I will try to clarify the issue and explain where the phraseology comes from. The amendments would change the test of liability from failures in the way an activity was managed or organised simply to failures in the way it was managed. I can reassure the noble Lord that I do not consider that a significant issue is involved here, but I will explain the thinking behind the drafting. It is very simple.
The intention is for the new offence to capture failings in the strategic management of activities where there were inadequate systems or practices in the organisation as a whole. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was concerned about that; he appeared to be happy with the wording as it was because he thought that it properly captured the focus of our concerns in the Bill.
For us, this is the type of failure that the Law Commission described in its work on corporate manslaughter, which was based heavily on the employer’s duty to provide a safe system of work. The Law Commission characterised this in terms of, "““a failure to ensure safety in the management or organisation of the corporation’s activities””."
We have simply followed that approach, thinking that it was the right thing to do. As shorthand, this has been described as management failure. While the word ““managed”” is probably sufficient to cover all the kinds of behaviour that we are concerned about, there is a possibility that, for example, the way a process for carrying out an activity was designed would not be considered the management of that activity. We are trying to ensure that we capture that properly.
Similarly—this is a graphic reflection—one may say that the layout of a factory floor might not necessarily be regarded as part of the management of that activity. We would not want gross failures to ensure a safe working environment to be exempt from the Bill because the word ““management”” was interpreted too narrowly. People have been looking for greater breadth this afternoon so that we properly capture the activity that we are concerned about. To avoid this risk, the test refers to both the management and the organisation of activities. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord’s concern.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bassam of Brighton
(Labour)
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 c138GC Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:45:01 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368119
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368119
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368119