Select Committee on Work and Pensions Fourth Report


10  PROSECUTION

  170.  Inspectors have important statutory powers to enforce health and safety legislation. If unsatisfied by the levels of health and safety standards being achieved, there are several means of obtaining improvements, including advice, improvement or prohibition notices and prosecution in the criminal court.[283] The overall purpose is to ensure duty holders take action to deal with serious risks, to promote and achieve sustained compliance with the law and to ensure that duty holders who breach the requirements or fail in their responsibilities are held to account.[284] Research evidence overwhelmingly suggests that prosecution is an effective part of the toolkit for achieving compliance.[285] The recent literature review on interventions to improve compliance found there was little research on the role of prosecutions or preventive enforcement (such as Improvement Notices) as precedent-setting or awareness raising activities.[286]

PROSECUTION LEVELS

  171.  Evidence to the Committee suggests there is concern at the low level of prosecutions, particularly among trade unions.[287] The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee report in 2000 concluded there was an urgent need to increase the level of prosecutions undertaken by HSE.[288] HSE figures show that the number of 'informations laid' has since fallen (from 2,115 in to 1999/00 to 1,688 in 2002/03) and the number of convictions from 1,616 to 1,260.[289] Over the same period, the number of enforcement notices issued by HSE has risen to 13,263, up from 11,304 in 1999/00.

  172.  HSC/E point out that formal enforcement action, such as prosecution, is time-consuming, requiring the 'pursuit of all reasonable lines of inquiry'.[290] The Centre for Corporate Accountability (CCA) refers to a study showing that 'resources are a key constraint on decisions to prosecute'. [291] However, CCA also points out that HSE seeks costs after conviction and is allowed to keep this money.[292] In 2003/04, HSE received £4.017 million in costs (an average, of £4,910 per case prosecuted in England and Wales in that year). CCA comments that this should 'arguably cover a significant amount of the costs of taking prosecutions'. It also comments that most prosecutions arise from investigations into incidents and, therefore, that the current strategy to reduce the number of incidents investigated is likely to result in the number of prosecutions falling still further.

PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS

  173.  Revitalising states that a Law Commission report published in 1998 found that the requirement to seek the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions in order to conduct a private prosecution made 'substantial inroads into the ordinary individual's right to set the criminal law in motion.'[293] The Law Commission recommended that consent provisions should exist only for three categories of offences and should otherwise be dispensed with. [294] It was also reported that the Director of Public Prosecutions has to date received no more than a handful of applications in relation to health and safety offences, all of which have been rejected.

  174.  Action Point 10 of Revitalising committed the Government to considering an amendment to the 1974 Act (when Parliamentary time allows) to enable private prosecutions in England and Wales to proceed without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions'. A progress report on the Revitalising Action Points in April 2004 stated that legislative proposals were being considered.[295] The Minister told us in oral evidence that the Government remained committed to legislating if it proved necessary.[296]

  175.  The Committee believes that private prosecutions for health and safety offences should be allowed, subject to terms on legal costs in the event of a failed prosecution, without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecution.

  176.  Given the HSE's limited resources, if safety representatives were empowered to enforce health and safety law in the workplace, we believe this would have a powerful effect in improving standards. We also believe this power to take action, should include not just criminal prosecutions but also improvement and prohibition notices, subject to the usual right of appeal to the Employment Tribunal and as to terms on legal costs.

PROSECUTION PILOT

  177.  The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee recommended that HSE provide better access for inspectors to legal expertise to assist in the preparation of cases for magistrates courts.[297] The Government's response was that HSE was reviewing arrangements for handling complex and defended cases and considering a range of options. A new prosecution model was put in place involving independent legal oversight of the decision to prosecute, separating out the functions of prosecution from investigation. CCA argues that this was in line with recommendations set out in the 1981 Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (The Philips Report) and the 2001 Gover-Hammond Report. CCA reports that this pilot had a number of benefits and limited drawbacks. Both CCA and Prospect report that the pilot is not to be rolled out other than in piecemeal and partial fashion, apparently due to lack of resources (some £10 million pounds).[298] The Committee recommends that the Government identifies resources to build on the success of the pilot.

PENALTY LEVELS

  178.  Maximum penalty levels are set out in the section 33 of the HSWA In England and Wales, most prosecutions take place in the magistrates court where there is a maximum penalty of £20,000 for a breach of sections 2-6 of the Health and Safety at Work Act and £5,000 for other breaches of the Act or relevant statutory provisions. In the higher courts, an unlimited fine can be imposed for such offences and imprisonment is available for offences such as failure to comply with an improvement notice.[299]

  179.  A range of organisations giving evidence to the Committee, particularly trade unions, considered penalty levels to be too low .[300] The average fine per case fell from £11,141 in 2001/02 to £8,828 in 2002/03.[301] In fact, there has been no substantial change in the general level of fines since the Court of Appeal said they were too low in November 1998.[302] HSC/E point out that 'large company health and safety fines [are] up to ten times lower than the general level of financial services fines for larger companies.'[303] In oral evidence, they highlighted higher fines as one of the changes they thought would most help them perform their functions more effectively.[304]

  180.  In oral evidence, Dr Janet Asherson said that the CBI had 'no problem with the health and safety fines being aligned with the sort of penalties we find in other areas', although she also commented that further training might be more of a motivator for improving performance and preventing recurrence.[305] EEF, the manufacturer's organisation, commented that the case for higher fines would be won only if a correlation with improved workplace health and safety could be made. [306] EEF supports hypothecating fines so that the money would be reinvested in HSC/E to facilitate their driving greater improvement.

  181.  Another development HSC identified as being helpful was innovative penalties. Mr Bill Callaghan said that, for example, disqualification of directors, forms of community service orders or training could have as big an impact on companies as a fine.[307] Revitalising committed HSC to advising Ministers on the feasibility of consultees' proposals in this respect. RoSPA commented that this had not been taken forward and has put forward proposals, (as has the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health[308]) for a new regime of remedial sentencing under which the courts could appoint experts to oversee remedial action, with successful completion linked to the lifting of a suspended sentence.[309]

  182.  The Committee recommends that maximum penalties should be increased by means of a Bill in the next session of Parliament and further recommends that proposals to introduce alternative and innovative penalties in addition to those already available to the courts should be examined and the reasoned conclusions thereof published by 1 May 2005.


283   HSC, The Health and Safety System in Great Britain Back

284   HSC (2002), Enforcement policy statement. HSE Books Back

285   Haines, F (1997), Corporate Regulation. Oxford: Clarenden Press; Hawkis K (2002), Law as Last Resort. Oxford: Oxford Socio-legal Studies; Hutter B M (2001) Occupational Health and Safety on the Railways. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Ayres I and Braithewaite J (1992), Responsive Regulation. New York: Oxford University Press; Wells C (2001), Corporations and Criminal Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press  Back

286   Wright M, Marsden S and Antonelli A (2004), Building an evidence base for the Health and Safety Commission Strategy to 2010 and beyond: A literature review of interventions to improve health and safety compliance. Sudbury: HSE Books Back

287   Volume III (Nos. 5, 11, 35 and 41) Back

288   Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, The work of the Health and Safety Executive. Fourth Report. Session 1999-2000, page xxix Back

289   Table EF7, Proceedings instituted in Great Britain by enforcing authorities by result 1998/99-2002/03, http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causacc/tables.htm#enforcement Back

290   Volume III (No. 36) Back

291   Volume III (No. 41) Back

292   email to the Committee from CCA dated 12 July 2004 Back

293   HSC (2000) Revitalising Health and Safety, Strategy Statement. June 2000. Wetherby: DETR Back

294   The three categories were where a defendant could contend that prosecution would violate the European Convention on Human Rights; where national security or an international element is involved; or where there is a high risk that the right of private prosecution will be abused and cause the defendant irreparable harm Back

295   HSC and HSE (April 2004), Revitalising Health and Safety (RHS). Implementing RHS - Progress Report.  Back

296   Volume II (Ev 151, Q589) Back

297   Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, The work of the Health and Safety Executive. Fourth Report. Session 1999-2000, page xv Back

298   Volume III (Nos. 30 and 41) Back

299   HSC (2002), Enforcement policy statement. Sudbury: HSE Books Back

300   See, for example, Volume III (Nos. 5, 28, 30 and55) Back

301   HSE, Health and Safety Offences and Penalties 2002/2003, www.hse.gov.uk Back

302   HSE. Health and Safety Offences and Penalties 2002/03, www.hse.gov.uk . Foreword by Timothy Walker. Back

303   Volume III (No. 36) Back

304   Volume II (Ev 137, Q540/541) Back

305   Volume II (Ev 56, Q192-193) Back

306   Volume III (No. 30) Back

307   Volume II (Ev 137, Q542) Back

308   Volume II (Ev 3, Q12) Back

309   Volume II (Ev 17) Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 23 July 2004