Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

My Lords, I beg to move, as an amendment to Motion A, Motion A1, leave out from ““House”” to the end and insert ““do insist on its Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10A in lieu””. When this House debated these amendments on5 February, I argued then, as I do now, that my purpose was to rectify a glaring deficiency in what was otherwise a generally welcome Bill by including, "““a duty owed to anyone held in custody””." I emphasised that there was a stark difference between the rule of law and the Bill on the onehand and, on the other, the Government’s perverse reasoning as to why neither the rule of law nor their own Bill should be applicable to those with a duty of care to those held in custody. I must acknowledge how far the Minister and the Government have moved since then on this issue,in good faith, and I thank her personally for the courteous, frank and open way that she has discussed and explained her case for continuing to reject my amendment. She rests her case on the three concessions that she has described, which were debated at length in the other place. The first is the strengthening of the arrangements for the independent investigation of deaths in custody by putting the appointment of the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman on a statutory footing. I welcome that, but I remind the House that that measure has a long history that is nothing to do with this Bill. When Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons was reformed in 1981, three aspects of imprisonment were under consideration for inclusion in that role. In the event, inspection of the efficiency and propriety of the treatment and conditions of those in custody was put on a statutory footing but not the inspection of grievances. It was not until 1994 that the first Prisons Ombudsman was appointed to do that. Since then, successive holders of the office have fought, unsuccessfully, to be put on a statutory footing similar to that of the Chief Inspector of Prisons. In addition, the Joint Committee on Human Rights made a recommendation to that effect in 2003. I acknowledge that the investigation of all deaths in prisons, young offender institutions and immigration detention centres has been added to his remit since then, but the investigation of grievances remains his principal task, requiring a statutory footing. The second concession is to review and strengthen the role of the forum on deaths in custody, as has been fully described by the Minister. The forum’s current remit is to identify and draw ministerial attention to good practice and issues relating to changes and improvements to safety in custody that require further attention. When discussing this House’s amendments in the other place, the Minister, Mr Gerry Sutcliffe, to whom I also pay tribute for his movement on these amendments, announced that the forum would report on its review within six months. I welcome that in the context of safety in custody but, important though that is in its own right, it is not the principal subject of this Bill. Thirdly, the Government propose to give the Secretary of State the power to amend the Bill by affirmative resolution to increase the categories of duty of care. Mr Sutcliffe said in another place: "““We have accepted the principle that the new offence may extend to custody at some time in the future””." He also said: "““Although the power that we are proposing does not bring custody into the Bill, it leaves the door open to doing so without primary legislation””." Immediately, that movement was recognised byMr Chris Mullin, who asked: "““Will the Minister give us some idea of the timetable he has in mind? When will that day dawn?””—[Official Report, Commons, 16/5/07; cols. 667-69.]" I submit that that is and remains the crucial question. In accepting the principle underlying the new offence—namely, that everyone is equal before and entitled to equal protection under the law—the Government are accepting that its purpose and content apply to failures of management in the duty of care when it is owed by government departments and other Crown bodies. I cannot for the life of me see why, having accepted that in the context of a Bill that is subject to carryover procedures, they cannot go further and draw up a clear timetable, as they have done for the review of the forum. Since 5 February, I and, I suspect, many other noble Lords have been put under considerable pressure by relatives and other pressure groups representing those who have died as a result of corporate negligence outside custody. This pressure includes the suggestion that, by representing the case of relatives who have died as a result of corporate negligence inside custody, we are putting the Bill at risk. I am sure that none of those who voted for these amendments wishes the Bill to be killed; we wish only that the Bill that is passed is better than the onethat was originally brought before this House.Mr Dominic Grieve urged Members in the other place, "““to look to their consciences on this matter, because the House has an opportunity to do some good””.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/5/07; col. 674.]" Noble Lords will remember that, when we discussed these amendments on 5 February, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and others made the point that we are not suggesting that every death in custody should automatically be followed by a charge under this Bill; we are talking only about those that involve gross breaches of management and the duty of care. Since that date, there have been at least two further cases of avoidable and gross breaches of management: the murder of Shahid Aziz in Leeds prison, in depressingly similar circumstances to the murder of Zahid Mubarek in Feltham, and the suicide of Michael Bailey in Rye Hill, which attracted scathing remarks from the coroner about management failure. The depressing continuance of avoidable deaths in circumstances for which the Government are responsible is surely a very strong reason for bringing the now accepted principles behind the Bill into effect as soon as possible. I was therefore very concerned to read a report in the Observer on29 April, referring to our vote on 5 February, which stated: "““The defeat has prompted fury at the Home Office, which believes the peers’ plan would be unworkable, as it would place an impossible burden on the Prison Service to prevent deaths in custody””." That fury implies that proper management is not currently being carried out by the Prison Service regarding the duty of care that it owes to all those in its custody. If that is true, I am sure that it will be of considerable concern to the Minister. As I said on 5 February, these amendments are not about examining government policy or the allocation of resources; they are, in line with the remainder of the Bill, about good management. Improved management supervision was one of the recommendations that I made to the Government in1999 in a thematic review of the prevention of suicide in prisons, Suicide is Everyone’s Concern, conducted at the request of the then Minister, Joyce Quin—now the noble Baroness, Lady Quin—and accepted by the then Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw. Good management does not depend on resources but, rather, on the whole ethos, structure and direction of management. That is what the Bill and the vote of this House are all about. Moved, as an amendment to Motion A, Motion A1, leave out from ““House”” to the end and insert ““do insist on its Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10A in lieu””.—(Lord Ramsbotham.)