HSE - The Role of Routine Inspections in Enforcement

The role of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is commonly viewed as being reactive, stepping in post-incident to investigate and, where necessary, to take enforcement action. There is, however, a crucial element of HSE enforcement that is often overlooked, or at least underestimated: routine and unannounced inspections.

Routine and unannounced inspections are a key proactive measure that the HSE uses to monitor companies' compliance with health and safety law —even in the absence of an incident. Where the HSE identifies H&S breaches during one of these inspections, this can lead to enforcement action being taken against duty holders and even referral for prosecution where the HSE considers those breaches to be significant, the same enforcement powers applying whether there is an actual incident or not.

Two recent prosecutions highlight the significant consequences that can arise where the HSE identify H&S breaches during a routine inspection.

In October 2024, ASM Metal Recycling - a major recycling firm which operates four metal recycling sites - was prosecuted for H&S offences and fined £650,000. The prosecution arose following significant failings being identified by the HSE during a routine inspection. ASM was found not to have in place effective control measures to ensure segregation between vehicles and pedestrian workers at their waste sorting plant. This exposed pedestrian workers to the risk of being struck by vehicles, including 360 grab excavators.

In September 2024, Oriental Delight (UK) Limited - a food manufacturer in Wembley - was prosecuted for H&S offences and fined £150,000. That prosecution also arose following significant H&S failings being identified during a routine inspection. During the inspection, three machines were deemed unsafe due to interlocking safety devices being defeated and guards being completely removed.

It is of note that, notwithstanding significant fines, in neither of these cases had there been an incident which had resulted in harm. The law requires employers to manage the risk of harm to employees and others who may be affected by their business. It is not a pre-requisite to enforcement action or prosecution that harm has been caused (albeit this would be seen as an aggravation).

In both of these cases the companies had been subject to enforcement action by the HSE in the years preceding the inspection, but had taken insufficient steps to remedy the issues highlighted by HSE. This was held to be an aggravating feature in both cases and the HSE made clear that a particularly dim view will be taken in such cases of persistent non-compliance.

These cases send a clear message that even where no harm has been caused, the courts will not hesitate to impose significant fines to drive home the importance of H&S to employers. The financial impact of this, together with the potential commercial and reputational implications of a prosecution, cannot be underestimated.

The HSE's message is clear - routine inspections are not simply a formality. Where an inspection identifies H&S breaches, these will be enforced just as seriously as they would be following an incident. As such, it is essential that businesses have in place suitable and sufficient procedures to manage H&S risks within their business and that they keep these under review to ensure continued compliance with their H&S duties.