Dry cutting of stone and stone-like materials can give rise to high levels of respirable crystalline silica (RCS), and this can lead to severe health problems for employees.  Don’t be fooled; even wet cutting cannot control dust levels – you will always need a face-fitted FFP3 mask.  You might not be able to see the dust, but it’s there – we’ve air sampled it and proved that beyond all doubt.  If you need air sampling for respirable crystalline silica (RCS) or awareness sessions for staff working with these substances, please contact us or request a call back.  If you are an existing Safety~net subscriber, please contact us for further help and support.

HSE Targets Engineered Stone Dust Risks with New Crackdown on Dry Cutting

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has announced a significant enforcement campaign targeting businesses working with engineered stone, following growing concern over workers developing silicosis and other life-changing respiratory illnesses linked to silica dust exposure.

This comes alongside updated HSE guidance making it explicitly clear that dry cutting of engineered stone is unacceptable. Inspectors are now set to carry out more than 1,000 inspections across Great Britain over the next 12 months, with enforcement action expected where businesses fail to control exposure risks adequately.

Why Engineered Stone Presents a Serious Risk

Engineered stone, commonly used for kitchen worktops and interior surfaces, often contains very high levels of crystalline silica — in some cases up to 95%. When materials are cut, ground or polished, respirable crystalline silica (RCS) dust is released into the air. These microscopic particles can penetrate deep into the lungs. (HSE)

Exposure to RCS has long been associated with:

• Silicosis
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• Lung cancer
• Permanent and irreversible lung damage

One of the major concerns highlighted by occupational health specialists is that damage can occur long before symptoms become noticeable. In many cases, silicosis continues to progress even after exposure has stopped. (HSE)

International concern over engineered stone has intensified in recent years. Australia has already introduced a national ban on engineered stone products because of rising numbers of severe silicosis cases among younger workers.

HSE’s Key Message: Dry Cutting Must Stop

The latest HSE guidance leaves little room for interpretation. Dry cutting engineered stone creates dramatically higher levels of airborne silica dust than wet-cutting methods.

Research referenced by HSE found that dry fabrication can generate respirable crystalline silica exposure levels five to ten times higher than equivalent wet-cutting processes.

The regulator is therefore directing duty holders towards:

• Water suppression systems
• Effective local exhaust ventilation (LEV)
• Powered air purifying respirators (PAPR)
• Routine health surveillance
• Enhanced housekeeping arrangements
• Lower silica-content stone products where possible

These measures are not optional recommendations — they sit firmly within employers’ legal duties under COSHH regulations. (HSE)

Increased Enforcement Activity Across the Sector

The announcement signals a clear shift towards proactive enforcement within the stonemasonry and worktop fabrication industries.

HSE inspectors have already begun visits and will focus heavily on whether businesses are:

• Preventing dry cutting activities
• Adequately controlling airborne silica exposure
• Providing suitable respiratory protective equipment (RPE)
• Carrying out health surveillance
• Maintaining effective cleaning regimes
• Training workers appropriately

Where standards fall short, enforcement notices and prosecutions are likely.

This follows several recent enforcement cases involving poor silica dust controls. In one high-profile prosecution, a stone company was fined after inspectors identified widespread failures to manage hazardous dust exposure within the workplace. (press.hse.gov.uk)

What Employers Should Be Doing Now

For organisations involved in fabrication, installation or processing of engineered stone, this latest HSE intervention should act as an immediate trigger for review.

Key priorities include:

• Reviewing Risk Assessments
  • Employers should revisit COSHH assessments specifically relating to respirable crystalline silica exposure and ensure they reflect current working practices.
• Eliminating Dry Processing
  • Any remaining dry cutting, grinding or polishing activities should be stopped immediately unless a robust justification and effective controls are demonstrably in place.
• Verifying Existing Controls
  • LEV systems, wet suppression equipment and RPE arrangements should be tested, maintained and monitored regularly to confirm they remain effective.
• Introducing Health Surveillance
  • Where workers are regularly exposed to silica dust, suitable respiratory health surveillance should be in place.
• Delivering Competent Training
  • Employees must understand:
  • The risks associated with silica dust
  • Correct use of controls and RPE
  • Cleaning procedures
  • Reporting requirements

A Wider Occupational Health Wake-Up Call

The renewed focus on engineered stone also reflects a broader shift within health and safety enforcement towards occupational disease prevention.

Historically, workplace health risks have often received less attention than immediate safety hazards. However, regulators are increasingly targeting long-latency illnesses such as occupational lung disease, with silica exposure remaining one of the most significant construction-related health risks in the UK. (HSE)

For many businesses, the challenge is no longer simply having controls on paper — it is demonstrating that those controls are genuinely effective in practice.

Businesses operating within the engineered stone sector should expect increasing scrutiny throughout 2026 and beyond. The message from HSE is clear: if silica dust risks are not being properly controlled, enforcement action will follow. (UKATA)

HAVS can be a difficult hazard to manage. If you need help and support, consider joining the hundreds of businesses already using our competent person support service, Safety~net.  Contact us or request a call back for more information.

A metal fabrication company operating at Immingham Docks has been fined after seven workers developed vibration-related health conditions linked to the use of power tools. Following an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Drury Engineering Services Ltd was prosecuted for failing to protect workers from harmful exposure to hand-arm vibration. The company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined £44,000, with £8,061.70 in costs, at Grimsby Magistrates’ Court on 26 February 2026.

Investigation Following Illness Reports

The HSE began investigating in June 2024 after three workers were diagnosed with vibration-related health conditions. Inspectors served the company with an Improvement Notice, requiring it to introduce effective controls for vibration exposure. During the investigation, three further cases were identified, with a seventh worker later reporting symptoms consistent with vibration-related illness.

Workers reported symptoms including:

• Finger blanching (commonly known as white finger)
• Numbness and tingling in the hands
• Loss of grip strength
• Sleep disruption caused by nerve pain

Several workers said their condition affected everyday activities such as gripping tools, carrying out household tasks and even mowing the lawn.

Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS)

The symptoms experienced by the workers are associated with Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) — a permanent and preventable occupational disease caused by prolonged exposure to vibration from hand-held power tools.

Common tools associated with HAVS include:

• Angle grinders
• Impact drills
• Sanders and polishers
• Road breakers
• Hammer drills

Without appropriate controls, long-term exposure can lead to irreversible damage to nerves, blood vessels and joints in the hands and arms.

Failures Identified by HSE

The HSE investigation found that the company had not adequately managed the risks associated with vibration exposure.

In particular, the business had failed to:

• Carry out a suitable and sufficient vibration risk assessment
• Implement controls to limit worker exposure to vibration
• Introduce an effective health surveillance programme
• Provide sufficient training and information for employees using vibrating tools

Although the company later appointed a new health and safety manager who began improving vibration management processes, inspectors concluded that workers had already been exposed to harmful levels of vibration for several years.

Employer Responsibilities

Under the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005, employers must assess and control the risks from vibration exposure where workers use power tools or vibrating equipment.

Practical control measures can include:

• Selecting lower-vibration tools and equipment
• Maintaining tools to prevent excessive vibration
• Limiting exposure time through task rotation
• Monitoring exposure against daily vibration limits
• Implementing health surveillance programmes to identify early symptoms

A Preventable Occupational Health Risk

Cases of HAVS remain a significant occupational health issue across industries including construction, engineering, fabrication and maintenance.

The HSE estimates that millions of UK workers use vibrating tools as part of their job, meaning employers must remain vigilant in managing exposure.

This prosecution serves as a reminder that failure to properly manage vibration risks can lead not only to serious, life-changing health conditions for workers but also significant financial and reputational consequences for businesses.

What This Means for Employers

This case highlights the importance of proactively managing vibration risks in workplaces where employees regularly use power tools.

Employers should ensure that vibration risks are properly assessed and controlled before workers are exposed to prolonged tool use. Regular monitoring of vibration exposure levels and early health surveillance are critical to identifying potential problems before they develop into permanent conditions.

Businesses should also ensure workers receive appropriate training on the safe use of vibrating equipment and understand the importance of reporting early symptoms such as tingling, numbness or finger blanching.

Failing to control vibration exposure can result in serious long-term health consequences for workers and enforcement action from the regulator, including fines, improvement notices and reputational damage.

We know that HAVS can be a difficult hazard to manage. If you need help and support, consider joining the hundreds of businesses already using our competent person support service, Safety~net.  Contact us or request a call back for more information.

Before we look at this tragic accident, please make yourself aware of the standards which should be applied to ensure this doesn’t happen in your workplace.

The HSE is clear that emery cloth must never be applied by hand to a rotating workpiece. Contact with moving parts can lead to rapid entanglement and fatal injuries.  👉 Read the guidance: HSG129 – Health and safety in engineering workshops.  We always look at issues such as this – and the hidden signs which might lead our safety consultants to believe this is happening.  If you feel you would benefit from a similar audit, please contact us or request a call back for further advice.  If you are a Safety~net member, please contact us to arrange this audit with your retainec consultant.

Forge fined £750,000 after worker dragged 20-metre lathe in entirely preventable incident

Somers Forge Limited has been ordered to pay £750,000 after a tragic workplace accident resulted in the death of a machinist who became entangled in a 20-metre lathe. The prosecution highlights significant safety failings and reinforces long-established guidance on machine risk management.

A Preventable Tragedy

On 8 December 2023, 54-year-old machinist Nick Hardiman was working in the machine shop at Somers Forge’s facility in Halesowen when the fatal incident occurred. Mr Hardiman was finishing a rotating component on the forge’s large lathe using hand-held emery cloth — a practice specifically warned against in machine safety guidance.

While the lathe was in motion, Mr Hardiman became entangled with the rotating workpiece. Despite rapid emergency response, he sustained catastrophic injuries and died later that evening. His loss has devastated his family and loved ones.

HSE Investigation Identified Serious Failings

The subsequent investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) uncovered multiple breaches of duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974:

• Failure to prohibit the use of hand-held emery cloth on live lathes.
• Inadequate measures to prevent access to dangerous moving parts.
• A lack of adequate risk assessment or safe operating procedures for lathe work.
• Insufficient control of personal protective equipment (PPE) that inadvertently increased risk.

HSE Inspector Sophie Neale emphasised that this was “an entirely preventable incident” and reiterated employers’ obligations to implement safe systems of work and control foreseeable hazards.

Court Outcome and Wider Lessons

Somers Forge Limited pleaded guilty at Walsall Magistrates’ Court to breaching Section 2(1) of the HSW Act. In addition to the £750,000 fine, the company was ordered to pay £38,314 in costs.

HSE’s guidance on metalworking lathes specifically states that emery cloth should never be applied by hand to rotating machinery. Safe alternatives include clamping work in place or using purpose-designed holding tools to prevent direct contact with moving parts.

This case sits within a broader pattern of serious lathe-related accidents reported in industry, where poor machine guarding, lack of risk assessment and unsafe working practices have repeatedly contributed to life-altering injuries or death.

Key Takeaways for Duty Holders

This prosecution underscores fundamental principles of machinery safety:

• Risk assessments must be suitable and sufficient. Identifying hazards is a legal requirement, not optional.
• Safe operating procedures must be documented and enforced. Workers should never improvise dangerous tasks.
• Machine guarding and control measures must be effective and cannot be bypassed or ignored.
• Training and supervision should align with hazards posed by specific equipment.

For firms that use lathes and similar industrial plant, this enforcement serves as a stark reminder of the catastrophic consequences of complacency. Machinery casualties can be avoided when risk control principles are properly applied.

This accident illustrates the breadth of hazards which a competent health and safety professional must consider. Skin exposure to solvents, the potential for flammable atmospheres, the possible narcotic effects of inhalation of solvent vapours (perhaps leading to a serious road traffic accident), the potential for fire and explosion, the knowledge and approach of a competent worker who is unaware of the potential hazrds from a substance which has been used commonly in the business, perhaps for years without incident.

Health and safety assessment isn’t easy, and when it comes to chemicals and COSHH, there are sometimes issues which can only be fully assessed by someone with a very specific skill set.  If you need help and support, join the hundreds of safety professionals who call on our support for key risks by joining our Safety~net Competent Person Support Scheme. Please contact us or request a call back to speak directly to one of our friendly and helpful advisors.

A Hertfordshire maintenance company has been ordered to pay £400,000 after a worker died from inhalation of toxic glue vapour while carrying out flooring work, highlighting the critical importance of hazardous substance control and ventilation in confined spaces.

On 9 December 2020, 38-year-old Darren Nevill was installing a vinyl bathroom floor at a domestic property in Hoddesdon when he was exposed to lethal levels of dichloromethane (DCM) vapours, a highly volatile solvent present in the adhesive supplied by his employer, Connect Property Services Limited, a maintenance subsidiary of Peabody.

What Happened?

DCM-based adhesives emit colourless, low-odour vapours that can rapidly accumulate in enclosed or poorly ventilated areas. During the task, a pressurised glue canister hose became damaged, releasing a significant volume of adhesive into the bathroom.

Mr Nevill inhaled a concentration of DCM estimated to be 84.5 times the legal workplace exposure limit, with post-mortem analysis showing levels more than three times the fatal concentration. He lost consciousness and died at the scene. Emergency services were forced to break into the property to recover his body.

HSE Investigation and Findings

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that the company had failed to adequately control exposure to hazardous substances, despite safer alternatives being reasonably practicable.

The investigation concluded that the risks associated with DCM were not properly mitigated, particularly given the confined nature of the bathroom and the absence of sufficient ventilation. HSE guidance is clear that products containing dichloromethane should be avoided wherever possible, and where use cannot be eliminated, strict controls must be in place to prevent vapour build-up.

Court Proceedings and Penalty

At Stevenage Magistrates’ Court on 26 January 2026, Connect Property Services pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

The company was fined £400,000, ordered to pay £9,676.81 in costs, and a £190 victim surcharge.

HSE Inspector Rauf Ahmed stated that the statutory 15-minute exposure limit for DCM would have been exceeded in seconds, adding that the incident was entirely preventable with appropriate controls in place.

What This Means for Your Business

This case serves as a stark reminder of employers’ duties under COSHH and the Health and Safety at Work Act. Organisations involved in maintenance, refurbishment, flooring or similar activities should review their arrangements urgently.

Key actions for duty holders include:

• Eliminate or substitute hazardous substances
  Where reasonably practicable, replace products containing high-risk solvents such as dichloromethane with safer alternatives.
• Review COSHH risk assessments
  Ensure assessments are task-specific and consider worst-case scenarios, including confined spaces, equipment failure and cumulative exposure.
• Assess ventilation realistically
  Natural ventilation is often insufficient in bathrooms, cupboards and small rooms. Where adequate ventilation cannot be guaranteed, the task should not proceed.
• Check exposure limits and usage times
  Volatile substances can exceed Workplace Exposure Limits (WELs) in seconds. Controls must reflect this reality, not theoretical averages.
• Provide competent supervision and training
  Employees must understand the hazards, symptoms of exposure, and the steps to take if something goes wrong.
• Audit products and equipment
  Pressurised systems, hoses and applicators should be subject to inspection and maintenance regimes to prevent leaks and failures.

Beyond the significant financial penalties, this case demonstrates the human cost of inadequate chemical risk management. Employers must ensure that health and safety decisions are driven by prevention, not convenience or cost.

If you need help and support on this or other matters from experts in health and safety please contact us or request a call back.  We offer tailored support packages through our Safety~net Competent Person Support Scheme for hundreds of clients across the UK.

HSE has released a practical four-part video series focusing on how to control exposure to metalworking-fluid (MWF) mist during CNC machining. The films demonstrate how effective local exhaust ventilation (LEV), visualisation techniques and straightforward monitoring tools can significantly reduce respiratory and skin risks for operators.

Metalworking fluids are essential for cooling and lubricating cutting operations, but the mist generated can lead to occupational asthma, hypersensitivity pneumonitis and dermatitis if not properly controlled. The new videos give employers concise demonstrations they can replicate on the shop floor to strengthen compliance with COSHH and improve day-to-day operator protection.

What the four new HSE videos cover

HSE’s new series consists of four short films designed for toolbox talks, inductions and refresher training. Each video provides actionable guidance for assessing and improving exposure controls:

1. LEV to control worker exposure to MWF mist

A demonstration of how correctly designed, positioned and commissioned LEV equipment captures mist at source. The video highlights key design principles, the importance of enclosure, the role of filtration and tips for ensuring effective capture.

2. Monitoring methods for MWF mist

Explains simple, practical techniques such as dust lamps, smoke pens and direct-reading aerosol monitors. These tools help you visualise mist behaviour, compare machines and identify priority areas for improvement.

3. Assessing control of MWF mist during CNC machining using monitoring methods

Shows how to run short monitoring sessions during typical CNC cycles. The video illustrates how different machining operations can generate varying mist levels and where additional controls may be needed.

4. Monitoring methods to check LEV for MWF mist

Provides step-by-step practical checks for routine LEV assessment, including airflow indications, dust-lamp checks and clearance-time tests. The video demonstrates how to embed these checks into regular maintenance procedures.

Why this matters for your workshop

MWF mist is a recognised cause of occupational lung disease and remains an area of active HSE attention. Key challenges frequently seen during inspections include:

• Poor LEV design or use
• Operators opening machine doors before mist has cleared
• Ineffective or unmonitored filtration
• Inadequate fluid-quality management
• Limited recording of checks and LEV performance
• Lack of health surveillance where exposure remains possible

These new videos provide clear demonstrations that show what “good” looks like and help employers benchmark their own practices.

A seven-step action plan for employers

Use the videos as part of a structured improvement programme. The following steps are practical, inexpensive and effective:

1. Show the videos to operators and supervisors

Use the films as part of a 10–15 minute toolbox talk or induction module. The visual demonstrations help reinforce safe behaviour and clarify the reasons for engineering controls.

2. Risk-rate your CNC machines

Conduct a walk-through using a dust lamp or aerosol monitor to identify which machines generate the most mist. Prioritise these machines for enclosure improvements, LEV review or process-change considerations.

3. Commission and document LEV

Ensure LEV hoods are correctly sized and positioned, that enclosures are used effectively and that commissioning records — including clearance times — are up-to-date and accessible.

4. Introduce a routine LEV check schedule

Use a standard checklist to record weekly airflow indications, dust-lamp checks, filter condition and enclosure performance. Maintain a simple LEV logbook and ensure responsible persons are clearly identified.

5. Manage fluid quality effectively

Check concentration, pH, odour and bacterial contamination as part of a structured fluid-management programme. Poor coolant condition increases mist production and health risks.

6. Review and update safe working procedures

Avoid compressed-air cleaning, limit door-opening until after clearance times and ensure operators know how to position LEV hoods correctly. Consider interlocks or time-delay systems where appropriate.

7. Apply health surveillance where required

If workers are exposed to MWF mist, health surveillance for skin and respiratory symptoms is required under COSHH. Implement a structured programme and ensure early-reporting systems are in place.

Recommended next steps which Outsource Safety can assist with

• Toolbox talk outline: play one video → run a short Q&A → agree two machine-specific improvements.
• LEV quick-check sheet: hood condition, visual capture check, airflow gauge, filter state, clearance time, required actions.
• Machine-priority register: machine ID, mist-assessment result, action required, target date, assigned person.

Further resources for deeper understanding

• HSE metalworking-fluids main guidance pages
• COSHH Essentials: MW0–MW5 (Machining with metalworking fluids)
• HSE YouTube playlist: “Metalworking fluid mist” – the full four-video series

Final thoughts

HSE’s updated video materials make it easier than ever to demonstrate a clear, evidence-based approach to controlling MWF mist. By combining simple monitoring methods, effective LEV and structured checks, employers can reduce ill-health risks, improve operator confidence and strengthen COSHH compliance.

A practical next step is to run a short session with your CNC operators using the new films, followed by a quick dust-lamp survey on your highest-use machines – or we can do this for you if you are a retained client under Safety~net support. Small, visible improvements can deliver significant gains in both safety and operational reliability.  If you need specific help and you are a retained client (or would like our help on this) please contact Roger Hart or ask for a call back from one of our safety experts

Construction

Key Data & Risks

• In 2024/25, the construction sector recorded 35 worker fatalities, the highest of any sector.
• From HSE’s Labour Force Survey data, construction also has one of the highest self-reported rates of non-fatal injury: 2,388 per 100,000 workers.
• In terms of illness, the construction sector’s rate of self-reported work-related ill health is 3,772 per 100,000 workers, which is below some other sectors but still substantial.
• The most common fatal accident type in construction is falls from height, which matches long-standing trend data.

Implications & Strategies

• Height safety: Given that falls remain a leading cause, ensure rigorous fall-prevention systems: guardrails, harnesses, scaffold inspections, and robust safe-work-at-height training.
• Incident culture: Encourage near-miss reporting and proactive inspections — in construction, small interventions can prevent major accidents.
• Manual handling/injury prevention: Construction workers face a high risk of non-fatal injury, so strong manual-handling training, task review, and use of lifting aids are essential.
• Health monitoring: Though self-reported ill health is moderate relative to some sectors, musculoskeletal disorders may be underreported. Regular health surveillance and ergonomic reviews (e.g., for repetitive tasks) will help.

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing

Key Data & Risks

• Agriculture, forestry, and fishing recorded 23 worker fatalities over 2024/25.
• This sector has the highest fatal injury rate per 100,000 workers among main industry sectors.
• A large proportion of fatalities in this sector involve self-employed workers. Over recent years, self-employed farm workers make up a much greater share of deaths compared to their proportion of the workforce.
• Non-fatal injuries: According to commentary on HSE data, agriculture has historically had very high non-fatal injury rates, though precise LFS data for 2021/22–2023/24 is less available.

Implications & Strategies

• Self-employed focus: Because many in this sector are self-employed, safety programmes must reach beyond “company culture” — tailor interventions, training, and guidance to farm owners and contractors.
• Machinery risk: Given the high rate of machinery-related incidents, ensure robust maintenance regimes, machine guarding, and operator training (especially on tractors, combines, ATVs).
• Fatigue management: Farming often involves long hours; fatigue contributes to risk. Introduce rest-break policies, rotation, and risk assessments for “after-hours” working.
• Fall prevention: While not as obvious as in construction, elevated tasks (e.g., silos, barns) must be properly managed with fall prevention measures.
• Engagement & safety culture: Promote peer-to-peer safety networks (e.g., farm-safety groups), encouraging reporting, safe practices, and shared learning across small farms.

Manufacturing

Key Data & Risks

• In 2024/25, 11 workers in manufacturing were fatally injured.
• From HSE’s LFS data, the self-reported non-fatal injury rate in manufacturing is 1,936 per 100,000 workers.
• For ill health, manufacturing’s self-reported rate is **3,400 per 100,000 ** — somewhat lower than in “high-ill-health” sectors like health and education, but still significant.
• Regarding the causes of fatal injuries, in manufacturing, there is a higher incidence of being struck by moving machinery or objects, reflecting typical industrial hazards.

Implications & Strategies

• Machine safeguarding: Ensure all machinery has proper guards, interlocks, and isolation procedures. Maintenance schedules and lock-out / tag-out processes must be strictly enforced.
• Hazardous manual tasks: Use risk assessments on handling, lifting, and moving parts. Introduce ergonomic improvements, mechanical aids, and training.
• Safety training & behaviour: Invest in strong safety induction and continuous training (especially for new staff) with a focus on behaviours around moving plant, visibility, and safe working zones.
• Near-miss systems: Encourage reporting of “close calls” around machinery. These insights can help prevent more serious incidents.
• Health surveillance: Depending on processes, monitor workers for noise exposure, vibration, or repetitive strain injury — especially in CNC / manufacturing operations.

Transportation & Storage / Admin / Support / Other High-Risk Sectors

Key Data & Risks

• Transportation & storage saw 15 fatalities in 2024/25.
• Admin and support services recorded 13 fatalities, and wholesale/retail & accommodation/food combined had 12.
• In the non-fatal injury statistics, transportation/storage and construction top the charts for self-reported injury rates.
• For non-fatal injuries overall (2023/24), the most common accident kinds are: slips, trips or falls (31%), handling/lifting (17%), struck by an object (10%), acts of violence (9%), and falls from height (8%).

Implications & Strategies

• Transport risk management: For logistics, warehouses, and storage, focus on vehicle safety, pedestrian-vehicle segregation, and robust traffic management plans.
• Manual handling: Given the high share of handling / lifting incidents, implement regular training, use mechanical lifting aids, and review load handling tasks.
• Slips, trips, falls: Implement housekeeping programs, good housekeeping routines, surface maintenance, and non-slip flooring — especially in admin/support facilities.
• Violence risk: In support services or customer-facing settings, assess risk of violence or aggression, train staff in de-escalation, and provide safe working measures.
• Near-miss & reporting culture: Create simple but effective reporting frameworks, so that non-fatal, “low-consequence” incidents feed into safety improvement programmes.

Why This Matters for Your Business, Outsource Safety (and Your Clients)

When working with clients in these sectors, Outsource Safety can offer tailored, sector-specific health & safety services that reflect the unique risk profiles shown in the HSE data:

• Use industry benchmarking: Compare a client’s safety performance (fatalities, injury rate, near-misses) to HSE-sector averages to prioritise interventions.
• Embed preventative systems: Not just “tick-box” compliance, but proactive risk management (e.g., fall prevention in construction, machine guarding in manufacturing).
• Provide behavioural safety training: Sector-focused programmes (e.g., for drivers, machine operators, farm owners) can target the most frequent incident types.
• Support health and well-being: For sectors with high ill-health risk (e.g., musculoskeletal, mental health), help clients develop health surveillance, fatigue management, and health promotion.
• Facilitate continuous improvement: Using HSE data as a benchmark, run regular reviews, safety audits, and strategy sessions to show progress in reducing injuries and ill health.

Final Thought

These sector-specific breakdowns underscore that health & safety is not one-size-fits-all. Different industries face very different risks — and a tailored, data-driven approach is essential. For us at Outsource Safety, aligning clients’ safety strategies with the latest HSE data not only helps to reduce risk but also demonstrates value: fewer accidents, lower absence, better compliance, and potentially lower costs.

Contact us for more info on how we support hundreds of clients in construction and industry across the UK, or request a call back, and one of our consultants will call you.

The Health and Safety Executive has published the latest annual statistics covering work-related ill health, injury, and fatalities in Great Britain for 2024/25. HSE Workplace Statistics 2024/25. These figures serve as a vital barometer for the overall health of workplaces across industries — and they underline several key areas that businesses, large and small, must continue to address.

Key headline figures

Here are some of the major data points that stand out for 2024/25:

• An estimated 1.9 million working people suffered from work-related ill-health in 2024/25.
• Of those, 964,000 workers reported stress, depression or anxiety caused or made worse by work.
• A further 511,000 reported a work-related musculoskeletal disorder.
• Non-fatal injuries: An estimated 680,000 working people sustained a non-fatal injury at work.
• Fatal injuries: 124 workers died in work-related incidents during the 2024/25 period (an improvement of 14 fewer deaths compared to the previous year).
• Working days lost due to ill health and workplace injury totalled around 40.1 million.
• The estimated annual cost of workplace injuries and new cases of ill health reached £22.9 billion (based on rolling averages for 2023/24) — broadly consistent with the prior year.

What these numbers tell us

These statistics reflect several critical insights for any business responsible for workplace health and safety:

1. The challenge of ill health remains very significant
While the numbers for fatalities are relatively lower than in many decades past, the fact that nearly two million workers experienced ill health shows how pervasive the problem is. Mental health (stress, depression, anxiety) remains a major driver. The musculoskeletal burden is still high as well.

2. Persistent risk of injury
With 680,000 non-fatal injuries and many more perhaps unreported or self-reported outside the official regulatory system, the message is clear: injury risk remains real. For the construction, agriculture, waste & recycling and other higher-risk sectors, the focus must remain sharp.

3. Fatalities still matter — each one is avoidable
Although 124 deaths might seem a “small” number in the context of 32+ million workers, each one represents a worker, a family, a business scene turned tragic. Importantly, the highest numbers of deaths remain in sectors such as construction and agriculture.

4. Economic-cost pressure remains heavy
40.1 million lost working days and £22.9 billion in estimated cost: For an organisation, large or small, the indirect and direct costs of health and safety failures are material. They affect productivity, staff retention, reputation, compliance risk and business continuity.

Implications for your business & what you should focus on

Given these figures, if your organisation places any reliance on external safety-support (such as outsourced safety services) or has internal H&S teams, it’s worth considering the following action areas:

• Mental health & well-being: Since stress, depression, and anxiety dominate the ill-health figures, businesses must ensure their health & safety strategy includes psychological risks (workload, remote/hybrid working, support mechanisms, bullying/harassment, workplace culture), not just physical hazards.
• Musculoskeletal risks: Whether work is manual (lifting, repetitive actions, awkward postures) or involves significant time at display screens, consider reviewing ergonomic assessments, manual-handling training and DSE processes.
• High-risk sectors/tasks: If your operation includes any of the sectors with elevated fatality or injury rates (construction, agriculture/forestry/fishing, waste/recycling) then proactive risk management of fall-from-height, working with vehicles, machinery/plant, and near-miss reporting is essential.
• Non-fatal injury monitoring & intervention: A robust incident/near-miss reporting culture can catch small issues before they become costly. Use the lost-day figures as a reminder that even non-fatal incidents create a burden.
• Cost awareness: For directors and senior management, translating safety performance into cost metrics (working-days lost, financial impact) helps make the business case for investment in safety resources, training, engagement and monitoring.
• Continuous review: Trends in older data show improvements in some areas (e.g., fatal injuries down when compared to decades ago) but less improvement in some other areas (mental health, musculoskeletal disorders). An outsourced safety partner should be capable of helping you embed continuous improvement, not just compliance.

Why this matters

These statistics highlight both the continuing need for expert health & safety support and the opportunity to add value beyond mere regulatory compliance:

• Partnering with businesses to address latent hazards (not just the obvious ones).
• Supporting clients with mental-health and ergonomic interventions in addition to traditional safety.
• Providing data-driven insights — using industry benchmarks (such as these HSE figures) to help clients measure their performance, set targets, and track improvement.
• Ensuring that safety programmes are embedded in business strategy and culture, not just safety committees or incident response.
• Translating safety outcomes into commercial metrics (reduced days lost, fewer incidents, lower insurance premiums) so that board-level stakeholders engage.

Final thoughts

The 2024/25 HSE statistics provide a clear message: while progress has been made, much remains to be done. The large number of workers suffering ill-health and the ongoing burden of non-fatal injuries show that a safe working environment encompasses more than preventing major accidents — it includes day-to-day risks, psychological hazards, and systematic controls.

For businesses of all sizes, health and safety – when done well – isn’t a cost centre: it’s part of sustainable performance, workforce retention and corporate responsibility. The role of an external safety partner should therefore be positioned not just in terms of compliance, but as a strategic asset.

Lithium-ion batteries are everywhere — powering forklifts, mobile devices, e-bikes, energy storage systems and more. Despite their benefits, they pose a serious fire and explosion hazard when improperly stored or handled. As safety professionals and business owners, we must treat them with the same respect as other hazardous items.

This post outlines what you need to know to store lithium-ion batteries safely in a UK workplace — summarising key risks, regulatory considerations, and practical controls you can implement today.

Why lithium-ion batteries pose a risk

At their best, lithium-ion batteries offer excellent performance. But when things go wrong – overcharge, damage, thermal abuse, or manufacturing defects – the outcome can be dramatic. The process known as thermal runaway is central to the hazard: an overheated cell can release flammable gases, rupture, and ignite adjacent cells.

In the UK, this risk is growing. The number of e-bike fires involving lithium-ion batteries has risen sharply. For organisations, storage (and charging) of these batteries is a significant safety issue, not just a housekeeping matter.

Key UK guidance and regulatory context

You should be aware of the following key resources:

• HSE INDG139 – Using Electric Storage Batteries
• Aviva Risk Solutions – Guidance on lithium-ion battery storage and transit
• Safety Storage Systems – Specialist advice on storage controls
• Lithium-Ion Battery Safety Bill (UK) – Ongoing legislative development
• British Safety Council – Risk assessments, ventilation, and temperature control guidance

There’s no single “lithium battery law,” but the message is clear: treat lithium-ion batteries as hazardous and control the risks accordingly.

Practical controls for safe storage

1. Storage environment

• Keep in a cool, dry, well-ventilated space (ideally 5 °C – 20 °C).
• Avoid direct sunlight and heat sources.
• Use racks or shelving — never stack batteries directly.
• Keep away from combustible materials.

2. Battery condition, charge level and handling

• Store at 40–60% charge for long periods.
• Remove from equipment when not in use.
• Inspect regularly for swelling, leaks or heat.
• Use manufacturer-approved chargers only.

3. Storage containment and suppression

• Use fire-rated storage cabinets built for lithium-ion batteries.
• Install suitable fire detection and suppression.
• Segregate from general storage.

4. Risk assessment and policy

• Carry out a formal risk assessment.
• Document safe systems of work.
• Maintain logs and inspection records.
• Dispose of damaged batteries through authorised waste routes.

5. Transport and movement

• Follow UN 3480/3481 regulations for transport.
• Avoid storing or moving through hot zones.

Common pitfalls

❌ Over-stacking or contact between terminals
❌ Long-term full charge
❌ Poor ventilation
❌ Use of non-OEM chargers
❌ Ignoring small or damaged batteries
❌ Failure to update the fire-risk profile

Integrating into your safety management system

• Add lithium-ion batteries to your fire risk assessment.
• Create a dedicated storage zone with signage and inspection.
• Update charging procedures and train staff.
• Review containment standards and fire controls.
• Coordinate with facilities and fire safety teams.

Final thought

Lithium-ion batteries will only become more common — and so will the risks. With proper storage, handling and control, those risks remain manageable. The key is awareness and proactive management.

P50 service‑free fire extinguishers — what they are and whether they’re right for your site

Service‑free extinguishers are becoming a popular option across UK sites — and the P50 family (manufactured in Great Britain) is one of the better‑known ranges. They’re marketed as lightweight, corrosion‑proof composite extinguishers that are service‑free for the first 10 years, with the aim of simplifying maintenance and lowering lifetime cost.

Below we explain what P50 extinguishers are, the real benefits and limitations, and a clear checklist to help you decide whether they’re a good fit for your premises.

What is a P50 extinguisher?

P50 extinguishers are composite‑bodied portable extinguishers produced in the UK. In short: they use a corrosion‑resistant composite shell, are available in multiple agent types (powder, foam, water‑mist, Class F/kitchen variants, and more), and are designed to be service‑free for the first 10 years — subject to annual visual checks by a competent person. After year 10 the unit can be refurbished/refilled and continue in service for a further period when correctly maintained.

Why organisations consider a P50 extinguisher

• Lower ongoing contractor costs. The service‑free claim removes the need for an annual discharge/refill by a contractor in years 1–10; only an annual visual inspection is required. That can reduce external maintenance spend and disruption.
• Better resistance to corrosion. The composite shell makes a P50 extinguisher a good option in wet, coastal or exposed environments where steel cylinders are at greater risk of rust and failure.
• Lightweight and easier handling. Composite construction often reduces weight compared with comparable steel extinguishers, which can make manual handling easier.
• Environmental and lifecycle advantages. The longer initial service interval, refurbishment option and recyclable components are attractive where organisations are trying to cut embodied carbon and waste.

Key cautions — don’t assume ‘service‑free’ means ‘no responsibility’

• You still have legal duties. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order requires that equipment is suitable and maintained; service‑free does not remove your duty to ensure extinguishers are appropriate, sited correctly and inspected by a competent person.
• Annual visual inspections remain essential. A competent person must carry out, record and keep inspection records every year. These records form part of your fire safety management and could be inspected by enforcing authorities.
• Match agent to hazard. Not all P50 extinguisher agents are appropriate for every risk (for example Class F extinguishers for deep fat fryers, or specific requirements for electrical fire coverage). Always check agent suitability against your fire risk assessment.
• Refurbishment after 10 years. The ‘service‑free’ benefit applies to the first 10 years; plan for refurbishment/refill costs and lifecycle replacement beyond that point.

Practical checklist — before you swap to P50

1. Review your fire risk assessment. Confirm the P50 agent and rating match the hazards identified for each area of the site.
2. Identify your competent person. Ensure someone (internal or contracted) is trained and authorised to perform and record the required annual visual inspections.
3. Check approvals. Verify the exact approvals and standards on the models you plan to buy (manufacturer datasheets will list standards such as EN3/UKCA/other relevant marks).
4. Plan for year‑10 refurbishment. Record lifecycle dates on your maintenance schedule and budget for refurbishment or refill at the 10‑year point.
5. Update training and signage. If a P50 replaces multiple smaller extinguishers or changes extinguisher locations, provide a short refresher to staff and update inspection records and site fire plans.
6. Document everything. Keep inspection records, refurbishment receipts and a log of any incidents or faults. These form the audit trail for compliance.

Where P50 makes the most sense

P50s are a good option where reducing annual contractor costs is a genuine objective, and where corrosion or exposure makes steel cylinders less suitable. They’re particularly attractive to retail, estate managers, warehouses, outdoor sites and organisations aiming to reduce lifecycle waste.

However, P50s are not a universal solution. High‑risk process areas, specialist industrial hazards and sites without a competent person to carry out annual inspections should carefully weigh the pros and cons before switching.

Need help deciding?

If you’d like help assessing whether P50 extinguishers are right for your premises — and ensuring your fire risk assessment, inspection regimes, recordkeeping and staff briefings remain fully compliant — we can help. Contact Outsource Safety to arrange a site review and written recommendation.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has recently announced a new isocyanates awareness and inspection campaign aimed at reducing the health risks posed by isocyanate exposure in UK workplaces.  As the HSE’s attention turns increasingly toward occupational lung disease and chemical safety, this initiative re-emphasises the urgency for duty-holders to review their control strategies, health surveillance, and compliance under COSHH.

In this post, we summarise the key points of the campaign, explore why isocyanates remain a major health hazard, and offer practical steps your organisation can take to stay ahead of regulatory scrutiny

Why is this campaign important?

Isocyanates are widely used chemicals—particularly in spray paints, adhesives, foams, and coatings—that are well-known respiratory sensitisers and irritants.  Even low-level exposure may trigger occupational asthma in sensitised individuals, and once sensitisation occurs, further exposure—even to minute amounts—can provoke severe reactions.

Historically, isocyanates have been a significant contributor to work-related asthma cases in sectors including motor vehicle repair, spray painting and coatings, and polyurethane manufacturing.  Over recent decades, improvements in control and monitoring have driven down incidence in some sectors—but complacency or weak controls allow residual risk to remain. )

Moreover, in its 2025–2026 priorities, HSE has signalled greater focus on occupational lung disease, including exposures to isocyanates, silica dusts, and other chemical hazards. The timing of this campaign suggests inspections and compliance checks will intensify.

What is the HSE campaign focusing on?

From the campaign bulletin, key elements include:

• Awareness-raising: Ensuring duty-holders understand that isocyanate exposure is not just a paint-shop issue.
• Inspection regime: Targeted inspections to verify that control measures, monitoring and health surveillance systems are adequate and effective.
• Guidance and support: HSE is providing resources and references to help businesses comply.

Essentially, HSE wants to push beyond education and move toward enforcement where control is lacking.

What are the regulatory requirements and best practices?

COSHH & legal duties

Under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations, duty-holders must:

1. Identify hazardous substances (including isocyanates) in their processes.
2. Assess the risk of exposure.
3. Select and implement proportionate control measures (engineering, administrative, RPE, PPE).
4. Monitor exposure (air monitoring, biological monitoring) where needed.
5. Provide health surveillance where workers are likely exposed.

Importantly, because isocyanates are sensitisers, exposure must be reduced as far as is reasonably practicable (ALARP).

Workplace Exposure Limits (WELs)

UK limits for isocyanates are:

• Long-term (8-hour TWA): 0.02 mg/m³
• Short term (15-minute TWA / STEL): 0.07 mg/m³

Even when exposures remain below these limits, it’s not “safe” per se—because of the risk of sensitisation. Controls must aim for as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP).

Monitoring and health surveillance

• Air monitoring: to check whether control measures keep airborne isocyanate levels within acceptable bounds.
• Biological monitoring: urine sampling to detect isocyanate breakdown products; useful for confirming whether controls are effective.
• Health surveillance: respiratory (spirometry, questionnaires) and skin checks—especially in sectors like vehicle repair, coating, spray painting.

If monitoring indicates exposures exceed guidance, duty-holders must investigate and improve controls, then re-monitor.

Control measures: hierarchy of control

• Elimination / substitution (where possible): use alternative materials or processes with lower hazard.
• Engineering controls: closed systems, local exhaust ventilation (LEV), spray booths with capture, proper mixing enclosures.
• Administrative controls: training, rotation, safe operating procedures, permit-to-work systems when undertaking maintenance or cleaning.
• Respiratory protective equipment (RPE): where airborne levels are significant or unpredictable, an air-fed / supplied air breathing apparatus (not filtering respirators) is required for tasks like spray painting.
• Skin protection: gloves, coveralls, splash protection—because dermal exposure can also contribute to sensitisation.

Notably, HSE warns that raising the visor during spraying—even briefly—can dramatically increase operator exposure, undermining protection.

What should you do now?

Given the renewed regulatory focus, we suggest the following action plan:

1. Review your substance inventory and SDSs
   Identify all products containing isocyanates, including those labelled as “waterborne” that may still use isocyanate components.
2. Update COSHH risk assessments
   Reassess tasks (especially spraying) using the “Assess–Control–Review” model. Pay attention to the increased risks of mist, enclosed spaces, proximity, and maintenance tasks.
3. Audit engineering and ventilation systems
   Ensure LEV or capture systems are correctly specified, maintained, and effective. For spray booths and high-risk operations, confirm airflow rates, filtration, and exhaust arrangements.
4. Implement or strengthen monitoring programmes
   • Air sampling at operator breathing heights.
   • Biological monitoring (urine sampling) per HSE guidance.
   • Conduct trend analysis and use results to drive improvements.
5. Ensure robust health surveillance
   Initiate baseline and periodic respiratory testing (spirometry) and questionnaires. Monitor for early signs of asthma or dermatitis.
6. Train and empower workers
   Provide training on hazards, safe procedures, correct use of RPE, posture regarding spraying behaviour (no lifting visor), cleaning protocols, and emergency response.
7. Plan for inspections
   With HSE increasingly inspecting chemical and lung disease risks, be ready to demonstrate your control regime, monitoring records, surveillance records, and risk management approach.

Final thoughts

HSE’s new isocyanates awareness campaign is a clear signal: chemical health hazards cannot be relegated to “secondary” concerns. Organisations that underestimate or neglect isocyanate risks may find themselves under closer regulatory scrutiny—or worse, causing serious harm to your workers and facing significant liability.

If your operations involve coatings, spray painting, adhesives, or foam systems, now is the time to audit your control measures, refresh your assessments, and ensure monitoring and health surveillance are robust. Outsource Safety can assist with reviewing risk assessments, designing monitoring regimes, or advising on compliance strategies—please feel free to contact us to discuss your options for support under Safety~net, our Competent Person Scheme.