Posted By Ed Carter I can't help but think Mrs. Jones could be right. Reading the Home secretary's comments in yesterdays Hansard Mr. Blunkett states that he intends to put forward a draft Bill but that "on such an issue full debate and consultation is required, so I will not impose a tabletable" Hasn't this been going on since the Law societies proposals in the late 1990s? Ed

Posted By Jim Walker I think Anne Jones is quite right to be cynical about this. I’m sure I’m not alone in expecting more from the Labour government when they got in. “Revitalising” looked like it was going to do “what it said on the tin”, but all we get is cheap talk. One thing that you can do is personally set up dialogue with your MP on any H&S issues. My MP is a “born again Christian” and I’ve constantly been on at him for over two years and in that time he has made several un-Christian remarks regarding my constant presence on his e-mail system. If he stops answering I turn up at his “surgeries”. He has however signed both recent early day motions on H&S, I’m not sure (and don’t care) if it is my persuasive argument or just to make me go away.

Posted By Sean Fraser I'm watching this thread develop with interest, as I think it will probably be one of the epics we tend to generate from time to time. I'm going to stick my head over the parapet here and pitch a different view - what is wrong with existing legislation that we need to add yet another tier on top? If this new legislation would be a means of plugging a gap then that is (arguably) justifiable, but if it is because current laws are not being adequetely enforced then adding more will not solve the underlying problem. It is my view that this push for corporate manslaughter is more to do with the latter than the former. Current fines are, on average, quite low and the message this has been giving is that even if you are caught and prosecuted, the fiscal penalty will be far lower than the "wasted" costs of meeting compliance. There is also the matter of which examples are being used to promote this cause - all of which are instantly recognisable only because they were headline news, but in themselves these are infrequent events, albeit with tragic consequences. Where are the commonplace violations that we all know goes on but aren't given the same prominence. Will a new law mean that companies that ignored the law and had an incident where a death results will have the director put behind bars instead of the paltry fines they current receive? I would doubt it. So what deterrent is this going to emphasise? The point is - if criminal proceedings cannot be followed under the plethora of existing law, would a new one be any more capable of taking the alleged offenders to court? If this law was to be enacted, then the post of Health and Safety Director would be a precarious one and would be seen to be a sacrifial offering when something goes hideously wrong, leaving the REAL offenders untouched - just like before. The only way to give it teeth would be to make both the Director directly responsible for safety AND the Chief Exective (or whatever title they prefer) EQUALLY liable to prosecution and imprisonment. That would certainly sharpen up some corporate attitudes and nip the prospects of the more cynical boards to set up their sacrifical lamb in advance. To my mind, we should be concentrating on campaigning for raising the average fines handed out for Health and Safety contraventions, thereby raising the profile and making the general risk of non-compliance far higher than it presently is. I would suspect that this would have more effect overall than a law of corporate manslaughter, which is likely to be headline news for short while and then be quietly forgotten when no new prosecutions are raised citing it. The corporate entity is a strange and complicated beast, especially large ones - the problem with this proposed legislation will be in trying to define responsibilities. Since they cannot identify the "controlling mind" of some of them already, what hope is there of coming up with a fair and balanced definition that accurately targets actual responsibility - if it relies on title alone then woe betide any Director of Health and Safety with all of the responsibility and none of the financial control and support to back it up. The winners in all of this? The lawyers, who are going to have a field day trying to get their clients off on a technicality. And don't forget - some directors have already been imprisoned for willful disregard for their legal responsibilities, although admittedly they were from small traders. Lets's get away from the specific blame game and hit offenders where it hurts - their bottom line. And lets get more support for our HSE Inspectorate - if companies believe that they aren't going to get an inspection for over 5 years, what incentive is there for those beligerant or ignorant towards their obligations and who will continue to run the risk of accident rather than provide a safe place of work? Raise the profile overall - not on this one (limited impact) subject.

Posted By Terri Cox I would agree with Erics comments, and would like to point out that if he has ever watched Judge John Deed (ITV), he would have seen one episode where they had a workplace death investigated and prosecuted in anticipation of these new laws. The outcome was imprisonment for the Director who neglected his duties and didn't pay enough attention to H&S when compared to getting the job done. I have used this episode in certain training courses to illustrate to Directors that they are not immune and can face prosecution. Personally, I think the change in laws is a good sign and if more onus is placed on the senior management then there is a greater chance of improvement in the health & safety at work making a difference. Where companies are not stung hard, it does not motivate them to pay attention to details etc. Most companies are quite happy to leave it to their H&S Advisors without provding the required support. I have to agree with the sceptisism of the current government moving this bill forward, spending time on real issues like this would detract from playing big boys with the Americans

Posted By Sean Fraser The level of public "acceptability" is probably the most concerning about all of this, as noted above. To expand on Jim's point regarding the public continuing to use a supermarket without really giving a monkeys if a young unsupervised trainee was crushed to death in their distribution outlet (this is not a real example being quoted - I am only expounding here) but if they were to slip and fall, bumping their delicate behinds by the milk counter because of a wet surface, they would rush to their nearest no-win-no-fee public defender (as advertised on TV) and seek the maximum compensation they can receive. After all, it is their right! [toungue firmly in cheek] The difference is in attitudes and standards. That hypothetical young lad had nothing to do with them directly, so they care little or nothing for their welfare. Even if poor attitudes to safety (primarily of the workers) was publicised, it would have little impact on their own purchasing behaviours beyond perhaps a lot of tutting and head shaking, then promptly forgetting about it. However, if a number of members of public had been killed or seriously injured there would be an almost immediate boycott. But we should consider that a large proportion of what is sold in the UK in terms of products and services is B2B, as well as B2C - and even before it gets to the consumer outlet it will have passed through various stages in the distribution supply chain. Certainly in Oil and Gas, there is a vast difference between those involved in conducting and supporting exploration and extraction activities and those involved with the pumps dispensing the final product. The terms of business between B2B customers can be explicitly defined and monitored, and safety frequently enjoys a high profile in contract bids for O&G activities and is a major consideration in contract awards, and rightly so. Price is no longer the key indicator, as the cost of failure is still keenly felt here in the UKCS O&G industry. However, the "contract" between consumer and provider is mostly implied, and safety is of little consideration to the consumer over, say, defective goods (Sale of Goods Act). Only if it directly affects them - and then of course it is too late. One thing to consider - we report safety-related prosecutions in our specialist press (SHP being one) but it is seldom repeated in our general media, unless it is a slow news day and they need to fill column inches or it has an useful angle to exploit (kicking someone while their down - a national past-time). But what if we were to produce a compilation of actual prosecutions - effectively a name and shame exercise for some of the more well-known businesses? Would people change their attitudes if they had their attention drawn to the fact that a large retail outlet had been prosecuted 17 times in the last year and had fines totalling £x against them, albeit on different sites each occurence? I'm not usually a fan of the blame game, but these would simply be statistics being compiled as a reference. The fact the media reports it prominently would be a bonus . . . One thing I have noticed over the years of reading about safety prosecutions was the number of times local councils had been cited. This seems to have declined over time - less reporting or an actual improvement in standards? Councils are often seen as an easy compensation-generating target and have made significant efforts to improve their services through making them safer. The cost of failure was too high to maintain or even justify. Similarly then, it is only money that will motivate the less ethical businesses out there - the threat of doing time would certainly be a factor for poor directors to consider, but they will know that with such a high "penalty" involved, securing the conviction to the court's satisfaction will be that much harder and hence rarer. Whereas, by increasing the average fine there is a much greater motivational factor involved as conviction will be easier to achieve and far more common - and the threat of greater financial losses would be difficult to explain away to shareholders or owners alike. Linking the two together? Now THAT would be something to support. But as Jim already points out, the proposed Bill is already being watered down. What it will be like after Parliament has had a go at it, once all the lobbying gets going in earnest, will be anyones guess. Another damp squib. And a wasted opportunity, as the lack of convictions will only reinforce public perception that the law cannot deal with the real culprits out there. Adds a new meaning to caveat emptor doesn't it!

Posted By Ashley Williams I think you will find that the Justice Deed program was on the BBC, it was in interesting look at "Duty of Care" involving a construction company killing a young worker on his first day of work. Ring any Bells? I was quite fortunate that i have media contacts at the BBC so I was able to obtain a copy of the program from them. Ash

Posted By Liz Spencer IOSH welcomes discussion on this important issue. However we are obliged to point out that the original posting was taken directly from a media source, which has not been appropriately acknowledged. Discussion Forum users are reminded that it is a breach of copyright to reproduce or quote from such articles, whether in part or in full, without the permission of the copyright owner, which you must obtain before posting. You must also include in your posting any acknowledgements required by the copyright owner. Failure to comply with the above may mean that IOSH is required by the copyright owner to remove the posting. It is acceptable to refer readers to your original source, e.g. by posting the relevant URL, and we would strongly advise you to do so. Regarding Eric Burt’s posting above, IOSH wrote to the Home Secretary in August 2002 to press for a change in the law on corporate manslaughter and will be taking further initiatives on the matter during the coming months. Please feel free to email liz.spencer@iosh.co.uk with any suggestions or comments on this subject. Liz Spencer Head of Public Relations