Story Highlight
– Health and safety rules hinder UK’s new infrastructure projects.
– John Fingleton advises a change in risk regulation.
– Starmer supports Fingleton’s recommendations for economic growth.
– Unions oppose reducing safety regulations in nuclear industry.
– Concerns rise over potential deregulation consequences for safety.
Full Story
Concerns regarding stringent health and safety regulations are being raised, suggesting that these rules are hindering the development of essential infrastructure in the UK. John Fingleton, an economist noted for influencing Labour leader Keir Starmer’s growth strategy, has recently addressed these issues in a report focusing on the barriers to developing new nuclear power facilities. In a discussion with The Guardian, Fingleton asserted that regulators must adopt a more nuanced approach to risk if the nation is to escape its prolonged economic inertia.
In a previous address, Starmer endorsed Fingleton’s insights, expressing a desire to incorporate his approach into a broader industrial policy framework. Fingleton’s report, delivered last month, highlights the urgent need for a shift in the prevailing attitude toward risk management. He stated, “We need to have a more mature relationship with risk,” underlining that many projects are stymied by safety apprehensions that simply transfer risk to other areas, rather than alleviating it.
Fingleton illustrated the UK’s tendency towards excessive risk aversion with a recent example involving the closure of London’s royal parks during strong winds. Instead of offering a safe space for exercise and leisure, park goers were redirected to the surrounding areas, often encountering greater potential dangers from trees along the edges. “All they had done was move the risk outside the park,” he noted.
Formerly serving as the head of the Office of Fair Trading, Fingleton’s report encompasses a number of proposals to streamline regulations within the nuclear sector. Among these suggestions is a directive for the government to provide explicit guidance to regulatory bodies on acceptable risk levels when evaluating whether to approve new infrastructure projects. Additionally, he proposed a scheme where developers could make an advance payment to Natural England instead of modifying project designs to accommodate the needs of protected species.
A striking point noted in Fingleton’s report is the £700 million expenditure on an acoustic fish deterrent at the Hinkley Point C nuclear facility, which he claims prevents the death of fewer than one salmon and 528 twait shads annually. The mechanism has drawn criticism, with some observers humorously dubbing it a “fish disco.”
The prospect of easing regulations has raised alarms among environmental groups, who fear such moves could lead to significant ecological harm. Some government insiders, however, contend that additional legislation may not effectively stimulate infrastructure investment, particularly under the current conditions of elevated interest rates and inflated supply chain costs.
Fingleton’s critique extends to regulations mandating that personnel within nuclear facilities be subject to radiation exposure levels considerably lower than those encountered by the average individual in their daily lives. He posits that these stringent measures inflate consumer costs and taxpayer burdens while simultaneously eroding the nuclear sector’s competitiveness without yielding substantial health benefits. “This increases prices for consumers and costs for the taxpayer and reduces the competitiveness of the nuclear sector for no meaningful health and safety benefit,” he wrote.
In his dialogue with The Guardian, Fingleton argued that the overly cautious strategy of minimising risk at any cost is generating broader economic challenges. He likened the approach to advising children against using knives for basic tasks, asserting the necessity of eventual risk exposure. “It’s like telling children not to use a knife to cut bread. That is fine for a while but at what point do you allow them to do so?” he questioned.
However, this perspective has not been universally accepted. Trade unions have firmly opposed the notion that health and safety protocols stifle economic progress, emphasizing the importance of security in the workplace. Andy Prendergast, the national secretary of the GMB union, stated, “GMB and other unions have worked extremely hard to ensure that the safety standards in UK nuclear are the best in the world. These high standards don’t inhibit growth; they support it, giving workers and the public confidence in this key industry.”
Prendergast further criticized the suggestion that safety measures should be diminished, particularly when voiced by individuals lacking substantial field experience. “The idea that these standards should be watered down, made by an unelected, unqualified bureaucrat who has never worked for a day in the sector, would be laughable if it wasn’t such a gross insult to the thousands of workers who work safely keeping the UK’s lights on,” he asserted.
Sue Ferns, senior deputy general secretary of the Prospect union, echoed these sentiments, asserting that any proposed changes must not compromise safety standards. “Unions have been at the forefront of making the nuclear industry a safe place to work and must be involved in the drafting and implementation of new rules,” she emphasized.
In his recent discourse, Starmer commended Fingleton for his insights on necessary reforms, insisting on applying these lessons beyond the nuclear domain to the larger industrial strategy. “I agree with him. In fact, I would go further … In addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I am asking the business secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy,” Starmer said.
Fingleton also expressed optimism about the applicability of his recommendations to other sectors, specifically mentioning the construction of new reservoirs and railway lines. His colleague, Mustafa Latif-Aramesh, pointed out that the existing planning legislation is not robust enough to avoid issues reminiscent of the £100 million “bat tunnel” created to protect bat populations along the HS2 rail route. He remarked that while there are mechanisms for mitigating potential environmental damage through financial contributions to conservation funds, these provisions fall short in unpredictable scenarios, where unforeseen ecological concerns arise. “If you encounter something after building gets underway, this does not provide a solution,” he warned.
As the debate surrounding health and safety regulations continues, it remains to be seen how policymakers may navigate the competing demands of economic growth and environmental stewardship in the years to come.
Our Thoughts
The article outlines concerns regarding overbearing health and safety regulations hindering infrastructure development in the UK, particularly in the nuclear sector. A key takeaway is the need for a balanced approach to risk management, as excessive precaution can lead to unnecessary delays and costs without significant safety benefits.
To avoid the issues highlighted, regulators could enhance their risk assessment frameworks, aligning them with proportionality principles under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. This includes ensuring that safety measures are commensurate with actual risks to avoid wasting resources on low-impact mitigations, such as the costly acoustic fish deterrents at Hinkley Point C.
Additionally, the introduction of flexible solutions that promote environmental conservation while not compromising safety could be considered. For instance, regulations should accommodate adaptive management strategies that address unexpected ecological encounters without extensive pre-planning burdens that could delay projects.
Lastly, stakeholder engagement, particularly with unions and safety experts, is vital to ensure that any reforms do not compromise the high safety standards that currently protect workers and the public as stipulated by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Increasing transparency and collaboration could foster a constructive dialogue on achieving both safety and growth in infrastructure projects.
