Clause 6

Part of Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at on 26 October 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of James Brokenshire James Brokenshire Conservative, Hornchurch

I seek further clarification on the language of clause 6 as it will be amended. In particular, the definition seems sufficiently wide to capture people and organisations associated only indirectly with the preparation of civil contingency-type matters. For example, in an emergency local authority officers might be actively engaged in gold command and co-ordinating what is happening. They may be fulfilling those duties from their own offices or from other command offices associated with the management of the particular incident. The executive directors of health authorities, too, may be seeking to control the area of operations.

The phrasing would appear to extend the provision to all such persons; it may be the intention to capture all officers and persons associated with the management of an operation. Although they may be not directly concerned—in other words, not specifically on the ground—they would be involved in

“activities carried on in preparation for, or directly in support of, such operations”.

In other words, they would be involved in directing the operation or acting in response to the activities that are taking place.

Confusion has arisen as to whether that is the intention. If it is, the Committee needs to know. If not, the language needs to be refined in order to narrow its scope. We need to make it clear that, in those circumstances, officers fulfilling other duties who would appear to be caught within the ambit of the provision are not so caught. I look forward to hearing whether I am wrong in my assumption.