1.1 Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 & Management Regulations

HASAWA 1974 and the Management Regulations

Great Britain's lifting-equipment duties sit within a hierarchy. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HASAWA) establishes broad duties and enforcement powers. Regulations made under it—including MHSWR, PUWER and LOLER—state more specific requirements. Approved Codes of Practice have special evidential status, while guidance explains recognised ways to comply but is not itself the law.

---

Main HASAWA Duties

Employers

Section 2(1) requires every employer, so far as is reasonably practicable, to ensure employees' health, safety and welfare at work. Section 2(2) includes safe plant and systems, safe handling and storage, information and training, a safe workplace and a safe working environment.

Section 2(3) requires a written general health-and-safety policy and arrangements, subject to prescribed exceptions. The current practical threshold arises because employers with fewer than five employees are exempt from the written-policy requirement; the numeral five is not written into Section 2(3) itself. Employers below the threshold still owe the underlying safety duties.

Non-employees and the Supply Chain

Section 3 requires employers and self-employed persons to conduct their undertaking so far as is reasonably practicable without exposing non-employees to health or safety risks. This is relevant to contractors, visitors and the public near lifting work. The control selected—such as an exclusion zone, traffic management or physical protection—comes from the risk assessment; Section 3 does not prescribe one identical barrier for every lift.

Section 6 places duties on designers, manufacturers, importers and suppliers of articles for use at work, including safe design and construction, necessary testing and adequate information, subject to the section's detailed scope.

Employees and Other Persons

Section 7 requires employees to take reasonable care for themselves and others affected by their acts or omissions and to cooperate with their employer so far as necessary for legal compliance. Section 8 prohibits intentional or reckless interference with or misuse of safety provisions.

Sections 36 and 37 address offences caused by another person's act or default and personal liability of corporate officers where consent, connivance or neglect is proved. They do not remove the need to establish the elements of the underlying offence.

---

Reasonably Practicable

“So far as is reasonably practicable” requires risk to be weighed against the sacrifice in time, trouble and money needed to control it. Under Edwards v National Coal Board, a control may be omitted only where the sacrifice is grossly disproportionate to the risk. It is not a simple cost-benefit equality and does not permit modest cost to defeat a significant risk.

HASAWA Section 40 affects the burden where a duty is qualified by what is practicable or reasonably practicable: the accused must prove it was not practicable or not reasonably practicable to do more. Good records help demonstrate the information, alternatives and proportionality considered.

---

MHSWR Risk Assessment

Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 requires a suitable and sufficient assessment of risks to employees and non-employees arising from the undertaking. Where an employer has five or more employees, significant findings and groups especially at risk must be recorded.

A lifting assessment should identify load and centre of gravity, equipment and support, people exposed, dropped-load and overturning hazards, environment, competence, communication and emergency or recovery arrangements. It must be reviewed when no longer valid or after a significant change. A generic form is not sufficient if it misses the actual crane, load or site.

MHSWR also covers arrangements for effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review; health surveillance where appropriate; competent assistance; emergency procedures; information; cooperation and coordination; and capabilities and training.

---

Competence

“Competent person” is task-specific. Knowledge, training, experience and ability must match the function—risk assessment, lift planning, operation, maintenance or thorough examination. The same individual need not be competent for all roles, and holding the Foundation Certificate alone does not create a statutory appointment.

A thorough-examination competent person needs sufficient independence and authority to make objective decisions. A lift planner needs knowledge of the crane, configuration, load and site. Employers remain responsible for selecting and supporting competent people even when work is contracted out.

---

Enforcement Notices

An HSE or local-authority inspector may issue an Improvement Notice where a legal contravention exists or has occurred and is likely to continue or recur. Its compliance period cannot end before the statutory appeal period, normally 21 days.

A Prohibition Notice may be issued where an activity involves, or will involve, a risk of serious personal injury. The statutory test is not limited to an “imminent” risk. The notice can stop the activity immediately or at a specified time. An appeal suspends an Improvement Notice but does not automatically suspend a Prohibition Notice.

The Foundation method is to identify the source of duty, the person owing it, any qualification such as reasonably practicable, and the evidence of compliance.

Duty-source Check