Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
It is simply a process to identify what could go wrong, how it could happen and who might be harmed. I also use this process to identify whether the hazard can be eliminated or risk reduced at the design phase of projects that I work on.

If this process is simple, then the rest of the risk management process is likely to be more effective.

Posted By J Knight
Hi Folks,

Sorry to be a pedant, and I do agree that RAs in practical terms are for risk reduction, but the purpose of Risk Assessment is stated in Regulation 3 as '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' so you do have to be mindful of the relevant statutory provisions, and take measures to comply with them. So the quote given is substantially correct. And this is the actual refulation, not ACOP or guidance, so it does state what HSC had in mind when they published the regs.

When I was doing my dip there was a job at Granada TV and one of the delegates went for it. The purpose of Risk Assessment was one of the interview questions, and none of the candidates got it right (which is why I looked for it and have remembered it),

John

Posted By J Knight
Hi Baggie (or is it Halesowen?),

I suppose the reg does say 'relevant' statutory provisions, so you'd have to ask if the temperature was a) relevant and b) worth having a thermometer for, but you would be required to consider the workplace regs where they were relevant,

John

Posted By peter gotch
Hi John.

'Relevant statutory provisions' is a defined term in HSWA, so what is relevant to the risk assessment is not what counts.

Regards, Peter

Posted By holmezy
Hi All,

I use risk assessments to identify identify who is going to be hurt, by what and then what controls are needed. I use it to also prioritise the actions required, ie sort the Hi Risk first, not the easy solutions. I purposely refrain from quoting regulations in either discussions or paperwork for the very reason that folks tend to loose interest when they hear "reg 5 quotes......reg 6 quotes....this law says..." etc. Most folks just want to know what we are doing to stop them hurting themselves.
I always use regs as a last resort and use umpteen other valid reasons to do the right thing!


So I wouldnt expect regs to be quoted in risk assessments.

Holmezy

Posted By J Knight
Hi Peter,

thanks for that, how to out-pedant the pedant ;-),

John

Posted By J Knight
Hi Folks,

Its not that you need to quote regs, its that the purpose of your RA is to ensure that you abide by the provisions of HASAWA 1974. This is (in part) to ensure the H&S of your employees, sure, but in order to comply fully with HASAWA you have to comply with regulations made under it. Your RA does need to consider any regulations made with the aim of furthering the statutory provisions of HASAWA, but I agree you certainly don't need to mention this explicitly in your record of assessment,

John

Posted By Pete48
HB, there is no difference in your description than in the one provided to your employee other than the requirement to record the law and codes stuff. In order to complete a suitable and sufficient assessment surely one must have knowledge or understanding of all relevant law,regulation, code and practice. Also, if one meets all of these it is reasonable to say that any risk will have been reduced to the required levels. Therefore, the definition given is not incorrect.
On most occasions when safety concerns are found in the workplace it is specifically because those in charge were not properly aware of such matters.
So all my risk assessments do make reference to significantly relevant stuff, usually as a reference list and not repeated against every hazard/risk control. That way everyone is clear about the scope of the assessment.