I beg to move amendment No. 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

'(3) In Article 31 of the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1039 (N.I. 9)) (offences), for paragraphs (1A) to (5) there is substituted—

"(2) Schedule 3A (which specifies the mode of trial and maximum penalty applicable to offences under this Article and the existing statutory provisions) has effect.

(3) Schedule 3A is subject to any provision made by virtue of Article 17(6)(c) or (d)."

(4) After Schedule 3 to that Order there is inserted the Schedule 3A set out in Schedule [New Schedule 3A to the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978] to this Act.'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 2, clause 2, page 1, line 15, leave out '1' and insert '1(1) and (2)'.

Amendment No. 3, page 1, line 18, at end insert—

'(3A) The Department concerned (within the meaning given in Article 2(2) of the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1039 (N.I. 9))) may make any amendments to existing regulations that it considers necessary or expedient in consequence of the amendments made by section 1(3) and (4).

(3B) The power conferred by subsection (3A) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).

Such a rule is subject to negative resolution within the meaning of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I.)).'.

Amendment No. 4, page 1, line 19, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'this section'.

Amendment No. 5, clause 3, page 2, line 6, leave out 'and Scotland only' and insert

', Scotland and Northern Ireland (except that an amendment or repeal made by this Act has the same extent as the provision to which it relates).'.

New schedule 1— New schedule 3A to the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978—

'New Schedule 3A to the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978

"SCHEDULE 3A

OFFENCES: MODE OF TRIAL AND MAXIMUM PENALTY

The mode of trial and maximum penalty applicable to each offence listed in the first column of the following table are as set out opposite that offence in the subsequent columns of the table.

Amendment No. 6, schedule 2, page 4, line 48, leave out 'of regulation' and insert 'of—

(a) regulation'.

Amendment No. 7, page 5, line 1, at end insert 'or—

(b) regulation 26(18) of the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 (S.R. 2006/425),'.

Amendment No. 8, page 5, line 3, after '1974' insert

'or Article 31(4) of the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978'.

Amendment No. 9, page 5, line 4, after 'Act' insert 'or Schedule 3A to that Order'.

Amendment No. 10, page 5, leave out lines 8 to 15 and insert—

'(a) in the sentence beginning "A person who manufactures" as it extends to England and Wales and Scotland, for "and liable to the penalties specified in section 33(3) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974" there is substituted "and liable as mentioned in the final item of Schedule 3A to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (mode of trial and penalty for offence under "existing statutory provisions" for which no other penalty is specified)";

(b) in that sentence as it extends to Northern Ireland, for "and liable to the penalties specified in Article 31(4) of the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978" there is substituted "and liable as mentioned in the final item of Schedule 3A to the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (mode of trial and penalty for offence under "existing statutory provisions" for which no other penalty is specified)";

(c) in the sentence beginning "If any explosive is imported or sold", for "and liable to the penalties specified in section 33(3) of" there is substituted "and liable as mentioned in the final item of Schedule 3A to".'.

Amendment No. 11, page 5, line 25, at end insert—

'Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1039 (N.I. 9))

(1) In Article 17 (health and safety regulations), paragraph (6)(e) is omitted.

(2) In Article 39 (remedy and forfeiture), after paragraph (3) there is inserted—

"(3A) Paragraph (4) applies where a person is convicted of an offence consisting of acquiring or attempting to acquire, possessing or using an explosive article or substance (within the meaning of any of the relevant statutory provisions) in contravention of any of the relevant statutory provisions."

(3) In paragraph (4) of that Article, for the words from "a person" to "there mentioned" there is substituted "the person is convicted of the offence".'.

Amendment No. 12, page 5, line 28, at end insert—

'Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1069 (N.I. 5))

In Article 4 (offences), in paragraph (4)(f), for ", (2), (2A), (4) and (5)" there is substituted "and (2) (and the related provisions of Schedule 3A)".'.

Amendment No. 13, schedule 3, page 5, leave out lines 32 to 35.

Amendment No. 14, page 5, line 37, at end insert—

Amendment No. 15, page 5, line 38, at end insert—

I am grateful for hon. Members' support for the group of amendments, which would extend the Bill to Northern Ireland. Since the criminal justice aspect of health and safety legislation is a reserved matter, the Bill already applies to England, Scotland and Wales.

The cross-party nature of the support is consistent with the House's historic bipartisan approach to health and safety legislation. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 was largely drafted under the Heath Administration and introduced and enacted under the first Wilson Government of 1974. I am especially grateful for the support of the two main Northern Ireland parties represented in this place: the Social Democratic and Labour party, of which my hon. Friend Dr. McDonnell served on the Standing Committee and intervened in the proceedings to call for the Bill's extension to Northern Ireland; and the Democratic Unionist party, of which Mr. Dodds, in his capacity as Northern Ireland Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, welcomed me to Stormont when I visited Belfast on 2 June, and offered his enthusiastic support for the measure's extension to Northern Ireland. I am most grateful to him for the warmth of his welcome and his generosity in finding time to meet me when there were other serious demands on his attention.

I also express my thanks to the chairman and chief executive of the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland, Professor Peter McKie and Jim Keyes, who were my excellent hosts on my Belfast visit. It goes without saying that they are delighted that the opportunity has arisen to add the amendments to the Bill.

I was impressed by what I learned about the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland—the HSENI. Its mission is, of course, underpinned by the three principles of supporting the weakest, recognising the best and challenging the worst. Given the importance of agriculture in the Northern Ireland economy, the HSNI faces some distinctive challenges from its counterpart in Great Britain.

Although no fatality in the workplace can ever be acceptable, both Great Britain and Northern Ireland can take justifiable pride in being at the top of the international league table and having the lowest rate of workplace fatalities not only in the European Union but in the world.

One of the reasons for the Bill is to try to maintain and improve that record. What discussions has my right hon. Friend held with Northern Ireland employers and trade unions about the proposals?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention—I was about to deal with exactly that point in my brief remarks.

I was grateful to the HSENI for arranging my meeting with David Mills of the Institute of Directors and Nigel Smyth of the CBI. The Institute of Directors has worked closely with the HSENI. In October, the two organisations published a joint guidance document, entitled, "Leading Health and Safety at Work: Leadership Actions for Directors and Board Members". Indeed, Mr. Mills has been a member of the Health and Safety Commission since 2002 and I was pleased to receive assurance of his support for extending the Bill to Northern Ireland.

I was also grateful to Mr. Smyth for finding time for our lengthy discussion. The Northern Ireland CBI, like its Great Britain counterpart, supports the principle of the Bill, but continues to have several concerns about provisions to widen the imprisonment powers of the lower courts. I hope to respond to those broader issues in my speech on Third Reading.

Meanwhile, I hope that it will be for the House's benefit if I set out the process whereby the amendments appear before us.

Earlier, my right hon. Friend mentioned accident statistics, which he aggregated between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Does he have separate figures for Northern Ireland? Is Northern Ireland's record better or worse than that of the rest of the country?

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention because it enables me to put on record the precise statistics for Great Britain and for Northern Ireland and to compare them with those for the European Union. In 2002-03, the most recent year for which statistics are available, the rate of fatalities per 100,000 workers in Great Britain was 0.8 per cent. In Northern Ireland, the figure was 0.9 per cent., and the statistic for the European Union as a whole was 2.1 per cent. That shows that our record for health and safety not only for staff in workplaces but members of the public who visit workplaces is excellent compared with that of our neighbouring countries. I commend the work of the Health and Safety Commission and all the partners involved in the process. We must remember that it is a three-way process, which involves not only the health and safety enforcement authorities, but business and the trade unions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many silent partners support the Bill, including environmental health officers, who have witnessed severe breaches of health and safety laws and desperately hope that the Bill reaches its final stages today?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the sentiment that she expresses. My sense is that it is the will of the House that the measure reaches the statute book. She is right that a large health and safety community is following its progress in detail. I hope to be able to pay tribute to organisations that have expressed active support for the Bill.

My right hon. Friend provided some interesting statistics on fatalities for Northern Ireland, the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe. Does he have similar figures for serious accidents?

I am afraid that I do not. We know that, for 2005-06—the last year for which separate statistics are available for Great Britain—there were 241 fatalities, some 30,000 serious accidents and approximately 100,000 less serious accidents in the workplace. That is a reminder of the need for constant vigilance and an important reinforcement of the purposes of the Bill—to ensure the appropriate punishment of those who are negligent and to deter those who would seek to cut costs by infringing health and safety arrangements.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I will, but then I want to make some progress before becoming available to take further interventions.

Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether, for example, breaches of fundamental requirements to conduct risk assessments for breaches of asbestos regulations would be included?

Order. Perhaps the House might usefully have a little guidance. We have essentially two debates today, one of which is on the group of amendments that we are now discussing, which relate to the Bill's applicability to Northern Ireland. This debate must concentrate on that. There will, I hope, be an opportunity, if the House makes progress, to have a more general debate on Third Reading.

I am grateful for your guidance and for the opportunity that you signal for a wider discussion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Briefly, the answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes, and that will apply in Northern Ireland as well as Great Britain. However, I hope to say a little more about those matters in due course.

My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. He gave us the most up-to-date figures for Northern Ireland, which were from 2002-03, yet he gave much more up-to-date figures for the rest of the United Kingdom—although even they seem to be rather out of date, if I may say so. Does he think it a matter of concern that we do not have real-time numbers, in this day and age of computers, to allow us to know much more accurately the position in Northern Ireland, as opposed to the rest of the United Kingdom?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as he allows me to clarify an observation that I have made. I will make progress after this, but he should bear it in mind that the statistics that I gave for 2005-06 were the numbers of fatalities and accidents in the workplace. The figures that I gave for the earlier period were, of course, comparative percentages. I am confident that we in Great Britain and Northern Ireland maintain our statistics on such matters as efficiently and in as up to date a way as possible, but one must also wait for the publication of other countries' statistics when engaged in the business of comparative analysis.

Let me turn to the amendments before us. The health and safety authorities in Northern Ireland have a long-standing policy of maintaining legislative parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in health and safety at work legislation. In fact, the health and safety regime in Northern Ireland is governed by the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which essentially replicates the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 covering England, Scotland and Wales. Thus, although the 1978 order originally allowed for different administrative arrangements, it otherwise transposed in their entirety the general duties and the enforcement and offences aspects of the 1974 Act to Northern Ireland.

In 1998, the 1978 order was significantly amended, to create a Health and Safety Commission and Executive for Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, the order remains the controlling legislation, and so needs to be amended to extend the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland.

Over the years, the health and safety authorities in Northern Ireland—now the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland—have worked closely with the mainland Health and Safety Executive to ensure that legislative parity is maintained. In practice, that means that regulations made in Great Britain are used as the template for Northern Ireland regulations, with the substance and intent remaining the same, but with the appropriate Northern Ireland legislative references.

As hon. Members will recognise from that brief history, health and safety in Northern Ireland has always been a transferred—now a devolved—matter. However, as hon. Members will also appreciate, the substance of the Bill deals with the criminal justice system, and specifically the creation of offences and penalties, which are reserved matters and the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office. I am assured that there is no requirement for a legislative consent motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly, given that the Bill deals predominantly with criminal penalties and prosecutions, and that primary legislation here in Westminster is the most appropriate way forward.

As a consequence, the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have agreed to seek support to have the Bill extended to Northern Ireland. They have done so for three reasons: first, to ensure parity across the United Kingdom for penalties and offences; secondly, to avoid a potentially significant time lag in bringing about consistency between the Northern Ireland and Great Britain penalty regimes; and thirdly, to save resources in what is a straightforward parity policy area.

Having described the process by which the amendments have reached us, let me turn to their purpose, before briefly explaining their content. As I have said, the relevant Northern Ireland penalties are those set out in the 1978 order and the health and safety regulations made under that order. The effect of the amendments that we are considering is to amend the order in exactly the same way as the Bill amends the 1974 Act.

The key amendments in the group would alter the current framework of maximum penalties set out in the 1978 order, to ensure that the courts can more easily set sentences for health and safety offences at a level that is likely to deter those tempted to break the law and which will deal appropriately with those who have done so. The amendments seek to raise the maximum fine that may be imposed in the lower courts to £20,000 for most health and safety offences.

The explanatory notes to my right hon. Friend's Bill contain a helpful annexe, which sets out a comparator between the present mode of trial and maximum penalties and those proposed by the Bill. However, I understand that the explanatory notes were produced before the amendments that we are discussing. Will he confirm that the present mode of trial and maximum penalties in Northern Ireland would be the same as those that apply to the rest of the United Kingdom, as set out in the annexe, so that we can see what we are dealing with?

I am again grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an extremely important point. My response is to say, first, that we hope to be able to provide a further set of explanatory notes to deal with the extension of the Bill's application to Northern Ireland before it proceeds elsewhere. Secondly, there are one or two fairly minor differences between the schedule applying to Great Britain set out in the Bill and the schedule that will form part of the amended Northern Ireland order. I hope to identify those differences in due course, if my hon. Friend will exert the patience for which he is famous in these precincts.

The power to impose a fine of up to £20,000 is available already, in respect of some of the offences under the 1978 order, such as breaches of the general duties on employers arising under articles 4 to 7. However, the current maximum penalty for specific breaches of health and safety regulations, which may be just as serious as breaches of general duties—exactly the sorts of issues to which my hon. Friend Ms Butler alluded—is a £5,000 fine, hence the extension to the new maximum of £20,000.

Secondly, these amendments serve to make imprisonment an option for most health and safety offences in both the lower and the higher courts. At present, imprisonment is an option only in certain cases—for failure to comply with an improvement or prohibition notice or court remedy order or, in the High Court only, for failure to comply with licensing requirements, explosive provisions or disclosure of information in breach of the 1978 order. These amendments will extend the option of a custodial sentence to a greater range of offences, thus responding to the fact that in several cases over the years judges have remarked on the lack of imprisonment as an option and have said that they would have jailed the offender had they been able to do so.

I have been looking at the explanatory notes. I assume from what my right hon. Friend said that they provide a reasonable guide to what we are dealing with in Northern Ireland. I am particularly concerned about an offence under section 33(1)(a) in respect of the duties of employees under section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. I do not know the exact equivalent in Northern Ireland, but no doubt my right hon. Friend will be able to tell me where it fits into the 1978 order. A breach of a duty under section 7 carries quite significant penalties under his proposals for Northern Ireland, but is it fair to impose on conviction such high penalties on employees who have only been doing their job, albeit negligently or recklessly, as on neglectful employers who have the responsibility to make profits?

I am grateful once again to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He raises an important philosophical and moral question, to which I have to say that my instinctive answer is yes, it is. Employees who behave in a way that leads to the loss of life or limb or that puts the lives and limbs of fellow workers in danger deserve an equal level of punishment. It is their neglect and negligence that is at fault. Quite frankly, for a victim of such negligence it hardly matters whether an employer or an employee is responsible for the injury, and the same applies to a member of the family of someone who has died. What those affected want in those circumstances is proper justice. I thus have no hesitation in saying that the provisions in the schedule are entirely right.

rose—

I see that my hon. Friend wishes to respond on that point.

I have listened to what my right hon. Friend said about acts and omissions by employees who should be prosecuted because they cause a hazard to others, but what about hazards to themselves? For example, should someone be prosecuted for not wearing goggles when operating a grinding machine? That would be a health and safety offence under the Act and the regulations. In those circumstances, the only person actually at risk is the employee. It is quite right that they should be prosecuted if it is a repeat offence, for example, but is it right that they should face imprisonment for something like that?

I make two points in response to my hon. Friend. The first, which I want to develop at greater length, probably on Third Reading, is about the likelihood and frequency of imprisonment. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me and wait for those exchanges, which will provide a further opportunity for an interesting dialogue. Secondly, I very much doubt that there are ever circumstances in the workplace in which a single solitary employee is at risk. If the health and safety provisions are not being properly exercised, it is my strong suspicion that that presents a risk for every person who is operating in that workplace. To that extent, it is right that those who are negligent in respect of themselves should be punished because they are potentially negligent of other people in the workplace as well.

Let me continue to describe the effect of these amendments to the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. The third change is that certain offences currently triable solely in the lower courts will in future be either way offences—in other words, like most health and safety offences, they will be triable in either the lower or higher courts. Those would include the offence under article 31(1)(e) of contravening any requirement imposed by an inspector under article 22 on powers of inspectors, and the offence under article 31(1)(f) of preventing or attempting to prevent another from appearing before an inspector or from answering an inspector's questions.

rose—

Just to complete that thought, I should add that under these amendments those offences could in future attract the tougher penalties available in the higher courts.

I am grateful yet again for my right hon. Friend's generosity in giving way. I am afraid I do not know enough about the Northern Ireland criminal process in comparison with that of England and Wales, but under the either way procedure in Northern Ireland, is it possible for the defendant to opt for jury trial as opposed to a magistrates court if he wishes to do so? Is it a matter only for the prosecution or is it an option for both sides to decide whether to go for jury trial in Northern Ireland at their wish?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I hesitate in my response for two reasons. First, he is, of course, a lawyer and a good deal more familiar with the judicial process than I am. Secondly, I can answer only on the basis of an impression that I have formed rather than on certain knowledge. My impression is, however, that as in Great Britain it is possible for the accused to opt for a trial in a higher court. If I prove to be wrong about that, I would be delighted to write to my hon. Friend to set the record straight.

I shall expand on this point in my subsequent observations, but it is important to note that the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland has a superb record of successful convictions. Indeed, it runs at 100 per cent. Interestingly, it adopts a somewhat different procedure from the Health and Safety Executive and the inspectorate in Great Britain in that it gives all its cases to the Crown Prosecution Service rather than bring the prosecutions directly as an enforcing authority. It finds that to be an efficient and effective way of dealing with the matter.

rose—

I am about to come on to the detail of the amendments, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend just one more time at this juncture.

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. He tells us that the prosecution success rate in Northern Ireland is 100 per cent., but 100 per cent. of what? How many prosecutions have been brought in Northern Ireland on average year by year? One of the real criticisms made of the Health and Safety Executive on the mainland, if I may put it that way, is that it is far too timid in bringing prosecutions and should be prosecuting more vigorously, more effectively and more often. In comparison with the rest of the UK, are more offences prosecuted in Northern Ireland? An answer to that would help to explain what is meant by a 100 per cent. success rate; of course, if only one case were successfully prosecuted, that would still be 100 per cent.

I am grateful yet again to my hon. Friend, but on this occasion I have to throw myself on his mercy—and that of the House—because I do not know the particular number of prosecutions brought in Northern Ireland. I shall expand on the point later, but I do not condemn enforcing authorities if they have extremely high thresholds in respect of the rigour of the criteria that they apply before bringing prosecutions. The rigour of those criteria will become even more important in future when, under the Bill, the option of imprisonment will become far more widely available.

rose—

I rather suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister may have the answer, so I happily defer to her.

My intervention is not about the number of prosecutions, although we may well be able to come on to that subject later. In the interests of clarity, I point out to my right hon. Friend that in the Scottish legal system it is the Procurator Fiscal Service, not the Health and Safety Executive, that pursues cases involving breaches of health and safety legislation. I would not like my right hon. Friend to fall foul of any Scottish lawyer on that point.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The last people in the world I want to fall foul of are Scottish lawyers of whom we have wide experience in the House, not least in our party. I am most grateful to her for correcting the record. I was aware that I was skating on rather thin ice at that point, and that was a most helpful intervention.

rose—

I am anxious to get on to describing the contents of the amendments in greater detail. If my hon. Friend will simply have patience for one moment—

It's a good one.

Then I will make an exception.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend; he has been incredibly generous in giving way to me. My point has to do with the decision-making processes in the Health and Safety Executive. One of the criticisms made is that there is under-charging. There is a new offence of corporate manslaughter, which I believe has been extended to Northern Ireland, and he knows that I campaigned long and hard for that offence. Given the new unlimited fines and power of imprisonment, does he think there is a risk that the HSE, through the Crown Prosecution Service, may chicken out of a corporate manslaughter case and instead prosecute for a regulatory offence, and that the lesser penalties may have acted as more of a lever on the HSE to prosecute for corporate manslaughter in appropriate cases?

I very much hope that the Bill will not, as my hon. Friend says, become an excuse for chickening out of any prosecution that ought to be mounted, either under current health and safety legislation or under the corporate manslaughter legislation. I ought perhaps to draw his attention to a comment that I made on Second Reading:

"it is not my intention that the new powers of imprisonment—if we obtain them—should become grounds for resisting the case for mandatory safety duties on directors."—[ Hansard, 1 February 2008; Vol. 471, c. 616.]

That case is an entirely separate argument.

Let me now deal with the amendments in detail. The proposed new offences regime, relating to both the mode of trial and the maximum penalty, is set out in new schedule 1. New schedule 1 would extend schedule 1 to the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 as schedule 3A. As far as possible, the text of the Northern Ireland schedule duplicates that of the Great Britain schedule, with two exceptions. My hon. Friend Mr. Dismore raised the issue with me, and I can now offer him the clarification that he sought.

First, in the column of proposed schedule 3A headed "Offence", where the Great Britain version of the schedule refers to the relevant sections of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, the Northern Ireland schedule refers to the equivalent articles of the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. The second and more substantive exception is in the column headed "Penalty on summary conviction". In respect of each offence for which the Great Britain schedule specifies

"Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months" or "51 weeks", the Northern Ireland schedule specifies

"Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months".

So why is it not possible to provide for a maximum term of imprisonment exceeding six months in Northern Ireland, despite the intention to ensure overall parity between health and safety legislation in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, especially in relation to offence penalties? The explanation lies in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and corresponding legislation for Scotland, which changed the basis for calculating sentences in Great Britain, but which did not extend to Northern Ireland. An example of a similar divergence in maximum penalties is to be found in section 25 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, which provides for imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months. In its application to Northern Ireland, the reference to 12 months is to be read as a reference to six months. Perhaps I should add that the same financial penalties to be imposed on summary conviction can be applied in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as is the case for the penalties—both imprisonment and financial—applicable on conviction on indictment.

My right hon. Friend explains very effectively why Great Britain provides for a sentence of 12 months and Northern Ireland provides for a six-month sentence, but ultimately the question is how long the convicted person will serve in prison. Given all the changes made to the primary legislation, is the amount of time served the same?

My hon. Friend's question involves speculating about the future. It is a matter for the courts, and as a legislator I do not want to get involved in giving the courts detailed advice on the lengths of custodial sentences to be set. That is a matter for the courts and is to be determined by future experience. If things prove unsatisfactory, I dare say that we will at some stage have the opportunity to turn to these issues.

As for the other amendments—

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

No, I want to make progress, if my hon. Friend will allow me.

Amendment No. 1 amends the 1978 order by including the new schedule of offences, which is called schedule 3A in both the order and the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are consequential amendments. Amendment No. 3 deals with the making and amending of regulations under the amended order. Amendment No. 5 stipulates that where the Bill amends an Act or order that does not extend to the whole United Kingdom, that amendment has the same, more limited extent; in other words, it qualifies, where necessary, the basic proposition that the Bill extends to the whole United Kingdom. Amendment No. 6 is a consequential amendment.

Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 make changes for Northern Ireland that correspond to the amendments in the Bill to sections 40(9)(d) and 43 of the Explosives Act 1875. Amendment No. 11 brings into effect amendments to article 17 of the 1978 order on health and safety regulations and article 39 of the same order on remedy and forfeiture. The amendment to article 17 will omit a specified penalty in respect of an offence under the Offshore, and Pipelines, Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1992—to be precise, that contained in article 17(6)(e)—because in future any such penalty will be provided for in new schedule 3A. The amendment to article 39 will insert a new paragraph that will clarify the application of article 39(4), which would otherwise be incomplete following the proposed repeal of article 31(5). Both those changes, made by amendment No. 11, duplicate the amendments to the equivalent provisions for Great Britain, which are in sections 15 and 42 of the 1974 Act.

Amendment No. 12 makes an equivalent change to the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 to that made to the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Act 1995 under schedule 2 of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are consequential. Finally, amendment No. 15 repeals article 6 of the Offshore, and Pipelines, Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which corresponds to section 4 of the Offshore Safety Act 1992, which is repealed as a consequence of the provisions that are to be introduced by the Bill.

I am grateful to Keith Hill for setting out so fully the basis of, and reasons for, his amendments, and for accepting a large number of interventions in order to clarify various details. I am the second signatory to these amendments, and I am pleased that they have come before us.

As a member of the Conservative and Unionist party, I take the view that, generally, if legislation is worth implementing in Great Britain, it should also apply to Northern Ireland. It was interesting that the right hon. Gentleman drew our attention to the fact that there was a four-year gap between the passage of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the introduction of the subsequent 1978 order. It seems that Northern Ireland quite often gets left out and then has to catch up with what we in this House do. Only on Wednesday, the House debated the draft Social Security (Students Responsible for Children or Young Persons) Amendment Regulations 2008, which applied only to Great Britain and left out Northern Ireland. I asked what would happen to Northern Ireland, and I was told that it would catch up later. Therefore, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman for ensuring that in this instance Northern Ireland has not been left out.

Does the hon. Gentleman not share my surprise that on a matter of such importance for Northern Ireland not a single Northern Ireland Member from the Democratic Unionist party or the Ulster Unionist party is present and wishing to speak?

All Members of this House always have to account to their electorate for their presence in, or absence from, the Chamber. No doubt those Members are dealing with important matters today, perhaps in the Province itself. However, a goodly number of Members of all parties care very deeply about Northern Ireland; it is an important part of our United Kingdom, and the measures we are debating today are important.

As I have said, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having dealt with the amendments in considerable detail. We welcome them, and we take the view that the Bill is worth putting into law. It should apply to the whole of this United Kingdom of ours, and we give our support to the amendments.

I, too, thank Keith Hill for his clear exposition of these amendments, and I support the move to ensure that Northern Ireland is included. I noted from his remarks that he visited Northern Ireland prior to introducing them, and that they have the full support of all the political parties in Northern Ireland. Although no Members of those parties are present today, that move to ensure that there is cross-country agreement on the application of these offences was important. Health and safety does not know boundaries. What happens in one part of the UK can affect another part, so it is very important to ensure that what happens in Northern Ireland is in line with what happens in the rest of the UK. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendments.

I echo the thanks of my right hon. Friend Keith Hill for the cross-party support he has had on this element of the Bill, and I am particularly pleased that the hon. Members for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for St. Ives (Andrew George), for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) have been supportive of him in the tabling of these amendments on Northern Ireland. The Bill has, in some respects, undergone quite a journey, and my right hon. Friend has facilitated that to create cross-party consensus on what are very important measures.

To pick up on the comments of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire, the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland has a long-standing policy of maintaining legislative parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in respect of health and safety at work legislation. The main piece of legislation covering health and safety at work in Northern Ireland is the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, and this order essentially replicates the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which covers England, Scotland and Wales. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, there was a time lag between the introduction of these two elements of health and safety legislation.

The HSENI is an executive non-departmental public body currently sponsored by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, which is part of the Northern Ireland Executive. It is the lead body responsible for the promotion and enforcement of health and safety at work standards in Northern Ireland. It works very closely with the Health and Safety Executive, which covers the other parts of the UK, to ensure that legislative parity with Great Britain is maintained. In practice, this means that regulations made in Great Britain are used as the template for Northern Ireland regulations; that is often the case in social security regulations, in which I know the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest. The aim is to keep the same substance and intent between different parts of the UK but, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, with the appropriate Northern Ireland legislative references—he and my hon. Friend Mr. Dismore had an interesting exchange on the legal processes.

Health and safety has always been a transferred—or, now, a devolved—matter. However, the substance of the Health and Safety (Offences) Bill relates to criminal justice, and specifically the creation of offences and penalties, which are reserved matters and therefore the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office.

Given that the Bill deals predominantly with criminal penalties and prosecutions, there was—as my right hon. Friend picked up, as his antenna are very sensitive on these matters—a strong desire within the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure parity with Great Britain, and the then Northern Ireland Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the hon. Member for Belfast, North, wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland seeking agreement to extend the Bill to Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State subsequently wrote to my noble Friend Lord McKenzie of Luton, Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions, on 10 March 2008 seeking his support for extending the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. Our support for that was, of course, very much predicated on whether or not my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham gave his support, as it is his Bill. The Government were happy to support this request as it made a lot of practical sense. It will avoid the potentially significant time lag that there has sometimes been in aligning the Northern Ireland and Great Britain penalty regimes, and save resources in bringing this about in what is a straightforward parity policy area.

On 29 April 2008, Lord McKenzie gave his formal agreement to the Government supporting the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend, as he has indicated, had extensive discussions with colleagues in Northern Ireland on that. He did not just take these amendments at face value; he investigated how they would impact in Northern Ireland—and I think that through his personal visit and discussions he gauged the significant support that there was for this extension to Northern Ireland.

Members might be curious about why Northern Ireland was not included in the scope of the original draft Bill, and I am happy to explain that. When the policy detail was agreed, in November 2006, for a potential Government handout Bill on health and safety offences, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions asked whether, although health and safety is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wished equivalent provision to be made for Northern Ireland. Therefore, there was already that sensitivity to keeping the legislation aligned across the whole of the UK. Like the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire, I, too, am a Unionist, but I do recognise the subtleties of difference within the Union, so it was important to seek the approval and support of the Northern Ireland Secretary on that issue.

The then Secretary of State said that he would wish the Bill to be extended to Northern Ireland, and that the Northern Ireland HSE would indeed provide the necessary input to achieve this. In the event, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham is aware, the Bill was not picked up following the ballot, so its detailed drafting could not then take place. However, when it was picked by my hon. Friend Mr. David in early 2007 to introduce an ordinary presentation Bill, the drafting had to be undertaken at short notice. Unfortunately, because of that short notice the Northern Ireland HSE was unable to move quickly enough to provide the necessary draft clauses and accompanying explanation to allow parliamentary counsel to include the necessary changes to the Northern Ireland legislation. Accordingly, the text of a GB-only Bill was agreed in April 2007 without application to Northern Ireland.

In October 2007, DWP Ministers decided to put the Bill forward again as a handout Bill, in almost the same draft as that introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly. The ballot took place on 15 November and I am absolutely delighted not only that my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham was successful in the ballot, but that he also picked up the Bill, because he has piloted it and driven it through its stages in an exemplary fashion. Of course, we well remember the day, 5 December, when he introduced it to this House.

The relevant Northern Ireland penalties are those set out in the 1978 order and in the health and safety regulations made under the order. I want to advise the House, in case it is not obvious from what I have already said, that the Government support the amendments proposed today as they will alter the current framework of maximum penalties set out in the 1978 order to ensure that the courts in Northern Ireland have the same penalty regime as in Great Britain. As Paul Rowen clearly indicated, it is important that we have that uniformity, not least because health and safety breaches are a danger wherever they occur in this United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend says that the objective is to secure the same availability of penalties in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom. The question that I put to my right hon. Friend Keith Hill, on which he touched, is why we have a maximum term of imprisonment in Northern Ireland of six months, compared with 12 months for the rest of the UK. Is that in practice because of the impact of the way that sentences are imposed, or because of the way that they are administered? Will this mean that people in Northern Ireland spend less time in prison for the same offence, as in the rest of the UK, or will it amount to the same thing in practice?

We are in danger of encroaching on what is the legitimate responsibility of the Northern Ireland legal process. I said at the beginning of my remarks that we obviously wanted parity as far as possible, while recognising that there are different elements within the system in England and, as I pointed out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in the process of the courts and the law, but I suspect that these issues are rightfully vested in the slightly different process that exists in Northern Ireland. However, what is important is that the offences regime and the penalties regime be similar across the UK, so that it does not matter whereabouts in this United Kingdom people are tempted to break the law: they will be dealt with appropriately in that—

Will my hon. Friend give way?

No, I do not want to go down the road of the courts system or the legal process in Northern Ireland. Forgive me, but we want to get on to Third Reading. I know that my hon. Friend is an expert in all these matters; perhaps he can develop some of the points that he wishes to raise if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during Third Reading.

The power to impose a fine of up to £20,000 is already available in respect of some offences under the 1978 order, such as breaches of the general duties, as was mentioned. The difference in respect of the six and 12-month periods was also clearly highlighted.

I am delighted to be able to offer to my right hon. Friend the Government's support for these amendments. As I said, the way in which he has investigated the amendments—ensuring that the genuine and deep feeling within the Northern Ireland Executive, as well as within our own Secretary of State for Northern Ireland's Office, is recognised—has been exemplary. I commend the amendments to the House, along with my right hon. Friend.

Amendment agreed to.