Eileen Bell (Speaker)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow two hours for each of today’s debates. The proposer of each motion will have 15 minutes to speak, and all other Members will have 10 minutes.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP)

I beg to move

That this Assembly calls upon the Government to introduce legislation introducing the offence of corporate manslaughter to Northern Ireland, where it could be proven that culpable negligence by a firm was a major contributory factor to the death of an employee or subcontracted worker; and further calls for the introduction of an additional offence of secondary liability for corporate manslaughter, where it could be shown that a company’s failings were provably caused by the culpable negligence of one or more individuals within the firm.

The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill is currently in the House of Lords, having already passed through the House of Commons. The Bill applies to Northern Ireland as well as to England and Wales. In Scotland the offence of corporate manslaughter will be called corporate homicide. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 20 July 2006. It passed bills. Each..." class="glossary">Standing Committee B on 31 October 2006 and looks set to become law during 2007.

Therefore why, Madam Speaker, am I calling on the Government to extend the legislation to Northern Ireland? The clue is the second part of the motion.

There I call for an additional offence of secondary liability for corporate manslaughter, where it could be shown that the failings of a company, public body or organisation were caused by the negligence of one or more individuals in the firm or organisation involved. When I talk about organisations, I include councils, health boards and Departments.

The reason why I am calling for that extremely important addition to be made to the legislation is not to seek retribution, even though retribution is a perfectly legitimate principle on which to base law. I seek that addition on the principle of effective deterrence.

An article on the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales’s (ICAEW) website summarises the likely impact of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill as follows:

“companies that comply with existing health and safety legislation have nothing to fear.”

It continues:

“Companies found guilty of corporate manslaughter will face an unlimited fine, as a well as a remedial order requiring the company to address the cause of the fatality”.

The article concludes:

“As long as employers exercise due diligence in managing their health and safety risks, in the event of an accident, they are likely to have most of that duty of care discharged under the law”.

The Government have confirmed that view. During the Bill’s passage, Ministers have stressed that no new burdens will be placed on companies that already comply with health and safety legislation. In short, the new corporate manslaughter law will impose penalties no different in form or severity to existing health and safety legislation and manslaughter legislation. Under existing legislation, unlimited fines are already in place. Imprisonment is already an option under existing gross negligence manslaughter law.

Under that law, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) states that, where it can be proven that:

“There was a duty of care owed by the accused to the deceased”,

that

“There was a breach of the duty of care by the accused”,

that the

“Death of the deceased was caused by breach of the duty of care by the accused”,

and that

“The breach of the duty of care by the accused was so great”,

that can be described as gross negligence and is therefore a crime.

The problem with existing legislation has always been that, for a company to be prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter, it is necessary to identify a “controlling mind”, who is also personally guilty of that manslaughter. It is not possible under present law to add up the negligence of several individuals in order to show that the company or corporate body was grossly negligent. A specific individual must be identified as a “controlling mind” in order for corporate manslaughter to be proven. For that reason, a separate offence of corporate manslaughter had to be created.

At present, under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, employers whose negligence leads to the death of an employee or a member of the public can be convicted only where there is sufficient evidence to prove that individual members of the senior management team were guilty. Those individuals must be prosecuted before the company or corporate body can be prosecuted. To date, only seven small businesses have been found guilty. It was for that reason also that the new offence of corporate manslaughter had to be created.

When it becomes law, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill will give the courts the power to decide whether the collective failings of a company’s senior management team amount to a gross breach of the company’s responsibility to protect the health and safety of its employees and the public.

The Government have stated that examples of such breaches will include failure to ensure that staff have adequate health and safety training, to check that equipment is in a safe condition, and to check that lifts are maintained and adequate fire precautions have been taken.

Under the proposed legislation, an organisation will be guilty of the offence of corporate manslaughter if its activities are organised by senior managers in such a way as to cause a person’s death and amount to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care that the organisation owed to the deceased.

To decide that question, any jury would have to consider whether the evidence showed that the organisation had failed to comply with the relevant health and safety legislation or guidance. The Bill also sets out a number of other factors for the jury to consider, such as whether senior managers sought to cause the organisation to profit from its health and safety failure. In other words, did the firm or corporation deliberately cut corners to reduce costs or boost profits?

Critics of the proposed legislation are already concerned that such additional factors will make it difficult to obtain a conviction. The overriding and most worrying aspect of this situation remains, however, that the new corporate manslaughter Bill lacks teeth. It has virtually no effective deterrent impact beyond that of existing legislation.

It is appropriate, Madam Speaker, to define what we are talking about in human terms. I began to call for corporate manslaughter legislation three years ago following the death of one of my young constituents in an accident during a motorway-upgrading and bridge-widening project near the junction of the M1 and Black’s Road at Dunmurry. His death was a tragedy for his family. A young man’s life; all the potential he has to offer — this is beyond price.

I felt that my young constituent’s death had wider implications. I have lost two other constituents to industrial accidents in the past three years. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) reported that there were 24 fatal accidents in Northern Ireland in 1998-99. There were 19 the following year; 16 the year after; 12 the year after that; and 21 in the year 2002-03.

More significantly, RoSPA reported that fatal accidents were at a rate of 2·17 per 100,000 employees in Northern Ireland in 1998-99, compared to just 0·8 in Great Britain. RoSPA summarised the situation as follows: there are about 20 fatal injuries each year; 70,000 cases of ill health are caused or aggravated by work activities each year; some 365,000 days are lost due to accidents at work each year; and the cost to employers is up to £370 million and to the Northern Ireland taxpayer over £500 million.

RoSPA further indicated that there are about 350 deaths of workers and members of the public in Great Britain every year due to reportable accidents at work. Taken on a pro rata basis, that means that Northern Ireland could expect to have about 10 deaths a year from accidents at work. Northern Ireland has 20 fatalities a year — twice the Great Britain average. Workers are twice as likely to be killed at work in Northern Ireland as they are in Great Britain. That is why we in Northern Ireland need to take the problem more seriously.

For those reasons alone, quite apart from the human tragedy, Northern Ireland must act. I am concerned that deterrent factors in the proposed UK corporate man­slaughter Bill are inadequate. These problems could be best addressed by the introduction of a new offence of secondary liability for corporate manslaughter. Juries could be asked to establish whether management failure had caused or contributed to a death. On the basis of such a finding, the Director of the Public Prosecution Service would then determine whether an individual within a company should be prosecuted for manslaughter.

Only individual responsibility for the death of a worker — beyond the issue of overall company negligence — will make individual managers take this issue seriously and give sufficient priority to worker safety.

Many feel that big organisations such as building firms have broad backs and that if an organisation is blamed it will simply be subject to financial penalties. That is not enough to change attitudes in the construction industry. If the death of workers on site is to be taken seriously, people will have to feel that they, individually, will face a manslaughter charge if they have been negligent. That is the sort of sharp focus that we need.

The duty of care underpins the operation of a civilised society. Therefore the deterrent factor must loom large in the corporate manslaughter legislation, and individual accountability must not be lost sight of. The additional offence of secondary liability for manslaughter must become an integral part of the new legislation.

Eileen Bell (Speaker)

I have received one amendment to the motion, which is published on the Marshalled List of Amendments.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

I beg to move the following amendment: At end insert:

“; furthermore this legislation should apply to all employers, including government agencies and, in keeping with this principle, this Assembly calls for the removal of Crown immunity from prosecution.”

I welcome the debate, although I regret that, once again, we are discussing an important issue on which the Assembly is powerless to act. This matter, along with water charges, health, education, rates and so on, would be better addressed by locally accountable Ministers in our own Assembly. I believe that all those issues will eventually be addressed by an Assembly because the political will clearly exists. I welcome the fact that across all the Benches there are those who recognise the need for a locally accountable Executive to respond to those important issues. I hope that between us we will resolve, through direct dialogue, the few remaining issues so that an Executive can function in future.

I propose the amendment, as it supports and strengthens the motion. I strongly identify with and appreciate Mr Gardiner’s motion and the arguments that he made in support of it. However, the amendment addresses some of the deficiencies in the Westminster Bill, which is substandard in important respects, as Mr Gardiner mentioned. It fails to address comprehensively work-related deaths in many circumstances.

My amendment addresses the anomaly of Crown immunity from prosecution. In the interests of justice and equality, as well as of workplace safety, this must be abolished. An employee of Government agencies, or his or her dependants, should be afforded the same duty of care as any other employee in any other sector of the economy. Therefore we would best serve those whom we represent by working on solutions that would remove the privileges and anomalies in the system and deliver equality of protection to all workers.

In the 12-month period to March 2005, 88 people lost their lives in work-related accidents in Ireland; 73 in the South and 15 in the North. Since most of those deaths and injuries occurred in the construction industry, and given the numbers of construction workers who travel to sites throughout the island, this issue must be addressed on an all-island basis. A definition of work-related deaths and injuries should be developed that takes that into account.

Another important issue arises from the methods of calculating the statistics of work-related fatalities and injuries. The Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union (SIPTU) has warned that the number of work-related fatalities could be 10 times higher than is reported. For example, SIPTU has pointed out that occupational fatality statistics do not include the deaths of employees who are killed in road traffic accidents while driving as part of their normal employment. However, statistics tell us that up to one third of all road accidents are work-related.

Likewise, illnesses contracted at work that can lead to fatalities outside the workplace are not included in work-related statistics. For example, workplace-related cancers such as asbestosis, which are particularly high in the North, are not recorded. In addition, non-fatal work-related illnesses and injuries can cause serious deterioration in the quality of life, including, in some cases, disruption of ability to participate in the work­force, or reduced life expectancy. The absence of statistics on such illnesses and injuries shows that they are not being treated with the seriousness that they deserve.

A Cheann Comhairle, the important point to make is that nearly all such work-related illnesses, injuries and deaths are preventable, provided that proper safety regimes are in place and are implemented with due diligence. Employers stand to benefit from measures that reduce workplace injuries, illness and stress, so it is hard to understand why employers’ organisations continue to resist measures that would improve health and safety. Such benefits would include improved productivity due to lower rates of sickness, absenteeism and staff turnover, and improved recruitment and retention of trained staff.

Sinn Féin does not believe that there is any acceptable excuse when employers fail to meet worker health and safety standards and obligations under the law. My party wants the establishment of a universal, all-island commission on health, welfare and safety at work, which is centrally involved with the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) in the South and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in the North. We want the initiation of an all-island workplace health strategy to reduce and remove all aspects of ill health that arise from unsafe work practices. We want immediate steps to be taken in order to tackle the shortage of health and safety inspectors, as that has been identified as a major factor that hinders the authorities’ ability to carry out inspection and enforce­ment functions. That would obviously require the injection of additional resources to enable the HSE to fulfil its responsibilities under strengthened workplace health and safety legislation.

The provision of Government grant aid for sectoral trade-union safety training would be another progressive step. Sinn Féin wants there to be a legal obligation for employers to agree a programme of general health and safety training with the HSE that would meet specific requirements depending on the substances and processes used in the workplace. The introduction of mandatory safety training, which new employees could take on full pay, would also contribute significantly to improving health and safety statistics.

The introduction of legislation that obliges employers to notify the HSE of any events that occur at their place of work, including exposure to noxious substances that result in workers’ absence for more than three consecutive days, is comparable to existing legislation and to regulations in other European economies. Such legislation would provide greater accountability and reassurance that such issues would be dealt with. Finally, I ask for support for the conclusion of an international convention against asbestos production and use.

Let us make no mistake: work-related death through lack of proper safety measures or employer negligence is a crime. There is widespread support across the political spectrum for many of the changes that have been proposed in the legislation on the accountability of companies. However, there would be further support for those changes if sufficient thought and attention were given to the accountability of company owners and directors. Furthermore, even if those issues were comprehensively addressed, it is not proposed that they would be applied in the North of Ireland. Why not? Do workers here not deserve the same entitlement to protection? The motion allows the Assembly to state clearly that it believes that they do.

The Westminster Bill’s proposed changes, which provide Crown agencies with immunity from prosecution for the offence of corporate killing, should form no part of any legislation that applies to workers’ rights legislation here. All bodies, Government or corporate, should be liable to prosecution if culpability or neglect can be proven. The proposer of the motion has highlighted that. Corporate manslaughter legislation is already in place in many economies and in many countries. It has proved to be a key tool in the battle to reduce workplace accidents and fatalities.

I ask Members to support the amendment. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mervyn Storey (DUP)

I support the motion, but not the amendment. The proposer of the amendment has raised a few issues that must be corrected for the sake of the record. He said that the Assembly is powerless to act on this important issue, but it seems as though the lack of power and will is coming from the Member’s party, not the Assembly. His party has failed abysmally to do anything in the past few weeks or months — years, even — to convince my community and the people of Northern Ireland that it is in any way interested in having a peaceful, stable and prosperous Northern Ireland. The proposals and actions of that party are always minimalist.

The proposer of the amendment said that he wants the amendment to be accepted in the interests of justice and equality. He also said that negligence is a crime. Does he accept that —

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you rule on the relevance of the Member’s comments to the motion and the amendment?

Eileen Bell (Speaker)

Thank you, Mr O’Dowd. I will allow Mr Storey to continue, but I will listen to how he develops his remarks.

Mervyn Storey (DUP)

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The proposer of the amendment said that negligence is a crime. I take issue with that. Does he accept that the murder of Jean McConville was also a crime, as it was quite clear that —

Eileen Bell (Speaker)

Order. Mr Storey, those comments are not relevant to the motion. Please keep to the motion. Corporate manslaughter is a serious subject, and I would be grateful if you would confine your remarks to the motion.

Mervyn Storey (DUP)

Madam Speaker, my comments relating to the contribution of the proposer of the amendment are also serious, and they will be recorded as such.

I support the motion. As one who worked for almost 20 years in industry before becoming involved in politics full time, I saw at first hand the unfortunate situation where employers take a cavalier attitude towards their responsibilities. Anyone who has responsibility for employees owes them the most common and acceptable protection possible, so that the utmost protection is provided in all circumstances.

The statistics quoted by the hon Member Mr Gardiner are regrettable. The Assembly would be doing a disservice to the people of Northern Ireland if Members somehow allowed the debating of this issue to be seen as an opportunity for them to merely salve their consciences and show their concern, rather than as an opportunity to make appropriate responses to the issues that are prevalent in society.

Look at the statistics that the hon Member quoted. There is a concern that we all bear responsibility. As Mr Gardiner proposes, there should be an offence of corporate manslaughter where it can be proven that culpable negligence by a firm is a major contributory factor in the death of an employee. That is a key element of the motion.

All Members should come to the Assembly with a sense of duty and responsibility. If Members are serious in their concern for the proposal, they will support the motion and impress their concerns upon the Government — a Government who appear to be cavalier in their attitudes towards the safety of their citizens with regard to security and the roads infrastructure.

The proposal to reduce the finance for our roads by 40% or 50% will undoubtedly lead to a continual decline in, and deterioration of, the roads infrastructure. That results in accidents and deaths on the roads for which the authorities take no responsibility. I support the motion.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I welcome the motion, the amendment, and the thoughtful speeches from their proposers. First, we must put the problem into context: it is estimated that businesses, commercial enterprises or companies may have had some culpability in between 250 and 300 deaths since 1999. However, only five people and five businesses have been found guilty of any criminal act. As Samuel Gardiner pointed out, there are, on a pro rata basis, some 20 deaths a year in the North, and that is a significant problem.

Today, we should be trying to work out a legislative approach that deals with those 250 deaths in which there is corporate responsibility. I cite the incident at Zeebrugge, which was a very public example of corporate failure; the issues around the death of Victoria Climbié; the death of Jean Charles de Menezes; and the deaths at Deepcut Barracks. Legislation must deal with cases of great public concern when a corporate enterprise, a business or public body, has failed in its standard of care to the individual. We need to work out a law that will address the problems that were identified in the cases of Victoria Climbié, Jean Charles de Menezes and others, including deaths in the North over the past 30 years in which there was corporate failure by public bodies.

The problem with the legislation resides in two areas. As Mr Gardiner pointed out, if a prosecution for corporate failure is to succeed, the standards of proof applied to businesses must be properly established. Mr McLaughlin identified the second problem: how far does Crown immunity extend in the legislation? It extends far beyond what the Assembly, the House of Commons or the House of Lords should accept.

If there were another killing like that of Victoria Climbié, the question arises whether a public body that had contributed to her death could be prosecuted under this legislation. The argument is uncertain, because, as Mr Gardiner pointed out, a successful prosecution could not be brought in that case, or high-profile cases in this jurisdiction, because the standards of proof are too high.

The standard of proof should be stated as: “beyond reasonable doubt”, or “in the balance of probabilities”, or another standard that is close to either of those; but not the standard of falling:

“far below what can be reasonably expected”.

To prove a case against a public body or business, the plaintiff must demonstrate a failure to comply with health and welfare requirements or, as Mr Gardiner pointed out, that the manager sought to profit from a failure to uphold appropriate standards or that there had been a gross breach of the relevant duty of care.

When a case is brought to the Public Prosecution Service in the North, or before the courts in any jurisdiction in these islands, trying to meet those standards in a hard case will be so demanding as to inevitably lead to failure. The second part of Mr Gardiner’s motion is important because it aims to moderate those very exacting standards of proof in a way that creates some possibility whereby a public body or private enterprise may become vulnerable to prosecution.

The standards set by the Bill, if it passes, are so exacting and demanding that prospects of a prosecution in many — or even a few — of the 250 deaths that will arise over the next four or five years, is slim to the point of being negligible. Great public debate will arise around cases of public concern following the failure to successfully prosecute those who should be responsible before the law.

The second issue with which there are major problems is highlighted in the amendment proposed by Mitchel McLaughlin, which concerns the question of where Crown immunity begins and ends. Although the original draft of the Bill addressed Crown immunity and provided that persons in the Police Service of Northern Ireland or in other public bodies that are involved in the administration of law and justice might be subject to a corporate charge, the Bill has subsequently been amended by the British Government in a damaging and fatal way. I shall provide three examples.

There are additional draft exemptions in the legislation proposed by the British Government that provide a blanket exemption for deaths of civilians caused by the gross negligence of the police or others — such as the intelligence services and MI5 — in the performance of policing or law enforcement activities.

Moreover, there will be an exemption for the killing of members of the public that occurs in situations of terror, civil unrest or serious public disorder in which the police come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance.

I ask Members to apply those circumstances to some of the tragic cases in the North’s history. Apply them even in cases in which the police have come under attack, subject to threat and terrible violence, and where, nevertheless, a police officer or commander committed a grave error that led to the death of an individual. Those exemptions would allow that police officer, in criminal terms — or the police service, in corporate terms — to walk away. All Members know of cases involving use of force by the police or the military, or cases with MI5 involvement, which gave rise to public concern. All of those matters will, in all likelihood, be exempted under the proposed legislation. That is the importance of the amendment proposed by Mitchel McLaughlin.

I know that it will be difficult to reach cross-party consensus on such an issue. However, Members should try to do that today. During sittings of the Committee on the Preparation for Government this summer, a significant event happened. On 23 August 2006, all of the parties that were represented on that Committee, including the Alliance Party, agreed the following motion:

“That the Committee calls on the Government to review policy on the publication of reasons where there has been a failure to prosecute and the collapse of prosecutions”.

Two or three years ago, that would not have happened because there was then a sense that the prosecutors and the state know best. There was a sense that, if a case collapsed or did not proceed, there must be a good reason.

Things changed due to concern within unionist parties about the collapse of the Stormontgate case and because of the subsequent failure by the Attorney-General and the PPS to give adequate reasons for the collapse. The public concern that arose from the failure to explain why that case collapsed led to all parties agreeing to communicate to the British Government that the issue was one of cross-party concern.

Members should accept the Sinn Féin amendment, not because it will lead to open season on the state and its agencies, but because it will limit the power of the state to walk away from issues of public concern that involve lethal force.

Eileen Bell (Speaker)

I now call Francie Brolly. This will be the first occasion that Assembly will hear from Mr Brolly, who will be making what can be described as his maiden speech. As Members know, it is the con-vention that such a speech is made without interruption.

Francie Brolly (Sinn Féin)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. My father was a strong nationalist and a significant member of the old Nationalist Party. As a young child, I got to know all the nationalist luminaries of the time, who were regular visitors to our house in Limavady — a house that at times served as a party office as much as it did a home. My father was a tireless political activist; his bedtime reading was the electoral registers and the minutes, motions and agendas of Limavady Rural District Council and Derry County Council, on both of which he was a long-serving member.

When we moved to our native Dungiven, he became the secretary of the local GAA club. Concerned about the level of unemployment in Dungiven, he initiated a drive for the building of what was then called an advance factory. He went on to persuade Desmonds textile manufacturers to set up in the village. As people round our way say, “ He was in everything but the crib”.

In 1970, he was a foreman on a housing scheme in Lettershandony. I was teaching in Dungiven at the time. On the morning of 23 February, the local curate came to my classroom door and motioned me out. “Your father has had an accident at work”, he said. “Bad?” I asked. “Bad”, he said. And it was very bad — my father was dead. He had gone down into a 15-ft-deep unshored trench to organise pipe-laying. The trench collapsed, and he was buried alive.

A radio broadcast that evening said that a worker had died as a result of an accident on a building site; “a worker” — as if a man is no more than his job description.

When jobs were scarce, work was paramount. Workmen were plentiful, exploitable and expendable. My mother was pitifully compensated, and the company was told not to let it happen again. Nothing much has changed. People still die at their places of work, and employers still escape any fitting and proportionate sanction. In 2005, only 40 employers in the Twenty-six Counties were prosecuted for breaches of health and safety regulations. The average fine was approximately £8,000.

My mother’s compensation was £7,000. I suppose the assessors thought that £7,000 was a lot of money for her in 1970.

A mere six employers were penalised in the Six Counties in 2004-05. The largest fine imposed was £100,000 against Farrans (Construction) Ltd following the death of a 20-year-old who was electrocuted. Was £100,000 a lot of money for Farrans (Construction) Ltd in 2004?

No Irish employer has served a day in prison for criminal negligence resulting in the death of an em-ployee. This prompts me to recommend the establish-ment of an Irish commission on health, welfare and safety at work, especially at this time when there is such a high level of employee mobility throughout the Thirty-two Counties, particularly in the construction industry.

While supporting the substantive motion strongly and absolutely, I am concerned about the title “corporate manslaughter” and, therefore, about the concept of corporate guilt. As long as company directors are not made personally amenable to the law, but can shelter under the umbrella of corporate culpability, we will not have the issue of safety at work tackled with the urgency and the thorough commitment that would be the desired outcome of the motion and amendment. A few months in jail would concentrate the mind of a careless employer.

To finish, I will digress a little and make a plea to all Members here. Thousands of people genuinely sympathised with me on the death of my father. However, some whom I knew bore a grudge against members of his employer’s family and would have used my father’s tragedy as a stick to beat them with. My personal experience would not allow me to use any victim of any tragedy to make cheap political points. Let us, in the spirit of the motion, look after our living in the home, on the streets and in the workplace, and let the dead rest in peace.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Eileen Bell (Speaker)

The next Member to speak, Mr Davy Hyland, will make the winding-up speech on the amendment. This is the first occasion on which he will have addressed the Assembly, so he will be making his maiden speech.

Ken Robinson (UUP)

Today’s debate has been important, not simply because worker protection is an important matter in itself, but also because this Assembly can be seen to be debating a bread-and-butter issue that affects the everyday life of working people, and not simply occupying itself with what has been described in other quarters as a high-wire act. It is important that the electorate perceive that the Assembly works in their interests and on their behalf.

Seeking to put legislation in place that secures higher standards of safety in the workplace is an appropriate and important matter for us to consider. As the Member for Upper Bann Mr Gardiner said, legislation to create the offence of corporate manslaughter, which will apply to Northern Ireland as well as other parts of the United Kingdom, is already making progress through the House of Commons.

Though some industries are taking the improvement of safety standards seriously, and with a degree of success, more remains to be done to reduce the current levels of workplace injuries and fatalities. It is to be hoped that today’s debate will inform the legislators in Westminster and get them to reconsider the issue of secondary liability for corporate manslaughter, which we believe — and as has been illustrated in today’s debate — will create the deterrent factor necessary to focus minds on the need to ensure close adherence to health and safety considerations in the workplace.

That that deterrent factor is necessary is all too obvious, and we have had some graphic illustrations of the impact on families by Members who have spoken today. Mr Gardiner drew attention to the fact that the rate of fatalities from industrial accidents in Northern Ireland is twice what we could expect on a pro rata comparison with GB. That points to the need for a more robust culture of industrial and worker safety than currently prevails in Northern Ireland.

The essential building block and foundation for that new culture has to be a corporate manslaughter Bill — one that has teeth. If the Bill’s deterrent factor is inadequate, the whole exercise will be a waste of time. The drafters of the legislation at Westminster have had grave difficulty in producing a Bill that incorporates the wide range of concerns expressed in the Chamber today.

In some ways, the new legislation will lead to the abandonment of the current legislative position. At present, the prosecution of individuals has to take place before action against a corporation or employer is even possible. The proposed new legislation enables the prosecution of the corporation or employer immediately, subject to decision by the Director of the Public Prosecution Service. In some ways, the baby has been thrown out with the bath water.

In its anxiety to make the prosecution of corporations easier, Parliament has ignored the aspect of individual accountability that is involved in any industrial fatality. I concur with Mr Gardiner that the culpability of individuals within corporations, companies, and Government Departments and agencies is important.

The matter of Crown immunity has been referred to in the proposed amendment. There is now a step forward and a recognition in the legislation currently before Parliament that Crown immunity, as a principle, is being breached. I appeal to the mover of the amendment to recognise that, so that the House can unite around the original proposal in order to show the public, the employers and the Westminster Government that we are serious about the matter. We recognise that they have at least breached the principle of Crown immunity in this first instance. Perhaps we can deal with the remaining issues at a later stage.

Government agencies can now be made individually and personally accountable in some way, and the issue of industrial safety will now be taken seriously. Clause 16 of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill currently proposes that any individual working for a corporation, Government Department, agency or body be expressly excluded from the Bill’s operation. It states:

“(1) An individual cannot be guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence of corporate manslaughter.

(2) An individual cannot be guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring, or being art and part in, the commission of an offence of corporate homicide.”

The Assembly must speak out about that serious flaw in the Bill currently going through Parliament. In particular, I ask those MLAs who are also Members of the Westminster Parliament to take that message back to the House of Commons. Members must do so on behalf of the families of the 20 or more people who have died each year from industrial injuries.

Members have heard highly personal descriptions of such cases. The descriptions went beyond the fact that a worker has been killed in an industrial incident as broadcast on radio, to the impact on the family left behind. The hurt and the pain for that family do not end with the broadcast: they continue, perhaps for generations.

The only way in which to re-introduce personal accountability is to introduce a related and dependent offence of secondary liability for corporate man­slaughter. In practice, the UUP envisages that that would work by requiring juries to establish whether management failure had caused, or contributed to, the death in question. On the basis of that finding, the DPP would determine whether individuals in a company should be prosecuted for the manslaughter, in addition to the prosecution of the company, corporation or agency involved. That would give the new corporate manslaughter legislation a necessary cutting edge and would underpin it with a deterrent impact — both of which are currently lacking.

There is no question that the corporate manslaughter deterrent effect is necessary. Year after year, the construction industry is one of the worst offenders in relation to industrial injuries and fatalities. I will not bore the House with the figures now, but in Northern Ireland injury rates remain stubbornly high, whereas in GB they have consistently dropped over the last four or five years. It is possible, therefore, to make inroads into those figures, providing everyone accepts that the safety measure of a corporate manslaughter deterrent must be introduced.

Between January and October this year, as many people were killed in the construction industry as in the whole of 2000: there has hardly been great progress. The fact that the record for industrial deaths in Northern Ireland is markedly poorer than that in GB must be a cause for concern and for action.

Let us anchor that in the report of a tragedy that was reported by the media in the past week. It was reported that the Water Service in Northern Ireland had been held responsible for the death of a contractor who was killed in an explosion at a treatment works last year. A Crown censure hearing was held following an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive. The Water Service accepted the censure and presented to the hearing information on measures that it had put in place since the blast to prevent it happening again.

Crown censure is an administrative procedure followed by the Health and Safety Executive in circumstances where a case cannot be taken to a court of law because of Crown immunity from prosecution. Under the proposed corporate manslaughter law, the Water Service would almost certainly have been brought to trial for that offence. Therefore, one positive aspect of the proposed legislation is that Crown immunity has been breached for the first time.

However, there is concern about industrial deaths and accidents across Europe. A study of comparative industrial death rates in Sweden and Denmark showed that the levels are much lower in Sweden. Perhaps that reflects the fact that there are lengthy periods of apprenticeship in Sweden, during which significant time is spent ensuring that health and safety issues are to the fore, whereas in Denmark much more is learned on the job and on site. Therefore, major issues of training and health and safety awareness must be addressed.

In 2000, a building contractor in Spain was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment following an industrial accident that led to the death of a worker. The court ruled that that contractor had committed homicide by failing to fulfil health and safety obligations.

It is also worth pointing out that, as they were going through a building boom in Spain, the numbers of deaths and injuries on building sites increased dramatically. That is something that we need to bear in mind. We too are going through a building boom, so it is particularly important that we address these issues quickly.

I am running out of time, unfortunately. We can see that we are dealing with a western European problem. I had hoped to refer to several of the contributions made by Members, but time is against me. In general, there has been great support across the Chamber. I repeat my appeal to the Member who moved the amendment to look again at that so that we can move forward as a united body in support of the motion.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 22; Noes 22.

Ayes

Alex Attwood, Mary Bradley, Francis Brolly, Willie Clarke, Mark Durkan, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Davy Hyland, Dolores Kelly, Gerry Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Raymond McCartney, Patsy McGlone, Philip McGuigan, Martin McGuinness, Mitchel McLaughlin, Francie Molloy, John O’Dowd, Pat Ramsey, Sue Ramsey, Caitriona Ruane, Kathy Stanton.

Tellers for the Ayes: Davy Hyland and Sue Ramsey

Noes

Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Gregory Campbell, Wilson Clyde, Michael Copeland, Robert Coulter, Leslie Cree, Nigel Dodds, Reg Empey, Samuel Gardiner, William Hay, Danny Kennedy, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Lord Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, George Robinson, Ken Robinson, Peter Robinson, Mervyn Storey.

Tellers for the Noes: Leslie Cree and Wilson Clyde

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly calls upon the Government to introduce legislation introducing the offence of corporate manslaughter to Northern Ireland, where it could be proven that culpable negligence by a firm was a major contributory factor to the death of an employee or subcontracted worker; and further calls for the introduction of an additional offence of secondary liability for corporate manslaughter, where it could be shown that a company’s failings were provably caused by the culpable negligence of one or more individuals within the firm.

Eileen Bell (Speaker)

Members will know that the Business Committee has arranged that the next debate will commence at — [Interruption.]

Order. I am on my feet, and I am speaking. It seems, however, that Members intend to leave the Chamber anyway.

Members will know that the Business Committee has arranged that the next debate will commence at 2.00 pm.

The sitting was suspended at 11.49 am.

On resuming (Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker [Mr Wells] in the Chair) —