108. Memorandum submitted by Living Streets
1. Living Streets would like the opportunity
to comment on the draft Corporate Manslaughter Bill. As the issues
relating to corporate manslaughter do not usually fall within
our remit, we became aware of the implications of the draft bill
late in the day. We have since written to the Home Office expressing
our concerns, but also want to ensure that they were put before
the Select Committee's Inquiry.
2. Living Streets (formerly the Pedestrians
Association) is a national charity which campaigns for better
streets and public spaces for people on foot. We undertake Community
Street Audits for neighbourhoods and local authorities, where
we assess the quality of the street from the viewpoint of the
pedestrian, and we have local branches and affiliated groups across
the country. Our work to improve streets helps to make streets
safer, encourages community cohesion through encouraging people
from different ages and backgrounds to meet within the shared
space of streets, helps to reduce obesity and increase healthy
lifestyles through encouraging walking, and helps to reduce car
dependence.
3. We are concerned that the Bill as currently
drafted will reduce the scope of local authorities and others
responsible for the public realm to improve conditions for pedestrians.
This will be counter to government policy to improve the quality
of public spaces (as set out in the Public Service Agreement 8,
on which the ODPM leads); to increase the levels of walking and
cycling (as set out in the Department for Transport's Action Plan
on Walking and Cycling); and to reduce the level of childhood
obesity (as set out in Public Service Agreement 4, on which the
Department of Health leads).
4. Our concern is with Clause 3(3)(b) of
the draft Bill, which requires a jury to consider whether an organisation
failed to comply with "any code, guidance, manual or similar
publication that is concerned with health and safety matters and
is made or issued . . . by an authority responsible for the enforcement
of any enactment or legislation of the kind mentioned in paragraph
(a)". We believe that the effect of this clause would be
to increase the risk-averse nature of the traffic engineering
profession in this country. Current guidance from the Department
for Transport favours defensive engineering techniques for our
streets—for example:
— guard-railing at the edges of pavements;
— installation of subways and pedestrian
bridges;
— the separation of traffic from people;
— traffic islands—so-called "sheep-pens"—in
the centre of streets.
5. All of these techniques, whilst ostensibly
intended to increase pedestrian safety, often create worse conditions
for pedestrians and thus contribute to the reduction in walking
which has taken place in recent years.
6. Whilst some local authorities—for
example, Norwich City Council, Nottingham City Council, and the
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea—have acted in contrary
to the guidance from the Department for Transport, following careful
risk assessments—most local authorities apply the guidance
without consideration of the detrimental impact on pedestrians.
7. We are concerned that, should the legislation
be passed in its current form, it would kill off the innovations
that we are currently seeing from those local authorities committed
to improving public space. This will make the task of our branches
and supporters more difficult, and be contrary to government policy.
We would therefore strongly urge that the Corporate Manslaughter
Bill, whilst still requiring local authorities to comply with
health and safety legislation, should not require them to follow
any "code, guidance, manual, or similar publication".
Local authorities should simply be required to demonstrate that
they have carefully quantified the risk associated with their
decisions, and that they have acted in accordance with their own
decisions on the balance of risk.
8. Since contacting the Home Office, we
have received a note from the Corporate Manslaughter Bill Manager,
assuring us that this will be looked at again. "How this
is reflected in the Bill will require care, but I can assure you
that we will be looking at this carefully."
9. We would ask that the Select Committees
probe the Home Office further on how it intends to ensure that
the Bill will not stifle improvements to streets for pedestrians.
| 
