Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

The noble Lord is right that this is very important. I am simply advocating that the Bill should remain exactly as the Government have drafted it in this respect. I was seeking to explain the difference between ordinary negligence—which is only too common—and gross negligence. Somebody leaving something by accident so that someone trips over it and very sadly breaks their neck is a very long way from gross negligence, although it rightly gives rise to civil liability and rightly does not normally give rise to criminal liability. The noble Baroness is saying that because of the disastrous consequence of death, ordinary civil liability tests should be enough to make you guilty of manslaughter. I hope that on reflection, the Committee and the House will not take any such view. The Bill is exactly right here. I entirely support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, says in this respect. This is a standard definition of gross negligence, which is what it purports to be. While I completely understand the many tragedies which seem to have gone unpunished and which underlie the pressure for the Bill, we should not move away from standard definitions of our law. That is what we would be doing if we removed the word ““far””. I hope that we stick with the Bill as drafted in this respect.