---

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

moved Amendment No. 2: 2: Clause 18 , page 12, line 43, at end insert— ““( ) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), a member of senior management who is found to have connived, conspired or colluded in the commission of an offence of corporate manslaughter or corporate homicide shall be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven years.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former trade union official. During earlier discussions, my colleagues and I attempted to persuade the Government that, despite the wording of the Bill—which is not designed to deal with individual responsibility, its emphasis being on corporate responsibility—some provision for individual responsibility was necessary in cases where death had resulted. We failed in that endeavour. The issue will not go away; sooner or later individual responsibility will have to be dealt with. The unions will continue to press for it, as will the families of workers killed in work-related accidents. We understand that. This amendment is about secondary liability. We said that we would consider bringing it back at Third Reading because noble Lords supported it in Committee and on Report. The wording of this amendment is quite different from anything tried earlier. We have in mind a situation in which a management team may be aware that a system of working is not safe and putting workers’ lives at risk; however, an individual decides, in conjunction with others, not to take the appropriate remedial action because the cost involved might interfere with profits. Individuals may connive, conspire or collude in the commission of an offence in that situation. Workers at risk may well be immigrant workers who are ignorant of their rights. The management may, therefore, believe that it can get away with an unsafe system of working. This amendment is a last attempt to persuade the Government that something should be done. In earlier discussions, we referred to this as secondary liability. Can we persuade the Government that there is still time to amend the Bill, since it has to go back to the House of Commons anyway? If our wording is unacceptable, I hope we can persuade the Government to look again at the principles involved. When I got back to my office this morning, I found a letter from a lady who said: "““I am writing to you as the grieving mother of a young man who was killed in an explosion at work in April 2005, leaving a widow and two very young children””." She continues at length about the Bill, saying: "““Without individual liability and the possibility of a custodial sentence, the lax culture of the seriously negligent companies will never change””." Her letter ends with an appeal to ensure that amendments are made to this Bill, in line with what we have suggested. I beg to move.