Companies and public sector bodies that fall short of complying with health and safety law could face higher (and potentially unlimited) fines. This is due to new ‘Health and Safety Offences and Corporate Manslaughter Offences Guidelines’ from the official Sentencing Council.
It says that in the event of a health and safety prosecution a fine “must be sufficiently substantial to have a real economic impact which will bring home to management…the need to comply with health and safety legislation”.
According to Paul Reeve, Director of Business Services at the trade body the Electrical Contractors’ Association (ECA), the new guidelines underline the need for contractors, of any size, to have an effective approach to complying with health and safety law.
Reeve says: “Key legislation for contractors includes the CDM 2015 and Management of Health and Safety at Work 1999 Regulations. The ECA is working closely with the BESA to ensure that building services contractors know what they need to do, and to help them comply.
“A key message to contractors is to have sensible and effective, but also proportionate, arrangements for ensuring health and safety, and to have access to competent health and safety advice. These measures need to cover what you actually do at work, no more and no less.”
When sentencing for health and safety offences the guidelines now require the courts to consider factors such as:
· ‘culpability’ – ranging from ‘low’ (the company did not fall far short of the appropriate standard) to ‘very high’ (a deliberate breach of, or flagrant disregard for the law);
· the organisation’s annual turnover, or equivalent;
· any aggravating factors such as cost-cutting at the expense of safety, or mitigating factors, such as a good health and safety record.
Reeve adds: “Two ways for contractors to show basic health and safety capability are to meet the technical and safety requirements of their sector trade association and to meet the assessment criteria applied by schemes operating under the SSIP banner.”
And Neal Stone, Policy and Standards Director at the British Safety Council, said: “We broadly welcome the new guidelines and in particular that in future that three factors will be key in determining fines for health and safety offences: the degree of harm caused, the culpability of the offender, and; the turnover of the offending organisation. Having consulted our members we were able to say in response to the Sentencing Council’s proposals that there was overwhelming support for this change which would help ensure greater consistency in the sentencing practice of our courts and a level of fines that fit the crime.
“This long overdue change is specifically in relation to the level of fines imposed and in certain cases the use of imprisonment as a sanction. What is clear is that the courts have on occasions failed to properly take into account the seriousness of the offence in weighing up the appropriate penalty. To date the largest fine imposed in Great Britain for a health and safety offence – £15m – was on Transco in 2005. That unenviable record may soon change.
“The new guidelines, which will in some cases, result in far greater fines than courts are currently imposing, reflects a shift in not only public opinion but concerns among certain members of the judiciary, including Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice. As he has made clear in recent appeal court decisions the purpose of fines is to reduce criminal offences, reform and rehabilitate the offender and protect the public.
“If the changes in sentencing practice do not help achieve these objectives – particularly ensuring compliance and discouraging law breaking – then they count for nothing. What we will need to see is clear evidence that the new guidelines have played their part in improving health and safety. Extra money through increased fines going into Treasury coffers should not be the name of the game. The objective must be to reduce the deficit of fatal and major injuries and occupational ill health.”
