Clause 17

Part of Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 12:00 pm on 31 October 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Ian Stewart Ian Stewart Labour, Eccles 12:00, 31 October 2006

We are again brought to the crux of the difference—possibly the most significant difference—between members of the Committee. The Minister may be able to persuade me about leaving the clause in, because my initial concern was whether the clause would remove the common law offence of aiding and abetting.

This morning I received an e-mail from the mother—I do not know her name—of a young man called Mark, who was killed in 2005. He was burnt to death in an explosion at work when a fireball was caused by the crushing of 4,000 aerosol containers filled with butane gas. We can never put ourselves in the position of families who have lost somebody in such circumstances, and I hope that we approach such situations in a dispassionate sense. I shall make my point succinctly.

The man’s mother said:

“My son was instructed to crush these on a baling machine ... which the general manager admitted to police had a clear warning should never be used to crush enclosed cylinders or anything containing volatile substances as to do so would be dangerous for the operator. My son was never shown this warning nor was he given any training on this machine.”

The pertinent point is one that goes to the heart of the resistance from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield to our concerns on the matter. The e-mail continues:

“The general manager also told the police that he had carried out a risk assessment in which he said that no aerosols would be accepted for processing for scrap, unless” they were

“accompanied by a certificate of degassing and” had

“been punctured. On this occasion, he ignored his own risk assessment and accepted the aerosols from a haulier who had no licence to transport hazardous materials. The police told us that they suspected the aerosols were stolen.”

In previous arguments that I have put to the Committee I have tried to focus on situations of wilful gross negligence. To date, I have heard no argument that convinces me that there should not be some sanction if there is wilful gross negligence leading to death. That is the thrust behind new clause 5 too. It would leave a pathway for families to seek appropriate redress, so that justice may in their eyes be seen to be done.