| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
We can settle the matter. The solution is for us to rest on the inference that that sort of timetable is not outside the bounds of the thinking going on in government, as I am sure that my noble friend can accept. Therefore, again, the commencement of the discussions cannot be in five, 10 or 15 years, but must be this year, alongside the other major management discussions going on with the two services. In so far as my noble friend says that they are inextricably connected, they should be on the agenda for the discussions already taking place.
I shall labour the point. I am not asking my noble friend to accept what I have said. I am only saying that we have got as far as we can today. People ought to think about that, accept that this is an important Bill and accept that the Government have gone some distance. As my noble friend will confirm, I have been in some of the discussions, and we ought to be able to live with the understanding that has been arrived at.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I confess to being in some confusion. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said that we had until the end of the Session for the Bill. I see the noble Baroness shaking her head. Will she enlighten us on why we have only some shorter time, and on what it is?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall do so. The rules on carry-over are set by the other place and require proceedings on the Bill to be completed within 12 months of introduction. The Bill was introduced on 20 July last year, which gives the Bill until 19 July this year.
5.45 pm
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. That at least enlightens us. None the less, I must confess that I am wholeheartedly in favour of this amendment.
When the Bill came to this House, it did not include any protection for those in custody and the House amended that and made a fundamental change. I can see that the Government might have rejected that change, although they would have been wrong. It is extraordinary that someone should owe a duty of care and be prosecuted for manslaughter if they injure an employee, who, if he thinks working conditions are dangerous, can always leave, whereas it is not owed to a prisoner, who does not have that same option of leaving if he does not like conditions. None the less, that would have been a distinction on principle on which, perhaps, one might have said that the House of Commons was wrong but that it should have its way.
25 Jun 2007 : Column 457
The Government have accepted that they must owe a duty of care to those in their custody and that it will be right in due course that those people shall come within the provisions of the Bill and that their death through gross neglect shall be the subject of the Bill and constitute manslaughter. But they say that while that position constitutes virtue, “Oh Lord, please don’t make us virtuous yet”. Frankly, that will not do. It might have done for St Augustine, but it will not do now.
The Minister gave us no explanation of any logical force as to why waiting will help. If there were specific exceptions that the Government wished to make to the duty of care to those in custody, they could have brought them forward by amendment. However, they have not proposed that the measure should not apply in certain circumstances or that the Prison Service must be judged only by the standards of what you can reasonably expect people to do who are coping with very difficult prisoners, which is the situation anyhow. They have not made any such proposal but merely said, “We might do this some time”—and the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, made it clear that that time might be any time or never. He seems in his wisdom to think that it will not be much more than three or four years, but we do not really know why he thinks that.
Perhaps more importantly, if the Government come forward with a provision to extend the duty of care to those in custody, they can do so by a statutory instrument that makes any form of exception or conditional provision and largely nullifies the duty. Because of the limitation on our powers over statutory instruments, we shall not be able to do anything about that. We can throw out the statutory instruments and leave prisoners wholly unprotected or grin and bear a statutory instrument that gives them only 10 per cent protection. If the Government get their way they will merely have pulled down a curtain, which they and only they can draw ever so slightly, subject to such limitations as they want, as and when they want. We will be powerless to do anything to bring these provisions into effect or make them more effective when brought in because the sole initiative will be with the Government. That just will not do.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, there is little need to add to what was an outstanding speech from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who comprehensively covered the full range of what I would want to say, so I just say from these Benches that I completely agree with him.
However, it is important for me to add just three things. First, the vote today in no way kills the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has already made that clear, as has the noble Lord, Lord Lea. There is still time. The Minister sought to rely on the wording of the carry-over Motion but, as we all know from the Companion, it is perfectly possible for a further Motion to be proposed. If the Government require more time, then of course they must have that time, but in no circumstances should any noble Lord feel that what is happening today is decisive for the future of the Bill.
25 Jun 2007 : Column 458
My second point is that the Government are moving—I pay tribute to the Minister for the way in which she has approached discussion on the subject. I sense that many on the Government Benches feel that it is wrong for us to exclude deaths in custody. All we are seeking is something more than ministerial assurances, because we have no guarantee that the Ministers who are saying that, in principle, they accept the points made will still be in office after Thursday. I am not one of those who has sent in their CVs; I do not know who will be the Ministers on Thursday—we wait to see—but there will be a new set of Ministers and there may well be a new set at the Ministry of Justice.
So the words that we have heard mean nothing at present unless we have something in the Bill. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern pointed out that under Clause 21, the provisions of the Act,
Provided that the Minister accepts that we can include deaths in custody in the Bill, the Government have, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea, pointed out, the power to decide when the provisions are brought into effect. We ought to have a discussion about the timing that the Prison Service is given to comply with the provisions.
Many on the government side—I pay tribute to them—feel that the Bill is inadequate without being extended in the way that the noble Lord suggested. I have had many discussions with them; they feel uncomfortable and we give them the opportunity today to settle this matter once and for all. I want the Bill on the statute book. I have the privilege of being president of the All-Party Group on Occupational Health and Safety. We have been pressing for a Bill such as this for years and members of the group will be delighted that we are now very close. It just requires the Government to include in the Bill that deaths in custody will apply on a date to be decided by the Government.
I say this in a tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who said last week:
“Where a serious crime is committed, even by a public body, it is right to mark that and bring some degree of accountability. It is also right to impose a penalty to deter not just that body but others from committing similar offences in the future”.—[Official Report, 20/6/07; col. 215.]
Lord Morris of Handsworth: My Lords, I come to this debate not just in the context of membership of your Lordships’ House, but as a long campaigner in another life as leader of my union. It could be said that I was there at the birth of the campaign regarding protection in respect of corporate responsibility, hence the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
As I have listened to the debate, I know that there are two groups of people who will be watching, waiting and listening to your Lordships’ final word on the matter: the relatives of those who have died through the negligence of employers; and the relatives and friends of those who have died in custody. I have seen
25 Jun 2007 : Column 459
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has given your Lordships in this and previous debates a long list of those who have died in custody. I could add names that have not been mentioned, such as Joy Gardener and Roger Sylvester, and there are others.
The Bill is not about punishment; it is about change in responsibility and behaviour. If the Bill carries equal force to change employers’ behaviour, clearly it must also be right that the Bill acts as a stimulus to change the behaviour of those who speak and act in our name—those responsible for the people in their custody. It would be difficult to be face to face with the relatives of the two groups of people and feel that we have treated one group more favourably than the other. Negligence is negligence, wherever it applies. Justice and responsibility go to both. If the Government maintain their position, they will be undermining the Bill’s importance, and how they want it to apply. Therefore, it is with a heavy heart but a very clear head that I will not be joining my party in the Lobby tonight if the House divides on the amendment.
Lord Dear: My Lords, in rising to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, I recognise that I shall repeat what I have said to your Lordships twice before—on Second Reading and in Committee. I was brief then and I intend to be just as brief this evening, if I may.
I remind noble Lords that, in my opinion, one of the best tests of the worth, status and weight of any democracy is the way in which prisoners are treated in state institutions, whether police cells, state prisons or any of the other catalogue that one finds in the Bill as it is presented today. How are prisoners treated; what recourse is there if something goes wrong—either recourse later in their hands or in the hands of relatives; and what about the duty of care? I say again that if we do not include this measure in the Bill, what sort of message does that send inside and outside the system? What sort of message does it send inside and outside this country, particularly to those nations that we are trying to impress for reasons that I need not parade this evening?
This is an exercise in procrastination and/or prevarication. Although the Minister has talked about a power in the Bill and has suggested it again this evening, a date would suffice as far as I am concerned—from the way in which noble Lords are nodding, I think that a date would suffice for them as well. Without a date, I cannot support what is suggested by the Government. Like other noble Lords, I am conscious of the depth of the constitutional water that we venture into if we return the Bill to another place, but I cannot vote with the Government and I cannot support such an omission from the list of requirements that go to the status and weight of a civilised society.
6 pm
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I begin by noting that we are mindful that tragedy is the backdrop to this legislation, as many noble Lords have
25 Jun 2007 : Column 460
The commitments made by my right honourable and honourable friends in another place, my noble and learned friend and other Ministers who before me had the privilege of taking this important legislation through are real. I hope that noble Lords accept that the commitments with which we stand before you today about the principle that we have conceded are real and genuine. Those commitments will stand whatever the job that anyone, including me, is in, or not in, in a few days from now, not least because I have been extremely impressed by the quality and diligence of the work of the officials in my department, who have done their very best to think carefully and consistently about the implications of what is proposed.
I do not want to get into whether the Bill will be killed. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, is right that it is possible, in exceptional circumstances, for extra time to be granted, but it is granted only when the Government can demonstrate that assistance would be helpful. At present, I can see no way that extra time would change the position. Noble Lords need to be aware that we are in a timetable, and that is an important factor in our deliberations, but I say no more than that because I have no intention of trying to twist anyone’s arm on that basis. Noble Lords will make their decision as they wish. I know that that will be one of the considerations that will be taken into account.
Expressions such as “disgracefully irresponsible” were used. I take collective responsibility for my Government’s actions and after six years as a Minister I am used to many things being said, but that is not what we are trying to be. It would be very easy for me to be very popular in your Lordships’ House—it is something I try to be, particularly when there is an election going on for Peer of the year—however, I have responsibly taken back the comments made by noble Lords in our discussions, and I have responsibly reported the concerns that have been raised. I have discussed this with my ministerial colleagues and with the officials in my department. They have raised two points that I obviously did not make clear to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. First, the changes in the Bill about the relationship between this legislation and Crown immunity are uncharted and potentially dramatic. There is no question but that it is important that the Government are able to see what those changes would mean. They are good changes and are fully supported in your Lordships’ House, but they take us in new
25 Jun 2007 : Column 461
The second point is that because legislation covers Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England, it is important that the Prison Service is debated and discussed properly. This is not about delaying tactics but about taking with us the people who feel deeply the tragedies that happen in our prisons. Such people are charged with looking after, protecting and supporting those in prison to try to help them to come out of prison and not return. I believe these people take the tragedies very much to heart and worry about the consequences for them. I do not put them into the category where they necessarily take any responsibility for them—these tragedies happen, and they feel them extremely keenly.
We are a revising Chamber. We have revised the legislation. It has gone back to another place. Another place has considered it. Mr Denham and Mr Dismore have also considered it. They felt that the Government have moved sufficiently. We take these responsibilities properly and rightly to heart. I hope that the legislation can find its way on to the statute book as quickly as possible. It is not about avoidance; it is about doing this properly, and bearing in mind the responsibilities we have as a Government to make sure that what we do works well. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the Government on this occasion, bearing in mind all I have said, and not to vote for the amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I am sure that I echo the opinion of everyone in the House when I thank the noble Baroness for the care, courtesy and humanity with which she has presented her case. As always one listens with great care because her words are not lightly chosen and I respect what she says. I am sure also that noble Lords will have been very moved by the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Handsworth, to our debate this evening. It was outstanding in its clarity and courage and represented a case which I think is unassailable.
I declare a past interest as a former chief inspector of Prisons. During that time, I had the opportunity to see first hand the most marvellous work being done by people in prisons, to which the Minister has quite rightly paid tribute. It is marvellous work, and one admired them for all they did in the difficulties. I have to say that I also saw some of the most awful examples of bad work, which let them down and let down the name of their service. Frankly, I always found it extraordinary that that was not dealt with.
When I used a word such as “irresponsible”, I was referring to the fact that I do not think that people who do not exercise proper management of either the duty of care or their responsibility should be allowed to get away with it, in particular when they owe a duty of care to individuals who are in the care of the state.
25 Jun 2007 : Column 462
This is an enormously serious issue. Nobody wants to kill this Bill; we all want to see it enacted. I have said, and I repeat, that I am more than happy to discuss the matter, and I will suggest a date which I know will be acceptable to many noble Lords because I have discussed it with them. We owe a duty, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, to the relatives as much as anything else. We, as a House, need to express our views as clearly as we can. Therefore, I would like to test its opinion.
6.09 pm
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. A1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 183; Not-Contents, 145.
Addington, L.
Alliance, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Avebury, L.
Baker of Dorking, L.
Barker, B.
Bell, L.
Best, L.
Blaker, L.
Bledisloe, V.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.
Bottomley of Nettlestone, B.
Bowness, L.
Bradshaw, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brittan of Spennithorne, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Burnett, L.
Byford, B.
Caithness, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L.
Carlile of Berriew, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Cathcart, E.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Chidgey, L.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Cotter, L.
Courtown, E.
Crickhowell, L.
Cumberlege, B.
Darcy de Knayth, B.
De Mauley, L.
Dear, L.
Dearing, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Dykes, L.
Eccles, V.
Eccles of Moulton, B.
Eden of Winton, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Elton, L.
Erroll, E.
Falkland, V.
Fearn, L.
Flather, B.
Fookes, B.
Forsyth of Drumlean, L.
Freeman, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Garel-Jones, L.
Glasgow, E.
Glenarthur, L.
Glentoran, L.
Goodhart, L.
Goodlad, L.
Goschen, V.
Greenway, L.
Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.
Hamilton of Epsom, L.
Hamwee, B.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Hayhoe, L.
Henley, L.
Higgins, L.
Hogg, B.
Howe, E.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
James of Blackheath, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Jones of Cheltenham, L.
Jopling, L.
Kirkham, L.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
Laing of Dunphail, L.
Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Lawson of Blaby, L.
Lee of Trafford, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Listowel, E.
Liverpool, E.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Low of Dalston, L.
Lucas, L.
Ludford, B.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
Lyell of Markyate, L.
McAlpine of West Green, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
Maclennan of Rogart, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Marlesford, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
25 Jun 2007 : Column 463
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Monson, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Montrose, D.
Moran, L.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
Neuberger, B.
Newby, L.
Newton of Braintree, L.
Noakes, B.
Northbrook, L.
Northesk, E.
Northover, B.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Onslow, E.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Patten, L.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Ramsbotham, L. [Teller]
Reay, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rennard, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Roper, L.
Rowe-Beddoe, L.
Saatchi, L.
St. John of Bletso, L.
St John of Fawsley, L.
Sandwich, E.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Seccombe, B. [Teller]
Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Selsdon, L.
Sharman, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Sharples, B.
Shephard of Northwold, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Slim, V.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Southwark, Bp.
Steel of Aikwood, L.
Stern, B.
Stewartby, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Strathclyde, L.
Taverne, L.
Taylor of Holbeach, L.
Tenby, V.
Teverson, L.
Thatcher, B.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Thomas of Winchester, B.
Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Tonge, B.
Tope, L.
Tordoff, L.
Trenchard, V.
Trimble, L.
Tyler, L.
Ullswater, V.
Vallance of Tummel, L.
Verma, B.
Waddington, L.
Wade of Chorlton, L.
Wakeham, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Walmsley, B.
Walpole, L.
Warnock, B.
Watson of Richmond, L.
Wilcox, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Adams of Craigielea, B.
Ahmed, L.
Amos, B. [Lord President.]
Anderson of Swansea, L.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Barnett, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Billingham, B.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |