Latest:
Site deaths: 'jail the only answer'
00:00 01 Jun 2000
|
by John d'Arcy
Prison remains the only answer for serious safety offenders and accountability must start at the top, George Brumwell, general secretary of UCATT, said this week.
The union leader was responding to the Government's publication of a consultation document that proposes a series of new safety offences to replace the current law on involuntary manslaughter.
Brumwell said: "We will be studying the consultative document closely and making a detailed comment. I think it is a move in the right direction.
"But unless rogue employers are put in prison, it will be meaningless. The big companies have tremendous resources which they can direct towards ensuring that someone else takes the rap."
Bob Blackman, leader of the Transport and General Workers' Union, added: "The tragic accident at Canary Wharf is further proof as to how lives can be lost in this industry. I hope the consultation, which the Home Secretary Jack Straw has started, will look at how the Health and Safety Executive, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service work together.
"It is important that there is an effective working partnership to ensure there is enforcement in cases where workers have lost their lives. We want the HSE to have the right resources to enable it to ensure that senior executives are clearly aware of their health and safety responsibilities."
The consultation paper proposes the following new offences:
l Corporate killing: a specific offence intended to make companies accountable in criminal law where they fall far below what can be expected in the circumstances. Maximum penalty: an unlimited fine and a remedial order to correct the original cause of any accident. Directors might also be liable to disqualification.
l Reckless killing: for example, where the person is aware of a risk that their conduct will cause death or serious injury and it is unreasonable to take that risk. Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
l Killing by gross carelessness: for example, where there is a risk that the conduct would cause death or serious injury which would have been apparent to a reasonable person, the person concerned is capable of appreciating the risk, and either their conduct falls far below what could be expected or they intend their action to cause some injury or they unreasonably take the risk that it might. Maximum penalty: 10 years imprisonment.
l Killing when the intention was to cause only minor injury but death was caused by an unforeseeable event. Maximum penalty: 5-10 years.
Announcing the consultation process, the Home Secretary said: "The present law on involuntary manslaughter needs reform. It is too wide in its scope and this has often led to problems for judges in sentencing. In particular, the law on corporate manslaughter is undeniably ineffective."
Both the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress have welcomed the proposals.
Industry experts are examining the details of a substantial document before commenting.
Prison remains the only answer for serious safety offenders and accountability must start at the top, George Brumwell, general secretary of UCATT, said this week.
The union leader was responding to the Government's publication of a consultation document that proposes a series of new safety offences to replace the current law on involuntary manslaughter.
Brumwell said: "We will be studying the consultative document closely and making a detailed comment. I think it is a move in the right direction.
"But unless rogue employers are put in prison, it will be meaningless. The big companies have tremendous resources which they can direct towards ensuring that someone else takes the rap."
ADVERTISEMENT
Bob Blackman, leader of the Transport and General Workers' Union, added: "The tragic accident at Canary Wharf is further proof as to how lives can be lost in this industry. I hope the consultation, which the Home Secretary Jack Straw has started, will look at how the Health and Safety Executive, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service work together.
"It is important that there is an effective working partnership to ensure there is enforcement in cases where workers have lost their lives. We want the HSE to have the right resources to enable it to ensure that senior executives are clearly aware of their health and safety responsibilities."
The consultation paper proposes the following new offences:
l Corporate killing: a specific offence intended to make companies accountable in criminal law where they fall far below what can be expected in the circumstances. Maximum penalty: an unlimited fine and a remedial order to correct the original cause of any accident. Directors might also be liable to disqualification.
l Reckless killing: for example, where the person is aware of a risk that their conduct will cause death or serious injury and it is unreasonable to take that risk. Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
l Killing by gross carelessness: for example, where there is a risk that the conduct would cause death or serious injury which would have been apparent to a reasonable person, the person concerned is capable of appreciating the risk, and either their conduct falls far below what could be expected or they intend their action to cause some injury or they unreasonably take the risk that it might. Maximum penalty: 10 years imprisonment.
l Killing when the intention was to cause only minor injury but death was caused by an unforeseeable event. Maximum penalty: 5-10 years.
Announcing the consultation process, the Home Secretary said: "The present law on involuntary manslaughter needs reform. It is too wide in its scope and this has often led to problems for judges in sentencing. In particular, the law on corporate manslaughter is undeniably ineffective."
Both the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress have welcomed the proposals.
Industry experts are examining the details of a substantial document before commenting.
ADVERTISEMENT
Most Viewed Articles
ADVERTISEMENT