LEEA makes the case for LOLER health and safety 27 April 2012

LOLER (Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations) should be retained in its present form, according to LEEA (the Lifting Equipment Engineers Association).

Responding to the UK government's initiative to reduce the burden of health and safety legislation, LEEA says that watering down LOLER, or merging it with PUWER (Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations), is "unlikely to reap any significant cost savings for industry, but could undermine standards of safety in overhead lifting".

"We recognise the potential to streamline the overall health and safety framework in the UK," states Geoff Holden, chief executive of LEEA.

"However, LEEA believes that LOLER represents a sensible and flexible approach to overhead lifting, and should be maintained," he continues.

"When it was introduced in 1998, LOLER made life much more straightforward for duty holders. Instead of a patchwork of rules and regulations, it provided a single piece of legislation that applied to all lifting equipment and lifting operations, across every industry."

Holden also makes the point that, as well as being accepted in the UK, an increasing number of companies operating in the developing world have chosen to adopt LOLER as best practice. "This would tend to support the idea that it is both a reasonable and effective basis for safe overhead lifting," he insists.

Holden believes that the findings of Professor Löfstedt's report are encouraging. "The report recognises the value of risk-based legislation, such as LOLER, and acknowledges that problems are often the result of misunderstanding or over-zealous interpretation of the rules, rather than the rules themselves," he explains.

He also notes that, while Löfstedt's report raises the possibility of merging LOLER and PUWER, it confirms that it is hard to make an economic case for doing so.

"We must not forget that overhead lifting-related accidents remain a significant cause of deaths and serious injuries in the workplace. In addition to the human cost, even relatively minor incidents can have serious economic consequences for the businesses concerned," says Holden.

"It is therefore vital that key requirements of LOLER, such as the need to have lifting equipment thoroughly examined on a regular basis, are not watered down. We would urge any companies or organisations with an interest in safe lifting to make their views on LOLER known via their local MP."

Brian Tinham

Related Companies
Lifting Equipment Engineers Association

This material is protected by MA Business copyright
See Terms and Conditions.
One-off usage is permitted but bulk copying is not.
For multiple copies contact the sales team.