57. Memorandum submitted by Dr Simon Bennett
Clearly the Government is seeking to provide
greater protection for the general public. The Government is to
be congratulated for pursuing this objective. I fear, however,
that in establishing a charge of corporate manslaughter the Government
may reduce rather than augment margins of safety.
I have spent the last six years studying the
UK commercial aviation industry. The industry has an exemplary
safety record. This can be attributed to the industry's dynamic
safety culture, non-blamist approach to incident and accident
reporting and investigation and commitment to active learning
(that is, to the application of lessons learned). Because those
who work in the industry know they will not be subjected to a
witch-hunt, they are more inclined to report incidents and accidents.
In UK commercial aviation incidents and accidents
are investigated with a view to learning and applying lessons
in the hope of avoiding a repeat. Incidents and accidents are
not investigated with the primary purpose of blaming, prosecuting
and incarcerating. In terms of preventing future incidents and
accidents, prosecution and incarceration serve no useful purpose
whatsoever. Indeed, in creating an atmosphere of suspicion, fear
and dread in which persons are reluctant to speak out, the threat
of prosecution makes incidents and accidents more, not less likely.
Recourse to law and the individuation of blame make society not
more safe, but less safe.
The more sensible alternative to the government's
current proposal is to require that all enterprises whose activities
have implications for public safety introduce confidential (ie
anonymised) incident and accident reporting systems. Enterprises
should then be required to investigate and act on all verified
reports. They should also be required to share their new knowledge
with other enterprises (as far as is reasonably practicable).
Where appropriate they should disseminate this information to
industrial sectors other than their own (that is, they should
disseminate new knowledge horizontally as well as vertically).
Blaming, prosecuting and incarcerating serve
only to satisfy society's baser instincts. This is, in my opinion,
Tabloid Justice. While a desire for retribution is understandable,
it serves no rational or constructive purpose. Retribution—the
product of raw emotion—is an illogical and animalistic response
to misfortune. Investigation, calculation and active learning—products
of intelligence, education and intellect—constitute a logical
response to misfortune.
At Linate Airport on 8 October 2001 a passenger
jet collided with a business jet that had crossed the live runway.
All on board the aircraft were killed. Victims' relatives demanded
that those responsible be held to account. Employees were prosecuted.
Custodial sentences were passed. Linate's Director, for example,
was sentenced to eight years. Victims' relatives and the press
were satisfied. But did this make the Italian air navigation service
safer?
On 22 September 2004 at Milan Malpensa Airport
a McDonnell Douglas MD-87 had to abort its take-off run when the
crew noticed that an Airbus A330 had failed to clear the runway.
The ANSV launched an investigation. (Source: ANSV (2004) Press
Release: 23 September. ANSV investigates a traffic conflict at
Milan Malpensa airport. Rome: ANSV).
I look forward to the new government evidencing
a logical approach to that most perplexing of problems—how
to protect the public without creating a dysfunctional atmosphere
of fear amongst those responsible for public safety.
3 June 2005
| 
