Proceeding contribution from James Brokenshire (Conservative) 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 am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. The reason for structuring the clause in that way is to mirror the substantive offence under clause 1,and to create symmetry between the primary offence that the main trading company may have committed and the holding company. A parallel between the two potential offences would be appropriate.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 454 c79
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:28:18 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362901
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362901
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362901