneth: Who’s right, well it’s the court at the end of the day. What they’ll decide however is a lottery – don’t expect it to make sense to us mere mortals, it needs to make legal sense (which will appear to be nonsense to most normal people). So you just have to bite the bullet and bind yourself in the legal red tape. The company solicitor probably has more of a feel for the idiosyncrasies of the legal system Good luck Graham W.

Agree with Rayrapp. Either the Safety professional decides or they don't - the legal advice seems to me to be just opinion. If you follow that logic, if a task has 27 hazards, you would need 27 risk assessments? I have long believed in, and had no problems when audited with, TASK based risk assessments. Not hazard based. I even believe that hazard based can miss the overlap between hazards and their control measures, you can become focussed too narrowly.

My tuppence Noise - I have always included any noise hazard in the process or area risk assessment. I will undertake a test using a calibrated noise meter to get an idea of the noise level. IF it is approaching the lower action level, I will bring in a specialist to do a more detailed assessment. I refer to both assessments on the RA. So far I have had no complaints from insurance companies or solicitors. Lone worker - If a process requires lone working, then it is clearly identified in the risk assessment for that process. I try to reduce the amount of paperwork that is needed for a task, not increasing it by having hazard specific risk assessments. Lets face it though, if you can demonstrate that you have identified the hazard, identified those persons who could be harmed and how, evaluated the risks and decided on the control measures, recorded what you have done, and have measures in place to undertake reviews, then does it really matter how it is done.

I believe that your legal colleague is wrong because he does not understand what risk assessment is about. He seems to think that it is piece of paper which you can wave about in court so that you can “get away with it” if things go wrong. As H&S professionals we know that this is wrong: a risk assessment is a process that needs to be carried to make sure that any work procedure/process is being correctly and safely managed. Each process or procedure should have a risk assessment associated with it that identifies the risks and enables you to decide on the most suitable controls. It is the controls that the HSE are interested in (I know I have asked tame inspectors about this and they would never come after someone solely on the basis of a weak RA). They only bring up the RA and regulation 3 of the MHSAW regs if something has gone wrong. Similarly you cannot sue someone just because the RA is not upto scratch. No what is required is a system for managing H&S of which the RA is a part. Based on the RA you identify which controls are needed and then based on your policy you apply suitable controls and create suitable SOPs/method statements etc. You need a system that is usable by you, not paperwork that might impress a lawyer but will do nothing to protect your staff.

I would go with the legal beagles view and my view would be that each and every law connected with a job role should have a suitable and significant RA undertaken for its area irrespective with the overview RA taking on the important high risk points from the various other RA's in additional to areas that are not specifically covered by a particular law - this is the way that I have worked & its has been a very good way but does take time, effort etc. which employers do not want nowadays and in many years my system has not been successfully challenged by the HSE but has received good reviews from judges etc. unfortunately good RA's etc. can be used against a company where managers fail to manage so it can be a catch 22 situation I find that time and again many laws etc, are completely missed in a RA that is deemed to be S&S which usually gives a judge, claimer etc. the loop hole to make a successful claim etc. or negative judgement against the employer best of luck

What people forget is that good lawyers especially solicitor-advocates and barristers have a peculiar talent: they can become instant experts with a very persuasive line of argument. I was gobsmacked when a solicitor gave our senior management time a brilliant 1 hour talk on corporate manslaughter based around the risks in our organisation following 5 minute briefing from myself. When doing my legal module, our tutor, a retried barrister told us how he became an “expert” of fire arms after spending an hour or two with (licenced) gun dealer. Once you give them a steer they can put together a persuasive argument in whatever direction you want. They can also turn around 180 degrees, when it suits them. So don’t necessarily take what a lawyer says as gospel (they are nonbelievers; they say whatever the need to win their case) and try to use good arguments to get them to back you.

Lawyers have a specific kind of job. This tale does not sound like they have actually referred to legislation anyway, as MHAS Reg risk assessment is required to identify measures to comply with statutory requirements. There is no statute relating to lone working (which is not a hazard in itself); there may be a HSAWA general requirement, but that is to control risk, not separately produce a bit of paper. Lawyers and insurance officers do not have the skills or interest to see H&S beyond simple statute (and not always then - see above). S&H Practitioners on the other hand have been trained in skills of interpretation, application and context (well I was). They should also be skilled in the art of communicating essentials in a style to suit the particular audience, and have some understanding of the human behavioural elements of safety implementation. If H&S was as simple as 'follow the regulation' we would all be out of a job. And 'lone working' wouldn't get a look-in at all! Have confidence in the strategies you advise, read MHAS & ACOP til you can cite it almost word for word, re-read the HSE leaflet guidance, review their extensive online comments, FAQs, and examples, and stick to your guns.

Have to agree with that key point. Regards

David, I guess sometimes people do have to work in hazardous areas, but I agree that such hazards shouldn't be accepted with complacency. John W, HSE publish some guidance on lone working, two specific questions employers should ask are 'Does the workplace present a specific risk to the lone worker' and 'Is there a risk of violence and/or aggression?' Which in my view cover the scenario you mention. Yesterday I was at a briefing by our international security team, and they were discussing the real (and rising) risk of our people deployed overseas being shot at or kidnapped. They normally wouldn't be alone, but sometimes they might be. And we regularly go to places where the FCO advises UK nationals not to. We have to, it's our job. In this situation we do carry out a very detailed and considered risk assessment, of which lone working would be a part, John