Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

The Minister has just said that he is proud of the fact that the Government have introduced the Bill and that they are trying to remove various Crown immunities. As he knows, both sides of the House have congratulated the Government on that initiative, but this is Parliament’s first chance for more than a century—if not longer—to look at a Government’s proposed legislation on the matter and to try to take it further. As the Government have given us that chance, it is incumbent on Members to see whether the legislation can be improved, but I am sorry to say that the Minister’s reply to the debate so far has been less than convincing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, relativity is at play here. The counsel, the court, the judge and the jury will take account of difficult circumstances and if the Government are keen to build such a requirement into the Bill, they can do so and make it absolutely clear that the jury should take account of difficult circumstances, whether they be resource constraints or the difficult people who seem to be confined at Her Majesty’s pleasure. That should not be an excuse, but a defence against a prosecution of corporate manslaughter when gross negligence has occurred. I know that the Minister did not like it when I intervened on the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) to explain why I thought that the Government were proceeding in this way, but I have to say that my explanation is true. I have known people who have worked for the Government in the press office of the Prison Service. I am well aware of how much they come under attack and how Home Secretaries have, quite understandably, sought to close down stories because it is difficult for the Government when certain stories arise. There is the famous example of a former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) who, when pressed on these matters by a certain Jeremy Paxman, refused to answer on many occasions. He was put in a difficult position, but that is what should happen. Ministers should be put in difficult positions so that they can come up with the policies required to bring about improvement. The Government argument seems to be that there are plenty of accountability mechanisms—the inspectorate and so on—so we do not need the type of accountability for which we are calling. If that were the case and if inspectorates, ombudsmen and other forms of accountability were the answer to improving public services, our public services would be the best in the world—but we know they are not. When Ministers go to their beds at night, they will admit that, in some cases, there is massive room for real improvement. One of the advantages of getting rid of Crown exemption is that it creates the sort of dynamic in the system that will spur people on to much greater efforts. When it comes to death through gross negligence, those efforts really should be stimulated further. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield put the rest of the arguments well and I look forward to hearing what the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) has to say. I am pleased to see the Home Secretary in his place; Ministers must listen to the weight and force of the arguments on both sides of the House. If Ministers and the Government try to resist us and do not give way tonight, the other place will take our remarks very seriously and this matter will be brought back before the House.