BinB News | BinB Events Town Sites | Ascot | Bracknell | Henley | Maidenhead | Marlow | Newbury | Slough | Reading | Windsor | Wokingham
Corporate Manslaughter Law to be Introduced |
|
Seven years after the horrific Paddington train crash the House of Commons finally gave the bill to create a new law of Corporate Manslaughter a Second Reading. Reading West MP Martin Salter has been working with Paddington survivors, trades unions and other Members of Parliament in pressing for such a measure in the face of opposition from some in the business community. There was outrage when Thames Trains received only a fine and no-one was prosecuted for causing the Paddington disaster.
Under the current law, for a company to be prosecuted, the prosecution must first prove that a single person, senior enough to embody the company (so at the top of the organisation), is personally guilty of gross negligence. The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill introduces a criminal offence which will enable juries to consider the overall picture of how an organisation’s activities were managed or organised rather than focusing on the actions of one individual. It will be reserved for the worst cases of mismanagement leading to death. Speaking in the House of Commons debate on Tuesday (10th Oct), Martin Salter said: Martin Salter: “The Home Secretary will be aware that, in October 1999, 31 people died in the horrific Paddington train crash and that many more were seriously injured, including a number of my constituents. After pleading guilty to health and safety offences, Thames Trains got away with a £2 million fine. That is a fraction of the money that the directors made from the two management buy-outs that have occurred since rail privatisation. If this very welcome measure had been on the statute book at the time of the Paddington disaster, what different outcomes could the survivors of that crash have expected?” John Reid: “I agree very much with what my hon. Friend says, and two provisions would be particularly relevant to the case that he mentions. We have already discussed the first of those provisions—unlimited fines—and the second is, of course, that on remedial orders. Fines and compensation orders are usually the most effective ways to penalise companies that are found guilty of criminal offences, but I fully recognise that financial penalties alone—the point that he makes—may not always be enough to change undesirable business behaviour.” Mr Salter added: “It’s taken far too long for this much needed measure to begin its passage through Parliament. However, I hope that the new regime of unlimited fines and the imposition of remedial orders to improve safety standards on negligent companies will be of some comfort to the Paddington survivors and others who have campaigned for this law to be brought in”. |
