Letter: Safety and the HSE
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.under fire" (7 November) previews the Environment Select Committee's possible criticisms of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). David Bergman accuses us of under-doing prosecutions and accident investigations. But he is playing in a different ballpark. He believes that the Robens Committee got things wrong in its 1972 report on health and safety at work: but that report underpins the law that Parliament passed with all-party backing, and is the basis for all that the HSE and the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) do.
Prosecutions and investigations are worthwhile to punish flagrant wrongdoing and to deter other failures. But resources for workplace health and safety will never be unlimited: more prosecution and investigation means fewer preventative inspections and follow-ups of complaints. I have yet to see evidence that more prosecution improves health and safety. I do have evidence that the HSE's approach has cut the fatal injury rate for employees to a quarter of what it was in the early 1970s.
Apparently I have failed to demand enough resources. In fact the HSC/E has won better-than-average expenditure settlements in recent years. Ministers gave us pounds 4.5m last year and an extra pounds 63m for this and the next two years. You do not always have to shout to the public gallery to make your case.
As for rail accidents: it was the HSE/C that called attention to the increase in SPADs and demanded action by the rail companies. It was the HSE that proposed regulations to speed up action on train protection systems. Nor have we approved the signalling system at Paddington: we chased Railtrack for further action in August.
JENNY BACON
Health & Safety Executive
London SE1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments