Schedule of government departments
or other bodies
63. In addition to the Crown bodies that are already
covered by the draft Bill by virtue of being corporations, the
Schedule to the draft Bill sets out a list of government departments
and other bodies to which the offence will also extend. The Government
has stated that:
"Further work is required to develop this
list, particularly to consider the position of executive agencies
and other bodies that come under the ambit of Departments".[68]
64. A number of witnesses thought that the Schedule
was too limited in scope. The then Lord Chief Justice Woolf, for
example, described it as "remarkably short".[69]
Witnesses suggested adding bodies to the Schedule including Parliament,[70]
the National Assembly for Wales,[71]
the Crown Estates,[72]
the Food Standards Agency[73]
and the Health and Safety Executive.[74]
The manufacturers' organisation, EEF, criticised the principle
of providing an exhaustive list by means of a Schedule. It argued
that a list should be for "indicative purposes only and not
exhaustive, as there are regular reorganisations of such bodies
and any exhaustive list would quickly become out of date".[75]
65. We welcome the certainty provided by an exhaustive
list of government departments and other bodies and believe that
the alternative, providing a statutory definition, could prove
very difficult if not impossible to achieve. We agree with the
Home Office that the draft Schedule needs "further work"
to ensure that a number of other bodies, including a range of
executive agencies, are included. It should also be reviewed by
the Home Office on an ongoing basis, and formally every six months
to ensure it is up to date. We think it might also be useful to
extend clause 7 to ensure that bodies which are successors to
bodies included in the Schedule are treated as "organisations"
to which the offence applies.
66. We also point out that if the Government were
to decide to amend the definition of "organisation"
to include unincorporated bodies there might be no need to include
a Schedule listing Government departments and other bodies as,
depending on the way such a wider definition was worded, such
bodies might already fall within the scope of the offence.
67. The draft Bill proposes to delegate to the Home
Secretary the power to amend the Schedule by secondary legislation.[76]
This power would be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
It would accordingly be possible for the Home Secretary to take
bodies into and out of the scope of the offence without an explicit
decision by Parliament to approve such changes, subject only to
the possibility that Parliament could annul any order made by
him. This power has been criticised by some witnesses as excessive.[77]
An alternative would be for the power to be subject to the affirmative
procedure, under which Parliament would have to make an active
decision to agree to an amendment to the Schedule proposed by
the Secretary of State. We prefer this option. We recommend
that the Home Secretary's delegated power to amend the Schedule
should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure rather
than the negative resolution procedure.
Police forces
68. The proposed offence of corporate manslaughter
will apply to police authorities, as they are incorporated
bodies, but since police forces are not incorporated and
are not listed in the Schedule, they would not be covered. However,
in the introduction to the draft Bill, the Government stated:
"We do not consider that, in principle,
police forces should be outside the scope of the offence and our
intention is that legislation should in due course extend to them.
We are currently considering how best to achieve this, given their
particular legal status".[78]
69. The Association of Chief Police Officers agreed
with the Government that the police, like the Crown, should not
be exempt from prosecution where they "are in no different
position to other employers and organisations".[79]
We discuss the exemption for police operational activities in
Chapter 10.
70. In oral evidence to the Sub-committees, the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary for State at the Home Office, Fiona Mactaggart
MP, confirmed that the Government would ensure police forces were
included when the Bill was published but that the mechanism by
which this would be done had not yet been finalised.[80]
71. It is appropriate that police forces as well
as police authorities should be subject to the proposed new offence.
We welcome the Government's assurances that the Bill when introduced
will contain such provision.
53 Clause 5 Back
54
Law Commission, Legislating the Criminal code: Involuntary Manslaughter:
Item 11 of the Sixth Programme of Law Reform: Criminal Law: Report
No 237, HC (1995-96), para 8.55 Back
55
Home Office, Reforming the Law on Involuntary Manslaughter: The
Government's Proposals, May 2000, para 3.5.1 Back
56
Home Office, Corporate Manslaughter: The Government's Draft Bill
for Reform, Cm 6497, March 2005, para 41 Back
57
See for example Volume II, Ev 113 and 119, and Volume III, Q 71
[Mr Donnellan]. Back
58
Volume III, Q 494 Back
59
See, for example, Volume III, Q 277 [Mr Day] and Volume II, Ev
43 and 49. Back
60
For example, Volume II, Ev 6, 24, 84, 103, and 133. Back
61
Volume II, Ev 24 Back
62
See, for example, Volume III, Q 71 [Mr Donnellan]. Back
63
Volume III, Q 31 Back
64
Volume III, Q 571 and Q 573 (Fiona Mactaggart MP) Back
65
Criminal Code, Chapter C-46, Section 2 Back
66
Home Office, Corporate Manslaughter: The Government's Draft Bill
for Reform, Cm 6497, March 2005, para 43 Back
67
Volume III, Q 535 [Mr Rees] Back
68
Draft Corporate Manslaughter Bill, para 39 Back
69
Volume II, Ev 109 Back
70
Volume II, Ev 8 and 24 Back
71
Volume II, Ev 31 Back
72
Volume II, Ev 59 Back
73
Volume II, Ev 79 Back
74
Volume II, Ev 79 Back
75
Volume II, Ev 230 Back
76
Clause 1(3) Back
77
Volume II, Ev 32 and 86 Back
78
Draft Corporate Manslaughter Bill, para 44 Back
79
Volume II, Ev 323 Back
80
Volume III, Q 574 Back
