IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Reasonable Practicable/ Practicable v's Prescriptive Requirements
Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By James Sneddon
Hi all,
If you had the choice would you prefer to see the terms reasonable practicable and practicable superseded by more prescriptive requirements?
What would be your reason for choosing one or the other?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
We already have that in the 'shall / shall not' areas of statute where this is before SFAIRP etc and in some cases is stand alone.
"every employer shall maintain his equipment" etc 'Broken bulb' on company van in theory is a flagrant disregard and punishable in a criminal court.
It won't make one iota of a difference I think
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jane Blunt
One of the more troublesome aspects of prescriptive arrangements is that they tend to lag behind progress, and can even get in the way of progress.
I'll give you a silly idea that illustrates what I mean - suppose that the legislation said that you had to lower a canary into a confined space to check that the atmosphere is breathable. This prescriptive solution would stifle research into the development of digital meters that do the same thing rather better.
The 'so far as is reasonably practicable' aspect of the majority of safety legislation allows a great degree of flexibility in managing risk, and allows us to adapt to change and progress.
Jane
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sean Fraser
I am a proponent of the goal-setting principle and it comes down to how it is tested in court. We all know that the Regs are the principle - HSE ACoP is persuasive as the means of how to achieve the principle - guidance, industry standardisation etc. provides a baseline in order to judge what is practicable, if not reasonable.
But the ultimate tst that the court applies - and it does this is in ALL such cases, not confined to interpretation of H&S legislation - is what would be reasonable to the man on the street. In effect, what would the average person deem to be a reasonable response to a legislative requirement. Judgement on whether this has been met, maintained or exceeded follows.
So, the balance of the test is ever changing and this is what makes the job a challenege. If it were prescriptive, then we would have no impetus to improve by becoming ever more efficient and/or effective. We have to actually think about what we do and why we do it - and we have the scope to change it to make it better. much as Jane has already pointed out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Preston
Practicable implies it has to be capable of being used in real life. The legislator does not necessary now exactly what all the practical options are (particularly in terms of technology and cost) so the best practical solution for every circumstance could not always be described in prescriptive legislation.
Reasonable implies someone makes a judgement as to whether the action (or whatever) is appropriate in the circumstances. In the case of a jury, that judgement (hopefully) is being made by ordinary people taking into account their own experience and social and ethical values. This seems a sensible approach in a democracy. There is always the danger that prescriptive legislation does not remain aligned to the values of society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Just to throw a pebble in the pond - My view is that the courts are constantly nibbling at the reasonably practicable term and moving towards a practicable interpretation. When a jury is confrnted with a case of a workplace death and a grieving family employers will have to have very strong grounds for rejecting an option that was practicable on the grounds that it was not reasonably so.
Interest groups are also pushing at these goalposts and we can find this particularly in the rail environment. Gov. and regulator want ultimately to limit the spend whilst bereaved family and passenger groups press for the best possible.- Who can really fault their logic I certainly would not.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
Don't think you and the Robens Committee would have hit it off!
Prescriptive legislation was swept away for good reason. Imagine if you will an accident occuring under circumstances which the prescriptive legislation did not cover. Who is to blame? The regulator for not identifying the issue?
The fundamental principle of goal setting legislation is that responsibility to control risks rests with those who create them. Have a look at some of the construction Regulations from the '60s and you'll see how daft prescriptive legislation can be.
I suggest the following website which expresses my sentiments in concise fashion:
www.adelard.co.uk/iee_pn/safety_case_intro.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jack
Can't expect a young whippersnapper like Bob to know about Robens!
|
|
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Reasonable Practicable/ Practicable v's Prescriptive Requirements
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.