Clause 1

Part of Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 10:45 am on 24 October 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of James Brokenshire James Brokenshire Conservative, Hornchurch 10:45, 24 October 2006

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is the reason why the Bill was introduced, and it was part and parcel of our debates last week about the nexus of the acts of individuals or groups of individuals and the acts of the corporate body. We are talking about different legal personalities; the corporate body is a separate legal person, even though its actions are directed by its board of management, other employees and senior officers. The hon. Gentleman will know that a charge of manslaughter could still lie against an individual as a consequence of his default in certain circumstances if it can be shown that he had acted in a highly inappropriate way. That is the present law, and it should certainly be respected.

It is an interesting concept—I hope we will have the opportunity to debate it in greater detail—that a corporate body could provide restitution or to put things right. The amendments would advance that debate and allow us to consider other ways—a community award, a sum of money or some other activity—of making amends or seeking to make particular changes. That is why I welcome the debate, albeit that the subject probably needs to be fleshed out and considered in the wider context rather than concentrating on the one specific offence. It could have wider application, which is why a more wide-ranging review would be beneficial; it could come up with suitable approaches to deal with such issues.

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton suggests specifying other punishments in the new subsection (5)(c) proposed in amendment No. 100, but it would not be appropriate to do that through a statutory instrument. It is better done through primary legislation. I note that the hon. Gentleman said that he was not wedded to the approach suggested in the amendment, but that he wished to advance the debate to encompass creating flexibility and taking a different look at the way in which corporate bodies could be held accountable for their actions.

It is difficult at this stage to consider the matter in isolation, saying that we should take the approach suggested by the amendments. However, it is worth considering the wider aspects of the liability of corporate bodies. We should explore whether a more direct approach could be taken to providing restitution for individuals and families who have suffered as a consequence of the acts of corporate bodies—that not only should corporations be fined but that some more general restitution should apply. However, that is a wider debate than the one before us today.