I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that.
I turn now to the fines. The Select Committee suggested that they should be based on turnover, but that would be wholly inappropriate, as some companies produce high-margin goods, and others low-margin goods. It would be much better to hit shareholders and investors where it hurts, and change the dynamic by moving to prevention.
I am concerned about setting up victim funds. They are laudable, but they mix up the questions of reparation and punishment, which I believe should remain separate.
The impact assessment makes little mention of the cost of prosecution, but there is a significant gap in the expertise available to the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. The HSE says that it does not particularly want to be involved in prosecution, but it is the Minister’s responsibility to say that it is the Government body with the relevant expertise in these matters. He should therefore compel the HSE to be much more involved.
I could raise many more questions, but I am conscious that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate so I shall draw to a close. It is clear that a number of issues remain unresolved, and that we should not push forward with the Bill as long as they remain unanswered.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill
Proceeding contribution from
James Duddridge
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 10 October 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
450 c231-2 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 23:45:18 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351905
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351905
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351905