Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Ed Davey (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Monday, 4 December 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.


Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

I strongly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Let us remember what has brought us to the point that we have reached. Individuals have not been prosecuted because it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to show that an individual is individually responsible. That is why a provision for a secondary nature, which is not being allowed in clause 17, would help greatly. Although I appreciate that the learned hon. Member for Beaconsfield was a great legal adviser to the Committee, we have received legal advice from many other learned people, who take issue with his view. They include not only the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) but members of the Joint Committee, which examined the matter in detail, and some of their legal advisers. It is a fine point and reasonable people can disagree about it. However, as someone speaking from the common person’s perspective who is not a legal expert, I believe that there is a gap in the law and that the amendments would fill it.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
454 c49-50 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Accountability Detainees Death Company law Companies Directors Convictions Crown immunity Corporate manslaughter Disqualification Liability Health and safety Exemptions Government departments Holding companies Prosecutions Prisons Management Police custody Staff Negligence Scotland Remand in custody
Legislation
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 2005-06 to 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk