---

Health and Safety (Offences) Bill

My hon. Friend asks an important question. If I put my Chairman’s hat on, I can say that article 5 of the European convention on human rights applies. It provides for imprisonment of those who have committed a criminal offence, as long as they have a fair trial in accordance with the law. My hon. Friend does not therefore need to worry about the matter—so far as I understand it, the Bill complies entirely with the convention’s requirements. I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham or the Minister have published a certificate to that effect, but my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley does not need to worry about incompatibilities with or infringements of the convention or the Human Rights Act 1998. However, it is a good point because I believe that private Members’ Bills should go through the same process as Government measures to ensure, as far as is possible, compliance with the Human Rights Act, through the publishing of the certificate, which the Attorney-General and the relevant Minister usually sign. Hon. Members would be advised to follow that process because, in the past, some private Members’ Bills have given rise to strong questions about their compliance and compatibility with the Human Rights Act. Health and safety law does not want primarily to achieve more prosecutions, but to prevent accidents from happening. The goal is positive prevention on the one hand and deterrence on the other. The Bill is geared very much towards deterrence and it is important that the Government, through the Health and Safety Executive or other means, embark on a publicity campaign to ensure that employers, especially in industries that have a poor safety record, know about the consequences of committing an offence. The small one-man-band construction company could face imprisonment and other sorts of company could face higher fines. As I said earlier, I believe it is unfair that there is a two-tier system whereby the small employer is more likely than a larger one to face a serious penalty, but it is nevertheless important to do all we can to ensure that employers know that they are more at risk now than in the past. On prevention, it is interesting to note the way the scale fits together, with improvement notices, prohibition notices and now prosecution through the Bill. We must examine the system under the 1974 Act as an entity; we should not simply lift out one piece and ignore the overall picture. Enforcement will take place generally through improvement notices. Prohibition notices are important when a major breach that is likely to cause injury is detected. I hope that the Bill means that the courts will impose significant sentences when people are in breach of a prohibition notice—I believe that that is a consequence of the schedule. Non-compliance with an improvement notice is different, and a matter for employment tribunals, as I recall. However, prohibition notices are very serious. They are not issued that often—perhaps they ought to be issued more often—but a breach is a serious matter that should lead to prosecution and the more significant penalties under my right hon. Friend’s Bill. One of the fundamental purposes of any legal sanction for wrongdoing is deterrence, which applies equally to health and safety law. Many commendable organisations already take health and safety seriously, but there are rogue companies that do not. In 2006-07, 241 people were killed at work, which was an increase of 17 on the previous year. That is a worrying trend and may reflect the fact that the Health and Safety Executive’s resources are inadequate. That is not a matter for today’s debate, although it is an important factor that we must take into account, because as we take less enforcement action, so it becomes more important that we should take stronger enforcement action, with stronger penalties.