I support Amendment No. 37. I have listened carefully to the arguments on Amendment No. 36 but, like my noble friend, I have a little anxiety about making public policy decisions, particularly on resources, justiciable by the courts. On the other hand, as will be clear from my earlier speeches, I cannot see why a public authority should simply be regarded as liable in cases where it owes a duty to its employees or an occupier’s liability. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says about that on behalf of the Government.
We have had an extensive debate about custody. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, carefully. He will not be surprised to hear that I disagreed with his arguments that these were matters of resources and public policy, when most of the Committee was convinced that it was a matter of management, organisation and failures thereof. We invite the Government to engage in argument on why public authorities should be allowed not to be liable in those circumstances.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Lyell of Markyate
(Conservative)
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 c218-9GC Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:46:33 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369273
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369273
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369273