§ Lord Harris of Haringeyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Who took the decision to prosecute the former Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Lord Condon, and his successor, Sir John Stevens, for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. [HL3714]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)The decision to prosecute was taken by the Health and Safety Executive in the exercise of its statutory powers, applying the principles set out in theHealth and Safety commission's Enforcement Policy Statement and the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The decision was first made in May 2000. HSE kept this decision under review in accordance with the code, and sought advice from leading counsel. The public interest in prosecuting was carefully considered and the views of the Attorney-General were sought on this. The final decision to prosecute was made in March 2002 by HSE, taking into account all the relevant factors and the legal advice given.
§ Lord Harris of Haringeyasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they were informed of (a) the possibility and (b) the intention to prosecute the former Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Lord Condon, and his successor, Sir John Stevens, for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; and whether on any occasion the Government were invited to comment on or offered a comment on the possibility or intention to prosecute. [HL3715]
§ Baroness Hollis of HeighamThe Health and Safety Executive provided occasional status reports to its sponsoring Ministers as part of routine business but at no time invited comment from them on this exercise of its enforcement powers. The Attorney-General was consulted for his views on the public interest in prosecuting this case in September 2001 (although not on the strength of the evidence). He expressed the view having regard to Parliament's intention in enacting the legislation, the stated policy of the HSE and the seriousness of the consequences of the alleged conduct of the Metropolitan Police that a prosecution was in the public interest. A prosecution had the support of the family of the deceased police officer.
In October 2002, the Home Secretary wrote to the Attorney-General offering observations about the public interest in prosecuting and asking him to consider whether the continuing prosecution was in the public interest. The Attorney-General concluded after a period of further consideration that the public interest continued to he in favour of the prosecution. 70WA The Attorney-General copied his reply to other members of the Cabinet whose responsibilities were relevant with a request that any further matters to which they would wish to draw his attention in the public interest should be made known to him. No further representations were received.
§ Lord Harris of Haringeyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total cost to the public purse of the prosecution of Lord Condon and Sir John Stevens for alleged breaches of health and safety legislation. [HL3716]
§ Baroness Hollis of HeighamThe court was advised that the Health and Safety Executive's legal costs for this prosecution were £250,000. The Metropolitan Police applied for legal costs of £500,00 from central funds. HSE estimated that its investigation costs amounted to £50,000. The Metropolitan Police indicated to the court that its internal costs amounted to some £750,000, and that its costs in total including opportunity costs amounted to an estimated £2 million.
§ Lord Harris of Haringeyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the acquittal of Lord Condon and Sir John Stevens for alleged breaches of health and safety legislation, they regard it as a sensible use of the public purse for one public body to prosecute another after remedial notices have been complied with; and what benefits, if any, they see as flowing from this prosecution. [HL3717]
§ Baroness Hollis of HeighamYes, we believe it was. Parliament made a deliberate decision in 1997 that the protection of health and safety law should extend to police officers. The legislation achieved cross-party support. It was a response to representations by the Police Federation and was passed with the strong support of that body and of ACPO and the national associations of police superintendents. The same principles of enforcement apply to both public and private bodies. The various types of enforcement mechanisms serve different purposes: prohibition notices prevent an immediate danger, improvement notices improve systems, and prosecutions take place because of serious breaches of the law. It is not unusual for the HSE to enforce by way of a notice as well as to bring a prosecution. The HSE's stated policy is to prosecute where death has resulted from a breach of the legislation, with exceptions if the potential defendant is a member of the deceased's family or if the breach is trivial. Neither exception applied. After the death of PC Sidhu, HSE informed the Metropolitan Police of its intention to prosecute. Over a year later, because of the slow progress of improvement in health and safety management, six improvement notices were issued. The benefit from this prosecution has been a substantial improvement in working practices within the Metropolitan Police Service. HSE will now seek to support these improvements, and to assist in the wider application by other police forces through discussion 71WA with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office.
§ Lord Harris of Haringeyasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to take forward the debate on the extent to which the requirements of health and safety legislation should be permitted to fetter the duty of police officers to preserve life. [HL3718]
§ Baroness Hollis of HeighamThe Health and Safety Executive is reviewing with the Home Office and police service stakeholders how health and safety at work legislation applies in the context of operational policing. Those involved include representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers (England and Wales), police staff associations, the Association of Police Authorities, and the Metropolitan Police Authority. Health and safety legislation requires employers to safeguard the health and safety of police officers and others affected by their work so far as is reasonably practicable. This allows Chief Constables to take full account of the inherent risks in some police work when deciding what safeguards are needed. There is no question of health and safety legislation fettering police duties to preserve life. Neither of the incidents cited in the recent HSE prosecution involved attempts to preserve life, nor even "hot pursuit" of suspects.