First, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to a most interesting, and sometimes amusing, debate. I am by no means convinced by the lawyers who have spoken against our amendment. This is a new Bill, and creates a new offence. I speak as a former union official when I say that we have wanted a Bill like this for a long time. On the other hand, we want to ensure that it has sufficient bite. Our concern is that if we leave ““far”” in the text of Clause 1(4)(b), it will be more difficult to pin down liability. We are talking about something which everybody knows is serious: an offence that has resulted in a death. It is therefore obviously a matter of considerable concern to everybody involved. That is why we wanted to press ahead. However, I will carefully consider what has been said this afternoon and, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Turner of Camden
(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 c146GC Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:49:11 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368143
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368143
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368143