Vol. 563 No. 4
108 Mr. Broughan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if it is intended to introduce legislation to provide for a new offence of corporate manslaughter, in view of the continuing unacceptable level of deaths through workplace accidents; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8114/03]
The area of corporate manslaughter is complex. The Law Reform Commission has carried out some legal research on the subject and expects to publish a consultation paper later this year. The paper will review the current law and consider whether a new corporate offence should be introduced or whether the existing law should be extended to take account, in either case, of corporate practice and intent. It would be pre-emptive to introduce legislation with a provision on corporate manslaughter prior to the availability of this consultation paper.
Speaking to the annual conference of the Health and Safety Authority on 12 March, the Minister of State said: "Since I became Minister with responsibility for workplace health and safety, I have borne witness to more tragic cases than in my entire life as a public representative." That being the case, is it not incumbent on him to act? Does he accept that corporate manslaughter is a crime in many EU countries and does he consider it appropriate that it is not a crime here? Does he find the number of deaths occurring in industry, particularly on building sites, to be of such a scale that it demands an immediate response from Government?
Yes, it demands an immediate response from Government and the response is currently being made. It does not necessarily follow that the introduction of an offence of corporate manslaughter would cure the ills of the industry – it is a complex area. I have undertaken to examine the whole question and have done this to a significant degree. Given that the Law Reform Commission has carried out quite an amount of research, it would be appropriate to await the consultation paper it will produce.
The examination I have made of practice worldwide shows it is not successful in other countries. Under current legislation in Britain, the prosecution can only succeed if the controlling mind of a company is identified and that person is found to be guilty of manslaughter. There have been few successful corporate manslaughter prosecutions in Britain.
Does the Minister of State not accept it is important to address the enactment of this legislation as an indication of our seriousness about the matter? Even if there are few prosecutions, it underscores the view of the Oireachtas that safety standards are unacceptable. Is the Minister of State satisfied, and will he give an assurance to the House, that a sufficient number of inspectors are currently in place to ensure existing law, inadequate as it is, is properly maintained on every building site in the land?
I am not interested in tokenism.
That is a silly comment.
Unless I can be satisfied the inclusion of this provision will be effective—
The Minister of State is either serious about this problem or he is or not.
Of course I am. There is no point in putting something into legislation for the sake of doing so, as the Deputy has suggested. I am quite happy to consider this provision.
If the Deputy wants an answer he should let the Minister of State give it as he has only 40 seconds remaining in which to do so.
He is not taking a serious matter seriously.
Legislation is not about giving signals—
Of course it is.
—it is about putting provisions in place to deal with certain circumstances.
While we would all like to have an increased number of inspectors, HSA inspectors are doing an effective job.
Are there enough inspectors?
One can have all the legislation and inspectors one likes, but until good preventive practice becomes the norm in the construction industry, the situation will not improve. A significant effort is currently being made to do this.
