Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Andrew Dismore (Labour) 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 that the hon. and learned Gentleman is mixing up two different things. The measure would not have provided that. While it would have provided a criminal remedy to punish those involved, it would probably not have given answers to what happened. The Government’s proposal, with, for example, new statutory powers for the ombudsman—I do not think that the ombudsman was in force at the time—would start to deal with the questions of what happened to Mubarek, which, I think, is what the family is especially concerned about. The Bill will create a deterrent effect and allow a prosecution to take place if things go wrong, but it will not necessarily address the specific point that the hon. and learned Gentleman raises.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
460 c686 
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