Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Baroness, who has recorded a number of salient points to which it is incumbent on my noble friend to reply. Nearly 20 years ago, the ““Herald of Free Enterprise”” foundered just outside Zeebrugge, Belgium, and 187 people died. Many more were grievously injured. At that time, I was the European Commissioner for transport, the environment and nuclear safety, and I went to Zeebrugge. Without doubt, it was the most shattering experience that I have ever endured. I met the then Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who went to the local hospital to comfort survivors. I went to see those who were not hospitalised and were able to walk. I will never forget their tears, the silences and the hysterical laughter. It was an experience which I will carry to my grave. All this, and so much more, was wholly avoidable. None of it should have happened. As Mr Justice Sheen said, which we have been reminded of today, a culture of sloppiness pervaded the whole issue. Yet no one was successfully prosecuted, which has been the case whenever larger companies have been involved. I suppose it is due to their devolution of functions, the structures of management and the complex nature of such organisations, but it is not an excuse. A somewhat similar picture has evolved concerning other tragedies: for example, King’s Cross, which few of us will ever forget; the ““Marchioness””, which occurred not far from here; the railway disasters; and the manslaughters, which took place in many other cases. As a result, 212 workers were killed and many more were seriously injured. The new remedy of corporate killing was suggested in 1996 by the Law Commission. About 10 years later, we are faced with the present Bill. On 4 December, the Bill had its Third Reading in the House of Commons. Of course, it contains some rational amendments. I welcome the Bill as a considerable improvement on the present position, but, like so many others, I believe that it is capable of being improved. In my respectful submission, there are certain features which still need to be addressed. Of course, a company cannot be sent to prison. However, it has been suggested that other penalties might be imposed; for example, corporate probation. The Government should give their view on that. Why should not the directors concerned face disqualification? Is it not right that companies found guilty of corporate manslaughter should be named and shamed? That does not always happen, but it should. It is right therefore that Ministers should answer these and other highly germane questions. Another issue which needs to be confronted is that of individual directors who are shown to be involved in the death of people. Under the Bill, corporations may be found guilty after the death of a person, but what sanctions will be invoked against those individuals who are responsible for governing the actions or inactions of such corporations? The Joint Select Committee recommended secondary liability for those who connive, conspire or collude in an act which results in death. Yet the Government have declined to accept that advice. Why on Earth they should do so is beyond me. I cannot understand it. No doubt, my noble friend will enlighten the House. Very shortly, Professor Macrory will produce his report. How, if at all, do the Government propose to deal with the recommendations which will ensue? My noble friend Lord Parekh said something of enormous importance. This Bill is about the culture of responsibility. In no way should it be viewed as punitive. The parliamentary scrutiny committee said: "““We believe that in principle it should be possible to prosecute a company for corporate manslaughter when the grossly negligent management failure has occurred in England or Wales irrespective of where a death occurred. If this was not the case, ""there would be no incentive for such companies to improve or maintain acceptable standards of health and safety in the activities they conduct abroad””." I wholly applaud that sentiment, but, equally, it should apply in this country and not only abroad. What has been said in the debate is most important as far as the Bill is concerned.