HSE consultation on RIDDOR reform: What you need to know

On 7 April 2026, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) launched a public consultation on reforming the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (RIDDOR) – the framework that governs how workplace injuries, ill health and dangerous occurrences are reported in Great Britain.

The HSE says "the proposals are designed both to strengthen protections for workers and to cut unnecessary administrative burden on businesses". In reality, this is also a signal that over reporting is perhaps as unhelpful as under reporting.

 

Why is RIDDOR back under the microscope?

RIDDOR has been reformed several times since its first iteration, but the current regime has been creaking for some time. In practice, we see duty holders grappling with:

• unclear definitions, creating uncertainty over whether incidents are reportable;
• confusion over what does – and does not – qualify as a dangerous occurrence or reportable occupational disease;
• practical difficulties with the reporting system itself, including notification and formal reporting; and
• as a result, under and over‑reporting, sometimes compounded by limited or unhelpful guidance.

The HSE’s consultation is an attempt to rebalance a system that is no longer producing the intelligence the regulator needs – or the clarity businesses require.

 

What are the key proposals?

Clarifying key definitions

A long‑standing frustration for duty holders (and their advisers) has been the ambiguity of certain core RIDDOR concepts. The HSE proposes to clarify definitions such as “work‑related”, “routine work” and “injury”.

Only “injury” is subject to legislative amendment; the other terms would be clarified through guidance. Greater clarity is welcome; but the detail will matter. The line between sensible clarification and a quiet widening of reporting obligations is a fine one – and any rewriting of these definitions could materially affect the volume of reports being made.

Expansion of reportable occupational diseases

Perhaps the most eye-catching proposal is the expansion of the list of reportable occupational diseases from six conditions to 19.

This includes the reintroduction of nine previously removed diseases – such as asbestosis, pneumoconiosis (including silicosis), and skin and respiratory beryllium disease – alongside four newly added conditions: noise‑induced hearing loss, bronchiolitis obliterans, occupational allergic rhinitis and occupational contact urticaria.

For sectors like construction, manufacturing and agriculture, this represents a substantial expansion of reporting obligations and a renewed regulatory focus on occupational health surveillance.

Broadening the scope of diagnosis

Currently, a RIDDOR‑reportable occupational disease must be diagnosed by a doctor registered with the General Medical Council. The HSE proposes extending this to allow diagnoses by other registered health practitioners.

The rationale is logical: it reflects modern occupational health practice, may ease pressure on GPs, and better utilises occupational health nurses and specialists. But it also lowers the practical threshold for reporting. The trigger for a RIDDOR duty may arise more frequently, and from a wider range of clinical interactions.

Employers will need to ensure internal systems are capable of capturing diagnoses from a broader pool of practitioners – not just medical doctors.

New and revised dangerous occurrences

The consultation also targets the list of dangerous occurrences. The HSE proposes adding four new categories (including the fall of objects from structures under demolition or construction and the overturning of construction plant), alongside six amendments designed to clarify, consolidate and modernise existing provisions.

For example, structural collapse reporting would be expanded to expressly include roofs, ceilings, temporary works and trench collapses.

The practical effect is significant. Events that have historically been managed internally – particularly on construction sites – are more likely to become formally reportable, with all the regulatory attention that brings.

Simplifying the reporting process

Alongside these legislative changes, the HSE is proposing non‑legislative reforms to simplify the online RIDDOR reporting form. The aim is to tackle both under and over reporting by improving usability, including reducing and re‑ordering questions.

This is not just administrative – reporting mechanics may influence reporting behaviour – and, by extension, what is reported and any associated enforcement risk.

Equally, what is not in the proposal is interesting: despite significant HSE focus, work-related stress and mental health at work is absent from the proposed reforms, perhaps reflecting the HSE’s continued difficulty in defining and translating this risk area into enforcement action.

 

What does this mean in practice?

The direction of travel is clear. Taken together, these proposals widen the reporting net:

• more incidents will be reportable;
• more diseases will trigger obligations; and
• more professionals will be capable of initiating the diagnostic trigger for reporting.

As a result, the boundary between a non-reportable safety event and a formal regulatory safety event becomes thinner. Remember – failure to comply with RIDDOR remains a criminal offence; as the net widens, so too does the scope for inadvertent non‑compliance.

 

What should employers do now?

The proposals are just that – they are not (yet) law and will be consulted upon and, as such, may change.

However, rather than waiting for the outcome of the consultation, duty holders can take some proactive steps:

1. Read the consultation
   The consultation runs to 74 pages (although it is light on detail in places) and is supported by a cost-benefit analysis (CBA). You can read the consultation here and CBA here.
2. Engage with the consultation
   The consultation closes on 30 June 2026. This is the moment to influence outcomes – especially where you think the proposed changes could have disproportionate impact on your business. You can respond here or by post.
3. Initial review
   Review internal incident reporting and occupational health surveillance arrangements against the proposed changes, particularly the ability to capture diagnoses from a wider range of health practitioners and to recognise newly reportable dangerous occurrences and ill-health. For now, that review should be preparatory rather than reactive – substantive changes should wait until the final shape of the revised RIDDOR regime is clear.

The proposals broadly represent a welcome modernisation of a framework that has become outdated in parts. But modernisation brings a shift in compliance focus – and cost. Organisations that begin preparing now, by understanding the direction of travel and tracking the reforms as they develop, will be better placed to comply from day one than those that wait to react.