Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

moved Amendment No. 16: 16: Clause 1, page 2, line 11, at end insert— ““( ) An organisation that is guilty of corporate manslaughter or corporate homicide is liable on conviction on indictment to— (a) make the conviction known by a statement in open court in terms approved by the court, and (b) give an undertaking to the court as to the manner of its publication.”” The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, which are grouped with Amendment No. 43 in the name of the noble Baroness, are to do with additional penalties. Perhaps one might conveniently term these amendments ““naming and shaming””, but they seek to give a power to the courts to require a convicted organisation to publicise notice of its conviction. Amendment No. 16 is drawn up along the same lines as, for example, newspapers are required to comply with in regard to publishing apologies. It would insert into the clause that an organisation that is guilty of the offence is, "““liable on conviction on indictment to … make the conviction known by a statement in open court in terms approved by the court, and … give an undertaking to the court as to the manner of its publication””." So not only does the conviction have to be publicised but it has to be publicised to an extent that meets with the approval of the court according to the significance of the offence. Amendment No. 17 would ensure that, where a company was convicted of corporate manslaughter, the conviction would be published immediately at Companies House. The amendment would insert at the end of line 13 on page 2 of the Bill: "““Any penalty … shall be notified by the court to the Registrar of Companies and the Registrar of Companies in Scotland." To summarise, at the moment, the only punishment possible for a company is an unlimited financial penalty. The amendments would provide further penalties by allowing the courts to order a company to advertise its conviction, and it is likely that that would be issued alongside a financial penalty. I believe that the threat to a company’s reputation would provide a further incentive to improve health and safety at all levels. The financial penalties in the Bill are supposedly limitless. Again, I should very much welcome the Minister giving us an idea of what the Government have in mind. I was interested to read in the report of the Home Affairs Committee and Work and Pensions Committee on the draft Bill the evidence of the Association of British Insurers: "““We do not anticipate that this proposed new offence would have a substantial impact on the price of relevant insurance products, such as employers’ liability insurance, as the financial impact is likely to be minimal across the economy””." That is one view. I believe that it would be worth pressing the Minister on whether he anticipates that the financial penalties could be large enough to bankrupt a business. Of course, one is dealing with different sizes of business. I am not sure whether any guidelines will be issued on the amount of the fine for culpable death where someone is clearly guilty of a gross breach. We have been debating the various terminologies. Where one or more people are killed, it would be helpful to know exactly what the Government have in mind about the level of the fine. Will guidelines be worked out? Will it be, say, a proportion of a company’s turnover? The Financial Services Authority, for example, gives out very substantial fines, which can quite often rock back a company because of their sheer size. Those are the two amendments to which I am speaking. I put them into context by saying that I have been paying attention to what the Minister’s colleague, Gerry Sutcliffe, said in the other place. He stated: "““I put it on the record now that we are considering corporate probation and naming and shaming, in respect of the filing of accounts at Companies House. We are also considering the use of annual reports, and the naming of directors in reparatory orders, to make sure that work is carried out””.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/06; cols. 74-75.]" The noble Baroness is about to speak to Amendment No. 43 which also deals with public information. The noble Baroness and I are putting into amendments just a few ideas from the menu that Gerry Sutcliffe put forward in the other place. I beg to move.