In t r o d u c t io n sIn t r o d u c t io n s

?What Ris ks Are Tolerable

, D a v id M c In t y r e D ir e c t o r

1 . C o n t e n t s1 . C o n t e n t s

• INTRODUCTION

• TERMS

• DEFINITION OF RISK

• SOLVE FOR RISK

• ?WHAT RISKS ARE TOLERABLE

• CADOGANS METHOD

2 . In t r o d u c t io n2 . In t r o d u c t io n2 .1 , Ac c id e n t s G o d a n d S c ie n c e2 .1 , Ac c id e n t s G o d a n d S c ie n c e

• There is a tens ion between the drive by s ome to create a

ris k free workplace and not to overburden Employers

2 . In t r o d u c t io n2 . In t r o d u c t io n2 .1 C o n t e x t2 .1 C o n t e x t

• The Coalition Government s ays in its programme for government that

“ We will ame nd the he alth and safe ty laws that s tand in the way

of common se nse policing .”

• Recent Court Judgements have provided s ome us eful

ins ights

3 . Te rm s3 . Te rm s3 .1 Im p o r t a n t h e a lt h & s a f e t y t e r m s3 .1 Im p o r t a n t h e a lt h & s a f e t y t e r m s

• Ris k

• Hazard• Reas onably Practicable

• Suitable and Suffic ient

• Fores eeable

Definition of Risk• R v Board of Trustees of the Science Museum

• Adamson v Procurator Fiscal

4 . D e f in it io n o f R is k4 . D e f in it io n o f R is k4 .1 ?H o w d o t h e C o u r t s d e f in e R is k4 .1 ?H o w d o t h e C o u r t s d e f in e R is k

Ris k Formula

Pr o babil it y o f a hazar d o c c ur r ing

X

Number o f Peo pl e Ef f ec t ed and S er io us nes s o f in j ur ie s

4 . D e f in it io n o f R is k4 . D e f in it io n o f R is k4 .2 R is k F o rm u la4 .2 R is k F o rm u la

• The metho d needs t o be s uit abl e f o r the c ir c ums t anc es

?Who s hould carry out the as s es sment

?What method s hould be us ed

• A s ys t emat ic appr o ac h needs t o be t aken • Al l hazar ds need t o be ident if ied

• Empl o yer , Owner , Co ns ul t ant o r Empl o yee?

• Dif f e r ent Per c ept io ns o f Ris k

5 . S o lv e f o r R is k5 . S o lv e f o r R is k5 .1 Id e n t if y H a z a r d s5 .1 Id e n t if y H a z a r d s

5 . S o lv e f o r R is k5 . S o lv e f o r R is k5 .2 ?Wh o a n d H o w B a d ly5 .2 ?Wh o a n d H o w B a d ly

Qualitative Approach

Objective Analys is

Hybrid Approach

5 . S o lv e f o r R is k5 . S o lv e f o r R is k5 .3 P r o b a b il it y5 .3 P r o b a b il it y

We have al l t he var iabl e s and we c an no w s o l ve the f o r mul a

• Hazar d• Pr o babil it y o f t he hazar d o c c ur r ing• Tho s e who c o ul d be e f f ec t ed• S er io us nes s o f in j ur ie s

CALCULATE RISK

!CALCULATE ALL RISKS

5 . S o lv e f o r R is k5 . S o lv e f o r R is k5 .4 C a lc u la t e R is k5 .4 C a lc u la t e R is k

6 . Wh a t R is k s a r e6 . Wh a t R is k s a r e?To le r a b le ?To le r a b le

6 .1 E lim in a t io n a n d E v a lu a t io n6 .1 E lim in a t io n a n d E v a lu a t io n

Eliminate Ris ks that are not “Real”

Evaluate Remaining Ris ks

?What about unfores eeable Ris ks

6 . Wh a t R is k s a r e6 . Wh a t R is k s a r e?To le r a b le ?To le r a b le

6 .2 U n f o r e s e e a b le R is k s6 .2 U n f o r e s e e a b le R is k s

Unforeseeable Risks• Austin Rover v Inspector of Factories

• R v H. T. M. Ltd

6 . Wh a t R is k s a r e6 . Wh a t R is k s a r e?To le r a b le ?To le r a b le

6 .3 U n f o r e s e e a b le R is k s6 .3 U n f o r e s e e a b le R is k s

Bec aus e o f r ec ent he l pf ul j udg ement s we c an t ake a mo r e s o phis t ic at ed appr o ac h t o r is k anal ys is .

We s ho ul d no w

El iminat e be f o r e we Eval uat e

6 . Wh a t R is k s a r e6 . Wh a t R is k s a r e?To le r a b le ?To le r a b le

6 .4 E lim in a t io n6 .4 E lim in a t io n

Hypothetical Risks• R v Chargot

• R v Porter

6 . Wh a t R is k s C a n b e6 . Wh a t R is k s C a n b e?To le r a t e d ?To le r a t e d

6 .5 E lim in a t io n6 .5 E lim in a t io n

6 . Wh a t R is k s C a n b e6 . Wh a t R is k s C a n b e?To le r a t e d ?To le r a t e d

6 .6 E v a lu a t io n6 .6 E v a lu a t io n

Evaluation of the Ris k

Impracticable Risks• Edwards v National Coal Board

6 . Wh a t R is k s C a n b e6 . Wh a t R is k s C a n b e?To le r a t e d ?To le r a t e d

6 .7 E v a lu a t io n6 .7 E v a lu a t io n

Eliminate

Evaluate

•Insignificant

•Unexpected

•Unlikely

•Hypothetical

•Theoretical

•Fanciful

•Every day risks

6 . Wh a t R is k s C a n b e6 . Wh a t R is k s C a n b e?To le r a t e d ?To le r a t e d

6 .8 S u m m a r y6 .8 S u m m a r y

7 . C a d o g a n s M e t h o d7 . C a d o g a n s M e t h o d

Some categories of ris k can be to lerated becaus e they are not “Real” Ris ks and others can be to lerated becaus e it would be too much trouble

.to do anything about them

1STEP . Carry out a Robus t Ris k As s es sment Identification and Elimination of

. to lerable ris ks s hould only be made on the bas is

2STEP Judge what ris ks can be to lerated us ing the fo llowing.guidance

• Eliminate , fanc iful theoretical or hypothetical ris ks

• Eliminate ris ks as s oc iated with normal day to day life

• Evaluate and if pos s ible e liminate ris ks that are , gros s ly out of proportion with the money time or trouble that it would take to eliminate or mitigate the

.ris k