Ray Whilst I would not disagree with you, in my particular field I see many risk assessments done with the best of intentions, that are wrong and, in many cases, may be one of the elements that has contributed to the health problem that I have been asked to investigate. For example, last year I visited a new client whose risk assessments had been done by a large health and safety consultancy, not one of which was valid. The procedure had been that the client merely sent the consultancy all their safety data sheets and, without even visiting the workplace of having even second hand information on how the products were actually being used, the consultancy had completed what were obviously computer generated risk assessments based simply on the information on the safety data sheet (just somewhat expanded). In their ignorance, the company had assumed that this was what they needed. Just taking two or three examples and showing them what the real hazards and risks were was sufficient to convince them that the, not inconsiderable, cost of the 'risk assessments' was wasted investment. Anyway, why bother with COSHH risk assessments, when, according to one large, international manufacturer of occupational skin care products:- “Occupational skin diseases can in fact be largely prevented by consistently and regularly using skin protection and skin care preparations.” No need to check what was happening in the workplace then. OK for the worker to put his hands into the solvent tank, or handle concentrated sulphuric acid without gloves. We've got the right products in the washroom! Chris

Could one of the problems be that the emphasis has tended to be on the hazard as opposed to the risk when the work is actually carried out? COSHH is a particular case. Guidance tends to concentrate on the chemical hazard and does not take into account how these are then used. Perhaps we need to stress that risk assessment is task based. A hazard is just that, a hazard. The risk usually only arises when something is done. This may seem simplistic to some, but maybe it would change perceptions. Chris

Sadly, whilst there is now widespread knowledge that risk assessments are legally required, many of these are produced just to get the paperwork done, completely failing to gain any real benefit from the exercise. All too often I see big binders full of pristine documentation whilst the working conditions and practices (particularly those activities that are non-routine) create significant risks that are uncontrolled. Perhaps it is some of us that need to educate our work colleagues in what RA is, the benefits, how to do it well, and how to get the best from the exercise, rather than some of us guarding the entire process as "ours"

Perhaps it is some of us that need to educate our work colleagues in what RA is, the benefits, how to do it well, and how to get the best from the exercise, rather than some of us guarding the entire process as "ours"' The problem here is that to complete good quality RAs also take some knowledge of the process, hazards and identification of risk. Whether operational managers should be tasked with the responsibility is a moot point. Personally, I feel it is still very much the responsibility of the safety person to ensure they are completed and reviewed. Many operational managers do not have the time or possibly the inclination to do RAs to an acceptable standard, others see it as a bolt-on to their normal duties and don't take proper ownership.

The problem for me about RAsis that the interpretation of what a risk assessmsnt is. I was taught by a man who had been safety advisor at Dounrey and also in Antartica. A Risk assesmsnt does the following! Asesses Risk - nothing else - It doesnt tell you how to manage the problem and therefore in my opinion any controls to be enacted should be very seperate from the paperwork that assessed the risk. Ive come across many people who went on the HSE risk assessors course who got it quite wrong because they were trying to solve the problem before they genuinely knew the outcome level of the risk. Had a discussion with a senior manager last friday as welooked through our Risk assessment format. It asks you to list all the hazards and the risks then asks you to look at a 5x5 matrix to estimate the risk level. To me this is flawed as combining the hazards may increase the risk but doesnt adequately highlight the level of each risk with a possible result of allocating the wrong level of reaction (Controls) to the least level risk because of the combined approach.