Corporate manslaughter act – the hands on benefit
March 1st 2008

The forthcoming Corporate Manslaughter Act has caused a great amount of panic with some interpreting the Act to mean that you have to publicise any health and safety breach, potentially on national television. Here Stuart Turnbull of Sperian Protection writes about the forthcoming Corporate Manslaughter legislation and how its focus on the boardroom may, in the fullness of time, be seen to be of much greater importance than any perceived new legal sanctions that it contains

The subject of great debate over many years and passed into law during 2007, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 finally comes into effect in April 2008. Under its provisions, companies and organisations can, for the first time, be found guilty of corporate manslaughter as a result of serious management failures resulting in a gross breach of duty of care. The Act is separate from existing health and safety legislation, which it will operate alongside.

While the new Act obviously has yet to be tested in the courts, there can be little doubt that the penalties that it imposes – which will usually be in the form of fines – will be high profile and in all probability severe. However, because the Act is raising awareness of health and safety issues at board level, with company directors and senior executives now charging their health and safety professionals to bring them up to speed on the new advice, the legislation's greatest impact might not be prosecutions but in fact a good deal more subtle.

Much of the advice, which is in the public domain, about how businesses should prepare for the Act recommends that health and safety becomes a boardroom issue with a senior director, if not the chief executive themselves, becoming responsible for health and safety and indeed some organisations are recommending that they become professionally accredited. Not only this, there is also a large school of thought that these directors get more 'hands on' and monitor adherence at the sharp end themselves in their particular industry.

Any such shop floor interaction will, in a great many cases for the first time, bring these newly responsible directors in contact with Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) with its issues of accurate specification and usage. There can be little doubt that one of the failures that might be interpreted as a gross breach under the new Act is the failure to provide employees with adequate and suitable PPE, in those cases where such a failure leads to death.

However, it is more likely that the director will need to be familiar with the current PPE Regulations and PPE in Work Regulations so that PPE is implemented correctly.

The type of PPE most likely to be involved in any major incident is that designated as Category 3, which covers products and environments where the user can be exposed to mortal danger, or to dangers that may seriously and irreversibly harm health. Depending on the circumstances and type of risk this category can, for example, include fall protection equipment, respiratory protection products, gloves and protective clothing.

Whatever the type of equipment, the first step to providing appropriate protection is to carry out a risk assessment. The results of this can then be used as the basis for selecting products that will properly protect employees and reduce the risk of prosecution under the new Act. Care needs to be exercised, however, in the choice of PPE products.

It's important, for example, to be sure that they genuinely do comply with relevant standards. Cheap imported items may not and, as a result, they may not be suitable for the purpose for which they were purchased.

Also, it's essential that the equipment is appropriate to the task and, where relevant, that it fits correctly. Geoff Hooke, secretary general of the British Safety Industry Federation says on this subject "All PPE should be CE marked with the Standard to which it has been tested, which might additionally state a class or type reference.

From this it is apparent that the performance characteristics set out within the product standard need to be known, and understood, and this is where the distributor or manufacturer will also be able to assist." None of these requirements are particularly difficult to satisfy, but neglecting them could have serious consequences. By far the best and most dependable approach is to use the services of an established PPE supplier, such as Sperian Protection, that can provide a comprehensive range of fully tested products, backed by the expertise to ensure that they are selected and used correctly. Take this simple step, and the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act need create no concerns.

The new Act works in conjunction with existing health and safety legislation but has some high profile 'teeth' such as the requirement to publicise a conviction, perhaps even on television, which is why it is causing a flurry of activity. By bringing to the attention of executives the need to get more involved in health and safety, and in the case of PPE at least having a rudimentary understanding of existing legislation, then I believe it is a welcome addition. There may be a certain amount of chicken and egg attached to the introduction of the new Act but better that than the continuing lack of knowledge that has health and safety regarded as a business inhibitor when it is anything but.

Sperian Protection for one welcomes it and will, as always, help any company struggling to meet its requirements in this area.

More articles from Sperian Protection (UK) Ltd: