Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

My Lords, I start by declaring my interest in the register as a practising solicitor. I, too, join the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, in paying tribute to the Minister. She has, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, been courteous, frank and open. I thank her for that and for her willingness to find a way through the problems that have arisen. I welcome her to the Dispatch Box in her ministerial role in the new Ministry. I hope that the Minister understands that this is a hugely significant debate for many of us. Matters of constitutional importance are at stake. The first point that I want to make is that the amendments passed by this House by a substantial majority earlier this year were serious, positive and constructive. As the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, put it, it showed the House at its best. Those amendments greatly enhanced the Bill and restored balance to it. They were entirely consonant with the primary purpose of this important legislation, and in no way conflicted with or undermined it. They did not emasculate, vitiate or weaken it. Indeed, the amendments unambiguously extended the remit of the Bill to protect some of the most vulnerable people in any country—those who are incarcerated, whom the state has deprived, legitimately, of their liberty. This is what the Minister described as the single issue, but we on all sides would stress that this single issue is a serious and profound one, because holding individuals in custody is a massive responsibilityfor any Government in any country in any era. Exemption from the full extent of that responsibility is unacceptable. In seeking to reject these amendments, Ministers are effectively refusing to concede that they and other agents of the state owe a full, total and transparent duty of care to those they hold in custody. They have never explained why. I would venture that they have not made the argument because there is none. There is certainly a case for arguing that, by exempting themselves in this way, the Government are running the risk of ending up in breach of Article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights. There was an interesting, if inconclusive debate on this at Report. Far more importantly, this is an argument about natural justice. Is it not now time for Ministers to accept and acknowledge that the existing systems of accountability for death in custody are regarded by many people as pretty useless? Reference has been made to a report in the Guardian last Friday, in which an inquest jury was described by Vikram Dodd and Eric Allison as having delivered a ““devastating verdict”” when it criticised the Prison Service for allowing a violent white prisoner to remain in a cell with an Asian man whom he later beat and stabbed to death. That report was only last Friday. The statistics are worrying. The families in that case and in the Mubarek and Scholes cases had to endure the most difficult processes in addition to the grief of losing a loved one. Can Ministers really be arguing that bereaved people in search of justice and answers should have no easier recourse than to take the Government to the Court of Appeal just to get an inquiry? The Bill should be even handed; there should be one rule for all. In an outstanding speech in another place, my colleague Dominic Grieve, the shadow Attorney-General, said that if this House were to prevail—and he were to take on that responsibility in government—he would accept that this was the right way forward. Of course the suggested compromise deserves our scrutiny and careful thought, but it is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. First, the inadequate function of the amendment itself just provides an order-making power to add deaths in custody to the public functions that the legislation will cover, but there is no guarantee that that power would ever be used. The Minister has virtually indicated that it would, but the Minister in another place stated unequivocally that there was no guarantee that the order would be used. He said: "““the development of … processes will lead us to consider whether to use the affirmative procedure””.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/5/07; col. 667.]" —that is, the affirmative procedure for bringing forward this order. To my mind, that renders this proposal, well intentioned as it may be, little more than a smokescreen. There is, of course, another reason to be clear and unambiguous in the Bill. I know that the Minister is in rude health, but she is a member of a Government in transition. I have no wish to use the phrase ““somewhat undead””, but we are now in-between Governments. We have an outgoing Prime Minister and an outgoing Home Secretary. Any oral commitment, however well intentioned and sincere, will not bind anyone with a new Administration that is mere weeks away. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has provided a comprehensive critique of the ombudsman and forum proposals. Following that, suffice it for me to say that those proposals look flimsy, insufficient and inappropriate in the light of his analysis. They areno substitute for a full and fair extension of the provisions of this legislation to protect a group of people, those held in custody, who are entirely and uniquely at the mercy and under the protection ofthe state and its agents. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, this is a glaring deficiency.That is why I urge my colleagues and the House wholeheartedly to support the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord.