I received a sub-contractor's RAMS today from the PC. I was going to print them off but then looked to see how many pages...50, 100, 200 - 254 pages!! Can I submit this to the Guiness Book of Records I wonder?

I got an IOSH book that is onlt 355 pages!

Ray, in what capacity are you receiving the RAMS from the PC? I suspect you are CDM C? Now that you have them what will you do with them? Are you in a position to advise the PC on their RAMS? Now to Ron's question - Which profession is responsible?

Is it really the H&S profession that has things wrong with in-depth RA's? As when you go into a court of law over a death or something similar the judges and lawyers want suitable and sufficient detail as the devil e.g. your defense in a court; is in the suitable and sufficient detail! I am not saying that the RA we are talking about here is correct all I am saying is that 'suitable and sufficient' does not necessarily mean 'short and simple' and the on-site working RA can be one page, as most should not need to be any more than that, however the background to this one 'working' page may include many pages of in-depth analysis One of the latter deaths that I was involved with included in the defense 'bundle' a 25 page WHSW RA to which the judge quoted 'it is not often we see a suitable and sufficient-thank you' and the 20 page RA went a long way towards helping the defense gaining a better outcome; although in this case whilst the RA was OK the managers did not work to the WSSW that was created from the RA etc. so the business eventually lost the case As for putting RA's inside method-statements or joining them together etc.; it is not what I would advise as they are 2 different areas in my opinion as they are different things albeit closely connected Its interesting that for a simple screw that goes into a wall there can be a paper stream of metallurgy, manufacturing, marketing, sales and BS standards detail yet when we come to supporting people all that is wanted nowadays is a single page at best! & I would get the supplier of the RA to justify their position! Just my thoughts

Hi All, I sometimes think that a Safe Written Procedure (SSW) for completing a task with the key safety elements built into them, for example, isolating the power supply before fitting the light switch, wearing goggles before grinding, etc. that are communicated to workers with appropriate supervision are the best control methods of managing safety. I don't think that conducting RA always is the way to prevent accidents in the workplace. I had a recent conversation with a HSE inspector who was asking for a risk assessment for a particular task (bathing an elderly resident) when I told her that we don't have one, I could see FFI written all over her face. After explaining that we have specific thermometers, thermostatic mixer valves fitted, training of staff and written procedures for the task, she was OK with this approach. My rational for this was that the risk of scalding in the industry is well known and that my assessment across the organisation was to implement such controls and to devise a safe procedure (i.e. record the significant findings) so.... no need for fancy long RA documents with complicated risk matrix's that are subjective. Disclaimer: I accept that this approach works for us within our industry, and may not work for construction for example, so horses for courses. Ray - If you didn't print them off. How were these communicated to other interested parties, for example front line workers.

Most lawyers I have had the misfortune to deal with have not a cuckoos idea of what a suitable and sufficient risk assessment should contain. I would venture to charge that few, if any, have ever prepared a risk assessment. The biblical proportions of some RA/MS are indeed down to a particular group of people - the safety bods and perhaps the purveyors of the doctrine they promote i.e. the training providers. Jon

With regards to biblical proportions of paper work in industry this has been the result of a number of different influences, from lawyers, training courses, consultancies, client's expectations and even our dear old HSE. It now seems that if there is not a RA, MS, CPP or some other document without pages and pages of irrelevant and insignificant matters it is not complete. As noted on these forums recently, even the latest edition of CDM is now promoting ever more useless reams paper work. Incidentally, you may find my article on SHP Online worth a read in the context of my latter comments (plug, plug). http://www.shponline.co....15-part-1/#comment-94830 http://www.shponline.co....regulations-2015-part-2/

Not necessarily true, there will be in the MS low, medium and high risks highlighted as part of the sequence of tasks, materials, plant and equipment, labour, etc. A simple MS or similar should be written for even basic tasks in my opinion. I might concede with the proverbial tap washer... The RA should only record 'significant' risks, however the subjective nature of risks will undoubtedly include lower risks as well as medium and high.

I can't agree with that FS. My clients are advised by me to always set out their discussions with contractors into a method statement if the job is not routine, and for any job if there are any precautions necessary to ensure the safety of other employees/public. Also if a well-known contractor sends a new fitter to do a routine job then a method review becomes necessary and be written down.

I think the general perception of a Method Statement is that it is a health and safety tool when it can be but not necessarily as it sets out the order in which a task should be carried out. (The method). IMO this is carried out by trades generally, i.e. a supervisor may write out the MS for a junior worker to follow, but not as a H&S procedure. In that respect there may not be any risk ratings entered into the MS.

I agree with the comments so far, in construction on our sites we expect a MS & RA from every subcontractor so that every task is covered and all the guys know how they are supposed to be doing the task (not always how they do do it though!), it would not be accepted on our sites to turn up with a RA only. I thought this was the norm for construction sites?