Importance of Effective Machinery Safeguarding
A recent prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive highlights the serious risks associated with inadequate machinery guarding and unsafe isolation procedures.
In May 2026, a UK company was fined £129,000 after a worker suffered life-changing injuries while attempting to clear a blockage at the company’s biomass fuel plant near Glasgow.
The experienced employee sustained partial amputations to three fingers after placing his hand into a rotary lock valve containing moving blades. The incident occurred after a radio miscommunication led the worker to believe the machinery had been safely isolated.
The employee has not returned to work since the incident.
Key Lessons for Employers and Duty Holders
This case serves as a reminder that dangerous moving machinery continues to present significant risks where safeguarding, isolation, and communication arrangements are inadequate.
Employers should ensure that:
- Dangerous parts of machinery are properly guarded
- Safe isolation procedures are robust and reliable
- Workers cannot access moving parts during maintenance or blockage clearing activities
- Communication systems used during high-risk tasks are effective and dependable
Machinery Guarding and Access Prevention
The HSE investigation found that although a safe system of work existed, the company failed to adequately prevent access to dangerous moving parts.
Where machinery contains hazardous moving components, physical safeguards should always be considered the primary control measure.
Examples include:
- Fixed guards
- Interlocked guards
- Access restriction systems
- Locking mechanisms
- Isolation devices
Reliance on procedural controls or verbal confirmation alone is rarely sufficient where there is a risk of contact with moving machinery.
Isolation and Lock-Off Procedures
Before any maintenance, cleaning, adjustment, or blockage clearing work is carried out, machinery should be:
- Fully isolated from all energy sources
- Locked off where appropriate
- Proven dead or stationary before access is permitted
Effective lock-off and isolation procedures are critical in preventing unexpected movement or start-up. This case also highlights the importance of ensuring:
- Isolation points are clearly identified
- Operators understand isolation procedures
- Communication methods are reliable
- There is no ambiguity regarding machinery status
Communication Risks During High-Risk Activities
In this incident, communication between the worker and control room was carried out using hand-held radios with no direct line of sight, and interference issues were known. Where communication is safety critical, employers should assess whether systems are:
- Reliable
- Clearly understood
- Free from interference or ambiguity
- Suitable for the environment and task
Additional verification steps should be considered where machinery is remotely controlled.
PUWER Responsibilities
The prosecution was brought under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. PUWER places duties on employers and those in control of work equipment to ensure machinery is:
- Suitable for its intended use
- Maintained in a safe condition
- Inspected where necessary
- Used only by people who have received adequate information, instruction and training
- Accompanied by appropriate health and safety measures
- Adequately guarded to prevent access to dangerous parts
- Fitted with suitable control systems
- Safely isolated during maintenance, cleaning, adjustment or repair work
- Stable and secure during operation
- Provided with clearly identifiable controls and emergency stop functions
- Used in accordance with safe systems of work
- Subject to suitable risk assessment and supervision
- Located and installed safely within the workplace
- Protected against risks from entanglement, crushing, or contact with moving parts
- Supported by effective warning signs, markings, or safety devices
The regulations apply across a wide range of industries where machinery and equipment are used.
Practical Steps for Businesses
Organisations should review:
- Machinery guarding arrangements
- Isolation and lock-off procedures
- Permit-to-work systems
- Communication methods during maintenance activities
- Training and supervision arrangements
- Risk assessments for non-routine tasks such as clearing blockages or faults
Where access to dangerous parts is possible, additional engineering controls should be prioritised.
Final Thoughts
Incidents involving moving machinery can result in devastating, permanent injuries within moments.
This case demonstrates that even experienced workers remain vulnerable where safeguards and isolation arrangements are not fully effective.
Employers should use this prosecution as an opportunity to review machinery safety arrangements and ensure appropriate physical controls, isolation procedures, and communication systems are in place to protect workers from harm.