Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Eric Burt
Having just read Lawrence Waterman's news release (on this website) I still remain unconvinced that a new law on Corporate Killing will make the impact that is being suggested.
Whilst I support Lawrence's use of press releases to keep issues of health and safety in the public domain, I feel that with the case referred to (the haulier who falsified tachographs etc) the press release should have referred to the lack of effective enforcement / inspection which may have prevented this tragedy in the first place.
Corporate Killing may make it easier to punish offenders, but I am sceptical as to whether it really will be the deterrent we hope it will be.
Personally, I think that more frequent inspections by HSE Inspectors will be a far bigger deterrent than a new law on Corporate Killing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lawrence Waterman
IOSH has a whole number of positions on different issues - and choosing whether a news story creates an opportunity to highlight one or more of them without looking like ambulance chasers is a matter of judgement. And of course we should only make statements if they are likely to have any impact, if they get used by journalists.
It is right to argue for regular inspection activities, properly funded, as we did to the Work and Pensions Select Committee earlier this year. But in the context of tachograph tampering, there is some doubt as to who is responsible for monitoring haulier compliance, as this is mainly done through police spot checks on the road.
That is why, given that the prosecution was of a company and a Director in connection with deaths caused by poor and fraudulent health and safety management, it seemed appropriate to use the opportunity to highlight that IOSH is in favour of clarity regarding corporate manslaughter. We are also arguing that, since the proposed Corporate Killing Bill will focus on a corporate crime with corporate bodies having duties and held to account, this should be matched by putting Directors' Duties onto a sound legal footing as part of the draft new Companies Act.
Of one thing there is no doubt, IOSH is becoming far more active and effective in getting itself recognised asnd communicating that practical, professional, competent advice and advisers are at the heart of improving OSH performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Daniel
As a Company Director myself and one who closely analysed the last government efforts, I cannot agree with Lawrence Waterman. Whilst I accept that some people will always act recklessly, I am not convinced that ill-considered laws that make Directors responsible for things they have no effective control over are in anyone's best interest.
Try applying the last Corporate Manslaughter proposal to the case of Victoria Climbie (who was infamously murdered by her aunt and partner, the ineffectiveness of many agencies being criticised in the subsequent enquiry) and ask how many govenment agencies and their leaders could have been prosecuted or sued for their involvement in the death as a result of their poor level of performance - even goverment ministers could have been prosecuted. You had merely to prove organisational involvement in a death and a poor standard of performance. You didn't even have to have directly caused the death.
Perhaps that's why it never got onto the statute books. When the next rail disaster occurs who will be at the head of the organisation running the railways? Probably the Transport Minister!
In H&SAWA we already have S's 36 & 37, and in the case cited the director was successfuly prosecuted, so why do we need a new law???? Wasn't the result already achievable? When the HSE policy is to actively seek prosecution whenever a fatal occurs I am seriously concerned that justice will be trampled over in the effort to allocate blame.
Personally given the Government's clear reluctance to act, I doubt if more than superficial promises will ever appear.
Unconvinced
Dave Daniel BSc,MIOSH,RSP
Technical Director
Practical Risk Management Ltd
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
The issue of Corporate Manslaughter (Corporate Killing) is indeed a contentious one. On the one hand the law must be a suitable deterrent, whilst having some punitive worth. Obviously the two concepts are correalated with each other.
The problem appears to be identifying those that are responsible and quantifying to what extent. Ironically a similar problem exists with the current criminal manslaughter law. It tends to be an 'all or nothing' offence.
Personally I am in favour of an effective corporate mansluaghter law. Those that put other lives in danger should be held accountable. That said, there needs to be insurance that any law will not be a 'knee jerk' reaction in response to some disaster. The problem is that the public have little faith in the criminal system in this country. Therefore any new manslaughter law should be a scaled system of 'responsibility' with an equally similar system of punishment. Otherwise it will end up creating grave miscarriages of justice all in the name of retributuion.
Regards
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.