After last week's judgement against Sonae, Steve Tombs and Dave Whyte review the history of
habitual offending at the plant.
"Norman Stanley Fletcher ... you are a habitual criminal ..."..These words ran over
the opening credits to Porridge, the classic BBC sitcom , set in Slade prison. Fletch
was, as far as we learnt, a petty, but regular, criminal, used to `doing time'. The
judge ended his speech by sending him down for five years. Since the 70s when that
series was first made, law and order has become a political and media issue in a way
that simply was not the case 30 years ago. In fact the prison population has more
than doubled since Porridge was first aired, mainly because more and more recidivists
- `habitual criminals' - have been banged up for longer prison terms. Britain's jails
are bursting at the seams as the prison population has soared to the highest in
Western Europe.
Negligent or reckless company managements
But some of our nastiest, most persistent offenders have escaped the
punitive attentions of the criminal justice system. Very few of these
types of perpetrators ever end up in court, no matter how guilty they
seem to be. According to official statistics (which are notoriously under
-estimated), 40 workers and members of the public were killed by industry
in Merseyside between 1997 and 2001. Government research has long since
established that most of those deaths are the responsibility of negligent
or reckless company managements. And this figure does not include the hundreds
that die as a result of occupational diseases: in Merseyside, between 1996 and
2000, more than 200 people died from mesothelioma (usually caused by asbestos)
alone. Each year many times more people die at the hands. of a profit making
company than die in murders. And yet prosecutions are extremely rare.
Sonae Fined Again
Sonae, who last week were
finally in the dock for repeatedly flouting the
law at their Kirkby plant, receiving a fine of £37,000 for environmental
offences, are a typical habitual offender. As everybody in the area knows,
Sonae has been polluting the local environment - the air, the waterways -
since the Kirkby plant opened in 1999. A
health questionnaire distributed
in Northwood, Kirkby, by the Knowsley Against Toxic Sonae Campaign some 18
months after the arrival of Sonae indicated that more than 80% of people
reported dust residues around their homes, and over 40% of households
reported dry coughs, eye irritations and sore throats. Visitors to
Northwood reported similar symptoms which miraculously cleared up
when they left the area.
'find the information leaks, ignore the toxic leaks'
But it's not just the polluting activities of Sonae that should be a cause for concern.
The failures to comply with the law and manage effectively in terms of environmental
protection extend to health and safety of workers - in other words, inside the plant,
all was not well.
Our own investigation into the plant in 2001 found that HSE inspectors
had identified a "worrying trend of major and minor accidents." In a `series of incidents
in 2000, workers suffered serious crush injuries, broken bones, electric shocks and burn
injuries. Between October 2000 and April 2001, there were 6 over-3 day injuries and 7
major injuries reported to the HSE. Indeed, inspectors found that safety devices had
been interfered with and by-passed as a matter of routine, and the company had failed
its legal duty to implement a safe system of work. Revealingly, we had access
to documents written by HSE inspectors that warned that the "whole project is
politically sensitive." The Sonae plant, we should remember was set up with
the financial and political backing of several public authorities,
including Knowsley Borough Council. Perhaps predictably, no
prosecution followed any of those events. This political
sensitivity might also explain HSE's reaction to our report
- they were more worried about where we got the information
rather than the issues that we raised. Letters pointing out
that obtaining such evidence was a criminal offence indicated
their major concern - find the information leaks, ignore the
toxic leaks.
Echo/Post Readers might recall another dust explosion that was occurred at the
Sonae plant on 1 June 2002. Following that explosion, and its investigation by
the HSE, the company were given notice to clean up its act, but no prosecution
followed despite inspectors finding violations of Heath and Safety law. And
inspectors knew that the company was flouting the law. Four enforcement notices
had been served on the company between May 2001 and the date of the explosion.
In fact this had been pointed out to them.
On 25 June, 2002, a more severe prohibition notice was issued, banning the restarting
of the plant involved in the recent explosion until a suitable and sufficient assessment
of the risks associated with this plant was carried out. On 28th June 2002, yet another
notice was issued on the company. Still no prosecution. By July 2002, the polluting dust
emissions were causing problems for players at the neighbouring Liverpool FC Academy,
and their
concerns about the plant were voiced publicly in the Echo/Post.
Fines -Hardly a deterrent
So after all this repeat victimisation of residents and workers, after all
the company's habitual offending, Sonae finally ended up in the courts,
courtesy of the Environment Agency not the Health and Safety Executive.
But was the fine - a total of £40,000 including costs - as the Echo/Post
have asked, enough? One answer is found in asking what £40,000 means to
a company like Sonae. Last year, 2002, Sonae UK's annual turnover amounted
to almost 130million Euros, or about £90 million. So a fine of £40,000 for
that company is about 0.04% of turnover. Let's be clear, what that means.
Take an average - some would say, above average - wage of £15,000. Someone
receiving a fine which amounted to the same percentage of their salary would
be paying a total of £6 as punishment for their crime. Hardly a deterrent, not
even worth a letter from a company accountant to the board of directors.
Mandelson and the DTI deal
Even more gallingly, Sonae has done very well for itself in spite of its
misdemeanors. In fact, its activities are heavily subsidised by our taxes.
The plant is only in Kirby at all because of a government handout: a DTI
grant of £1.95million awarded by
Peter Mandelson, as Secretary of State
for Trade and Industry, to be precise. Having been given almost £2million,
an outlay of £40,000 is even more laughable. As taxpayers, we have a right
to expect a little more for our money than a plant which pollutes regularly
and in which workers have regularly injured. It is time for companies like
Sonae, with records of far more harmful offending behaviour than Norman
Stanley Fletcher or his ilk, to be fairly held to account for profiting
out of crime.
Steve Tombs is Professor of Sociology at Liverpool John Moores University. Dave
Whyte is Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Leeds.
End of Article
Thanks to Steve and Dave for standing up for the people of Kirkby. They are professors but communicate
in a manner which is simple ,clear and concise - unlike Knowsley Council who
try to confuse us with a
deliberately confusing and complicated version of events.
I haven't got a GCSE - but we all seem to have common sense.
Kirkby's labourites bought us Sonae - next May - we should have an opportunity
to tell these Councillors what we think. As for Sonae - its up to us to kick them out and
Kirkby Times predicts Sonae will out of here
sooner than we think. The sick truth is - the gutless Councillors allowed it come here -
our MP's KNEW it was coming yet decided to allow them to poison us for a quick buck.
