---

 
4 Mar 2005 : Column 1193
 

House of Commons

Friday 4 March 2005

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

The Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

[Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst) in the Chair]

Orders of the Day

Health and Safety (Directors' Duties) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

9.34 am

Mr. Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am proud and honoured to be able to present this Bill to Parliament on behalf not only of all the workers in the United Kingdom, but of the families who have suffered from bereavements in the workplace. Some of them are in the Gallery today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. This is just a small correction, but no reference should be made to anything other than what is happening in the Chamber.

Mr. Hepburn: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Bill has received widespread support not only in the House, but in the country. It has received widespread support from the vast majority of Back-Bench Members of Parliament, and received the backing of former Ministers and Secretaries of State, some of whom, I am pleased to see, are here today to support the Bill.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): The hon. Gentleman has just said that the Bill has received support from the vast majority of MPs. Frankly, if one looks around the Chamber, it does not look like that. Presumably he is confident that when we have a Division at the end of the debate—I hope we will—he will be able to back up his assertion with numbers in the Lobbies. If the Bill has the support that he says it has, Members will presumably be here in their numbers to express their support by their presence.

Mr. Hepburn: I hope that when we have the vote, that will prove true.

Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that the small number of
 
4 Mar 2005 : Column 1194
 
Conservative Members present is a rather sad reflection on the fact that such an important issue does not seem to attract their interest? In particular, will he challenge the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on whether he intends to oppose the Bill? If he does, that would make the important statement that the Conservative party does not want such legislation.

Mr. Hepburn: In fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, he assured me that he would not pull any procedural moves to wreck the Bill, although he will speak and vote against it. I respect him for that.

The Bill has received constructive comments from the Opposition parties, especially the Liberal Democrats, who have been very enthusiastic about it even though they wish to iron out the provisions in one or two clauses. The official Opposition spokesman has also made constructive comments.

The main thing that has struck me about the Bill is the support that it has received from the country at large. It has received support from organisations such as the Transport and General Workers Union, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, which is my trade union, Amicus, Unison, the Fire Brigades Union and the TUC. Before the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) says that only the trade unions are backing the Bill, I shall point out that it is also supported by the Centre for Corporate Accountability, the Occupational and Environmental Diseases Association, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the corporate responsibility coalition, faith groups and charities, decent employers, the Simon Jones memorial campaign and the many families and loved ones of victims in the workplace.

Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): One of the groups that my hon. Friend left off his list is the CBI. When it gave evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee on issues of health and safety, it told us then that it supported the idea.

Mr. Hepburn: I appreciate that comment. Other employer groups, which I shall mention in my speech, have also given their support to the Bill.

What does the Bill do? It seeks to introduce statutory health and safety duties on directors. Why should there be such responsibilities on directors? The simple answer is that directors matter. They control the policy and agenda of a company and they control its investment decisions. They are therefore in a position to control health and safety in a company. They are its controlling minds. They can determine how much is spent on health and safety and the priority that is placed on it. They can also identify unsafe working practices through their network throughout the company and are able to change them. In other words, directors have all the power within a company, especially over health and safety if they want it, but they have no responsibility under the law for health and safety.

Why do directors need statutory responsibility? Because, quite honestly, the law is not working. Over the past two years, there have been about 620 deaths in the workplace. The Health and Safety Executive, which is no left-wing think-tank of the Labour party or the trade union movement but an independent body, has said that
 
4 Mar 2005 : Column 1195
 
70 per cent. of those deaths and injuries in the workplace could have been prevented, because they involved management failures.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman mentions the HSE—he may get to this later in his speech—but can he tell me whether the Bill applies equally to the public sector and private companies with directors? Will the Bill apply, for example, to the HSE itself? A lot of its employees are often put in positions of risk and danger, so will those in charge of the HSE be covered by the Bill?

Mr. Hepburn: That is a very good point. With private Members' Bills, as the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, there is limited time and limited political movement. The likes of the right hon. Gentleman may try to talk out the Bill, but I would welcome such provisions being passed on to the public sector. If he is willing to support the Bill today and hon. Members allow its consideration in Committee, I would welcome an amendment from him to include the public sector, so everyone would be covered by these arrangements, but I have limited time and little political movement with the Bill.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about his desire to improve the Bill in Committee. As he knows, I introduced a private Member's Bill last week and I was hopeful that I could get it into Committee as well, but I did not have the Government's support. Have the Government given any indication of whether they support the Bill and want it to be considered in Committee?

Mr. Hepburn: Let us wait until the Minister answers. That is probably the best way to deal with that question.

Why do we need to impose statutory duties on directors? The law is not consistent. How can that be fair? How can we justify the fact that, if a director financially mismanages his company, he can go to jail for seven years, yet if through his gross negligence, he causes the death of an employee, he can walk away scot-free? That simply cannot be justified. The law is inconsistent and the law is not just.

Mr. Dismore: The Bill does not specifically refer to the offence of corporate manslaughter. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important that the Government introduce their long-promised proposals on the issue and that, of course, they should include the public sector as well as the private sector?

Mr. Hepburn: I welcome those comments. I welcome the Government's proposals, but I do not think that they go far enough, to be perfectly honest. The Government have turned around and said that they would introduce a corporate manslaughter Bill and reform company law. Although they may suggest that their Bill on corporate manslaughter will introduce harsher penalties, we will still be in the same position unless there are statutory duties. The point of the Bill is to introduce statutory duties for directors in the same way as there are the statutory duties on employees and even on the public. So why should companies and company directors not have the same statutory duties?
 
4 Mar 2005 : Column 1196
 

The law is not just. As I have said, the HSE report refers to 620 workplace deaths, yet only 23 directors were convicted. Throughout that period, the average fine imposed after prosecution was £6,500. The law is clearly unjust and unfair. Hon. Members may say that section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 states that, if a director is negligent, he can be prosecuted. In fact, that cannot be done under the current legislation because a director does not have statutory duties in the workplace. The company has those duties, and the director can hide behind that fact.

---