Are Health & Safety Rules Holding Back UK Infrastructure?
Britain’s infrastructure challenges have long been a political and economic talking point, and a new government-linked report has stirred the pot by arguing that overly strict health and safety and environmental rules are now a drag on vital projects.
The Core Argument
Economist John Fingleton, a prominent figure whose ideas have influenced Labour leader Keir Starmer’s industrial strategy, has authored a government report that takes aim at the UK’s regulatory culture. Fingleton argues that regulators are too risk-averse, to the point where projects fail to proceed not because of real danger, but because of an obsession with eliminating every conceivable risk, even if that pushes risk elsewhere or makes development prohibitively expensive.
At the heart of the critique is a call for a shift in attitude: instead of reflexively tightening rules, regulators should adopt a more balanced and mature relationship with risk. That could mean clearer guidance on what risks are acceptable, and more flexibility around environmental mitigation requirements.
Examples that have sparked debate
One striking example cited in the report involves the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant, which currently operates an acoustic fish deterrent system costing £700 million annually — for minimal measurable wildlife benefit. Fingleton argues this is emblematic of a system that adds costs without clear safety or environmental gains. Critics have mockingly referred to the setup as a “fish disco.”
The report also criticises requirements for extremely low radiation exposure limits on nuclear workers — limits set far below everyday exposure for most people, but which nonetheless inflate costs and undermine competitiveness.
:quality(80):format(webp))
Political Support - and Pushback
Labour leader Keir Starmer has embraced many of Fingleton’s recommendations. In a recent speech, Starmer not only backed the report’s findings but said the approach should feed into the wider industrial strategy, hinting that far-reaching reforms could extend beyond nuclear to rail, reservoirs, and other big infrastructure sectors.
But not everyone is convinced. Trade unions, particularly in the nuclear sector, strongly dispute the idea that safety standards are a hindrance. GMB’s national secretary, Andy Prendergast, emphasised that robust safety rules actually underpin confidence in industries and protect workers on the ground. Prospect union leaders have likewise argued that any reforms must not come at the expense of workplace safety.
What This Debate Really Reflects
At a deeper level, this controversy highlights a classic policy tension:
On one side, you have calls to speed up infrastructure development, improve economic performance, and deliver much-needed projects more cost-effectively.
On the other, you have concerns that loosening regulations could endanger workers, weaken environmental protections, and erode public trust.
Both arguments carry weight. Sound regulation isn’t merely bureaucratic overhead — it reflects hard-won protections for health, safety and the environment. Yet there is also a real question about whether the current regulatory landscape is so risk-averse that it inadvertently slows progress on projects essential for energy security and economic growth.
What happens next?
Fingleton believes these ideas could influence how future infrastructure is planned and delivered — especially as the UK confronts ageing networks and a pressing need for new energy and transport systems. Starmer’s wider support for the recommendations suggests this debate will continue at the highest levels of government.
Opposition from unions and environmental groups, however, suggests any changes won’t be straightforward. Reforming regulation without undermining safety or public trust is a delicate balancing act.
