I strongly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Let us remember what has brought us to the point that we have reached. Individuals have not been prosecuted because it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to show that an individual is individually responsible. That is why a provision for a secondary nature, which is not being allowed in clause 17, would help greatly. Although I appreciate that the learned hon. Member for Beaconsfield was a great legal adviser to the Committee, we have received legal advice from many other learned people, who take issue with his view. They include not only the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) but members of the Joint Committee, which examined the matter in detail, and some of their legal advisers. It is a fine point and reasonable people can disagree about it. However, as someone speaking from the common person’s perspective who is not a legal expert, I believe that there is a gap in the law and that the amendments would fill it.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Ed Davey
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 4 December 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
454 c49-50 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:22:51 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362817
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362817
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362817