lyledunn said:

The way the regulation is worded could mean that irrespective of whether the person is BA4 or BA5, if they are also BA3, a risk assessment is not a permitted exception for indent (ii).

CAREFUL!

We need to be VERY wary with the way we interpret this requirement, to avoid discriminating without cause (and hence be in contravention of relevant legislation).

BA3 does NOT cover ALL 'disabled' persons, only those who are:

Persons not in command of all their physical and/or intellectual abilities (sick persons, old persons)
According to the nature of the disability

Therefore, it would be VERY unusual (perhaps only rarely possible, if ever) for someone to be BA3 and at the same time BA4 or BA5 ?

(To view it from the other perspective, how could someone be appropriately a skilled person (electrically) or an instructed person (electrically) and at the same time not "in command of all their physical and intellectual abilities"?)

skilled person (electrically) or an instructed person (electrically) and at the same time not "in command of all their physical and intellectual abilities"?)

Where are these definitions coming from, and are their boundaries locally or  internationally agreed ?

As described it sounds like you  could have a sparky with some degree of  paralysis or even early stages of Parkinson's disease or similar. Not of course physically completely able, but perhaps still suitably skilled - or perhaps there are some traps in the definitions for odd cases.

Be aware that there are plenty of disabled folk with Ham radio as a hobby who take their ability to order electrons about very seriously  indeed - as activities go, when infirmity or disability sets in,  it is one that is given up much at a far more advanced state of decline than things like driving or playing golf.

Mike.

Graham, you highlighted “all” as if it meant every single one of their physical or intellectual abilities. That is definitely an interpretation but my spin would be the total opposite in that if a person had say 5 identifiable physical abilities and was missing one then they would not have “all” their physical abilities. That being the case, they could be BA3 and BA5. 
The chap I am referring to has an ambulatory disability so is lacking at least one physical ability but not all of them although he is definitely BA5.

If it were the case that BA3 was as per my interpretation then it might be perfectly reasonable to conclude that the regulation is a caring one, looking to the wellbeing of those skilled people in the BA3 category. 

lyledunn said:

but my spin would be the total opposite in that if a person had say 5 identifiable physical abilities and was missing one then they would not have “all” their physical abilities. Th

Lyle, interesting, but if your view of BA3 is the case, regards Regulation 411.3.3 where does this stop? Colour-blindness, loss of hearing in one ear, bit of a limp, mild tinnitus, hypertension, polydactyly, needs glasses (oh well, that's me BA3 when I need to see anything closer than about 600 mm)?

If we look at a common case where RCDs might be omitted, such as socket-outlets for computer and networking equipment in a data centre (I'm using this as an example because it aligns with the guidance in Section 8.2.3 of GN5 as to alternative measures to be in place if RCD protection is omitted) if we were to interpret BA3 as "loss of any physical capability", the omission of RCDs would not be possible (just in case there's a computer tech who wears glasses, or is colour-blind)?

What BA3 actually says is 'not in command of ...' ... guidance in GN5 (Table 4.7) on this says "Persons who are not always capable of assessing or reacting to risks in their immediate environment and hence not capable of being considered BA4 or BA5".

I view the situation the other way around. By definition, all disabled people have a physical, intellectual, or mental impairment (or a combination thereof) and I would argue that they are not, therefore, in command of all their physical and/or intellectual abilities. So all disabled persons are BA3.

Equality Act 2010

6 Disability

(1) A person (P) has a disability if—

  (a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and

  (b) the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

(2) A reference to a disabled person is a reference to a person who has a disability.

However, not all BA3 persons are disabled: their impairment may be temporary so S. 6(1)(b) of the Act does not apply. They are simply, sick.

I see no reason in principle why a wheelchair user (BA3) could not be a skilled person (BA5) who supervises an instructed person (BA4). Moreover an older trained sparks might struggle to get up and down ladders and kneel to get under floorboards, but he (or she) would not cease to be skilled by virtue of having arthritic knees.

I view the situation the other way around. By definition, all disabled people have a physical, intellectual, or mental impairment (or a combination thereof) and I would argue that they are not, therefore, in command of all their physical and/or intellectual abilities. So all disabled persons are BA3.

Equality Act 2010

6 Disability

(1) A person (P) has a disability if—

  (a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and

  (b) the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

(2) A reference to a disabled person is a reference to a person who has a disability.

However, not all BA3 persons are disabled: their impairment may be temporary so S. 6(1)(b) of the Act does not apply. They are simply, sick.

I see no reason in principle why a wheelchair user (BA3) could not be a skilled person (BA5) who supervises an instructed person (BA4). Moreover an older trained sparks might struggle to get up and down ladders and kneel to get under floorboards, but he (or she) would not cease to be skilled by virtue of having arthritic knees.