Posted By anon1234 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5202564.stm At last!!! ????

Posted By the badger Should the introduction of this Bill be a cause for joy and celebration among health and safety professionals? Might it be a sign that we have failed by other means to persuade. Would real progress be marked by less legislation rather than more?

Posted By John Murgatroyd "Why is the argument not getting through that a safe and healthy workplace makes good business sense?" Because it costs. The vast majority of workplaces pay lip service to H&S. It's never their fault when an accident occurs, and in many places the tendency is to cover-up accidents. Any ensuing litigation leads to the offender getting short thrift and sometimes becoming unemployed. As to why the workforce pay sod-all attention to it....look at how many times the old "accident book" theme crops up....keep the commoners from entering any details themselves (although if they did....you couldn't do anything about it, and they are legally entitled to write anything in the book...so there !.....and union safety reps are legally entitled to inspect the book too) As to directors....well, any money spent on anything other than the job is wasted money....maybe being locked-up for 10 years will make them re-think their priorities.....Nahhh....no chance, they'll word the act so some dumb middle-management patsy will take the fall...

Posted By the badger Makes sense to me Max. I am not sure why we want this law. Mr Straw said: "The ultimate test of its success will not be the number of convictions that follow it but whether or not it changes the behaviour of managers of businesses so there are far fewer deaths arising from major accidents of the kind we had in the past." I think it's unlikely to have the desired effect. The reason I drive in what I consider to be a safe manner is because I don't want to kill or injure anyone, not because of the penalties which will be imposed if I do kill someone. The purpose of the penalties is to satisfy society's thirst for retribution. I think its the same with this Bill. Interesting to see Westminster imposing its will on Holyrood with this one. Any noses out of joint north of the border?

Posted By Tabs Max, in 1997 I did my discertation on what motivated H&S compliance within small and medium-sized companies in England. The primary reason was to see if punitive fines and sentences - or the risk of them - was affecting levels of compliance. Broadly, I found that the influence was less from the Courts, but from loss of reputation. Those who replied said that they were much more likely to aim for compliance to avoid losing customers through poor reputation. Though they saw prosecution as the source of poor reputation. Apparently not all publicity is seen as good publicity. I agree that one of the main reasons the message has failed to get accross is cost. Most businesses build by taking business risks, and h&s can be seen as a subject that affects the unlucky ... Many companies I know go through life thinking 'it will never happen to me' and a large proportion get away with it, or suffer only minor damages when it does happen to them. While the Courts are handing out fines which don't even approach the cost of a night out for the directors, is it any wonder that the message has failed?

Posted By Max Bancroft Good point Tabs - but I am firmly of the opinion that using corporate manslaughter/homicide undervales the HASAW Act. It is not seen as real crime to break it and our work is thereby undermined. And in any event, it is only the larger bodies that worry about their reputation and they tend to take H&S seriously anyway despite the well publicised lapses. How many of the annual 220 workplace deaths arise from small and medium enterprises? The level of fines is a matter for the courts who are influenced by public opnion and politicians and I'm glad this has changed recently. If we felt that there were individuals who were deserving of punishment for their negligent actions/decisions then it would have been easy for the prosecutors/HSE to take cases to court and, if they failed on a point of law then seek to have the approriate sections of the HASAW amended. This would have been relatively easy - instead we go for the farrago of a new crime based on a new law which will be rarely used. The furore over the CPS decision to prosecute the Metropolitan Police shows how nobody outside our own specialised world understands what H&S is really about - preventing loss of life, injury and ill-health. Now politicians, meeja and, yes, some trade unuionists and safety practitioners will sit smugly back saying "Great - they'll cop it in the neck under corporate manslaughter/homicide if they get it wrong" rather than "What do we need to do further to improve H&S". Our Prosecution service in Scotland spent vast sums of money and time bringing homicide charges in Scotland against British Gas when they could have been convicted and fined quickly to the same extent under HASAW Act. I think the relatives of those who died were misled like everybody else that a conviction under HASAW was not a real punishment. Sorry to go on so long but I think it is a blind alley for us.