Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

---

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairmen: Mr. Joe Benton, †Mr. Roger Gale

† Brokenshire, James (Hornchurch) (Con)

† Campbell, Mr. Alan (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Davey, Mr. Edward (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)

† Duddridge, James (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con)

† Fabricant, Michael (Lichfield) (Con)

† Flello, Mr. Robert (Stoke-on-Trent, South) (Lab)

† Grieve, Mr. Dominic (Beaconsfield) (Con)

† Gwynne, Andrew (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)

† Lloyd, Tony (Manchester, Central) (Lab)

† McGovern, Mr. Jim (Dundee, West) (Lab)

† McKechin, Ann (Glasgow, North) (Lab)

† Snelgrove, Anne (South Swindon) (Lab)

† Stewart, Ian (Eccles) (Lab)

† Sutcliffe, Mr. Gerry (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)

Swinson, Jo (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)

† Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton, South) (Lab)

Wright, Jeremy (Rugby and Kenilworth) (Con)

Emily Commander, Sarah Hartwell-Naguib, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Column number: 151

Standing Committee B

Thursday 26 October 2006

(Afternoon)

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

Clause 7

Emergency services

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 119, in page 5, line 9, leave out

‘to which this section applies’

and insert ‘within subsection (2)’.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

2 pm

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 120 to 122.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): I think that the last word I used before we adjourned was “commercial”. That seems to stick in my mind. I was saying that commercial organisations would be facing the same difficult life and death decisions as a statutory authority if they were providing fire protection. I had a question mark in my mind about why they should be removed from the protection that will be given to statutory bodies that carry out an identical role.

I was also conscious that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) wished to intervene, so now might be a good moment to give way to him.

Ian Stewart (Eccles) (Lab): Can the hon. Gentleman remember what he wanted to say?

Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD): Fortunately, I can remember. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) jogged my memory when he used the word “commercial”. Will he speculate on whether the Minister thinks that commercial fire services might be less risk averse if the offence were to apply to them than fire services in the public sector? If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is the Minister’s thinking, can he explain why?

Mr. Grieve: If an organisation was providing highly skilled services for reward, it would be dependent on its reputation. That is not to say that it might not be sloppy in the way in which it carries things out. However, it would be equally affected and might be made risk averse if it considered that a draconian sanction could be visited on it if, as a result of making a professional judgment that was subsequently called into question and one that was made under the pressure of events, it started to err on the side of caution and, as a result, failed to make the right decision.

Column number: 152

In a funny way, I am advancing a swings and roundabouts argument. Going back to what the Minister said about statutory bodies, we could argue that no statutory body dealing with fire and rescue would ever be prosecuted under corporate manslaughter—if that were possible—if it simply made an error of judgment under the pressure of events. Such action would not amount to the gross negligence systems failure at which the Government are aiming, so why are we taking the statutory bodies out of the possible orbit of being prosecuted for corporate manslaughter? Doubtless, the hon. Gentleman will put forward some powerful arguments for giving that protection, but if it were to apply to a statutory body, I am at a loss to see why it should not also apply to a commercial body.

Picking up what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, there is an implication either that commercial bodies do not deserve a special exemption or that they might be more cavalier in their approach and thus merit greater sanction because they could be sloppier. I should be interested if the Minister can produce evidence to suggest that a private firefighting organisation that makes a profit is likely to be any sloppier than another organisation. I have always assumed that private firefighting organisations are contracted to provide fire services at airports, particularly at aerodromes. It tends to be a highly technical role, which requires high levels of training in an environment where if the commercial organisation were to end up making a mistake, it would probably ruin its reputation and be put out of business anyway because it would never be used again.

There is actually a greater sanction on commercial organisations in such matters because if they foul up their reputation might be destroyed, whereas it is a feature of a statutory organisation that, on the whole however much it fouls up, it continues to exist because there is no possible replacement for it unless the service is privatised. I hope that the Minister will take on board my thoughts and possibly consider them outside of the Committee.

Mr. Davey: I support the comments of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). The Minister has not yet made the case either in previous debates or in relation to the amendments that extra exemptions are needed. Let us be clear: the offence created by the Bill is narrowly defined. An organisation must have acted in a grossly negligent manner so, for there to be an extra exemption, the Minister must explain why a statutory body should still be exempt, although it had acted in a grossly negligent way and the offence was so great that it could be fitted into such a narrow scope. That is a hard test for the hon. Gentleman to prove, even with the particularly sensitive and difficult case of the emergency services. It is not that I am not open to be convinced. I should like to be convinced. I am always helpful to the Minister, but he has yet to make that case.

If the Minister were right, can he explain whether amendment No. 122 would apply to the RNLI? I wish to express an interest. I am a shoreline member of the RNLI and I am worried about those who volunteer for that amazing service. They risk their lives. They are not members of a statutory service nor are they doing it for commercial gain. Will they be subject to the exemption

Column number: 153

as a statutory body? Will they be treated differently from those on commercially operated merchant ships? Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether the coastguard services provided by the RNLI will be covered?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): Mr. Gale, this morning members of the Committee were suspicious of my motivations, yet this afternoon they say that I am contradicting myself when explaining our approach to the exemptions. I am slightly surprised that the Opposition wish to extend an exemption to the private sector, which is capable of withdrawing its services, but do not wish to extend it to the police when they are protecting the public. That is a bit of a contradiction there, but we shall put it to one side.

Mr. Grieve: I hope that I have made it clear that most of our amendments are probing amendments, but I am trying to achieve some internal consistency. There are grounds for arguing that there is a lack of internal consistency in the way in which matters are being approached. Some organisations are being pushed within the scope of being prosecuted, while others are kept out of it. If there is a thread throughout the clause, it seems to be a desire to protect public service providers, but not commercial or private service providers that have exactly the same role.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is not the Government’s motivation to cause greater problems for the private sector. The key point is emergencies to which we shall come in a minute.

Organisations within the public and private sectors are different in two key respects. First, the private sector organisation can choose the terms and contractual arrangements with a client and, on that basis, agree the service that it can supply. Undoubtedly, that will take into account the resources that the client is prepared to have standing at the ready. Secondly and perhaps more importantly, a private organisation can call in the back-up of the fire brigade if it is unable to cope with the demands of a given situation. It can deal with the matter as the hon. Gentleman has outlined, but if it goes wrong it can call the fire brigade as a back-up. There is certainly no back-up for the fire brigade.

Mr. Grieve: That may be true, but if private services were dealing with a fire on an oil rig in the North sea, which would fall within the measure, I doubt very much whether a lot of statutory back-up could be called in to help. The Royal Navy might come along and provide some assistance, but in reality the entire management of that crisis is likely to stay in the private sector.

Mr. Sutcliffe: That is a key point, because the company would be acting in an emergency situation. In the hon. Gentleman’s example, the private company operating in the aerodrome would be exempt as well, because it would be operating in an emergency situation in place of a statutory body. That is the key point for the Committee to remember—we are talking about emergency situations.

Column number: 154

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton took us back to what the offence was about, and he was quite right to do so, because we need to step back and remind ourselves what the offence was intended to deal with in the first place. Its main aim is to tackle organisations that engage in activities that create risks to the safety of others and fail to manage those risks appropriately.

We agreed that applying the offence to public services is important. They too must take their safety responsibilities seriously, and the offence applies widely to employer and occupier duties when public bodies are supplying services. There is a band of activities in which public bodies are under responsibilities to protect the public from risks and harm generated by others, and they need to carry out those responsibilities properly, but the exemptions raise the question whether a public body should be responsible for manslaughter if it has failed to do so. In our view, that is taking manslaughter too far. That would amount to saying that organisations such as the fire service or NHS bodies were responsible for a person’s death because they failed to stop them from being killed. We must be careful about the implications of imposing legally binding duties or making organisations more risk averse.

Mr. Davey: The point that I was seeking to make was that I wanted the Minister to explain why, if an organisation such as the health or fire service acted in a grossly negligent way, it should be exempt if it acted in such a tawdry manner.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I am trying to see the circumstances. If it were grossly negligent in circumstances other than dealing with an emergency, of course it would be liable. That is why we have removed Crown immunity. But we are talking about cases in which the service should not have to think about its reactions and whether it should be risk averse, so that it can carry out what needs to be done to protect the public.

Mr. Davey: The Minister is still not convincingme. We are talking about emergency services. Most of their activities, by definition, involve dealing with emergencies. It is their core business. If they are grossly negligent in their core business, I suggest to him, this is not necessarily the place to give an exemption. I want to be convinced, but he must go a bit further.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Mr. Gale, if it takes me all day, I will try to convince the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] Perhaps not, given that it is a late stage in the week of parliamentary activity.

The definition of an emergency situation is that the circumstances are life-threatening or threaten to cause serious injury or illness or harm to the environment or buildings or other property. The decisions taken—we talked about this in military terms—are split-second decisions. The exemptions that we are considering apply to those conditions, not to how the organisation goes about its business in general. There are small areas where the exemptions are entirely appropriate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not agree with me, and however hard I try he will not accept my position, but I think—

Column number: 155

Ms Dari Taylor (Stockton, South) (Lab): I would be interested to hear whether my hon. Friend has received representations from the fire service or any other emergency service stating that the protection awarded in the Bill is not adequate. I have received no such representations.

---

Prepared 27 October 2006