---

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

The noble and learned Lord says that—and if that is what the Act told the judge to do, he would have to do it, although I would not like him to have to do it because the poor chap would then have to define ““far”” for the jury. How would he do that? It is no good the noble and learned Lord lifting a hand as if this was preposterous. You cannot define ““far below””, although you can try to define ““below”” and what it is below is not the civil duty but the criminal duty of care, which is already imposed by the Bill. Of course, advocates will say in court, ““This case falls far below the duty that is imposed””. But to make that into an absolute legal case is, in my submission, adding a further conservative element to the Bill, which is already conservative enough and should, if anything, move in the direction of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. Those who want to confine it more and more will be seen to do so by those who have been interested in these enormous inquiries into the ““Herald of Free Enterprise””. I do not want to go into the facts of that case, but all noble Lords know that it has been a terrible abomination in our country that no one has been called to answer for death upon death. If we go on confining the Bill, this House will not be seen as a responsible body in our society.