I raised the issue we are discussing on Second Reading and on Report, which shows how strongly I feel about it. My main concern is to do with differential treatment between different groups. I cannot see any justification for not having the original formulation of undertakings from the 2000 consultation. In my Committee’s view, article 14 of the European convention on human rights is engaged because the various restrictions, exclusions and exemptions—even with the extensions—give rise to different treatment of individuals in analogous situations in relation to their access to the criminal law in respect of negligently caused death.
My Committee noted that the Government had previously accepted that to restrict the scope of the offence by excluding unincorporated bodies generally"““could lead to an inconsistency of approach and these distinctions might appear arbitrary.””"
That is when the issue of undertakings first arose. It was not included in the original 1996 Law Commission paper, but it was introduced by the Government in the 2000 consultation. I thought that that was a better way of dealing with the problem.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Andrew Dismore
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 16 May 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
460 c699 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-12 19:17:05 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_397287
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_397287
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_397287