I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and it is also worth pointing out that public policy decisions have the protection of clause 3. This is no different from any other area of Government activity. It is for the Minister and the Government to make the case why this extraordinary exemption should apply to an area where, most particularly and peculiarly, the Government and their Departments have a special responsibility. That case has not been made, however.
I do not know what will happen in this House if we divide on the amendment—as I hope we will, because this matter has to be put to the test—but it is clear that the Bill must go to the other place, where there is a tide of opinion contrary to the Government’s current position. As the Bill has been consensual in many respects and is all the better for it, it is all the more important that we try to achieve in this debate a meeting of minds on what is a very serious issue. I can only reiterate that the hon. Member for Hendon and all the other Members who have said that corporate manslaughter should be possible in this context are right. I very much hope that the Government can be persuaded of that.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Dominic Grieve
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 4 December 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
454 c101 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:28:21 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362936
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362936
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362936