Examination of Witnesses (Questions 138
- 139)
MONDAY 31 OCTOBER 2005
PROFESSOR FRANK
WRIGHT, MR
LAWRENCE WATERMAN
AND MR
MICHAEL WELHAM
Q138 Chairman: Good afternoon. Thank
you for joining us. Perhaps each of you could introduce yourselves
briefly for the record.
Mr Waterman: Lawrence Waterman,
President of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health,
and it is in that capacity I am here this afternoon.
Mr Welham: Michael Welham, I am
also here for IOSH. It might be worth just saying up until January
of this year I was with the Health and Safety Executive and actually
investigated and helped to prosecute manslaughter at work cases.
I have two hats, if you want, with knowledge coming here under
the IOSH umbrella.
Professor Wright: I am Professor
Frank Wright. I have been researching in the area of health and
safety law for 30 years. I have served as an expert over that
period for the International Labour Organisation, the European
Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. Probably at this
point I should say I have just completed two major studies on
director disqualification for the Health and Safety Executive,
and I can talk about that if you wish.
Q139 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed. Could we start with you, Professor Wright. You have looked
internationally at things and you said specifically to us that
the Government might have looked more at the European experience.
What do you think we should learn from looking at the way that
other EU Members plus Netherlands and Finland have addressed the
question of liability for corporate crime?
Professor Wright: With respect,
I think that as a nation which is very concerned about inward
investment and about aligning ourselves with other successful
industrial countries, we should seek to move along together with
other countries in this respect, particularly I think with the
United States and with the European Union. The standards which
we apply should have some resonance I think in other countries,
not least because many of the directors will be drawn from those
other countries. There are a number of major companies in the
United Kingdom which are in effect controlled by directors in
the United States, for example, and also have European bases and
have significant control from other parts of Europe, so we are
very much inter-related nowadays and that is important, I think.
Also I think it is important to recognise that this is a movement,
we are not stuck in time, and the Council of Europe, the European
Commission, have issued important reports recently indicating
the bases for the development of this area of the law. I made
particular example of two advanced countries in this context,
the Netherlands and Finland. I think we have an emphasis in this
Bill on culpable individuals, when I think, arguably, we are talking
about organisational failure. I think we should bear that in mind,
that some countries have characterised this as organisational
failure, that is Finland and the Netherlands, and I think the
Federal law of Australia also does that. There is evidence that
other countries are considering this, so we ought to have this
in mind at least, if we cannot do it now, well perhaps we should
be thinking of that rather than focusing on individual blame of
quite senior people. It may be that it is their "fault"
but it may be that it is not.
|
