Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Turner of Camden (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 11 January 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.


Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

moved Amendment No. 9: 9: Clause 1, page 1, line 21, leave out ““far”” The noble Baroness said: This is a simple amendment. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be persuaded to accept it. As the clause stands, it states that, "““a breach of a duty of care by an organisation is a ‘gross’ breach if the conduct alleged to amount to a breach of that duty falls far below what can reasonably be expected””." We are talking about a death; somebody could have died. Therefore, are we going to have an argument about whether the breach of the duty had fallen far below or not far enough or too far? It should be sufficient simply to say that the breach of the duty falls ““below”” what can reasonably be expected. ““Far”” is not only redundant, but could lead to a lot of quite unnecessary argument. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c140GC 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Accountability Armed forces Death Companies Crown immunity Corporate manslaughter Liability Health and safety Exemptions Government departments Police Prosecutions Management Public bodies Negligence
Legislation
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 2005-06 to 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk