LEEA Opinion Speaking up for LOLER
Geoff Holden, chief executive of the Lifting Equipment Engineers Association (LEEA), believes that LOLER (Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations) represents a sensible and effective approach to overhead lifting.
The latest Queen’s Speech to Parliament reiterated the
government’s aim to reduce the burden of red tape on UK business. As part of this initiative, a report on the current health and safety framework has already been completed by Professor Löfstedt.
For anyone with an interest in overhead lifting, this was signifi cant because it identifi ed LOLER (Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations) as one of the regulations that accounts for the majority of administrative costs on business. As a result, Löfstedt considered the potential for reviewing or consolidating LOLER, or merging it with PUWER (Provision
It immediately simplifi ed matters, as a single piece of legislation applied to all lifting equipment across all industries. Prior to that, employers had to negotiate a patchwork of different rules and regulations. Furthermore, LOLER took a fl exible, risk- based approach. As a result, it is not unduly prescriptive or onerous, allowing duty holders to put in place measures that are appropriate to individual circumstances.
Of course, one key
requirement of LOLER is the need to subject all lifting equipment to periodic thorough examination by a competent person. Given the safety-critical role played by overhead lifting equipment, and the speed with which it can deteriorate in service, we
“We were pleased to see that the fi ndings of the Löfstedt Report broadly refl ect our own views”
and Use of Work Equipment Regulations).
Speaking on behalf of a membership that now stands at over 550, the LEEA’s view is that LOLER represents a sensible and effective approach to overhead lifting. Any attempt to water it down is likely to have a detrimental impact on safety standards, without offering signifi cant commercial benefi ts. To explain the LEEA’s position, a quick review of LOLER’s history is helpful. Introduced in 1998, LOLER marked the end of a six- year transition from the old UK- based legislation to a framework built around European directives.
believe that this is an important element of any safe lifting programme. LOLER may have had a positive impact, but there is no cause for complacency; measures which help ensure lifting equipment is fi t for purpose must be retained.
OVERSEAS ADOPTION The most convincing argument in favour of LOLER can actually be found overseas. In recent years, an increasing number of companies working in parts of the world that lack sector-specifi c health and safety legislation have chosen to adopt LOLER as best practice. If it really did
www.shdlogistics.com
represent an unreasonable burden, it seems unlikely that so many businesses would voluntarily subject themselves to its requirements.
It remains to be seen what – if any – action the government takes with regard to LOLER and associated legislation. However, at the LEEA we were pleased to see that the fi ndings of the Löfstedt Report broadly refl ect our own views. Notably, the report was positive about risk- based legislation, and stressed that problems often lie in misinterpretation or overzealous application of rules, rather than the rules themselves. It also concluded that the benefi ts of merging LOLER and PUWER are unclear, and any transition process would impose further costs on business. Löfstedt did recommend simplifying and improving the Approved Codes of Practice that accompany such legislation. If the HSE has the resources to do this effectively, the LEEA would certainly support it. In an uncertain economic climate, it is vital to remove any unnecessary burdens on UK plc. However, the LEEA believes that LOLER does not fall into the category of harmful red tape. Indeed, if its requirements are met sensibly and consistently it represents not only a constructive approach to health and safety, but also the basis for effi cient and cost-effective material handling. ■
www.leeaint.com Storage Handling Distribution June 2012 43
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68