Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

rose to move, as an amendment to Motion A, Motion A1, leave out from ““House”” to the end and insert ““do insist on its Amendments 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 10K to 10N in lieu and do propose the following amendments in lieu of Commons Amendments 10K to 10N— 10P: Page 13, line 19, at beginning insert ““Subject to subsection (1A),”” 10Q: Page 13, line 20, at end insert- ““(1A) The following provisions of this Act come into force on 1 January 2009- (a) section 2(1)(d); (b) sections 3(2), 3(3) and 5(3) so far as they relate to section 2(1)(d).”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am conscious that this is the fifth time that I have tabled an amendment that is concerned with trying to ensure that custody, and those held in custody, are subject to the same purposes of the Bill as victims of gross management failure, for which private companies are to be held responsible. I am conscious, too, that many noble Lords feel that the Government have gone as far as they can in giving way on the principle, and their other concessions over investigation and prevention of deaths in custody. These are enormously welcome in themselves, given the current situation in our prisons. However, they are not strictly relevant to the purpose of the Bill. Pressing for a date could therefore be felt to be somewhat ungracious, but we owe a duty to the victims, whose cause the Government so support. That duty requires us to press, as far as we can, for this one last phase. I am conscious that time is running out; only two days before the rolling-out procedure are available to the Government. Once again, I am enormously grateful for the willingness of the Ministry of Justice, mentioned already by the Leader of the House. I had a very frank and friendly meeting last night with the Secretary of State, Jack Straw. It showed a new, fresh approach to these matters since the Ministry of Justice took them over. This is entirely to be welcomed, given the complexity, relevance and urgency of these issues. He explained to me that he had only been in his current post for two weeks and was not responsible for the earlier passage of the Bill. I then reminded him that we had had discussions about Prison Service management, particularly in the context of suicides, when he was Home Secretary. I explained that in now formally proposing a date some time ahead, I was allowing time for what the Minister, Maria Eagle, had said in the other place were significant changes to the management of the duty of care that would be required. Personally, and from experience, I do not believe that any changes to managerial responsibilities are required, only to the way in which those responsibilities are exercised. As I have said previously, it is inexcusable that there should be deficiencies in the duty of care that those currently responsible for running our prisons owe to those committed to their care by the courts. Those responsibilities apply whatever the problems imposed by overcrowding or lack of resources. They are incumbent on all managers at all times wherever they are. I also repeated to the Secretary of State that the last thing that any of those of us who voted against my amendments wanted was to kill the Bill, which was why I was now suggesting a staged rather than a simultaneous implementation of the Bill to the private sector and custody to satisfy all parties. From these Benches it is easy for me to say that in making one last effort to obtain acceptance of the need for a more definite commitment than the word ““may”” to the application of the Bill to the managers of those held in custody, I am not playing party politics. I say that because I was intrigued to read in the latest debate in the other place that, with the exception of the Minister, not a single Member spoke against the amendment. Let me quote Mr Andrew Dismore, chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in particular. He said that if the Prison Service is against the introduction of the Bill, it is the wrong position for them to adopt. He continued: "““A well run Prison Service has nothing to fear. The Bill is not about prosecuting people, but about acting as a deterrent to make sure that things are run properly in the first place … It is not about individual liability but management liability ””.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/07; col. 1569.]" He went on to say that he did not find the Government’s arguments persuasive and that: "““The Government may win the vote, but I do not think that they have won the debate””.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/07; col. 1570.]" Mr David Winnick asked the Minister whether she was, "““aware that some Labour MPs, including me, are very unhappy … that the Government will give no indication whatever of a time when the Prison Service will be included””.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/07; col. 1562.]" The Minister did not answer the direct question of the Shadow Attorney-General, Mr Dominic Grieve, as to whether the problem about agreeing a finite date for implementation lay with the Prison Service, the police, some other organisation or the bureaucrats in the departments. I found that interesting because in an earlier debate in the other place, Mr John Denham said that a date would help the Prison Service because it would have a clear timetable for putting in order whatever was needed to be put in order. When we debated this issue last week, because of time I deliberately did not mention the police, although I realise that their views must have influenced the new Home Secretary in her reported reaction to the Bill. Fortunately, my noble friend Lord Dear is well aware of what these are and I will leave him to explain them to the House. I suspect that like many Members of the House I have been inundated with messages from those who are understandably very concerned about the outcome of our debate on this welcome and important Bill. I have made it clear to all of them that in pursuing my amendments as far as I am constitutionally allowed, I am doing so in the interests of victims of gross management failure for which the Government are ultimately responsible, trying to ensure that they are not treated any differently from the victims of a similar failure of private sector management. The Government appear to have something of a blind spot over disciplining those guilty of management failure while responsible for people held in the custody of the state. Frankly, I do not believe that to be an honourable position for any Government of any civilised nation to maintain. Therefore, one final time, I beg to move. Moved, as an amendment to Motion A, Motion A1, leave out from ““House”” to the end and insert ““do insist on its Amendments 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 10K to 10N in lieu and do propose Amendments 10P and 10Q in lieu thereof.—(Lord Ramsbotham.)