Risk Assessments and the Concept of Suitability and Sufficiency - Essay Example

Suitability and Sufficiency in Risk Assessments When the government asks employers to carry out risk assessments which are meant to be ‘suitable and sufficient’, three interpretations can be immediately created. The first one is the interpretation of the government, the second is the interpretation made by individual employers and finally the interpretation of the courts when there is a dispute as to whether the assessment made was suitable and sufficient in the first place. To better understand the concept of suitability and sufficiency, it would be prudent to examine these interpretations and see what the government expects as well as what the courts have decided in the past. The government’s interpretation leaves the least to be doubted since it has been put into words and the government has given suggestions to employers for conducting suitable and sufficient risk assessments. The HSE is the main source of these requirements and suggestions which are summarized in the publication titled 5 steps to Risk Assessment (1999). When it comes to suitable, the HSE is looking for risk assessments which show that proper checks were made to account for all reasonable risks and evaluations were made as to who could be affected. Obvious hazards and reasonable precautions are also a part of the suitability of a risk assessment. Sufficiency of a risk assessment has to do more with non-quantifiable risk factors which can influence the amount of danger involved during work. The correct combination of sufficiency and suitability will need a risk assessment which deals in good faith with all the obvious risk factors and provides some means to predict and tackle risks which are less obvious. The required result of a risk assessment and evaluation is a list of precautions and methods which reduce the risk associated with the task at hand. If such an assessment is done, the remaining risk will be certainly lowered to an acceptable level (HSE, 1999). In terms of legislation and the actual wording of the law, risk assessment is required for employers and self-employed persons as well. In the case of self-employed people they need to assess risks posed by their work to themselves and others in the vicinity. The legislation takes special note of employing young people and mentions that their inexperience, lack of maturity and unawareness of risks can also be a factor which requires a deeper study to ensure suitability and sufficiency (OPSI, 1999). This is a part of the ACOP (Approved Codes of Practice) since it is a factor common to many businesses and industries. The ACOP are useful for employers since they give valuable advice with how a person can comply with the law. Not only do they deal with topics like the clarification of what is ‘reasonably practicable’, they also give suggestions and examples as to what actions constitute ‘suitable and sufficient’ measures. Using these codes prevents costly mistakes and gives an employer the opportunity to show that they worked in good faith to ensure the completeness of their risk assessment and evaluation. In terms of their legality, Approved Codes of Practice have a special legal status since any court of law will look at what lapses were made by the employer in using the ACOP when and if there is a case presented against them. The Health and Safety Laws can be shown to be breached if the ACOP is not followed and the employer could have a hard time showing that they did indeed go by the law in some other way if they did not follow the guidance of the Approved Codes of Practice (HSE, 2003). However, it must be mentioned that the ACOP are used in support of the law and are not the exact law itself. They key to suitability and sufficiency is that government and law makers are not expected perfection from the employer. As long as the employer can show that the risk assessment was made in accordance with the spirit of the law, the actions of the employers could gain court approval. It is a commonly known fact that no matter how many precautions are taken, accidents could still happen and people might get hurt in the process. However, the government and the law making bodies seek to minimize these risks and the burden of minimization as well as providing proof that it was done is with the employer. The main problem comes when the common man tries to interpret the law. Quite often, wishful thinking may play a part in the interpretations and the employers’ ideas about a suitable and sufficient risk assessment may be quite different from a workers assessment. High risks jobs like underground mine work or demolition workers would certainly like to have more precautions in place even though it may significantly raise the cost of the operations. Low risk positions like office workers may even ignore safety precautions for the sake of convenience. In either case, it is the employer who has his/her neck on the line. The advantage of letting employers make their own risk assessment is a savings in cost for the employer while still giving them an option to get external risk assessments if they do not want to take any liability risks from a lawsuit against them. The disadvantage is that a less than honest employer may not show interest in taking a risk assessment which is suitable or sufficient. However, since the government only demands that a risk assessment should be made and records of the risk assessment maintained, this does leave the door open for certain employers to get away with a cursory risk evaluation. In conclusion, while the risks involved with work can never be truly eliminated, making a suitable and sufficient risk assessment would certainly minimize those risks. The sufficiency of the risk assessment has to do with non-quantifiable risks while the suitability concerns itself with risks which are particular to the job at hand. Both of these elements are required for a complete risk assessment which might seem expensive at first but would certainly save money for the employer in the long run if they want to avoid costly fees from damages (HSE, 2004). It has to be said that whatever an employer may think is suitable and sufficient, the final decision always lies with the courts and the judges. Word Count: 1,128 Works Cited HSE, Health and Safety Executive. (1999). 5 steps to Risk Assessment. Sudbury: HSE Books. HSE, Health and Safety Executive. (2003). Health and Safety Regulation: A Short Guide. Sudbury: HSE Books. HSE, Health and Safety Executive. (2004). Wessex Trains Fined £10,000 Following Injury to Fitter. Retrieved February 27, 2006 from hse.gov.uk. website: http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2004/e04175.htm OPSI. (1999). The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Retrieved February 26, 2006 from opsi.gov.uk website: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19993242.htm Read More