HEALTH & SAFETY I
nspections are not solely the domain of regulatory bodies. Any organisation that uses or supplies work equipment must have a detailed programme of inspection and maintenance for preventing risk and keeping workers safe. Pauline Munro, a partner at Gateley Legal, explains an employer’s obligations under PUWER, and how these are applied to inspection regimes. In 2024, a food manufacturer in Nottingham was found guilty of breaching Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (‘the 1974 Act’) after two young employees company’s production lines only weeks apart. An investigation by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) found that dangerous parts of the conveyor had been accessible at the time, largely due to an “inadequate inspection and maintenance regime”. for the life-changing injuries its employees suffered; injuries that, in HSE inspector Tim Nicholson’s view, were “completely preventable”.
GENERAL LEGAL DUTIES
Companies supplying, using or operating plant and machinery have a legal duty to ensure that any work equipment is safe, properly maintained and used by people who are competent and adequately trained or supervised.
An obligation to keep employees safe is generally enshrined in both the 1974 Act and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.
obligations concerning the use and supply of work equipment under the Provision and (PUWER). These may be supplemented further by additional legislation, such as the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations (LOLER), the Pressure Equipment (Safety) Regulations and the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Regulations.
TAILORED INSPECTION In the case of the Nottingham food manufacturer, an unsuitable interlock used on a hinged guard over a chain conveyor system failed because it had not been adequately inspected and maintained. This led to the chain conveyor moving as an employee attempted to adjust the position of the chain.
This incident demonstrates the importance of a regular and thorough inspection regime, the purpose of which is to “identify whether work equipment can be operated, adjusted and maintained safely, with any deterioration detected and remedied before it results in a health and safety risk”.
As the Health & Safety Executive states, however, any checklists and records used when inspecting equipment “should be tailored to the particular type of work equipment to minimise the burden to what is strictly necessary for safety”, as “requiring too much detail too often can lead to inspection activity becoming box’ approach or even, in some cases, the
26 FEBRUARY 2025 | FACTORY&HANDLINGSOLUTIONS
inspection activity ceasing altogether.” Not all equipment, for example, will require a formal inspection. Under PUWER regulation 6, the extent of inspection must be informed by a risk assessment, as well as other factors such as an equipment’s installation, the conditions in which it is based and whether any occurred.
Although most inspections will vary in extent and frequency, almost all should involve reviewing the condition and effectiveness of necessary safety features such as brakes, guarding, warning lights or emergency stop systems.
Given the complexity of most modern machinery, inspections should also be undertaken by an individual who knows what to look for and what to do if a problem is
equipment’s manufacturer will also help to ensure no key elements are missed. Inspections should not be a tick-box They should be informed by risk assessment and manufacturer guidance, tailored to the equipment being inspected, and undertaken by someone with the requisite skills and experience.
Their existence and effectiveness should also be demonstrated within the risk assessment, which should justify such elements as the frequency of inspection and the key areas of focus. For the case of more thorough inspections, these should be recorded with the time and date of inspection, any issues that were noted and the steps taken to resolve them.
BEYOND BOX-TICKING
Had an adequate inspection regime, backed by PUWER, been in place at the Nottingham manufacturer, it is likely that the inadequate exchanged before the incident had occurred, sparing the employees from injuries that they will carry for the rest of their lives. Inspections are not something that should be left to an external body. Internal teams with the requisite knowledge and competency, informed by both a well-communicated risk assessment and a carefully crafted inspection regime, are a powerful resource in ensuring that equipment remains in good working order, improving employee safety.
TAKING A PUWER-FUL APPROACH TO INSPECTING EQUIPMENT
Gateley
www.gatelyplc.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58
