moved Amendment No. 58:
58: Clause 6 , page 5, line 27, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
““(1) This section shall apply where—
(a) it is established that an organisation within section 2 owed a relevant duty of care to a person,
(b) the duty of care does not fall within section 2(1)(a) or (b) and was owed—
(i) by an organisation within section 2 in respect of the way in which it responds to emergency circumstances (or circumstances believed to be emergency circumstances),
(ii) in respect of the carrying out, or attempted carrying out, of a rescue operation at sea in emergency circumstances (or circumstances believed to be emergency circumstances), or
(iii) in respect of action taken either in order to comply with a direction under Schedule 3A to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (c. 21) (safety directions), or by virtue of paragraph 4 of that Schedule (action in lieu of direction), and
(c) it falls to the jury to decide whether there was a gross breach of the duty of care.””
The noble Lord said: I shall also speak to Amendment No. 66, tabled in the names of my noble friends Lord Razzall and Lord Lee. These amendments would remove broad exemptions for emergency services in Clause 6 and further extended by the Government in the other place. The exemptions would be replaced with express requirements for the jury to consider the specific situation of the organisation in question. When determining whether that organisation had acted in a grossly negligent way, such considerations would include the nature of the emergency in question and resource conflict. Among other matters, I have in mind the exact words of the amendment; namely, "““the way in which it responds to emergency circumstances””."
At Second Reading, I drew attention to a case that arose when I was a Member for Weston-super-Mare in the other place. It was a heart-rending case where a much-loved daughter lost her life due to a collision with a fire engine. Her parents, naturally, were very distraught and wanted someone to be found to be accountable. Of course, many similar circumstances arise, but I was motivated to raise this example at Second Reading. I look forward to hearing the Minister and others. I beg to move.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Cotter
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 17 January 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c244GC Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:45:05 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_370000
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_370000
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_370000