Proceeding contribution from Lord Henley (Conservative) 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
Perhaps I can assist in this matter. I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, say as an aside to his noble friend Lady Turner that this was not a matter of law but purely of language. The noble Lord then gave what I think we would all agree was a great lawyer’s speech. If we can get back to the language that the lawyers—particularly my noble and learned friend—have used, it is obvious that deleting ““far””, as the noble Baroness suggests, would mean that virtually any active negligence would lead to liability for prosecution. That seems excessive. I therefore hope that the Government will stick with their wording and not be seduced by the suggestion of the noble Baroness and those who support her that the word ““far”” be removed.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 688 c143GC
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:49:10 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368134
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368134
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368134