Posted By Barry J Could anyone clarify a point that’s driving me nuts!! The MHSW Regs require suitable and sufficient assessment of risks to be undertaken - which needs to be recorded if 5 or more employees are employed. Loads of Regs require an “assessment of the risks” (which is presumably a written risk assessment) but I have worked in many large and professional organisations that have either performed Dynamic Risk Assessments, or done a checklist – e.g. for manual handling tasks. Other regulations alternate the wording of what is required. The following is taken from the DSE Regs – “Analysis of workstations” 2.—(1) Every employer shall perform a suitable and sufficient analysis of those workstations which-…………going on to state that…., (2) Any assessment made by an employer in pursuance of paragraph (1) shall be reviewed by him if-….. So is an analysis required or a formal Risk Assessment? – they state both. Also, for PPE, the Regs require “an assessment of the risks” before PPE is chosen – but do companies actually do written Risk assessments for this? Does this mean it has to be a written risk assessment? Taken from the MHO Regs… Duties of employers 4.—(1) Each employer shall— “(b) (i) make a suitable and sufficient assessment of all such manual handling operations to be undertaken” Also, HSE state there is 5 steps to a risk assessment. But they also say in INDG 136 there are 8 steps to take to comply with COSHH, incorporating assessing the risks in some of the steps. What is the difference in requirements between an analysis, an assessment of the risks, and a risk assessment? Am I missing something, or do others also get confused with the wording? Personally, I think the Regulations and HSE leaflets could be revised to clarify what the legal requirements are to help employers. Any help is appreciated in advance, thanks

Posted By Adrian Watson Dear Raymond, Where does it state in the MHSWR 99 that significant risks (not trivial) are to be recorded, etc as I cannot find it? Regards Adrian

Posted By Raymond Rapp Adrian Glad you were paying attention and spotted the deliberate mistake. Actually it was probably a Freudian slip. Now for the record, the regs actually require - 'the significant findings of the assessment' to be recorded subject to blah blah. However, I was trying to make the point that it is not good practice to assess and record insignificant risks, as some people tend to do these days.

Posted By Raymond Rapp Thanks Geoff.

Posted By Kieran J Duignan In relation to Kenneth's observation, it's not really as bleak as all that. As Dominic Cooper, CFIOSH, explains in his readable guidance on improving safety culture (available free at www.bsms-inc.com), this approach to making sense of what happens in safety in ways that are not set out in law has been continually clarified since the investigations into the Chernobyl catastrophe. In Britain, the safety ergonomist/psychologist, James Reason has played a leading part in this line of research and publicity. Research of safety psychologists Aubrey Daniels, Tom Krause, Scott Geller, Dominic Cooper and others have explained the extent to which 'risk perceptions' are influenced by cultural practices of an organisation, just as values of organisational leaders influence compliance with laws. The well-written HSE guidance on cultural influences on organisational behaviour, set out in HSG 48 (on influencing behaviour and controlling errors) is used in litigation hearings to guide interpretation of the courts on H & S regulations. This guidance also refers to substantial research which further illustrates the points at issue.

Posted By Raymond Rapp Sometimes a little common sense goes a long way. No one complies a 100 per cent with health and safety statutory provisions, at least, not all the time. Experience of working with regualtions and guidance is an integral aspect of safety management, as a previous poster alluded to; literal interpretations are not always the most sensible way of dealing with these matters. The moral of the story - don't beat yourself up over trivialities. Ray

Posted By Kenneth Patrick Geoff, my apologies poor communication on my part. I was trying to say that I feel we have a tendency to go beyond the actual legislation because we think we know the spirit and the intention i.e. read to much in to it. Ken