Letter: Workers at risk as companies escape prosecution
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.Sir: Your disturbing report of the death of William Neilson from massive radiation exposure ('Worker killed by record dose of radiation', 9 May) raises important issues, not least employer responsibility for the welfare and safety of workers. In this instance, Mr Neilson worked for a contractor employed by the client company, BP Chemicals, at the Grangemouth refinery.
Less than three weeks ago, BP was fined pounds 200,000 in the Scottish courts for breaches of safety legislation at Grangemouth. This is a paltry sum compared to the company's annual profits. It followed the death of one man and the maiming of three others (in one case with 50 per cent burns). In this case, one of the contractors involved, a Belgian-based concern, was able to escape the jurisdiction of the court as a foreign company, despite Belgium's membership of the EU. In the case of Mr Neilson, his former employers did not need to decamp to foreign parts. They could simply refuse to accept responsibility for his injuries.
The Law Commission has recently recommended reform of the manslaughter laws to make it easier to prosecute company directors for acts of gross negligence under a charge of involuntary manslaughter. For many, this is a long overdue step in the right direction but one which the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) seems uncomfortable with. This is unfortunate since, as the HSE itself recognises, and as Mr Neilson's death exemplifies, large corporate concerns increasingly relying on contractors are thereby able to offload detailed responsibility for the monitoring of health and safety procedures. The incoherence which such reliance on sub-contracting can create in a health and safety programme exposes the effective limits of the philosophy of self-regulation underlying the Health and Safety at Work Act.
Issues of criminal justice and deterrents after workplace death and injury fail to feature in the rhetoric of a Government supposedly committed to law and order. Confirming, and even encouraging, 'best practice' in the field of occupational safety is being similarly ignored in the drive towards deregulation of health and safety law. The minister's response to the HSE's internal review of this law is awaited with some interest - and not a little concern.
Yours faithfully,
CHARLES WOOLFSON
Department of Social and Economic Research
University of Glasgow
Glasgow
9 May
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments