[0:00]Hello and welcome back to the fourth video in Iosh's Health and Safety Fundamentals series. This video is called reasonable practicability. My name is Duncan Spencer, and I am the head of advice and practice here at Iosh. A note before we start. While reasonable practicability is a legal test in British law, in many other countries it is not. Nonetheless, my personal experience of teaching people to use this concept in other countries has given a first-hand experience of how the concept can be helpful for all organizations, wherever they may operate in the world. As we discovered in video three of this series, reasonable foresight is the use of competency and applying an understanding of operational context to predict occupational safety and health incidents that may occur in the future. Reasonable practicability uses competency and context to decide how far to control the risk and when, frankly, it's time to stop. Reasonable practicability in the UK was defined by Lord Justice Asquith in 1949 in the case of Edwards versus the National Cold Board. He said that a computation must be made by the owner in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale, and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting that risk on the other, whether that's time, money or trouble.
[1:28]He went on to say, if it was shown that there was gross disproportion between them in that the risk can be shown to be insignificant in relation to the sacrifice, then the defendant need not act further to control the risk. In modern terms, this is interpreted as using competent judgment to decide what is sensible and proportionate given the level of risk. The type of operation and the resources available. The size of the organization is also relevant. A small business may not have the same level of resources as a large national or international organization. It may be unable to afford the latest technology or employ the same practice. Nonetheless, within the scope of their resources, the small business must also be able to demonstrate that they too have had an adequate and proportionate control of the risk. This raises an ethical point to reflect on. If the occupational health and safety profession sets out to allow no harm, should the concept of reasonable practicability be extended beyond physical and mental injury to the individual and encompass harm to the organization too? Is it the duty of the occupational health and safety professionals to recommend organizations deliver all practicable controls, regardless of the cost of time, money, and trouble to the organization? Or should they be better at using reasonable practicability to protect both the individual and the organization to minimize harm? This is best illustrated by an example. Imagine a warehouse with a forklift truck and mechanical handling equipment moving in the same space as pedestrians. There is a long list of possible controls that may include, instruct everybody to wear a high visibility jacket, properly fastened at the front. Paint designated walkways for pedestrians. Fence the edges of pedestrian walkways. Put in a one-way driving system for the mechanical handling equipment. Put in zebra crossings where designated pedestrian routes cross vehicle routes. Put in warning lights or traffic lights at crossings and access doorways. Put up signage to warn pedestrians and vehicle drivers. Improve lighting. Develop a safe system of work. Train pedestrians and drivers in the safe system of work. Provide regular refresher training and or toolbox talks. Impose a key control system so that only authorized and qualified drivers can use the forklift trucks and mechanical handling equipment. Ensure the regular servicing of the braking systems on the vehicles. Ensure the daily testing of the brakes in the checks for forklift trucks and mechanical handling equipment before they're used. Train managers on how to supervise pedestrians and forklift trucks or mechanical handling equipment and the drivers of those. Place cameras around the warehouse to record events and for active surveillance of employee behavior. Remove people from the environment and fully automate the system. It's a very long list. One you may be able to add more control possibilities to. I'm sure you will agree that all these controls will help to reduce risk. But if we were required to do everything practicable, then every organization would have to implement the whole list regardless of size, resource levels and degree of risk. But what is practicable and what is reasonably practicable or proportionate are different things. Video two in this series discussed the importance of context and benchmarking. So this potential control list raises a series of questions. How many pedestrians are using the area and when? How many forklift trucks and mechanical handling equipment are using the area and when? Where, when and how might incidents occur? What is the level of risk? What is the size of the operation and who would we be benchmarked against regarding our risk controls and decisions? Keeping in mind the long list of possible controls we just listed, if we imagine warehouse A to be a small warehouse, taking one lorry delivery early in the morning before most people start work, with no pedestrian access routes needed in the area, no night shift is employed, and one forklift truck is in operation for only one hour a day, in this context the risk is relatively low, and we wouldn't need all of the controls on that long list. Alternatively, in warehouse B, if we said this was a large operation with 50 forklift trucks and mechanical handling equipment operating all day and night, loading and unloading racking, that pedestrians need to cross this area throughout the day and night to get to and from the canteen and to visit the offices, then this is a different level of risk, and we would need to impose many more of the controls on that long list. It is essential to understand context to appreciate the local conditions and operation. It is essential to have the competency to understand the possible risk controls and the benefits each control may bring. It is important to note that context must be described in your risk assessment. It is helpful to meet any future challenge by recording an explanation and justification of your risk control decisions. A proportionate response to risk requires the application of competency and the full appreciation of the context of the operation. Implementing all practicable controls means there will be no end and could, in theory, lead organizations to go to unnecessary lengths to control risk, wasting resources for little extra benefit. The application of reasonable judgment enables arguments to be formed to describe when sufficient controls are implemented. Competency in both environments must be in the technical domain. That is to say, we cannot expect the general public to understand what should be on the possible control list, but we should expect people working and managing these environments to. What is more, this knowledge should be extended to understanding what other warehouses in similar operational circumstances are doing to control those risks they have in common. In summary, a proportionate response to risk requires the application of competency and the full appreciation of the context of the operation. Implementing all practicable controls means there will be no end and could, in theory, lead organizations to go to unnecessary lengths to control risk, wasting resources for little extra benefit. The application of reasonable judgment enables arguments to be formed to describe when sufficient controls are implemented. In our next video, we will provide further considerations around the application of reasonable practicability. Our discussion will reflect on the terms as far as is reasonably practicable and as low as is reasonably practicable. It will consider how reasonable practicability can be misapplied. To become a member of IOSH and for more information about occupational health and safety topics, please visit IOSH.com.
