Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as chairman of Stowe School and a trustee of Stowe House Preservation Trust.It is a very well known and beautiful building,the maintenance of which carries enormous responsibilities similar to those carried by the Government in relation to the public estate. The National Trust has similar responsibilities; many of its members must be present today. I broadly support the Bill. I have a number of questions and one big anxiety, which I have already indicated to the Minister: why do the Government still keep themselves very significantly above the law in this area? They are changing the law in a sensible way, which will concentrate minds, increase responsibility and which will balance the funds available to an organisation. The balance of what can reasonably be expected to be done is rightly partof the definition. But I cannot at the moment understand why the Government should make exemptions; I will say a word about that in a moment. It is worth looking at the level of the problem which this Bill seeks to deal with, because it ought not to be exaggerated. Every death diminishes us, and we are talking about 250 to 350 deaths a year. About one-third of those deaths give rise to health and safety prosecutions, and a high proportion—between 80 and 90 per cent—of those prosecutions lead to convictions. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 on the whole works very well and constructively. One of the areas in which it does not meet what the public rightly require is where offences have been committed which one feels ought to give rise toa conviction for something like corporate manslaughter, but where the complexity of the matter causes what seem very proper prosecutions to fail. The prime example—and I was Attorney-General at the time—is the ““Herald of Free Enterprise””. Sir Barry Sheen commented on the culture of sloppiness which led to that unhappy vessel going to sea with the bow doors open in what was a terrible chapter of negligence. The defaults in the law were clearly pointed out, which it is now sought to correct. The Government are quite right to divorce corporate manslaughter from individual liability. One has to be extremely careful about trying to pointthe finger at individuals who are taking huge responsibilities and who might very well say that the game is not worth the candle: ““I’ll go and do something else in my life rather than take responsibility””. I very much commend the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, who put her finger on a number of points which very much chime with the public and with me. The Minister argued that the Government were taking a great step forward on Crown immunity. I commend those steps, but the noble Baroness also recognises, because she is far too acute not to, that they still reserve a great deal of immunity to themselves. I wonder whether that is necessary. We should explore that maturely in Committee. I do not think that there is reason to be too fussed, but there is reason to be concerned if it is not part of the law for government bodies including the police, the Armed Forces and those with responsibilities for child protection and young offenders. Those are all, as the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, rightly said, very difficult and demanding jobs whose difficulty and demands will certainly be taken most carefully into account in deciding whether there is anything like the kind of gross negligence which gives rise to corporate manslaughter. However, why should such bodies be completely immune? Is not the fact that you can be held ultimately responsible for manslaughter a strength as well as a weakness? It gives those who have the difficult job of running prisons, for example, the right to say to the Government, ““You must give us enough money to do this difficult job properly””—just as one would expect a corporation which is managing its affairs and providing a very valuable service to do its job. This is not a public/private battle. It does not matter whether you are treated by the health service or in a private hospital, the organisation is performing an enormously important function. The standards are the same, and sufficient money must be made available to do a proper job in either case. We must look again very carefully at Crown immunity and be governed by the overwhelming constitutional position that nobody should be above the law. The law can be amended and made proportionate, but it applies to everybody including Government. That should be our watchword. The first point I wish to make is quite big but has not been mentioned so far. At the moment, the standard for corporate manslaughter falls far below what can be reasonably expected of an organisation in the circumstances. I shall be corrected by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate when he makes his winding-up speech, if I have it wrong, but my recollection is that a very important ingredient of manslaughter is not only that the conduct should fall far below reasonable standards but that it should have been obvious that conduct of that nature was likely to lead to death. That ought to be part of the definition. If it is, I am happy to know that; but if it is not, we should reflect further and perhaps include it. I say just one word about requiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. As the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, rightly said, that will prevent a private prosecution unless the Director of Public Prosecutions—which effectively means the Crown Prosecution Service—is willing to take it on. I am inclined to think that that is a wise restriction. This is not an area for private prosecutions. There is plenty of opportunity to bring pressure on the authorities, including the Crown Prosecution Service, to bring a case where the facts warrant it, but one does not want private prosecutions brought, often by people who have suffered terrible tragedies and who may not find it easy to approach the matter with a balanced view. I give the Bill broad support, but there are some very important areas that we need to consider in Committee. I thoroughly endorse what my noble friends said when they asked for reasonable and proper time in Committee.