Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

My Lords, I welcome the Bill not because I hunger for more offences to be created and more people to be prosecuted and punished—far from it—but in the hope that it will prevent avoidable deaths and hold those guilty of gross negligence to account. I thank the Minister for her very lucid opening remarks, which I found very helpful. My contribution will be directed to only one aspect: the exemption from the Bill of deaths in custody. Other noble Lords have already referred to this defect in the Bill, so I shall be brief. In its report on deaths in custody, published in 2004, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, made two recommendations relevant to the Bill. First, it recommended that, "““consideration be given to introducing an offence of causing or allowing the death of a person in State custody””." Secondly, it recommended that, "““an offence of corporate killing be made applicable to public bodies such as police forces, the prison service and health authorities, in order to provide adequate legal protection for the right to life against careless killing by public bodies, as required by Article 2””." The Government did not accept the first recommendation, but, on the second, said that they, "““recognised the importance of accountability where serious management failures lead to death and is committed to producing a draft Bill””." Unfortunately, as we now know, the Government decided not to accept the second recommendation either. In its scrutiny report on the Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded: "““We believe that there is no principled justification for excluding deaths in prisons or police custody from the ambit of the offence … We are particularly concerned that private companies running prisons or custody suites, which are arguably less accountable at present, would be exempt””." The Home Affairs Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee agreed. This is not a partisan view. John Denham, who chairs the Home Affairs Committee and who, on 4 December in another place, spoke to amendments to remove the exemption for deaths in custody, said that the two committees’ views represented the, "““considered positions of entire Committees taken unanimously across party rather than any individual point of view””.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/06; col. 106.]" The arguments for removing this exemption have been well made in Parliament, and by many outside Parliament including INQUEST, the Police Federation, the Prison Reform Trust, Liberty, and JUSTICE. The arguments for keeping the exemption have been much less convincing. First, according to the Minister, Gerry Sutcliffe, speaking in the other place on 4 December: "““The custodial environment deals with difficult people””.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/06; col. 103.]" He added that prisons ““are unique environments””. According to the Minister in the other place, the Government also argue: "““The instruments available—public inquiries and public scrutiny of the Prison Service through independent inspectorates and by recourse to the House through questions—mean that we can, and do, respond when there are problems””.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/06; col. 105.]" I shall deal briefly with these arguments. The first relates to public inquiries. When, in 1994, their son Christopher was put in a prison cell with a violent mentally ill man and murdered in the night, Paul and Audrey Edwards got nowhere with the Government and had to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to get a ruling that the Government had failed in their duty of care to protect Christopher. The family of Zahid Mubarek got nowhere with the Government and had to fight all the way to get a public inquiry. When it came, six years after the death, the finding was that Zahid’s death had been preventable. The family of Joseph Scholes got nowhere with the Government and is still fightingfor a public inquiry into how a very vulnerable16 year-old child could kill himself in a young offender institution when his suicidal tendencies were known to all those involved. The argument that public inquiries will suffice is not impressive. Coroners’ inquests are held in public, but here, too, there are gross inadequacies. Several years can pass between a death and the inquest into it. Coroners’ recommendations on the lessons learnt from deaths in custody are taken up only randomly by the body to whom the recommendation is made because there is no formal system for ensuring that they are taken up. INQUEST, for example, reminds us that an inquest held in 2001 into the death of a woman in Styal prison resulted in a coroner’s recommendation that a methadone programme be implemented. This did not happen. It was good of the Minister in the other place to put faith in our independent prisons inspectorate. Yet the evidence is clear that the recommendations of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons on deaths in custody are not taken up in a timely fashion so that further deaths can be prevented. In 2002, the Chief Inspector of Prisons conducted a full inspection of Styal prison and identified systemic failings, particularly in the treatment and care of women withdrawing from drugs and in the lack of detoxification facilities. Action was not taken for some time and, in the interim, there were several other deaths. This September, the Chief Inspector of Prisons reported on a follow-up visit to Pentonville prison. She noted: "““Last time, we had a particular concern about the support of prisoners in the early days of custody: especially as five out of six recent self-inflicted deaths had taken place within days of arrival””." The inspectors checked how many of their recommendations aimed at preventing deaths in Pentonville had been implemented. The recommendation that new prisoners should be properly supported and managed in a dedicated and appropriate first-night centre was not achieved. The recommendation that an effective, audible cell-call alarm system should be installed was not achieved. The recommendation for night staff to be aware of emergency procedures and to be trained and prepared to operate them was not achieved. The recommendation for improved detoxification was partially achieved. The recommendation that the overall management of safer custody should be improved was not achieved. I am not convinced; nor was Andrew Dismore, the chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in the other place, who said that, "““we have heard no logical argument ... other than that prisons are different””.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/06; col. 108.]" People in custody are often particularly vulnerable and are often sick. Many are unconvicted and may be acquitted. Current arrangements for holding the responsible authorities accountable are far from adequate. Members in the other place made it clear that they expect this House to deal with this matter. John Denham said that it was, "““inconceivable that the coalition of interests in another place that persuaded the Government to change their mind about the independent prisons inspectorate will not send the issue back for us to look at again””.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/06;col. 107.]" In the same debate, Dominic Grieve said that, "““there is a tide of opinion contrary to the Government’s current position””.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/06; col. 101.]" I am sure he is right, and I look forward to the further stages of the Bill.