Reasonable Practicability

Health & Safety Briefing No. 17

February 2015

http://www.theiet.org/cpd

www.theiet.org

This Briefing relates specifically to UK legislation terminology.

Did you know

The UK Health and Safety at Work Act leads to legislation made under the Act that may be absolute or qualified by expressions such as the need for duty holders to ensure reasonable practicability. (So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable - SFAIRP or As Low As is Reasonably Practicable - ALARP)

It is important to understand that in this case the word practicable is used in a legal sense. It should not be confused with the rather vague term practical, meaning able to be used in real life. Practicable infers a statuary obligation that has to be carried out if, in the light of current knowledge it is feasible, irrespective of cost or difficulty. This is often simplified to if it can be done, it must be done.

The term reasonably practicable allows for a cost benefit analysis to be used when determining the actions to be taken in response to an identified risk, or for a comparison to be carried out with good practice in similar circumstances. The preventative measures taken should however be commensurate with the magnitude of the risk.

Both practicable and reasonably practicable are statutory criminal liabilities in health and safety legislation. Ultimately, the courts decide whether duty holders have complied with their obligations but case law has established certain precedents and the Health and Safety Executive have published useful guidance. A pivotal case in the law on SFAIRP/ALARP was that of Edwards v The National Coal Board (1949) see: http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpglance.htm. This case established that a computation must be made in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice, whether in money, time or trouble, involved in the measures necessary to avert the risk is placed in the other; and that, if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them, the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice, the person upon whom the duty is laid discharges the burden of proving that compliance was not reasonably practicable.

HSE guidance has been published on how this should be interpreted and the use of Cost Benefit Analysis. Several important points should be noted:

There should be a transparent bias on the side of health and safety. For duty holders, the test of gross disproportion implies that, at least, there is a need to err on the side of safety in the computation of health and safety costs and benefits.

Whenever possible, standards should be improved or at least maintained, thus current good practice is used as a baseline - the working assumption being that the appropriate balance between costs and risks was struck when the good practice was formally adopted.

Certain hazards are regulated through a safety case regime requiring an explicit demonstration in the safety case that control measures introduced conform to the ALARP principle.

Further Information

General information on risk management can be found on the HSE website http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/index.htm Guidance given to HSE inspectors regarding ALARP and SFAIRP http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarp1.htm HSEs decision making process: Reducing Risks: Protecting People - HSE Books, ISBN 0717621510

http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/r2p2.pdf

These Briefings contain a summary of recent Health & Safety issues, provided for general information purposes only, and should not be relied upon as legal advice. The IET has tried to make the Briefings accurate and informative, but they have not been prepared by a lawyer and may not constitute an up-to-date summary of the law. The IET accepts no liability for your use of these Briefings. Further details and information on broader Health & Safety issues can be obtained from the Governments Health and Safety Executive. Legal advice should be obtained on any specific issues.

The Institution of Engineering and Technology is registered as a Charity in England & Wales (no 211014) and Scotland (no SC038698).

The IET 2015

For further information about the IETs Health and Safety Policy Advisory Group only, please contact:

Health and Safety Policy Advisory Group Secretary Policy Department IET, Michael Faraday House, Six Hills Way, Stevenage. SG1 2AY01438 765690email: policy@theiet.orgwww.theiet.org/policyhttp://www.theiet.org/factfiles/

This content can contribute towards your Continuing Professional Development (CPD) as part of the IETs CPD Monitoring Scheme.

http://www.theiet.org/cpd