I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Lyell for explaining why we would not want to support the amendments. However, I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that these are very much probing amendments. From that point of view, I offer the noble Lord a little support and remind him—and, in doing so, remind the Government—that the Government introduced something of the order of 20 amendments at Report and Third Reading in another place, which were inserted into the Bill without any discussion and without any explanation from the Government about what they were about. For that reason, we shall move some amendments later to remove parts of the Bill as it was amended, purely to give the Government an opportunity at this rather late stage to explain exactly what they were doing in another place when they amended the Bill. I remind the Government, too, that time was not particularly pressing for the Bill in another place, and they have a duty when they amend Bills to explain what they are about. For that reason, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, for introducing these probing amendments, even though, as my noble and learned friend Lord Lyell said, we cannot agree with their substance.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Henley
(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 c127-8GC Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:47:08 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368100
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368100
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368100