I am happy to have got here to speak to Amendment No. 89, and somewhat lucky to have done so. I briefly commend Amendment No. 89 to the Government. I remind the Committee that we are at a point where an order has been made to the organisation to take certain steps. My amendment says that where the organisation, company or whatever it is has failed in that respect, and the substantial cause of that has been the, "““act or omission of a member of senior management””,"
he is guilty of an offence. With respect, I prefer that to the suggestion that there is any question of contempt of court, although no doubt those who are expert in remedies will want to ponder that distinction. The most important part of Amendment No. 89 concerns where the person who has caused the failure is a director or shadow director. Then the court would have within its discretion the penalty not merely of a fine or other remedy but the possibility of disqualification.
Quite a lot has been said about this in debates on the Bill. It is a very practical matter. Where the court finds—I insist that it is where the court finds—that the failure to obey the order was very grave, it should have at its discretion a series of possible remedies. It is often said that, these days, directors can be disqualified for a large number of wrongful financial failures. I suggest that only a strange imagination would not put a failure to put the organisation’s safety culture, to the level that the court says it must, on a par with the various financial failures in the Companies Act that may give rise to disqualification. It is, if you like, a cross-cut from safety law to company law. In my humble submission, it is a very relevant and proper safety cut—effective to get away in a grave case someone who has not caused the original accident or death but has failed to ensure, as far as possible, that the company’s safety culture is at the level that the court thinks proper by its order. I commend Amendment No. 89 and hope that the Government will at least consider the possibility of such remedies in the Bill, as in company matters of financial failure.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 18 January 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c284GC Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:46:20 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_370647
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_370647
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_370647