Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

moved Amendment No. 45: 45: Clause 4 , page 4, line 32, at end insert— ““(5) This section shall not apply where the relevant duty of care in respect of which the Ministry of Defence was in breach was a duty to provide adequate equipment or training, or was a failure to provide for such reinforcements as might reasonably have been expected.”” The noble Lord said: I recognise the force of the arguments advanced in favour of a blanket exemption for military combat operations. I tabled the amendment to seek a response from the Government with regard to particular circumstances in whichthe Ministry of Defence had failed in its duty to provide adequate equipment or training. Under the amendment, no case could be brought against the Ministry of Defence for the way in which its forces acted in active combat, in anti-terrorism operations or in incidents of public disorder when under attack. But were the MoD to mismanage the provision of training and adequate equipment to such a degree that it amounted to a gross breach of its duty of care to provide adequate equipment or training, this amendment would ensure that proceedings could be brought against it. Were it to be accepted by the Government, such an amendment would send a very important signal to our service men and women about how much we value them and how much we are prepared to do to ensure that they have the right amount and quality of equipment and training. I beg to move.