The statutory framework
What the law actually enshrines.
The UK’s workplace safety law is layered, considered, and older than most people realise. This page sets out what it requires, what it does not require, and the principles that hold the whole thing together — in plain English, with the statute references kept where they belong.
The foundation, 1974
The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 — HSWA 1974.
The statute that sits beneath everything else. Drafted on the recommendation of the Robens Report (1972), it replaced a scattered patchwork of older industry-specific Acts with a single, principled framework. It imposes duties on employers, the self-employed, employees, designers, manufacturers, suppliers, and those in control of premises. It is criminal law: breaches are prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), local authorities, or, in the case of fatalities, the Crown Prosecution Service.
HSWA 1974, Section 2
Duty of employers to their employees
It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees.
Section 2 lists specific aspects: safe plant and systems of work; safe handling, storage and transport of articles and substances; instruction, training and supervision; safe place of work and means of access and egress; and a safe working environment with adequate welfare facilities.
Section 2(3) further requires employers with five or more employees to prepare, revise and bring to the attention of their employees a written general statement of safety policy.
HSWA 1974, Section 3
Duty to persons other than employees
Every employer (and every self-employed person, in relation to themselves and others) must conduct their undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in their employment are not exposed to risks to health or safety.
In practice this catches visitors, contractors, members of the public, neighbouring businesses, and anyone else who may be affected by what the business does.
HSWA 1974, Section 4
Duties of persons in control of premises
Anyone who has, to any extent, control of non-domestic premises must take such measures as are reasonable for a person in that position to take to ensure the premises, the means of access and egress, and any plant or substance provided there, are safe.
HSWA 1974, Section 6
Duties of designers, manufacturers, importers and suppliers
Any person designing, manufacturing, importing or supplying articles or substances for use at work must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that they are designed and constructed to be safe and without risks to health when properly used; carry out testing and examination; and provide adequate information about safe use.
HSWA 1974, Section 7
Duty of every employee
It shall be the duty of every employee while at work to take reasonable care for the health and safety of themselves and of other persons who may be affected by their acts or omissions; and to co-operate with their employer so far as is necessary to enable that employer to comply with their duties.
This is the statutory basis for the point made elsewhere on this site: safety is not someone else’s job. It is a personal duty in law for every worker.
HSWA 1974, Section 8
Duty not to interfere with safety provisions
No person shall intentionally or recklessly interfere with or misuse anything provided in the interests of health, safety or welfare in pursuance of any of the relevant statutory provisions.
HSWA 1974, Section 9
No charge to employees
No employer shall levy or permit to be levied on any employee any charge in respect of anything done or provided in pursuance of any specific requirement of the relevant statutory provisions. Personal protective equipment, where required, must be provided free of charge.
“So far as is reasonably practicable”
The phrase carries decades of case-law behind it. The seminal test — Edwards v National Coal Board [1949] 1 KB 704 — established that a duty-holder — meaning the employer, the self-employed person, or anyone else on whom the law places the duty — must weigh the quantum of risk against the sacrifice (in money, time, or trouble) needed to avert it, and act unless that sacrifice is grossly disproportionate.
It is not a duty to eliminate all risk. It is a duty to take reasonable, proportionate steps — and to be able to show, if asked, the thinking behind the choices made.
Court of Appeal, Asquith LJ“Reasonably foreseeable”
The companion phrase, and the one that sets the scope of the duty. A risk is reasonably foreseeable if a competent person in your position could be expected to anticipate it — drawing on what is known about the work, the people, the equipment, and what has gone wrong elsewhere in similar settings.
The test was sharpened in R v Tangerine Confectionery and Veolia ES [2011] EWCA Crim 2015: it does not require that the exact incident has happened before, only that the type of harm was something a sensible person could have predicted in advance.
So a duty does not stretch to every conceivable risk. But it does stretch beyond what has already gone wrong. The honest question to ask is: would a competent person doing this work have seen this coming?
Court of Appeal, R v Tangerine Confectionery [2011]Worker voice — the consultation duty
Safety has to be built with the people doing the work, not for them.
HSWA s.2(6) and what it actually asks
Section 2(6) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA) places a duty on every employer to consult with safety representatives, in good faith, on measures that may substantially affect health and safety at work. It is not a duty to inform. It is a duty to consult — meaning to give workers and their representatives a real opportunity to influence the decision before it is taken.
Two regulations sit beneath it.
HSWA 1974, section 2(6)Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 (SRSCR)
Where a trade union is recognised, it may appoint safety representatives with specific statutory rights:
- To inspect the workplace, regularly and following any reportable incident
- To investigate hazards, dangerous occurrences, and the causes of accidents
- To be paid time off for their functions and for training
- To attend safety committee meetings, and to require one where two reps request it
- To represent employees in consultation with HSE inspectors
Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 (HSCER)
Where there is no recognised union, the consultation duty still applies. The employer must consult employees directly, or through elected representatives of employee safety. The aim is the same: a real, two-way conversation about anything that materially affects health, safety or welfare at work.
SI 1996/1513Why this matters more than the rule says
The people closest to the work see what those further away cannot. Consultation is not a courtesy. It is a statutory duty, it is one of the most reliable predictors of how a workplace performs against the regulator, and it is the place where safer workplaces are actually built — through fair representation, honest collaboration, and a relationship of trust between the people making the decisions and the people living with them.
The operational layer, 1999
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 — MHSWR (Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations) 1999.
HSWA 1974 sets out the principles. MHSWR 1999 operationalises them. These regulations apply to virtually every workplace in Great Britain and set out, in practical terms, how an employer is expected to plan, organise, control, monitor and review their arrangements for health and safety.
MHSWR 1999, Regulation 3
Risk assessment
Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of employees while at work, and of the risks to other persons arising out of or in connection with the conduct of the undertaking.
An employer with five or more employees must record the significant findings, and any group of employees identified as especially at risk.
MHSWR 1999, Regulation 5
Health and safety arrangements
Every employer shall make and give effect to such arrangements as are appropriate, having regard to the nature of their activities and size of their undertaking, for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures.
That five-word phrase — plan, organise, control, monitor, review — is the legal description of a working safety management system. It is not a folder.
MHSWR 1999, Regulation 7
Competent persons
Every employer shall, subject to certain exceptions, appoint one or more competent persons to assist them in undertaking the measures needed to comply with the relevant statutory provisions.
A person is regarded as competent where they have sufficient training, experience or knowledge — and other qualities — to enable them to assist properly. Crucially, the regulation makes clear that an employer must give preference to a competent person from among their own employees over external services, where such a person exists.
MHSWR 1999, Regulations 8 – 12
Information, instruction, training and capability
Employers must provide employees with comprehensible and relevant information on the risks identified, the preventive and protective measures in place, the procedures for serious and imminent danger, and the identities of competent persons. Adequate training must be provided on recruitment, on exposure to new or increased risks, and periodically thereafter.
Sector and topic-specific regulations
The supporting framework.
Above the foundation of HSWA and the operational layer of MHSWR sits a body of further regulation — each addressing a defined risk area or sector. The list below is not exhaustive, but covers the regulations most likely to apply.
SI 2015/51
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 — CDM (Construction (Design and Management) Regulations) 2015
Apply to all construction projects in Great Britain. Allocate duties to clients, principal designers, designers, principal contractors, contractors and workers. Require pre-construction information, a construction phase plan, and (for notifiable projects) a health and safety file.
SI 2002/2677
Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 — COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health)
Require employers to prevent or, where not reasonably practicable, adequately control exposure to substances hazardous to health. Assessments, control measures, exposure monitoring, health surveillance and information/training all sit under COSHH.
SI 2013/1471
Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 — RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations)
Require responsible persons to report specified work-related deaths, certain serious injuries, occupational diseases, and dangerous occurrences to the relevant enforcing authority. Reporting categories and timescales are prescribed.
SI 1998/2306
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 — PUWER (Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations)
Require that work equipment provided for use at work is suitable, safe, maintained, inspected, and used only by people who have received adequate instruction, training and supervision.
SI 1998/2307
Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 — LOLER (Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations)
Apply specifically to lifting equipment. Require that such equipment is of adequate strength and stability, positioned and installed properly, marked appropriately, and subjected to thorough examination by a competent person.
SI 1992/2792 (as amended)
Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992
Require employers to ensure suitable PPE is provided to employees who may be exposed to a risk to their health or safety while at work, except where the risk has been adequately controlled by other means. PPE must be provided free of charge (HSWA s.9).
SI 1992/2932 (as amended)
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
Require employers to avoid the need for hazardous manual handling so far as is reasonably practicable; assess any unavoidable handling; and reduce the risk of injury to the lowest level reasonably practicable.
There are many more — DSE 1992, Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Confined Spaces Regulations 1997, Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005, Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005, Working at Height Regulations 2005 — and the relevant sector-specific instruments. The point is not to memorise the list. The point is to understand that the framework is layered, considered, and built to be applied proportionately to the work in front of you.
What it requires — and what it does not
The myths the law is most often blamed for.
Plenty of decisions in workplaces are made because someone believes “the law requires it.” Sometimes the law does. Often it does not. A few of the most common confusions are below.
The law requires zero risk.
It does not. The duty is to do what is reasonably practicable — a balancing exercise between risk and the cost, time and effort of preventing it. Edwards v NCB makes this explicit.
Every business has to appoint an external safety consultant.
It does not. MHSWR 1999, Reg 7 requires a competent person. That can be the business owner, a trained employee, or an external adviser — whichever genuinely meets the competence test for the work involved. Internal competence, where it exists, is preferred.
You must have a written health and safety policy.
Only if you employ five or more people (HSWA s.2(3)). Below that threshold there is no statutory obligation to record the general policy in writing — though a brief, current statement is usually still good practice.
You must have a thick risk-assessment binder.
You must have a suitable and sufficient assessment (MHSWR Reg 3). Significant findings must be recorded where the employer has five or more employees. The HSE itself publishes a one-page template for many low-risk situations.
An honest accident automatically means the employer is liable.
It does not. Civil claims under HSWA breaches have been limited since the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, s.69. Common-law negligence still applies; strict liability does not, in most cases.
The law does require an employer to think.
To identify hazards, assess risks, choose proportionate controls, put them in place, check they are working, and review them when something changes. That is the actual statutory rhythm — and it is what every regulation, in different language, asks for.
The law does require employees to take part.
HSWA s.7 makes it a personal duty in criminal law for every worker to take reasonable care for themselves and others, and to co-operate with their employer’s arrangements. Safety is not, in law, somebody else’s job.
Working with the Act, not around it.
The law is not the enemy of care. Read closely, it asks for very nearly the same thing — thoughtful, proportionate effort, taken together, and reviewed honestly. That is how we work.
Talk to us