Mick,
I found the defence standards document surprisingly easy to read, it provides clear descriptions of ALARP and supports your article on Sunday.
I haven't read the whole document but this stood out amongst the sections that I have read:
10.1.6 The Project should demonstrate any claims that all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that risk is tolerable and ALARP and demonstrate that they have exercised their common law “duty of care”. The level of evidence required is a function of the level of risk and the domain. This will also involve demonstrating that further risk reduction methods have been actively sought and considered in a systematic way.
I would imagine that this document played a significant role in prompting the apology from the SofS for Defence. It seems reasonable to believe that he was advised that the MoD could not demonstrate that
'steps have been taken to ensure that risk is tolerable and ALARP' and were unable to
'demonstrate that they have exercised their common law “duty of care”.
The Def Stan document is also very clear in identifying those with
responsibility for ensuring the procedure:
3.1 Accountability
3.1.1 The IPTL is accountable for the completion of this procedure.
3.2 Procedure Management
3.2.1 The IPTL may delegate the management of this procedure to a member (Safety Manager) or members of the IPT.
I now feel like I have approximately 0.01% of the knowledge that tucumseh has on this subject!