HL Deb 20 February 2003 vol 644 cc1271-4

3.16 p.m.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it remains their intention to introduce legislation on corporate killing.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, the Government are committed to introducing legislation to increase corporate liability for manslaughter. We are currently conducting a regulatory impact assessment. This is a routine measure which is undertaken on all new proposals. We shall legislate when parliamentary time allows.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that welcome reply. He will know that in the past 10 years, 3,000 workers and 1,000 members of the public have died in work-related accidents, but that only 11 companies have been prosecuted for corporate manslaughter, and that only four of those prosecutions have been successful. Is he aware how much support there is for the introduction of a new law in this area, which includes not just the national safety organisations, such as the one with which I am associated, but also the TUC, the Law Commission and the Institute of Directors? Can he give an assurance that the regulatory impact assessment will be published when it is complete and, if so, can he indicate when that will be?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I am aware of the widespread support to which the noble Lord refers. I can give him an assurance that the regulatory impact assessment will be made public if, when legislation is brought forward, there is evidence of more than negligible costs to businesses, charities or voluntary sector employers. The RIA will accompany the legislation when it is presented to Parliament. Of course it will be placed in the Library of both Houses and it will, reassuringly, be available on the Home Office website.

Lord Hardy of Wath

My Lords, I ask for the law to be changed urgently. It is 10 years since a former constituent of mine was driving along the M1. He was beside a lorry in the adjoining lane, the engine of which disintegrated. Part of it came through the windscreen of my constituent's car and instantly killed him. His wife was able to steer the car into the hard shoulder. At that time, 10 years ago, as the driver was not responsible for the appalling state of maintenance of that vehicle, there was no significant penalty. The law was an ass then. Can it soon be made sensible?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, the Government's intention is to bring forward legislation, as I have made plain. One of our manifesto commitments was to legislate on this matter. It is a very complex area of law. The whole concept of "controlling mind" behind those kinds of incidents and accidents is a very difficult one to resolve. That is why we have been very careful to consult and to ensure that we get the matter absolutely right. We recognise the benefits of continuing to improve levels of health and safety and reducing the number of accidents. This legislation can contribute towards that.

Lord Bradshaw

My Lords, while accepting the tragic case to which the noble Lord opposite referred, does the Minister share my concern that we may be entering into a field of extremely expensive and time-consuming litigation involving a great many safety interests whereas the Government's money would be much better spent in making some modest improvements to the road safety regime, which would save far more lives than this legislation might?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, statistically the noble Lord may be right. I am not well versed in the number of fatal accidents on the road annually, but about 400 fatal accidents each year arise from work activities. Research by the Health and Safety Executive indicates that in about 200 of those cases, there was likely to be cause for joint investigation that might lead to a prosecution for charges of corporate manslaughter being brought. People will be reassured by the fact that the legislation will be in place and that it may contribute to improving people's health and safety in future. I take the noble Lord's point. We in this country have a good record of dealing with road fatalities and ensuring that their number has been slowly reducing.

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the legislation is likely further to increase the claims culture that has grown in this country, having spread from the United States; that it will place considerable increased costs on corporate enterprises and money into the legal system; and that sufferers will benefit little?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, it is interesting that the noble Lord makes that point. The Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors are broadly in support of the measures being brought forward. As I said, the number of cases will be significant—200 a year. However, I cannot see that dealing with those cases in the way in which we may propose in legislation will lead to an explosion of the claims culture. On the contrary, it will be of great benefit in dealing with health and safety issues and making companies and corporations feel greater responsibility for those whom they employ and the public, who may be adversely affected by an accident at work.

Baroness Whitaker

My Lords, bearing in mind that we are talking about the criminal law and not civil claims, can my noble friend tell us what representations the Government have received from the Health and Safety Commission on the matter, and over how many years?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission fully support the notion of corporate manslaughter and have supported the Government in bringing forward proposals.

Lord Borrie

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the great advantages of strengthening the law in this field would be to ensure that the so-called "controlling minds" of the company will have a strong incentive to introduce compliance schemes whereby all employees clearly understand—better than they may do now—the safety needs of the community?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

Yes, my Lords, that is the argument in a nutshell. Many companies support that view, because they, too, want higher levels of responsibility.