Proceeding contribution from Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 5 February 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill
moved AmendmentNo. 48: 48: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause— ““Convictions under this Act and under health and safety legislation (1) Where in the same proceedings there is— (a) a charge of corporate manslaughter or corporate homicide arising out of a particular set of circumstances, and (b) a charge against the same defendant of a health and safety offence arising out of some or all of those circumstances, the jury may, if the interests of justice so require, be invited to return a verdict on each charge. (2) An organisation that has been convicted of corporate manslaughter or corporate homicide arising out of a particular set of circumstances may, if the interests of justice so require, be charged with a health and safety offence arising out of some or all of those circumstances. (3) In this section ““health and safety offence”” means an offence under any health and safety legislation.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, concern has been expressed that the Bill might inadvertently lead to a reduction in the scope for prosecuting individuals on a secondary basis for health and safety offences. The point has been made that, if an organisation were convicted of the new offence, there might be a question of whether health and safety charges against the organisation arising out of the same incident might also be put to the jury. If that were not the case, it might preclude a verdict on any secondary participation by individuals in the health and safety offences. We would certainly not wish this to be the case and have consequently tabled Amendment No. 48 to clarify that convicting an organisation for corporate manslaughter would not preclude a conviction of the organisation for a health and safety offence if that were in the interests of justice; we touched on this issue in some earlier debates. This would ensure that any secondary liability for the health and safety offence was kept alive. I know that secondary liability is a controversial issue, but we want to ensure that it is there for health and safety offences. It would not impose any new liabilities on individuals, but ensure that existing liabilities are not inadvertently reduced. I hope that that clarifies the Government’s position and the drafting of the legislation. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 689 c586-7
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Charities Armed forces Death Crown Prosecution Service Corporate manslaughter Liability Health and safety Exemptions Emergency services Police Prosecutions Negligence Scotland Training
- 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 12:05:19 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376084
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376084
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376084