Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

moved Amendment No. 72: 72: Clause 7 , page 6, line 42, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert— ““(1) Subsection (2) below shall apply where— (a) it is established that a local authority or other public authority owed a relevant duty of care to a person, (b) the duty of care does not fall within section 2(1)(a) or (b) and is owed in respect of the exercise by it of functions conferred by or under— (i) the Children Act 1989 (c. 41), (ii) Part 2 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 36), or (iii) the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995(S.I. 1995/775 (N.I. 2)), so far as relating to the protection of children from harm, and (c) it falls to the jury to decide whether there was a gross breach of the duty of care. (2) When determining whether there was a gross breach of the duty of care, the jury must consider any of following factors which are shown to have affected the exercise by the organisation of its functions— (a) other relevant duties to which the organisation was subject, including statutory duties and duties of care under the law of negligence, (b) resource constraints, and (c) public interest considerations.”” The noble Lord said: In moving AmendmentNo. 72, I should like to speak also to AmendmentNo. 76. Amendment No. 72 would remove the blanket exemption for local authorities and other public authorities whose gross negligence in the care of children leads to a child’s death. The intention of the amendment is to replace the exemption with a requirement for a jury to consider the conflicting considerations which an organisation has to consider if it is under resource constraints. The reason that these amendments are so important is because we are addressing real concerns that are felt strongly by the public, based as they are on some distressing events. I feel that we are speaking up for the public here, as we must. Specifically, the immunity for child protection afforded in Clause 7 covers deaths arising from gross negligence in the performance of functions to protect children from harm. In particular, the case of Victoria Climbié, which was mentioned at Second Reading, illustrates the kind of situation in which a prosecution would be appropriate, but which would be prevented by Clause 7 as drafted. In the year 2000, Victoria Climbié was tortured to death by her great aunt. When Victoria died, she had 128 separate injuries on her body, which included cigarette burns, scars where she had been hit with a bike chain and hammer blows to her toes. She was also forced to sleep in a bin-liner in the bath at the home in Tottenham. Victoria was seen by dozens of social workers, nurses, doctors and police officers before she died, but all failed to spot and stop the abuse as she was slowly tortured to death. The public inquiry into the case headed by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, concluded that the failings by the agencies involved were a disgrace. As I read the results at the time, one social worker had the blame very much apportioned to her, but five senior managers either kept their jobs, were promoted or went on to other positions. Our amendment acknowledges that those charged with responsibility for the care of children are often faced with very difficult situations, so it is not intended to prosecute individuals who, with the benefit of hindsight, may have reached the wrong conclusion with the result that a child dies. It would, however, make it possible for a jury to convict an organisation where it has been shown that its conduct has fallen far below what could reasonably be expected in the particular context. Making that determination will require the jury to take account of the specific circumstances, issues and dilemmas faced by the organisation. There are many other examples. We have a grave duty to respond to tremendous public dismay, distress and disbelief that such events as I have described and others could occur in our society. Referring to that particular incident, although there are many others, I beg to move.