Killing law would not improve safety

Most companies believe that a new law on corporate killing would do little to improve health and safety, according to a new report this week.

A survey by law firm Norton Rose revealed that many businesses - 60% of those it questioned - thought that new legislation would simply be a "political manoeuvre" to satisfy voters, rather than a way of reducing the number of deaths and injuries at work.

Two thirds claimed the proposals would have a negative impact on business, while 64% believed a new law would promote a culture of blame rather than one of safety.

Companies can under the current law be prosecuted for manslaughter. However, the new so-called law on corporate killing would allow a company to be prosecuted for causing a death as a result of a "serious management failure".

Campaigners for the new offence believe that it would make it much easier to punish companies and/or its directors following a fatal accident. This, in turn, would lead to greater importance being placed on health and safety. At present very few manslaughter cases are brought against businesses as evidence of a controlling mind and gross negligence must be presented in court.

However, according to the Norton Rose findings, many companies believe that new legislation would be ineffective because of inadequate enforcement. Altogether, 59% of the companies interviewed by the law firm said they were not convinced that a new law would actually improve safety.

Interestingly the same proportion (59%) said that their greatest fear concerning a work-related death, aside from consideration for those affected, was the impact a fatal incident could have on its corporate reputation.

Delayed action
In May of last year, Home Secretary David Blunkett announced that a timetable for the introduction of a corporate manslaughter Bill would be released in the autumn. Many were surprised that there was subsequently no mention of any such Bill in the Queen's Speech last November.

Definite proposals are still awaited from the Home Office despite official indications that they would be out "early in the new year". The only details to emerge came from Mr Blunkett back in May, when he said that the criminal liability of company directors would not be targeted by the legislation.

In its original consultation document the Government appeared to favour the prosecution of directors shown to have contributed to an offence.

Surprisingly, many companies did not appear to share Mr Blunkett's views with just over half of the companies surveyed (55%) by Norton Rose saying that individual senior company directors should be held personally and criminally liable for failings within their organisations. The majority of companies (79%) also thought that one individual member of the company board should have overall responsibility for safety issues.

Partner and head of transport at Norton Rose, Gordon Hall, said: "The delay in the progress of the corporate killing bill shows how difficult it is to formulate an effective law on this sensitive issue. There have only been a handful of successful prosecutions in the last thirty years and these have been brought against small organisations.

"This survey demonstrates that while business is committed to safety issues, it has serious concerns whether the right solution is being proposed."

Angie Bell