Proceeding contribution from Lord Reid of Cardowan (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 10 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill
No, I do not think so. We have retained the duty of care because it is already extant in law and because we believe it would reinforce the case against employers. Indeed, when being briefed on the Bill, I asked what would happen if a train that crashed after coming off the tracks killed not only passengers—the company would clearly have a duty of care to them—but bystanders. The legal advice on the Bill that I have received is that if that could reasonably have been foreseen, the duty of care would still apply in that case. I do not think that the position is quite as simple as the hon. Gentleman makes out. The retention of the duty of care is intended to strengthen the Bill rather than weaken it.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 450 c199
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Accountability Armed forces Death Companies Directors Crown immunity Corporate manslaughter Disqualification Liability Homicide Health and safety Health and Safety Executive Fines Exemptions Foreign companies Police Prosecutions Management Negligence Scotland Prohibition notices
- Legislation
- Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 2005-06 to 2006-07
- Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 12:34:47 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351838
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351838
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351838