The Health and Safety Executive has now published its formal response to the 2025 call for evidence on the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER). The headline is straightforward: LOLER is not being amended at this stage.
That does not mean the subject has gone quiet. HSE concluded that the evidence did not justify legislative reform, but it did identify several areas where clearer guidance and, where appropriate, updates to the Approved Code of Practice could improve consistency and understanding.
Why HSE decided not to change LOLER
HSE received 176 responses from employees, contractors, advisers, representative bodies and other stakeholders. Its summary shows that 59% of respondents considered LOLER to remain fit for purpose, 65% said the Regulations were not duplicative and creating unnecessary burden, and 64% considered the current Approved Code of Practice to remain fit for purpose.
HSE therefore found no clear and proportionate case for changing the legislation. In particular, it did not find sufficient evidence that legislative reform would reduce burden without weakening safety outcomes, or that the benefits would outweigh the disruption and transitional costs.
The existing framework therefore remains in place. Lifting operations still need to be properly planned by a competent person, appropriately supervised and carried out safely. Lifting equipment must remain suitable for its intended use and, where applicable, subject to thorough examination in accordance with LOLER.
The important part is what HSE intends to clarify
Although the Regulations are staying, HSE identified recurring uncertainty around how they are interpreted. The regulator says improvements are better delivered through clearer guidance and ACoP updates than through rewriting the law.
- what falls within the definition of lifting equipment;
- the treatment of lifting accessories and suspended loads;
- how LOLER interacts with other health and safety legislation, particularly PUWER;
- the role of digital technology in thorough examination;
- how LOLER applies where loads are winched or pulled but do not leave the ground; and
- what should reasonably be expected of a competent person carrying out thorough examinations.
That last point is particularly significant. HSE found that some of the inconsistency around examination periods and assessment quality appears to stem from different interpretations of “competent person”, rather than from a weakness in LOLER itself. HSE has said it will keep this under review and clarify competency expectations through guidance and industry partners where opportunities arise.
Thorough examination intervals are not changing
The familiar six- and twelve-month examination periods remain the baseline. HSE has also reiterated that LOLER already provides flexibility through a written scheme of examination prepared by a competent person. Such a scheme can set different intervals where these are justified by a rigorous risk assessment, documented appropriately and available to an inspector if requested.
This is an important distinction: the regulations are not becoming more relaxed, but neither are they becoming more prescriptive. The emphasis remains on competent, evidence-based decisions.
A useful clarification on winching and pulling
HSE also gives a practical example of where the boundary between LOLER and PUWER can cause confusion. Where a load is winched but never leaves the ground, HSE states that it is being pulled rather than lifted, so LOLER does not apply. PUWER requirements still do.
That does not remove the need for planning, suitable equipment, inspection, competent operators or a safe system of work. It simply clarifies which regulatory framework applies to that particular activity.
What this means in practice for lifting operations
For organisations already managing lifting operations properly, the immediate message is not to rewrite every procedure or lift plan. The law has not changed. The more useful question is whether current arrangements stand up to the areas HSE has highlighted for clarification.
- Is it clear who is competent to plan, supervise and carry out each part of the lifting operation?
- Are lifting accessories properly selected, identified, examined and matched to the planned load?
- Does the lift plan address the actual machine configuration, load characteristics, radius, capacity, accessories, ground conditions and working environment?
- Are LOLER and PUWER being applied correctly rather than treated as interchangeable?
- Where a written scheme of examination is used, is the rationale properly documented?
- Are digital tools being used to support competent judgement rather than replace it?
What we are seeing through current lift planning and training work
The HSE response is particularly relevant to the work we have been carrying out recently. Our lift-planning support for AD Bly has involved detailed planning for excavator and telehandler lifting operations, including the load, lifting accessories, machine configuration and site-specific constraints. We have also supported MV Kelly with lift-plan review and site assurance around excavator lifting and telehandler operations.
On the training side, recent work has included bespoke lifting training delivered at Airbus, alongside regular lifting-related training and competence development. We have also been supporting lifting training with RHC/WH Scott, including practical slinger/signaller activities.
Across all of these activities, the recurring theme is the same: compliance is not achieved simply by having an item of equipment with enough nominal capacity or by holding a certificate. Safe lifting depends on competent planning, accurate information about the load and equipment, suitable accessories, effective supervision and people understanding the limits of their role.
That is also why we continue to put practical resources around lift planning, including our recent guidance on lifting accessory weights and hook heights for Appointed Persons.
Does HSE’s response amount to a tightening of LOLER?
Legally, no. The Regulations themselves are not being tightened or amended.
In practice, however, clearer guidance can raise the standard expected of dutyholders because areas that have previously been interpreted inconsistently become harder to treat as grey areas. The likely direction is therefore not more legislation, but clearer expectations around scope, competence, examination and the relationship between LOLER and other duties.
For businesses with established lifting-management systems, that should be manageable. For those relying on generic lift plans, poorly defined competence or examination arrangements that have simply “always been done that way”, it is a good time to review whether the current system is genuinely defensible.
What happens next?
HSE says it will continue engagement with industry, trade associations and technical bodies and will update guidance where opportunities arise, concentrating on areas of greatest risk and where clearer guidance could reduce unnecessary burden.
We will be monitoring those updates closely because changes to guidance on competence, examination and regulatory scope could have a direct effect on lifting procedures, training content and the advice given to clients.
Source: HSE – LOLER Call for Evidence formal response, updated 29 September 2026.