I cannot assure the hon. Gentleman that the test will be got rid of. However, in the spirit of compromise to which we are always urged by the Liberal Democrats, I can say that we are looking at the issue again. As I said earlier, this is one of the points about which we want to write to him and his colleagues, as well as to Her Majesty’s official Opposition, with a view to widening the test. When we introduced it in the summer, I recognise that people had reservations about it, so we are prepared to consider it again.
I express no view on the case of the cockle pickers, but I tried to be clear that we did not accept the need to remove the test on duty of care. It is the basis for the current law and we do not see a compelling case for changing it. I merely point out that the offence will often involve a failure to act—not just an action, but a sin of omission as well as a sin of commission—and the provision needs to be underpinned by a duty to act. It strengthens the case in illustrating a failure to act if it is possible to point out that there was a duty to act in a certain fashion in the first place. That is why we believe the provision strengthens the Bill.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Reid of Cardowan
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 10 October 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
450 c199-200 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:34:33 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351840
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351840
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351840