Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

moved Amendment No. 51: 51: Clause 5 , page 4, line 43, leave out subsection (2) The noble Lord said: This is one of a number of amendments designed to probe the Government’s reasoning for some of the amendments that they tabled on Report and at Third Reading in another place. The Government had no opportunity to explain what they were about, and Members of another place had no opportunity to probe the Government’s intentions. It is important for the Government to set out exactly what they mean. For those of a legal bent—there have been complaints from the noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Lee, that there are too many lawyers involved in the Bill—perhaps I can explain why that is so important. The House of Lords case of a few years ago Pepper v Hart made clear that the considered remarks—if they are considered—of a Minister could be taken into account by the courts when interpreting the meaning of a statute. We have tabled this amendment to remove subsection (2), which was added by the Government, to allow the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, as a member of the Government to give his considered views on exactly what the provision does, and to make clear to the Committee, and possibly later to the courts, what it adds to the Bill. As we understand subsection (2), we are probably more than happy with it, but I still think that it behoves the noble Lord, given that his Government have brought in more than 20 amendments without discussion, to let us know what they are about. I beg to move.