Why corporate killers must pay

The Financial Services and Markets Bill (no, please, read on - it does get more interesting), has become so emasculated, say some close observers, that it would not be out of place waving a palm frond at the court of Suleiman the Magnificent.

For those who have not been riveted by its bumpy progress through the upper and lower Houses, it is meant to be the enabling legislation that gives Howard Davies and the Financial Services Authority a set of gnashers that would not disgrace a great white. However, it would appear that when the rules finally pass under Her Majesty's rubber stamp, Davies and his Authority will look more like the Pathetic Sharks from the popular vulgar comic, Viz .

Coincidentally, I caught a snippet of commentary on the radio about proposed legislation which, said the commentator, 'has received hardly any coverage', and would essentially lead to the liability of auditors being limited, resulting in 'a bonanza for the big five accounting firms'.

According to the aggrieved broadcaster this was the result of strenuous lobbying from the consultants, many of whom have been shamelessly courting government and who already benefit from what is often a suspiciously haphazard procurement process in the service sector.

The problem with corporate legislation is that it only really arouses ire and passion in those who are likely to be tonked by the rules. The public at large find it hard to gauge what they would gain from such legislation, while the companies which would be on the receiving end are expensively briefed on exactly what they stand to lose. It is only when you have been mis-sold a pension, or when the redemption value of your endowment mortgage covers only the purchase of the front door that you are left to ponder 'why isn't that against the law?'

For the Government, introducing complex legislation along the lines of the Financial Services Act is a thankless task. Your corporate donors dump you as quickly as they can, and it wins no votes. It has to be a selfless gift to the national wellbeing. Which is why the introduction of a Bill which would create the offence of corporate killing is such an intriguing possibility. For here you have a potential flashpoint where the corporate lobby will find itself in direct, public opposition to the will of the people.

For those who, like me, regard the fact that not one single resignation or suspension of any director has arisen as a result of the Paddington rail disaster as a national disgrace, it comes as some comfort. For the more mundane but equally shocking everyday examples of casualties in the building industry it could be a more significant if less newsworthy move. The existing corporate manslaughter charge carries a very high burden of proof: a company is found guilty only if an individual within it can be convicted of the offence. Only three prosecutions have ever been successful.

Already some business lobbyists are bridling at the suggestion that individuals should be charged or directors disqualified under the suggested changes in the law put up by Home Secretary Jack Straw.

One can't help feeling that companies have very much brought this potentially onerous increase in liability on themselves; a more humble and gracious attitude to accepting that your firm has been profoundly at fault when lives are lost might negate the need for a 'dangerous directors act'.

But high-profile dismissal is reserved for bottom-pinching at the Christmas party rather than for when workers repeatedly fall to their deaths from your scaffolding. Moves which will hopefully allow for the financial mutilation of negligent companies as well as for possible disqualification and perhaps prison, in extreme cases, for directors is long overdue.

One hopes that the Government's championing of this more digestible piece of corporate legislation will not meet the sticky fate of its other efforts to control the governance and behaviour of companies.

Emily Bell