Higher risk workplaces

This cross-cutting theme is now closed for comments.

You can read comments made since the start of the Red Tape Challenge in April 2011 below.

You can also still submit comments to the Red Tape Challenge inbox by clicking here.

These regulations aim to protect those working in industries such as construction, waste and recycling and certain areas of manufacturing, as they may be at higher risk of accidents.

You can find all 15 regulations that relate to higher risk workplaces here [opens in new window].

You can find all the regulations that relate to Higher risk workplaces below to the left.

Agriculture (Metrication) Regulations 1981

These regulations amend agricultural legislation by substituting metric units for Imperial units.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act 1956 (Repeals and Modifications) Regulations 1975

These regulations are largely repealed except for provisions relating to the creation of offences, the conduct of inquests and the making of the Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) Regulations 1974.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) (Amendment) Regulations 1990

These regulations impose requirements for new tractors to have an approved safety cab.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) Regulations 1974

These regulations revoke and consolidate earlier legislation regarding the fitting of safety cabs to tractors.

Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007

These regulations impose duties on clients and contractors in relation to construction work.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989

These regulations require that suitable head protection is provided to and worn by those working in construction.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Diving at Work Regulations 1997

These regulations impose requirements and prohibitions on diving contractors.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Docks Regulations 1988

These regulations impose health, safety and welfare requirements with respect to dock operations.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Docks, Shipbuilding etc (Metrication) Regulations 1983

These regulations substitute metric units for imperial units.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Freight Containers (Safety Convention) Regulations 1984

These Regulations require owners, lessees and others in control of freight containers used at work to comply with conditions of use.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Health and Safety (Agriculture) (Miscellaneous Repeals and Modifications) Regulations 1976

The regulations are a consequence of the amendment of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 by the Employment Protection Act 1975 and transfer responsibility for farm safety to the HSE from MAFF (Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) (or in Scotland, from the Secretary of State).

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Health and Safety (Foundries etc) (Metrication) Regulations 1981

These regulations have no effect as the provisions in the various regulations to which these regulations applied have been revoked.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Loading and Unloading of Fishing Vessels Regulations 1988

These regulations are intended to ensure that fishing vessels have safe means of access and are safe places of work.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Non-ferrous Metals (Melting and Founding) Regulations 1962

These regulations impose safety requirements on the casting of metals into moulds.

Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes (Amendment) Regulations 2010

These regulations amend the Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations 2010 to correct a drafting error.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations 2010

These regulations require an employer to notify HSE of the erection of a conventional tower crane on a construction site within 14 days of its initial thorough examination.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Prevention of Accidents to Children in Agriculture Regulations 1998

These Regulations prohibit the riding by a child on certain classes of vehicle or machine used in agricultural operations.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing Regulations 1960

These regulations impose safety requirements in relation to shipbuilding and ship-repairing.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Work in Compressed Air Regulations 1996

These Regulations impose requirements and prohibitions with respect to the health, safety and welfare of persons who work in compressed air.

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:

163 responses to Higher risk workplaces

  • user_id){ ?>

    Richard Ash said on July 20, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    There are many detailed points about particular pieces of legislation that can be made and doubtless they will be in the response to the Lofstedt review. However, whatever the technical nature of legislation is and whatever its underlying policy intentions were, what it provokes in practice is determined at least as much, if not more, by the environment in which it operates. In this respect the key factor is the current appetite for and profile of compensation. Typically our members report that within the last 6 years the number of compensation claims they receive has increased threefold. Whether claims are successful or not each one typically costs £X0,000 to process. Prudent businesses need to be prepared to manage this and it requires much administrative and bureaucratic resource. For instance the Management Regs set a clear requirement for risk assessment the significant conclusions of which must be recorded. This is an entirely reasonable requirement and a fundamental building block of effective risk management. But the potential for future civil claim effectively magnifies this requirement into one where assessment records must be kept indefinitely and organised such that particular assessments can be associated with particular individuals doing particular work at particular times. The substantial resources that are expended on risks to organisations from claims are diverted away from managing those to the individuals working in them.

    Inflexible responses to goal setting requirements can also generate more bureaucratic approaches aimed mainly at administrative compliance – which is not necessarily the same as effective risk management. CDM competence requirements are a case in point. Nowehere in the CDM regs or ACoP are particular qualifications specified as mandatory for particular occupations. Furthermore the CDM ACoP is EXPLICIT that assessing competence is a matter of making informed judgements and positively endorses this approach. But the experience of many is that a person/organisation possessing apparently acceptable ‘qualifications’ in one place is not acceptable in the same circumstances elsewhere, merely because a particular qualfication is not possessed. An example I recently encountered concerned the notional selection of a rigger for a complex 350 tonne tandem lift in a working oil refinery. When given the choice between a highly respected and vastly experienced person with a Lloyds ‘ticket’ that expired 2 months ago (because he was overseeing lifting operations in China) and a much less experienced person whose history was largely limited to slinging loads on Home Counties housing projects with the same ticket ‘in date’, the manager spoken to, without a moment’s hesitation, opted for the less experienced alternative – because he had the ticket. It was clearly the case that selecting the latter was the wrong decision in terms of the requirement to ensure competence for the job in hand. But this person felt more secure in compliance with CDM because there was compliance with an administrative requirement. The ‘box was ticked’. The Regs and ACoP principle of judgement did not figure. This is perhaps an extreme example but the same principle is routinely experienced elsewhere to lesser extents.

    The CDM ‘package’ implies that unnecessary/inappropriate bureaucracy is undesirable, but nowhere does it positively say it is bad practice. Until it does, those who feel more comfortable indulging in it are less likely to feel inclined to change.

Bookmark and Share