Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

moved Amendment No. 34: 34: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause— ““Offence by senior manager (1) A senior manager of an organisation is guilty of an offence if by his acts or omissions which amount to a gross breach of his duty he contributes to a breach under section 1. (2) For the purposes of this section, a person is a ““senior manager”” of an organisation if he plays a significant role in the making of decisions about how the activities of the organisation are managed or organised, and includes the chairman, managing director, chief executive, secretary or other director of the organisation. (3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on conviction on indictment to— (a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or (b) a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.”” The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group, with the exception of Amendment No. 92, which will be dealt with by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. As I have already indicated in discussion on the Bill, my interest is that of a former trade union official. I have consulted colleagues in my union and in the TUC. As I said earlier, the unions are generally in favour of the Bill, but believe that it should be tightened up to make sure that it is really effective. Concern is felt that the Bill does not address the role of individual directors. It is not organisations that kill people, but the actions of the people in those organisations. Directors and senior managers should be held to account for their actions. There is nothing in the Bill that would lead to directors who make the decisions that result in a death being held liable. That could mean that, while the Bill may make it easier to bring corporations to justice after a fatality, it will not lead to those who run the organisations taking preventive measures to ensure that such deaths do not occur in the first place. That will happen only when those who make the decisions that lead to workers or the public being killed are held responsible for their actions or their inaction. Unless there are individual sanctions against directors or senior managers, there is little chance of the Bill changing the health and safety behaviour of directors and improving the management of health and safety at work. It has always seemed strange to me that severe penalties can be imposed on directors for financial malpractice, but that there is no specific duty of care for the health and welfare of the workforce. There may be a case for making an addition to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to ensure that that happens. Amendment No. 35 establishes secondary liability, as recommended by the Joint Committee, for those who connive, conspire or collude in an act that results in death. It is believed that that would have a significant deterrent effect. I understand that the Government have previously declined to accept the recommendations of the Joint Committee, but I hope that they will be prepared to reconsider. Perhaps they will accept the principle behind the amendment even if they prefer a different form of wording; it is the principle involved which is important. What the amendments seek cannot not be obtained while Clause 16 exists. For that reason, we have given notice of our intention to oppose the Question that Clause 16 stand part of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 seem to be along similar lines, but seek to reverse the meaning of the clause rather than do away with it all together. Clearly, if our main amendment is to be accepted, something has to be done about Clause 16. It cannot stand as it is. As I said earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, will speak to Amendment No. 92. I beg to move.