Bill seeks tougher health and safety punishments

Keith Hill, Labour MP for Streatham, told the Commons that last year there were nearly 250 work-related deaths in Britain with around 30,000 workers suffering major injuries. His Health and Safety (Offences) Bill would result in higher maximum fines.

In addition, it would introduce a change in the classification of some offences from "summary offences" to "either-way offences" - which could be tried in a Magistrates' Court or, if necessary, a Crown Court.

Mr Hill proposed raising the maximum fine in Magistrates' Courts to £20,000 "for most offences". He said that at present the lower courts were only able to impose a maximum fine of £20,000 for offences that were breaches of "general duties" to safeguard health and safety.

Mr Hill explained the current maximum fine for "specific" breaches stood at only £5,000, "yet such breaches may be just as serious as breaches of general duties".

Specific breaches included, for example, breaches of fundamental requirements to do a risk assessment; a breach of asbestos regulations; and a breach of industry-specific requirements, such as construction, design and management regulations.

He added that the Bill would provide "tougher, more commensurate punishment, more effective deterrents and greater efficiency in the dispensation of justice."

Widespread support

Junior work and pensions minister Anne McGuire backed the Bill, saying it was vital to send out a message to those who tried to "flaunt" health and safety regulations.

Mrs McGuire said the lower courts were presently prevented, in some more serious cases, from imposing "adequate and realistic" penalties.

She also said the Bill would make imprisonment an option for a wider range of breaches of health and safety rules, and that this would address concern about what some regarded as "derisory" penalties.

Andrew Selous, Conservative MP for South-West Bedfordshire, also agreed that the Bill should be "put on the statute book". He said the fines the Bill would amend had been set in 1991 and 1992, and that therefore there would be a good case for amending them "on grounds of inflation alone".

Mr Selous added that while he believed the Bill would place "no additional requirements" on employers or businesses, it would have a "strong deterrent effect" on a minority of "rogue employers" who believed it was cheaper to pay fines than keep staff safe.

The Bill was given an unopposed second reading and will now go on to the committee stage.