Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Ed Davey (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 16 May 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.


Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

I think it is fair to say that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and his Committee have been exceedingly influential in putting pressure on the Government. The hon. Gentleman deserves praise from those in all parts of the House for the work that he and his colleagues have done. There was some dispute with Government lawyers over certain details of the Committee’s analysis of how the European convention applies to the Bill, but I believe that the Committee came out on top. The hon. Gentleman also deserves credit for the way in which he has dealt with all the other principles that are at stake. While I understand why the hon. Gentleman wants to give the Government the benefit of the doubt today, I think that he is wrong to let them off the hook at this juncture. It is welcome that they have conceded the principle, but there does not seem to be any justification for not going ahead now. Surely that would be entirely in line with all the other policies articulated by both the Minister and the hon. Gentleman. No one here opposes the idea of putting the prisons and probation ombudsman on a statutory footing. That has long been promised and has not yet been delivered, but it will be good when it is delivered. The forum for preventing deaths in custody appears to be doing a good job, although I note from a visit to its website earlier today that the most recent reports of its deliberations date back to June last year. The website needs to be updated slightly, so that we can see the good work that the forum has been doing. However, the hon. Gentleman’s Committee has reported on it, and a report from John Wadham shows some of the excellent work that is being done on detailed issues such as the prisoner escort record. The record is a key practical measure, which states when a prisoner is being moved from one agency to another so that if that prisoner has any vulnerabilities, the information is properly shared. The Government deserve credit for such detailed work, but I do not see why that should prevent us from making progress on this particular issue. The Government seem to have put themselves in a better position to ensure that the Bill goes with the flow of the proposal, and I do not see any contradiction between the two.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
460 c678-9 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Care homes Accountability Charities Death Directors Criminal law Crown immunity Delegated legislation Corporate manslaughter Legislative process Liability Health and safety Employers' associations NHS Police Prosecutions Prisons Police custody Publicity Partnerships Psychiatric hospitals Schools Trade unions Reviews Suicide HM Prison Service Detention centres Secure training centres Academies Prisons and Probation Ombudsman Young offender institutions National School of Government
Legislation
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 2005-06 to 2006-07
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk