Skip to main content

1-20 of 474 results for subject:"Government departments"

Legislation X
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 2005-06 to 2006-07

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 2005-06 to 2006-07 (474)
More

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their well-held views on this issue. The Bill has been a long time in coming. I am grateful for Opposition Members’ kind remarks about its progress, although I do not know what that will do for ministerial...

Member
Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 June 2007
Reference
461 c161
House
House of Commons

To reassure the right hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that if it could be proved that criminal negligence took place, such cases would not be exempt.

Member
Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 June 2007
Reference
461 c160
House
House of Commons

Of course, when I say that those cases could be covered by the legislation, that would be with a view to investigating whether the—properly stringent—tests in the legislation were met. One hopes that that would be so in no case, or in very few cases, because this is a serious...

Member
Lord Redwood (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 June 2007
Reference
461 c160
House
House of Commons

I am happy to look at that again. It is certainly not our intention to limit or to water down. We had a good debate in Committee about the exemptions that we wanted to apply. It is important that the concessions bed down, and that we are in a position...

Member
Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 June 2007
Reference
461 c161-2
House
House of Commons

Nevertheless, the Minister also has powers to limit the liability to particular classes of institution.

Member
Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 June 2007
Reference
461 c161
House
House of Commons

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is exactly right, so I will not detain the House by reading out the three quotations from the previous debate that back the point that he and the Minister have already made—that we are in the world of ““if”” and ““whether””, not a definite,...

Member
Ed Davey (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 June 2007
Reference
461 c156-7
House
House of Commons

The hon. Gentleman does not have to look at the history, as it was only today that the Minister used the word, ““if””, which means that the power might not be used.

Member
Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 June 2007
Reference
461 c156
House
House of Commons

The right hon. Gentleman said that the coroner would blame Parliament and the Government for not bringing in the legislation. Clearly, Parliament will get the blame if it fails now to insist on a better set of amendments, but if the Government get their way in the future it is...

Member
Robert Smith (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 June 2007
Reference
461 c158
House
House of Commons

I must confess that intellectually, it is hard to oppose the Lords amendments, which are entirely consistent with the position that I have taken throughout the Bill’s progress and the report of the Joint Committee. However, I take a slightly more optimistic view of the position into which the Minister...

Member
John Denham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 June 2007
Reference
461 c157-8
House
House of Commons

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). He made a sound point—that in the event of a very serious death in custody occurring, the Government will be severely blamed if they have not implemented the provisions of the enacting clause. I want,...

Member
Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 June 2007
Reference
461 c158-9
House
House of Commons

Indeed, the Government would get the blame. They would be held responsible when there was an inquest verdict of unlawful killing, and it was impossible to act through the criminal courts on the basis of the Bill because the principle that has now been conceded had not been enacted. For...

Member
John Denham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 June 2007
Reference
461 c158
House
House of Commons

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, however, that none of us has ever suggested that the great majority of deaths in custody would be subject to corporate manslaughter legislation? Only that small number of cases in which gross negligence has occurred at a managerial level would be caught.

Member
John Denham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 June 2007
Reference
461 c160
House
House of Commons

I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). The House needs to remind itself of the magnitude of the problem. In the last three years of the Conservative...

Member
Lord Redwood (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 June 2007
Reference
461 c159
House
House of Commons

This is one of those slightly surreal debates that we have in the House. The Government say that they accept all the arguments, and that they are on our side and agree with us—but Members across the House are not sure whether they trust the Government. Perhaps we are in...

Member
Ed Davey (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 June 2007
Reference
461 c156
House
House of Commons

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). The question is what can be considered a reasonable compromise. I would prefer the provision not to be included, but we are in a political world, and we...

Member
Andrew Dismore (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 June 2007
Reference
461 c155-6
House
House of Commons

The hon. Gentleman and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which he chairs, have made a distinguished contribution to the Bill, but will he respond to the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)? Subsection (2)(a) in Government amendment (b) in...

Member
Ed Davey (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 June 2007
Reference
461 c155
House
House of Commons

This is very nice. The Minister, with his customary charm, has come to the Dispatch Box to argue the unarguable. It is also nice to be described as right in principle—something every politician and Opposition relish—so I take that as a sincere compliment to Opposition Members and, I suppose, to...

Member
Dominic Grieve (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 June 2007
Reference
461 c152
House
House of Commons

I seem to have difficulty in debates with the hon. and learned Gentleman in getting him to accept my arguments. I will try, but I am not sure that he will accept what I am about to say. Death in custody is a serious issue and the Government take it...

Member
Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 June 2007
Reference
461 c151-2
House
House of Commons

I am probably being obtuse, but I simply do not understand how the Minister, on behalf of the Government, can accept the principle on custody that the other place has put into the Bill, yet seem to be arguing as though delaying the provision, or never adopting it, and wanting...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 June 2007
Reference
461 c151
House
House of Commons

I readily accept that those concessions are important, as I did during our previous debate on the Bill. It would be nice to have an idea of when the next available Bill might appear, although I understand that my hon. Friend might not be able to tell us, because of...

Member
Andrew Dismore (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 June 2007
Reference
461 c155
House
House of Commons