Safety in the Use of Machinery: Approved Code of Practice

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made on 13 December 2013:

Decision Reference: MD-S-2013-0131

Decision Summary Title

Safety in the Use of Machinery Approved Code of Practice

Date of Decision Summary:

10th December 2013

Decision Summary Author:

Director of Health and Safety

Decision Summary:

Public or Exempt?

Public

Type of Report:

Oral or Written?

Written

Person Giving

Oral Report:

n/a

Written Report

Title

Report on the proposed Approved Code of Practice for Safety in the Use of Machinery

Date of Written Report:

10th December 2013

Written Report Author:

Director of Health and Safety

Written Report :

Public or Exempt?

Public

Subject:

Safety in the Use of Machinery Approved Code of Practice

Decision(s):

In accordance with Article 10 of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989, the Minister agreed to approve the Code of Practice for Safety in the Use of Machinery with effect from the 1st March 2014.

Reason(s) for Decision:

The decision by the Minister to give approval to a new Code of Practice setting out practical guidance for Safety in the Use of Machinery.

Resource Implications:

There are no implications for the financial or manpower resources of the States.

Action required:

The Director of Health and Safety to arrange for publication of the Approved Code of Practice and, in accordance with Article 10 of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989, the placing of a public notice in the Jersey Evening Post to advise of the introduction of the Approved Code of Practice.

Signature:

Position: MINISTER

Date Signed:

Date of Decision

Safety in the Use of Machinery: Approved Code of Practice

report on the Proposed approved code of practice for safety in the use of machinery

1. SUMMARY

The Minister for Social Security has previously agreed to proposals to introduce an Approved Code of Practice for Safety in the Use of Machinery (ACoP).

This report sets out the consultation process that has taken place and advises on the written submissions that have been received. No submissions against the proposal to adopt the ACoP have been received.

It is therefore recommended that the Minister formally approve the Code of Practice with a coming into force date of 1st March 2014.

2. BACKGROUND

Following a period of consultation with such persons as he considers necessary, the Minister is able to approve codes of practice under Article 10 of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989, for the purpose of providing practical guidance on how organisations and individuals can comply with their legal requirements under the Law.

ACoPs do not introduce new legal requirements, but can be referred to by the Courts when considering the measures that may be necessary to comply with the Law.

3. CONSULTATION

3.1 Consultation process

The consultation process has involved:

The consultation document being made available through the States Website from the 22nd August to the 29th November 2013;

A public notice being placed in the Jersey Evening Post on the 22nd and the 29th August 2013;

Copies of the consultation document being sent to:

Jersey Construction Council;
Jersey Safety Council;
Jersey Occupational Safety & Health Association;
Jersey Farmers Union;
Jersey Chamber of Commerce;
Unite the Union; and
Bill Dark, Corporate Health and Safety Manager, States of Jersey.

3.2 Responses to consultation process

Persons wishing to comment on the proposals for the ACoP were requested to submit their comments in writing, either by letter or email, to the Department by the 29th November 2013. Responses were received from the following:

Nigel Blandin, 4 Safety - 4Hire;
Bill Dark, States of Jersey;
Tony Pallot, TPT Health and Safety Training; and
Patrick Guyomard, Jersey Occupational Safety & Health Association.

Copies of the comments that were made are included as Appendix A.

None of the respondents were opposed to the introduction of the ACoP.

Comments on the contents of the ACoP have been taken into account and it is proposed that the draft ACoP be amended to include:

clarification of the responsibility of employers when providing written confirmation that their employees are competent to operate named machinery; and

the definitions of key terms referred to in the ACoP.

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In view of the response received to the proposed ACoP, it is recommended that the Minister formally approve the ACoP under Article 10 of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989, with a coming into force date of 1st March 2014.

The formal Notice of Approval to be signed by the Minister is included as Appendix B.

It is also recommended that the Minister agree to the Director of Health and Safety writing to the respondents on his behalf thanking them for their contribution to the consultation.

Director of Health and Safety

10th December 2013

APPENDIX A

Proposed Safety in the Use of Machinery Approved Code of Practice

Comments arising from consultation process

Ref	Name	Organisation	Comment	Paragraph/s or section of the ACoP to which the comment refers	Response to comment
1	Nigel Blandin	4 Safety – 4 Hire	Concerned that employers would be able to self certify employees	53 - 56	The requirement in the ACoP could not be met by an employer simply signing off an employee as being competent without the underlying demonstration of training and supervision that has/is being provided. The ACoP will be amended to clarify that this is the case.
2	Bill Dark Bill Dark collated comments on draft ACoP from Health and Safety practitioners in States Departments.	States of Jersey	ACoP is very general and while this is good it lacks reference to specific standards for safety of machinery, for example British and European standards and European Union (EU)machinery Directive	41	The assessment process which designers, manufacturers and employers are advised to follow should result in them reviewing appropriate standards. It would also be difficult to include reference to all possible standards covering the wide range of machinery to which the ACoP applies. It is also not considered appropriate to refer to the EU machinery directive, as Jersey is not subject to such European Union derived legislation. It is not considered that any amendment to the wording of the ACoP is required.
3	Bill Dark	States of Jersey	Consultee queried their assumption that the ACoP applied to older machinery which were therefore required to be kept up to current standards. This assumption implied that there was a need to review and update machinery when possible and not to rely on the standard of guarding of machinery when it was purchased.	19	This assumption, and the implications that arise as a result, is correct. Paragraph 19 refers to the ACoP applying to machinery which has been altered or modified and to second hand machinery. Paragraphs 35 and 38 of the ACoP set out guidance to manufacturers and suppliers in respect of the need to supply any new safety critical information to customers. Paragraph 42 also provides guidance to employers to regularly assess the safety of machinery via thorough examinations, with paragraph 58 also referring to the need for machinery to be subject to regular inspection by competent persons who have the appropriate knowledge, qualifications and experience to assess machinery and detect any problems or concerns affecting safety. It is therefore considered that the ACoP addresses the issues which were raised.
4	Bill Dark	States of Jersey	The ACoP does not refer to LOLER or PUWER.		LOLER (The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations) and PUWER (Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations) are UK regulations which do not apply to Jersey. Reference to applicable Jersey legislation is set out in Paragraph 9 of the ACoP.
5	Bill Dark	States of Jersey	Stopped within a reasonable time, as set out in manufacturer’s specification or run down in 10 seconds as per codes of practice for other machinery. (Woodworking). Conform to BS 4163:2007	106, 107	This is a reference to machinery being required to come to a stop before access can be gained to the machine and the installation of emergency stop devices. There is reference in the Safe Use of Woodworking Machinery ACoP to run down times of 10 seconds, which applies to a specific range of machines where the manner in which the machine is used results in operatives’ hands coming into the close vicinity of the cutting saws/blades of the machines. It is not possible to be as precise when dealing with an ACoP that applies to all other types of machines. The reference to BS 4163:2007 ‘Health and Safety for design and technology in schools and similar establishments. Code of Practice’ is the appropriate standard for the education sector but could not be applied across industry. This is because it applies to the training of young persons and quite rightly requires higher standards than are currently applied in industry. This does illustrate the point of ensuring that, as part of the risk assessment process set out in the ACoP, the person carrying out the assessment refers to the relevant guidance and technical specifications for the machinery where it is to be used, rather than simply referring to a generic standard. This reinforces comments made previously, in response to comment 2, regarding the inclusion of references to standards in the ACoP which would no doubt omit a number of critical standards applying to specific situations and circumstances. It is not considered that any amendment to the wording of the ACoP is required as a result of this comment.
6	Tony Pallot	TPT Health and Safety Training	Scope and application. Explanation/definition of machinery needs to be expanded and clarified.	ACoP	The ACoP does not contain the definitions of terms with the intention that reliance would be placed on common use of such terms. In the light of this comment it is now intended to include a number of definitions of critical terms such as ‘machinery’.
7	Tony Pallot	TPT Health and Safety Training	Scope and application. Does ACoP apply to equipment identified in other existing ACoPs ?	Introduction	The introduction to the ACoP identifies that it applies to all machinery with the exception of machinery to which ACoP 9 (Safe Use of Woodworking Machinery) applies. This comment is therefore already addressed in the ACoP.
8	Tony Pallot	TPT Health and Safety Training	Risk assessment. Additional info and guidance on the types of machines that do not require formal risk assessment would be useful.	44,45	As part of the general duty set out under Article 3 of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989, employers are required to identify and assess all risks to their employee’s health and safety with the preparation of a written record of significant risks and how they are addressed. The ACoP reflects this requirement; it is for the employer to carry out the assessment of all machinery and to determine the level of assessment required. It would therefore not be legally correct to provide a list of machines not requiring formal risk assessment.
9	Tony Pallot	TPT Health and Safety Training	Training. Expressed concerns over ‘in house’ training or situations where employers simply carry out self certification which is a tick box exercise. Commented over several companies who believe that self certification is a risk worth taking and sought further guidance on what level of training would be appropriate for some equipment.	53 - 56	Similar comment over training to that raised by comment 1. The ACoP will be amended to include a sentence to clarify that the assessment of competency needs to be demonstrated. The ACoP has identified the manner in which training can be provided, external, in-house or a combination of both and it is not intended to change the wording of this section as this allows employers to decide on what is appropriate to their particular situation. It is not considered feasible or practicable to provide a list of training requirements for specific machinery in the ACoP.
10	Patrick Guyomard		Inclusion of diagrams and case studies		It was always the intention that the published ACoP include photographs of machinery and guarding. It is not considered that an ACoP is the right publication for publishing case studies. The Inspectorate is committed to publishing articles on the States of Jersey website including case studies arising from investigations. Case studies are also included in the Annual Report of the Inspectorate. It is not intended to make any changes to the ACoP as a result of this comment.
11	Patrick Guyomard		The ACoP should be more ‘user friendly and leaning towards plain English’.		The ACoP has a legal status and therefore has to reflect the wording and make reference to applicable legislation. It is not intended to make any changes to the ACoP as a result of this comment.
12	Patrick Guyomard		Document is a ‘bit repetitive in places’.		Mr Guyomard comments that he read the document ‘all the way through and not just bits that specific users would read’. In the draft document that he made written comments on, he crossed out the section explaining the legal requirements as he considered that there should already be an understanding of them and that they were published elsewhere. It is considered that the section setting out the legal requirements is an essential part of the ACoP. He also crossed out the section setting out the risk assessment process, relying on the application of that process to the wording of the section identifying machinery hazards. He has rather missed the point that it is the process of risk assessment that is important with the section setting out machinery hazards simply providing examples of the hazards which need to be considered. It is not intended to make any changes to the ACoP as a result of these comments.

APPENDIX B

Safety in the Use of Machinery

Approved Code of Practice

Notice of Approval

By virtue of Article 10 of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989, (“the Law”), this Code of Practice, entitled “Safety in the Use of Machinery”, has been approved by the States of Jersey Minister for Social Security.

The Code provides practical guidance for all persons who have duties under Part 2 of the Law and are involved in the design, manufacture, supply and use of machinery at work.

ACoP 10

This Code of Practice shall come into force on 1st March 2014.

Senator F Le Gresley

Minister for Social Security

Date: