It is absolutely vital that it should. My hon. Friend is quite right to raise that issue. I have to say that one of my anxieties about the Government’s offering is that because the statutory instrument will be a complete redrafting of this part of the Bill—the Government want to delete the Lords amendments as they have come back from the other place—those additional provisions might easily not be in it. Furthermore, because a statutory instrument is not amendable, the House would be presented with a take-all or leave-all proposal. I simply say to any hon. Members who may be tempted by this compromise that it offers very little in reality. The most that can be said for it is that it offers the opportunity of a shortcut rather than full primary legislation—but with all the drawbacks of such shortcuts, which do not always deliver what individuals might reasonably expect.
The other place was very careful in the drafting of its amendments, which are comprehensive. Of course secure children’s accommodation and secure mental health places must be included. Anyone in custody should be covered by the legislation, which is what I believe Parliament really wants to see. I am only sorry that we seem to be unable to persuade the Government to do the right thing.
I do not intend to take up any more of the House’s time. This is a discrete issue but an important one. Conservative Members cannot accept the Government’s offering. We may not vote against every particular part, but we will vote against the Government’s motion relating to clause 2. That will highlight that we wish to keep the Bill in the form it assumes as it comes back from the other place. I strongly urge hon. Members to look to their consciences on this matter, because the House has an opportunity to do some good. The Minister knows that although I have been properly enthusiastic about some aspects of the Bill, I have pointed out its shortcomings. It is probably not everything that everybody hoped it would be. In this particular area, however, we really have an opportunity to make a difference. We should make that difference and I urge the House to persuade the Government to make it by voting to retain the Bill as it has come back to us from the other place.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Dominic Grieve
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 16 May 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
460 c673-4 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-12 19:17:09 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_397254
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_397254
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_397254