Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error
LOLER and PSSR CfE - Consultations
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jonny95  
#1 Posted : 03 October 2025 07:55:55(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Jonny95

Good Morning All, 

Just seen the HSE announcement of Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulation (LOLER) Call for Evidence (CfE). 

I'll be honest I'm a little bit confused, the background note quotes "In March 2025, HM Treasury published the UK Government's RAP, which aims to simplify and modernise the regulatory system to support economic growth. It focuses on reducing bureaucracy, improving regulatory efficiency, and adapting to technological advancements" 

Does this hint to diluting regulations or are we genuinely looking to modernise, I really would have thought when it comes to business's being held back by "bureaucracy" adjusting LOLER wouldn't be at the top of most business owners wish list.  I noticed in the HSE commitment

  • consult to identify and remove unnecessary regulatory burdens, and identify potential changes to this legislation to reflect technological advances and reliability of work equipment. 

This thought process feels very much like the 70mph speed limit vs modern cars debate people often have.
Back to top
Kate  
#2 Posted : 03 October 2025 08:23:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

Quite right - I imagine DSE would be top of the list whether seeking to avoid bureaucracy or adapting to technological change ...
Back to top
thanks 5 users thanked Kate for this useful post.
Roundtuit on 03/10/2025(UTC), Jonny95 on 03/10/2025(UTC), Martin Fieldingt on 03/10/2025(UTC), A Kurdziel on 03/10/2025(UTC), peter gotch on 03/10/2025(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#3 Posted : 03 October 2025 08:32:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

closely followed by to RIDDOR or not to RIDDOR
Back to top
thanks 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 03/10/2025(UTC), peter gotch on 03/10/2025(UTC), A Kurdziel on 03/10/2025(UTC), peter gotch on 03/10/2025(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#4 Posted : 03 October 2025 08:32:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

closely followed by to RIDDOR or not to RIDDOR
Back to top
thanks 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 03/10/2025(UTC), peter gotch on 03/10/2025(UTC), A Kurdziel on 03/10/2025(UTC), peter gotch on 03/10/2025(UTC)
Jonny95  
#5 Posted : 03 October 2025 08:42:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Jonny95

Actually since you mention it Kate, DSE would have been the top of MY wishlist. 
Back to top
Kate  
#6 Posted : 03 October 2025 09:42:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

Ah yes, as things are, and even as the hardened AI-sceptic that I am,  I can so easily see RIDDOR benefiting from a properly trained chatbot that would advise people on whether their incident was reportable or not.  Better still to give it an overhaul so that this wasn't needed.
Back to top
thanks 1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
Martin Fieldingt on 03/10/2025(UTC)
stevedm  
#7 Posted : 03 October 2025 13:28:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

Not sure we may be looking for a link where there isn't one...HSE need a legal vehicle to review/update the regulations..

The UK Government’s Regulatory Asset Plan (RAP) is indeed focused on “reducing bureaucracy” and “improving efficiency.” In plain terms, that often translates to:

  • Streamlining paperwork and reporting requirements.
  • Removing redundant inspections or duplicative certification steps.
  • Updating requirements that haven’t kept pace with modern technology​​​​​​​

But “reducing bureaucracy” does not necessarily mean weakening safety standards—at least not officially. It often means HSE wants to remove processes that don’t meaningfully improve safety outcomes

Modernisation here could mean:

  • Incorporating advances in monitoring and predictive maintenance technology (e.g., sensors, IoT, telematics) to reduce the frequency of manual inspections without reducing safety.
  • Revising prescriptive rules that are out-of-date—like inspection intervals based purely on age, rather than usage, condition, and reliability data.
  • Simplifying paperwork and reporting while maintaining accountability.

In short: I like to think (glass half full) it’s less about “watering down” LOLER and more about risk-informed modernisation. But, as always, there is the risk that pressure to reduce bureaucracy could push for looser rules in some areas—hence why industry input is important....hence the consultation...

Back to top
thanks 1 user thanked stevedm for this useful post.
peter gotch on 03/10/2025(UTC)
peter gotch  
#8 Posted : 03 October 2025 14:41:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hi Jonny

We have been here before on SEVERAL occasions.

Successive Governments at Westminster have made big announcements about reducing "regulatory burden" and so called "Red Tape".

When it comes to occupational health and safety it seems that most of these Governments haven't bothered to read Section 1(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Now be honest! When did YOU last read Section 1(2) if ever?

So we had e.g. the Professor Lofstedt report under the Coalition Government. He was not the first to say that in general UK H&S legislation is generally fit for purpose and does NOT include measures that increase Red Tape but that organisations have chosen to introduce THEIR so called Blue Tape.

Faced with that rebuttal the Coalition Government still had some targets for OIOO (One In, One Out) which became OITO (One In, Two Out) to reach as regards the concept of a "Regulation".

So, first solution was to redefine without admitting it the concept of "Regulation" to equate with "Code of Regulations". 

Then consolidate lots of (Codes of) Regulations into fewer (Codes of) Regulations.

Hey presto by the end of the Coalition Government they could proudly claim to have improved or removed 83% of occupational health and safety "Regulations". 

Perhaps the most dramatic change was to consolidate some 50 Codes of Regulations governing underground mining (at a time when there was very little left in the UK) into ONE mega Code of Regulations.

Ergo approximately 49 (Codes of) Regulations "removed" at the stroke of the Minister's pen. 

Shame if you happened to be working in underground mining, were used to the framework in place and NOW had to come to terms with a new bible-sized book but getting accustomed to that wouldn't be Red Tape but Blue, so that was fine.

Now unless the Government were to try and repeal Section 1(2) and be likely to lose its working majority then I think that you can assume that LOLER will be left largely untouched.

Working Time Regulations up for grabs partly as they are just about the only Code of Regulations NOT ade under HSWA and therefore not protected by Section 1(2).

DSE Regs probably easily removed in almost entirety.

RIDDOR - who knows what fiddles they will come up with next?

Section 1(2) needs to be read VERY carefully. It DOES allow for "deregulation" if certain conditions are met.

Edited by user 03 October 2025 14:46:16(UTC)  | Reason: Additional text
Back to top
thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
Jonny95 on 03/10/2025(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2025, Yet Another Forum.NET