Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

moved Amendment No. 95: 95: Clause 22 , page 14, line 8, at end insert— ““( ) in any place outside of the United Kingdom, where an inquest or fatal accident inquiry held in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland has brought a verdict of ““unlawful killing”” and the death was caused by circumstances identifiable under section 1(1) of this Act.”” The noble Lord said: This amendment would extend the jurisdiction of the offence to circumstances where an inquest in this country had resulted in a verdict of unlawful killing but the event itself happened abroad. Following such a verdict, it would be possible to bring an action against a body under the Bill. Perhaps I may just set out how the jurisdiction currently works under the Bill. Currently, any company based in any country can be prosecuted under the Bill so long as the harm that caused the death took place in the United Kingdom. If the management failure took place outside the UK but the harm took place inside the UK, the company could be prosecuted. However, the offence will not apply either if the management failure took place within the United Kingdom but the harm took place outside the UK or if the management failure took place outside the UK, even if carried out by a British-based company, and the harm took place outside the UK. I have in mind the recent case at the Louis Corcyra Beach Hotel, where two children tragically died of carbon monoxide poisoning while on a Thomson’s holiday package in Corfu last October. I understand that that case is still under investigation by the Greek authorities, but were it to be proved that there had been unlawful killing, there would be no opportunity under the Bill to bring a charge of corporate manslaughter against the holiday company, even if the deaths were the result of gross management failure in this country. What is more, the Bill’s current application is inconsistent with the application to individuals. As the Minister in another place pointed out: "““There is … extraterritorial jurisdiction for some sex offences … and for homicides””," including manslaughter, "““committed by British subjects””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 31/10/06; col. 218.]" When an individual has committed a crime abroad, he may be indicted in this country. There seems no reason why the corporate manslaughter offence—a sister offence to individual manslaughter, in many respects—should not apply where a British company acts with such negligence that preventable death occurs. The Minister went so far as to say in the other place that he had a good deal of sympathy with the aims of amendments that would extend the jurisdiction, although so far I have seen no evidence in Committee that the Government have produced anything since then, despite having acknowledged that there could be some improvement in this regard. He cited the difficulty of extended jurisdiction as a reason for restricting the offence, referring also to the difficulty of gathering evidence. Yet British companies can be prosecuted for corruption offences abroad under Section 109 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. There are other instances, too. The Home Affairs and Work and Pensions Select Committee noted, at paragraph 254 of its report, that the Attorney-General recently spoke proudly of having secured the conviction, under international war crimes law, of a non-British citizen for torture committed in Afghanistan. Clearly, therefore, it is not impossible to gather evidence. Both that report and the Centre for Corporate Accountability have offered a solution to this problem. My amendment might not cover it entirely, but it is worth considering whether the offence could be extended so that, in the case of deaths occurring in the European Union where the management failure occurred in England or Wales, the body responsible for the management failure could be liable for prosecution. My noble friend Lord James of Blackheath has suggested that I might consider a slight amendment to the penultimate line of Amendment No. 95, which says, "““and the death was caused by circumstances””," so that it read, ““and the death may have been caused by circumstances””. I have a lot of time for that suggestion. Whatever we decide, we must try to get this right so that we can prosecute the right organisations in circumstances in which their conduct justifies it. I beg to move.