Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

As I understand it, unincorporated bodies are largely covered at present because individuals can be prosecuted. Perhaps I may expand on our thinking on this. As I argued earlier, the special position of public bodies that derive powers from, and function on behalf of, the state means that they are already subject to a strong public framework of standards and accountabilities. The noble and learned Lord will be more aware of that than I am, given his background. That framework includes, for example, national inspectorates that examine operational practices on a thematic and institutional basis, ministerial accountability to Parliament for the standards to which these organisations operate and how they perform independent investigations into particular incidents, and other public inquiries examining both the incident in question and the wider issues, as well as specific remedies such as judicial review and the Human Rights Act. We can argue that they are all important forms of accountability to Parliament and, through Parliament, to the public. It is also important to recognise that the offence is not about the liability of particular individuals acting unlawfully. In those cases, the criminal law will continue to apply with full effect. The offence is uniquely concerned with the overall management by an organisation of its activities. For private companies, other than as regards internal accountability to those who manage or own the company, that is rightly a matter for regulatory and criminal offences. Moreover, there is a wider dimension for public authorities and, in particular, Crown bodies, involving a strong measure of accountability, as I have argued. Under the offence, it must be set out against that wider dimension where accountability for the management of a public body should be a concern for the criminal law. At present, that is achieved in a number of ways in the draft Bill. They include basing the offence on the common-law duty of care, setting out a number of activities to which a duty must relate, and explicit exemptions covering public policy decisions, exclusively public functions and the Armed Forces. That ensures that the offence covers organisations and responsibilities to ensure safe working practices and safe premises for their employees, and it is widened to other circumstances in which a duty to safeguard members of the public is owed, but it does not apply an offence to matters that are intrinsically ones of government. Finally on that point, I can confirm that Crown departments are subject to the offence not only in respect of employer and occupier responsibilities but wherever they owe a relevant duty in Clause 2. I hope that that helps the noble and learned Lord.