Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

I speak to my own amendment in the group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the very good case that he has made on behalf of Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. I referred to this matter at Second Reading, after I had met a number of representatives of the TUC and my own union. I said then that there may be a case for the inclusion of a clause dealing with public interest, perhaps empowering the court to make public the details of the offence: the sentence imposed and—in my view this is very important—the steps to be taken to prevent a recurrence. In that respect, the amendment differs from that of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because we have spelt that out in the text. Not only would the offence and the sentence imposed be publicised, but also, "““(c) any measures to be taken by the organisation to reduce the likelihood of its committing further offences; and""(d) any other matter relating to the offence or sentence which the court considers appropriate””." The amendment continues: "““An organisation that fails to comply with an order under this section is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to a fine””." We have spelt out not just that we want naming and shaming, but also steps to be taken by which the public can be assured that the offence is unlikely to be repeated because steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence. We have a further amendment later which involves the court making it quite clear that an individual should be nominated to be in charge of the improvement to be undertaken, and that that should be monitored. In other words, we want to make it quite clear that if someone has been killed in the circumstances referred to in the Bill, there will be monitoring to ensure that that can never happen again. That is dealt with in Amendment No. 43. I support all that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said.