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!