My methodology in formulating this response has involved considerations relating to the objectives of the Bill, highlighting how the proposed legislation will support the achievement of such objectives, identifying issues that still remain and making further recommendations/observations that you may feel it prudent to further debate.

  I have consulted with other members of my association, senior detectives in other forces and relevant parties including the Crown Prosecution Service.

OBJECTIVES OF THE BILL

  The objectives of the Bill are clearly to improve the standards of health and safety in respect of Corporate bodies (including Crown bodies) and holding such organisations to account for failing to reach satisfactory standards, when this failing results in a persons death. Such bodies would be liable for a conviction for the offence of corporate manslaughter (an organisational conviction) and an unlimited fine. In addition the court, on conviction, will be able to impose a Remedial Order directing remedial measures in respect of an organisations identified failures. Further fines can be imposed if an organisation failed to comply with such an order.

  The background factors to the legislation include well publicised difficulties in prosecuting under the present law and unacceptable levels of work related deaths each year which the Health and Safety Executive considers are, in the majority of incidents, preventable.

HOW WILL THE BILL SUPPORT THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES

  The major changes proposed in the Bill are that:

1.  The legislation will apply to Corporate bodies and a wide range of Crown bodies.

2.  The threshold for liability is "changed" from conduct or failure that constitutes gross negligence to a position where management failure which must have been a gross breach of duty of care and, of most benefit, this is defined as conduct falling below what could reasonably be expected.

3.  A change in the basis of liability. The identification principle (a senior member of the company must also be guilty of gross negligence manslaughter) is replaced by a failing in the way senior managers organised or managed the organisations activities.

  The Superintendents Association have no doubt that these changes should be embraced as a significant step forward in driving forward health and safety issues within Corporate and Crown bodies. Such changes will simplify the process of prosecuting and convicting organisations that do not comply with the legislation.

ISSUES THAT MAY STILL PROVE A HINDRANCE TO PROSECUTION

  Whilst accepting this is difficult legislation to develop, it may be there is a need to revisit the definitions of "senior manager" and "significant role". It is foreseen, particularly by lawyers, that it may still be difficult to satisfy such criteria and less restrictive definitions giving more generic culpability to an organisation may be considered. This would provide a greater drive to compliance with regard to duty of care and health and safety responsibilities. The gross breach of duty of care is a far broader definition, which is fully supported.

  Whilst the Remedial Order on conviction appears an attractive proposition, the Association has reservations about how this will be supervised. If processes are not in place with the Courts/Health and Safety Executive, the duty of care breach associated with a future death may be passed to such bodies. This needs to be considered before legislation is enacted.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

  The Associations main recommendation here relates to the power to impose a Remedial Order and the offence of failing to comply with a Remedial Order.

  The view would be that such Remedial Orders could be a real catalyst for achieving the objectives of the Bill. However, to be effective, the Government may wish to consider whether the use of such orders could be introduced in a more generic sense when health and safety issues/breaches are identified—not imposed on conviction when a death has occurred. The use of such an order for identified issues when death has not occurred may well present such deaths occurring in the future.

  The only other recommendation would be that this legislation, prior to enactment, would need to be fully marketed, as liability for this offence would extend considerably (eg to the providers of street furniture and motor vehicles/parts, if it could be shown that these had a causative link to death). In addition, for law enforcement agencies, there would be a real need for raising awareness of the legislation and consideration given to the provision of training of our staff in respect of SIO's (crime) and IO's in respect of road death offences.

  There is the potential to develop multi agency training and awareness between the Health and Safety Executive and the Police Service and for memorandums of understanding to be developed between Law Enforcement Agencies involved in such investigations.

  The legislation will undoubtedly lead to more protracted and resource intensive investigations. This additional financial burden to Law Enforcement Agencies needs to be considered against a background of potentially diminishing operational budgets and increasing demand over the coming years.

SUMMARY

  The Government objectives in introducing this legislation are supported and the Bill is welcomed. There is no doubt the legislation will assist in the prosecution of organisation(s) who are responsible for corporate manslaughter.

  The definitions are most helpful but some greater thought may be given to the definition of "senior manager" and "significant role". Such definitions may still prove significant factors in deciding whether cases are prosecuted and may be liable to legal interpretation and case law judgements.

  The power of the court to impose a Remedial Order on conviction, if properly supervised, is seen as a good initiative. It is felt, however, the use of such orders when lesser health and safety/duty of care issues are identified (and not associated with death) would be an even greater catalyst for the objective of reducing work related death.

  There will clearly be more investigations into Corporate Manslaughter as a result of this legislation which will be increasingly resource intensive and costly. The additional financial and opportunity costs to Law Enforcement Agencies need to be considered as part of this on going debate.