headbg headbg
 
     

The Chief Executive

National Grid plc

National Grid House

Warwick Technology Park

Gallows Hill

Warwick, CV34 6DA

 

 

26th July 2010

 

 

Dear Mr Holliday,

 

Your company has in the past maintained that safety in its operations is ‘paramount’ and it is because of this claim that I address this letter to you.

 

A Public Inquiry has recently been held into Tewkesbury Borough Council’s decision to refuse planning permission for you to construct a PRI at Tirley.

 

As part of the Inquiry proceedings, a visit to the proposed site was held on Thursday 22nd July and a minibus was provided by National Grid to take your two representatives, whom I understand to be an employee and a contractor, the representatives of the other parties and the inspector to various sites. The visit lasted for about three hours. Your representatives were present in an official capacity, in company time and were travelling in company-provided transport.

 

A notice was prominently displayed in the minibus indicating that the wearing of seat belts was required by law. I noted that at no time during the visit did your representatives wear seat belts nor did they either request or require other travellers in the minibus to wear them.

 

Road traffic accidents are perhaps the greatest threat to safety in the lives of most people. Your company has recently noted ‘with sadness’ that its activities had caused  the deaths of three contractors and one employee and I understand that these were in traffic accidents.

 

The wearing of seat belts is in itself a relatively minor matter both in law and in terms of its contribution to safety. However the fact that a minor and legally required safety measure was treated with flagrant disregard by your representatives raises a number of questions:

 

  1. Is the safety culture of your organisation as deeply rooted as you would have the public believe, given that your official representatives either forget or ignore simple and common safety requirements?

 

  1. Given the above, is your claim to safety being paramount not overstated?

 

  1. What laws and safety measures do you require your employees and contractors to adhere to and which do you not? And how is the public to know where you draw the line, if indeed you do?

 

Your comments would be greatly appreciated.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

 

J L Gabbott

Secretary

 
© CAPRI 2012