I was following Clause 3(2), which states: "““Any duty of care owed in respect of things done in the exercise of an exclusively public function is not a ‘relevant duty of care’ unless it falls within section 2(1)(a) or (b)””."
That is what I was referring to. We need to explore this in much greater detail as we go through the Bill.
My pleasure at the arrival Lord, Lord Bassam, was justified when he conceded the amendment. I had been moving an amendment that says that an organisation under the Bill includes a public authority. The Minister spent a considerable portion of his speech demonstrating that an organisation does indeed include a public authority, and I am grateful for that. He added that there are some public authorities that are not included and I believe that he mentioned a corporation sole—or a corporation’s soul, which is a wonderful idea. I would prefer them to be named and to know exactly what we are dealing with so that, with public authorities that are not included, we know what they are, we can look through them and we can decide whether or not it is right that they are excluded.
I tend to agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Lyell that the Government should have a complete change of heart. This law should apply to everyone unless there are very good reasons why it should not apply. However, I was slightly confused when it was said that there are some organisations that should not have the criminal law attached to them. I hesitated and I was about to interrupt, but I am glad that I did not, because the Minister and the noble and learned Lord then agreed that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 applies to unincorporated associations and that includes the criminal law. People can be charged under that Act if they are involved in an unincorporated association.
I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that it is perfectly possible for a very substantial organisation to be an unincorporated association. I do not like the idea of passing a law that would enable perhaps a very large business to become an unincorporated association for the purpose of evading responsibilities under this piece of legislation. I am also aware, as I mentioned previously, that the original Home Office document said that we must be careful not to create artificial barriers between incorporated and unincorporated bodies. I believe that there lies the nub of the matter. I was very pleased indeed that the Government are to consider this. I am not sure that we have a great deal of time.
This is probably an appropriate moment to say that in this place we are making up for the fact that the Bill was not subjected to the line-by-line scrutiny that it should have received in the other place. Many of us have always believed that that is the huge value of this House—that we go through things very carefully and slowly. A whole raft of amendments was never properly debated in the other place and it is up to us to ensure that they are scrutinised now. We are now in Committee, and although the Bill has gone through all the stages in the other place, the Government are still considering what they may or may not introduce. We are running out of time. If the noble Lord is to come forward with some amendments, I hope that we can see them very soon because, as we go through the Bill line by line, we shall want to explore those dividing lines.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, looked at me but addressed a question to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, because the words ““or otherwise lawfully detained”” appear in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. No doubt the noble Lord will deal with that matter when we come to that amendment.
This has been a very useful opportunity to have a general look at the Bill and to have some idea how best we should proceed. I welcome the way in which the Minister has approached this group of amendments. I and my noble friend would like time to consider carefully the points that the Minister has made. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hunt of Wirral
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 11 January 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c124-5GC Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:46:58 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368093
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368093
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368093