I argued at Second Reading for a different sort of liability attaching to directors, but my noble friend is probably right in referring to Amendment No. 92. The Minister ran out of time; he did not reply at all to the points that were raised. I excuse him for that because I know exactly what happens to Ministers when they run out of time, but the remainder of my noble friend’s remarks should be answered at this stage, and the Minister cannot rely now on lacking time.
I repeat my arguments, which may be redundant, that directors or senior managers should be held responsible for their actions or inactions. Does the Minister seek to resile from that point? I have nothing to add to the very powerful case that has been advanced by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. After the points that he raised and the powerful argument that he made, which concerns people on all sides of the Committee, it is incumbent on the Minister to reply, and I have every confidence that he will do so.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Clinton-Davis
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 15 January 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c210-1GC Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:50:48 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369255
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369255
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369255