Is the Health and Safety Executive doing enough to address mental health at work?

Richard Reichman, a Partner at BCL Solicitors, shares his thoughts on the Health and Safety Executive’s action to address worsening mental health at work
The recent mental health awareness week is an annual reminder that this topic is increasingly being talked about and taken seriously. Annual statistics for ill health at work identify a steady trend, but unlike falling numbers of injuries and fatal accidents, the trend is upwards. Stress, depression or anxiety now account for around half of all cases of self-reported work ill health in Great Britain.
Employers have a legal duty to protect workers from stress at work. Against the backdrop of worsening figures, the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) 10-year plan, ‘Protecting people and places 2022 – 2032’, identified a key strategic priority of reducing work-related stress and improving mental health. The plan was light on detail, stating that the HSE would ‘deliver interventions that make a real difference’.
The HSE has taken some visible steps to improve mental health, including issuing ‘Management Standards’, which are designed to help employers manage work-related stress.
A FOI request to the HSE
Part of the HSE’s strategy to reduce workplace accidents has been investigating breaches and taking enforcement action to drive compliance, including securing headline generating fines, which have increased dramatically over time. To identify trends in mental health-related investigations and enforcement action following its strategic plan, we sent a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the HSE. We attempted to explore the distinction between two periods: the five years leading up to the HSE’s 10-year plan, and the first year of the plan’s implementation.
Surprisingly, the HSE declined to provide the requested information. We sought an internal review of the decision and the HSE upheld their original decision on the basis that ‘we are unable to search specifically for the information you have requested’. In relation to the number of mental health-related prosecutions (as opposed to convictions, which would be publicly available), the HSE withheld a response using an exemption in the FOI Act.
It is possible that the HSE has a valid reason for not providing the requested data. It referred to the lack of specific regulations regarding mental health, meaning that it is difficult to search its records for relevant entries. It may be that activity targeting the underlying risk factors, such as inadequate resourcing or bullying, makes it challenging to identify.
Another possibility is that there is sensitivity regarding mental health investigations and enforcement action. The head of the Environment Agency recently made a startling admission regarding detrimental FOI requests being buried due to concerns regarding the embarrassing truth. Is there a similar logic behind the HSE failing to respond to seemingly simple requests for investigations and enforcement data?
HSE activity
The current level of HSE activity raises several interesting questions regarding what more could be done from a regulatory perspective to better protect employees’ mental health.

.jpg&w=3840&q=60)


![Re Beth [2026] EWFC 156 (B): Family Court identifies perpetrator of non-accidental injuries in infant fact-finding proceedings](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.iicj.net%2Farticle%2Ffeature%2FSwindon_%2C_The_Law_Courts_.jpg&w=3840&q=60)
![The Local Authority v The Mother [2026] EWFC 166 (B): Resolutions assessment refused and special guardianship order made in non-accidental injury proceedings](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.iicj.net%2Farticle%2Ffeature%2FThe_Royal_Courts_of_Justice_-_geograph.org.uk_-_2952836.jpg&w=3840&q=60)








