risk assesment

stav

Well-Known Member
hi,
i,ve searched through looking for a risk assesment and have found 1 or 2 for deer stalking but i,m looking for 1 to cover all shooting in general, i.e. rabbit,crows,fox and deer. any help on where i could down load 1 would be great.
many thanks in advance stav
 
thanks 6 pointer that will do the job spot on,
bobt as you know i,m a scaffolder and have all on reading spot the dog nevermind 20 pages of big words.lol.
stav
 
Im in the process of applying for a FC lease. Dose anyone have a template which cover open hill stalking, lamping, larder, atv's etc.
My computer wont allow me to use the link that 6pointer provided.
 
One bit of advice that will at least suggest you have some idea of what is required for a RA to me meaningful:

The words are "site" and "task specific".

If a contractor/service provider presents me with a generic set of RAMS I tell them to either take a hike or allow me to explain over breakfast at the Mayfair Hotel.

Ask FC for a guided tour of the would-be leased land. They cannot refuse and should be impressed.

Cheers

K
 
I know the site and i know the tasks to be carried out. Open hill with conifer woodlands. Shoot deer day and night, extract with ATV and prep carcasses at a FC larder.
The paper work dose my head it. Surly there can be a risk assessment that can be altered to suit every stalkers requirements!
Im buggered if im going to sit and type out a full risk assessment specifically for and by myself. Copy paste anyone please!
 
It has been my (considerable) experience that most people who demand a risk assessment have neither the ability to 'read' it nor have they actually any interest in its content. They simply want a piece of paper with the word Risk Assessment on it so that they can tick a box. The truth is that whilst the FC request these from private individuals there is no legal requirement to provide them. However, you want the stalking you're pretty much over a barrel.

The FC once sent me their assessments and I critiqued them and sent them back with copies of my own. They actually asked me if I would come and run a course for them.

Risk assessments are an important tool under the right circumstances and this scenario really does make a mockery of them. I would send what you can and let them decide rather than agonise over detail. If they don't like them, they'll tell you.
 
The truth is that whilst the FC request these from private individuals there is no legal requirement to provide them. However, you want the stalking you're pretty much over a barrel.

Risk assessments are an important tool under the right circumstances and this scenario really does make a mockery of them. I would send what you can and let them decide rather than agonise over detail. If they don't like them, they'll tell you.

Chris- Sorry you are incorrect. The FC under the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974 Section 2&3 have to ensure that anyone either in their employment (S2) or not in their employment (S3) are safe and not affected by their work practices. They require to assess all risks under the Management Regs and in so doing request this from stalkers, contractors or anyone entering their ground to carry out an undertaking.


Deer stalkers entering anyones ground (except their own privately owned ground unless commercial) regardless if they are employed or not are classed by HSE as carrying out an 'undertaking' and as such are employees whom require to comply with UK H&S legilsation. RAs and Method Statements only requires to be written down where 5 or more are involved (i.e a Syndicate) or where the Principal in this case the FC request it. The part I cannot understand is if an incident were to occur and you have under 5, how do you satisfy HSE that the RAs/MSs were suitable and sufficient if they are not written down.

As Klenchblaize has stated they have to be site specific and task based and not generic. Yet they do not need to be 'war and peace' length, but do require to consider the significant hazards such as lone working, firearms use, ATVs, manual handling, chainsaw use (if permitted), Lyme disease/TB, sever weather, night shooting etc

In terms of JimBOB's post as he is applying for a lease the RA will count towards his score and if it is not correct the FC will not tell him and simply mark him down potentially resulting in non qualification to interview.
 
Sorry but I'm not
i won't bore you with who am outside of this forum but I can assure you that this is an incorrect application of the law. Much of what you say is perfectly quoted and does apply to the world of work including the FC who are employers. However the requirements that they place upon us as stalkers are NOT covered by that no matter what anyone might have lead you to believe.

Chris
 
Chris- please do bore me as I suspect like me, you are in the health & safety game. And for your interest if I don't believe the source of the information then I maybe in trouble as I think they are the highest authority on the matter.

ATB

Andy
 
Will do when I get in to night. BUt let's be really clear, I am not saying that you can ignore the requests, they are a condition of the permission. But how that stands in terms of technical legal argument under uk legislation is a completely different point. So you will have to provide them but not because of a law that says so. That's the point that people including the FC misunderstand

chris

CFIOSH, FIIRSM, ACIEH
 
The problem with forums is that you never really know if what people are telling you is true or total guff. So yes I am a Fellow, twice, but I only put that so there is some proof that I am not talking out of my ar$e.

You have to remember that the Act is 40 years old now and whilst still excellent law, was written for a very different world of work. To understand this it is essential that you read the Roben's report of 1970-72. Anyone in the profession or doing a NEBOSH cert for eg should read it. They don't tell you this in Safety School, but they should.

The Act was written to reduce the high number of fatal accidents in industry by companies that basically didn't give a toss. The Factories Act was written in a way that left many loopholes and as long as you only killed people in these gaps then no crime had been committed. It was the outrage after Aberfan that was the catalyst for change.

So, where are we now? Well the simple truth is that with the demise of those major industries, the new mass employers are supermarkets, shoe shops, local government, double glazing companies etc etc. and what is happening is that there are people out there trying almost to shoehorn these employers into that old industrial law in ways that was never envisaged.

Let's take the FC as an example. They are an employer and do some pretty hazardous stuff. They are covered by everything that you mentioned. Let's forget their own employees for now. They're covered. They also have this duty to look after (as much as they realistically can) the people who come along to enjoy the land. Now, the FC has many undertakings such as growing trees and chopping them down, but they also have some support activities associated with the achievement of that such as manageing the deer trying to munch on them. In addition to this they provide a place for recreation eg mountain biking and walking. If I wander into the trees for a picnic, the real extent of the FC's duty extends to things like not crushing me with big machines and building foot bridges that don't collapse when I cross them. This access is free and they are members of the public. If they ran an event on their land where people came and paid, such as rally, then we'd still be the public, but we'd be called the Paying Public. We would pay them to come and enjoy something. Ok so far? They would not have to bring a risk assessment with them. Neither would they for mountain biking or anything similar.

Right, at this point another member of the public appears and says, May I shoot some of your deer? These people are not employers. They are bus drivers, teachers, post hole diggers, lawyers and IT consultants. They do not employe anyone either, they are themselves employees of someone else working 9 to 5 and paying their taxes. This is simply a hobby for them. The FC says yes, you may. But as deer control is part of the over all management of trees which is our core activity, we have a duty not to unduly expose anyone else out there to anything dangerous. Therefore we need to seek certain assurances that you aren't a blithering idiot. Because some of that liability may come home to rest with us and frankly we don't fancy it. Ok still making sense I hope.

Now where this then goes wrong is that the FC (and I am not having a go, seriously) is that it asks for risk assessments - which in itself isn't a wholly bad idea, but is seen as invoking that requirement under the Mgt Regs. This is the bit that is wrong. Why?
Well firstly, an employer would only ask for risk assessments from another employer such as a contractor or someone with whom they share a workspace. They would not request risk assessments from an employee. Does your boss ask you for risk assessments as a condition of employment? No of course not. Don't confuse that with helping to write them. In the eyes of the law, we are not employees I can assure you. There is plenty of evidence where an agency worker has tried to claim the same rights of employment in the past as full time employees. Yes it can be more than just money, but lets not get too deeply into that. Remember that WE are paying the FC here so that would be an odd employment contract. Under section 3 they have to look after those who aren't employees, yep agreed. And under section 7 employees have a duty to behave. But what doesn't exist in safety law is the requirement for member of the public to behave. I know, it's daft, but if you have a sign and an employee ignores it, then they have technically breached their duty. But if a member of the public ignores it, they haven't. Again, members of the public have no duties whatsoever under the Act. So for this to stick we either have to be THE employer, an employee or another employer like a contractor.

So are we contractors? Well we are contractEd, but no we are not contractors. Again, we're paying. We are buying something from them - we are in fact a CUSTOMER. The FC owes us a certain degree of care and to our fellow shooters and the public and the rest of the FC employees. Of course they do, but the mistake that people make is over that relationship between us and the FC. It is not a Master and Servant relationship it is a permission. And as I have said, we are not another employer.

Just how does the FC ascertain that we aren't idiots? Firstly we have to provide a valid FAC to show that a competent authority has seen fit to give us a firearm. Secondly, we have to produce evidence of an other authority that we have shown the right skills in stalking EG DSC level 1 or 2. Thirdly, they see for themselves by making us do a shooting test and even an oral test at times. Finally they look for insurance to make sure that we can cover our liabilities. And that my friends is the big driver here. It's not about criminal law and the HSE prosecuting them, it is the fear of civil litigation and being sued for something. But, as FAC holders, just where does the criminal and civil liability lie with shooting? It's the nut behind the butt as we all know. In essence WE carry most of the liability here not the FC.

The FC does have duties, we have explained that. But in criminal terms under the 1974 Act we do not. If the worst happened and we shot someone, that would be a regular criminal offence NOT a safety offence because we are not at work. I appreciate that syndicates were mentioned and that they would be classed as employers. This is not correct I am afraid. I know that certain shooting organisation have indicated as such, but if you, me, Mick from Telford, Jim from London and Fred from the council estate round the corner decide to split the cost of shooting on FC land, we are NOT suddenly an employer. We are not registered as a company, pay no tax, take no salary etc, we are simply a group of members of the public. Therefore we have no requirement to provide written risk assessments, especially of the things that ONLY affect us. It is of absolutely no legal concern of the FC as to our skills in manual handling, crossing fences, using knives etc. if it was then you'd have to provide them for mountain biking too. And let's not forget that you could run over a member of the public on your bike!!!! However, if the FC feel that in determining if I am safe with firearms that me giving them some document that further demonstrates that, then fine, all well and good; you could even call it a risk assessment if you like. But in the right terms, not safety regulations. I would call it a personal shooting CV perhaps. Where have you shot, what have you shot, how long have you been shooting etc etc. I would be able to read this and see what EXPERIENCE you have but only as PART of determining your skills. Just what benefit is there to supplying the FC with something that says, quad medium risk, shooting low risk, gralloching low risk, loading and unloading, medium risk? I challenge someone to tell me. What does that actually do for anyone? What they need to know is are you competent?


There will people out there who disagree but that is because they don't necessarily understand and it has become reality through myth and misconception. The FC DOES have to go to reasonable lengths to assure themselves that we are safe and suitable to be allowed on their land but only to the extent that it affects sother people. This stuff about TB, using ATVs etc is born from a fear of civil action. If I slice my arm gralloching a beast, I have committed no offence and neither has the FC.

I resent to old fart implication, but I have been doing this professionaly to remember life before the mgt regulations, yes. I know several of the 'top brass' at the HSE, Ragnar Lofstedt is a personal friend of mine (and a very keen stalker by the way) and I'm a published author on this subject. But I am not so arrogant that I would not listen to alternative view points, but they must be based on sound theory and reason.

Hope that's of some interest. There always some exceptions such as professional hunters and pest control contractors etc, but I am talking about Joe Public


Happy to continue the debate.

Chris (just Chris will do fine as I am not at work)
 
Thank you Chris a very clear and concise interpritation & explanation of H&S law for a stalker. Those 'required' RA's for stalking arrangements have always annoyed me up especially as mostly those that I have given them to don't have a clue about what I have written. Once presented they are then filed and never looked at again its a real waste of effort
Thanks
P
 
Chris

An excellent and well written article the majority of which I agree with. However, the bit that you have missed is as follows and this is according to the HSE (copy e-mail that I cannot lay my hands on after seeking advice from the now disbanded info line approx 8 yrs ago).

Where a person whether it is for commercial gain, charity or goodwill agrees/carries out (for gift, payment, for free or under contract) tasks at someone elses workplace (host employer) then they are deemed to be providing an 'undertaking' of work which falls within the auspices of the HASWA. They are NOT considered by HSE as 'Joe Public' as you say.

Whilst the HASWA is dated (it was also an enabling Act allowing change through Regulations which has occurred) and at the time did not make allowances for the above situation and is a bit of a grey area. According to the HSE, the 'undertaker' is similar to a self-employed person and they deem is a duty holder under the Act to conduct their work in compliance with the UK Health & Safety legislation. As it is not their own place of work then Part 1-Section 2 cannot apply and it then falls within Section 3.

Section 3 General duties of employers and self-employed to persons other than their employees- It shall be the duty of every self-employed person (read undertaker) to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that he and other persons (not being his employees) who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.
(3)In such cases as may be prescribed, it shall be the duty of every employer and every self-employed person (read undertaker), in the prescribed circumstances and in the prescribed manner, to give to persons (not being his employees) who may be affected by the way in which he conducts his undertaking the prescribed information about such aspects of the way in which he conducts his undertaking as might affect their health or safety.

In relation to the post in hand, the FC are the Host Employer and the prospective stalker is offering a service under lease to act as a Tenant to cull deer and then PUT them in the FC larder (as an undertaking) regardless of whatever other employment they have elsewhere. Accordingly, under Section 2, FC have a responsibility to their employess to provide them with a safe place to work and reduce risk from others not under their employment. Hence they request RAs and MAs so that they can ensure that risks are checked and controlled. The FC cannot be expected to directly assess a risk from the stalker as they do not know how they will perform the tasks and again they request RAs and MS for same.

Under Section 3(3) the undertaker(stalker) has to in the prescribed circumstances and in the prescribed manner, to give to persons (not being his employees i.e the FC) who may be affected by the way in which he conducts his undertaking the prescribed information about such aspects of the way in which he conducts his undertaking as might affect their health or safety.

The difference between the 'paying public', picnickers, mountain bikers you cite and stalkers (recreational or controllers) is that one is enjoying the use of the facilites offered, whereas the latter is offering a service to complete a work related task that helps the core function of the Host Employer and is carrying out an 'undertaking'.

Following on from the above, under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 Approved Code of Practice & guidance
the undertaker has to carry out a risk assessment as per Regulation 12 and 15 regarding his undertakings and how they will affect the host employer and the host employer's employees.

The above is also reiterated in HSE Guidance Note AS7 Guns- What the law says- Employers and people who ‘conduct an undertaking’ involving the use of guns have a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 to take all reasonably practicable measures so that no one is put at risk. In this sense an ‘undertaking’ does not necessarily need to involve employment or commercial gain. The duty may extend to a wide range of individuals, including farm staff, gamekeepers, beaters, pickersup, drivers, guests, volunteers and members of the public. In addition employees also have responsibilities for their own health and safety and for that of other people who may be put at risk by their work.

Finally, as the Stalker is to render the carcase to the FC and use their larder, TB and carcase handling etc are very pertinent under relevant H&S S 4(2&4) and HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) principles under the Food Hygience Regulations requiring risk assessments.

So based on the guidance given to me by the HSE I am of the view that there is a legislative requirement for stalkers to provide the prescribed risk assessments

ATB

Andy
 
Last edited:
Andy we're just off out into the rain and dark so I shall get back to you tonight. Sorry I missed a bit!

it is the status of the stalker that we have to examine in detail. As I said, it is the duty of an employer to provide risk assessments; that is plain and simple. Therefore the only way that you or HAVE to provide written risk assessments is if we are an employer. I clearly don't buy that. If I am an employer somehow then I certainly employ less than 5 people and therefore do not have to provide written risk assessments.

i'll mull it over and get back to you


Chris
 
I agree that if you are buying the stalking, no matter if it’s on your own or as a syndicate, you are certainly not employees. Never the less you still owe a duty of care to those around you.

If the FC were paying YOU to cull deer then that’s a different matter!

If you are employed by someone then it’s up to them, the employer, to take care of risk assessments and make sure you, the employee, are fully aware and comply, remember the employer is vicariously liable for the employees’actions.

If you accidently shoot someone, or their property this doesnot typically come under criminal law but civil law. The only time it would come under criminal law typically is if there was clear intent to cause harm e.g. the act was reckless rather than careless. Looking back at the 1000 or so shooting claims Ihave dealt with over the years I can remember only 1 where the Environmentalhealth officer was involved.

If a stalker has an accident of FC land and say injures a thirdparty, the third party lawyer could go after the FC as well as the stalker, that’s why it’s important your insurance policy includes the ‘indemnity to principal’ clause.This protects your landlord against claims to the same extent that it protects you.

However, if the FC can show that they have taken reasonable precautions i.e. making sure the stalker is ‘papered up’ then the will go a long way tototally mitigating their liability; hence they and increasingly other landowners are asking for shooting tenants to complete a simple risk assessment AND make sure that the shooters insurance also protect them, it’s got little if anythingto do with the HASAWA.

Regards to all


David
 
Back
Top