Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Lyell of Markyate (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 15 January 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.


Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

I support Amendment No. 37. I have listened carefully to the arguments on Amendment No. 36 but, like my noble friend, I have a little anxiety about making public policy decisions, particularly on resources, justiciable by the courts. On the other hand, as will be clear from my earlier speeches, I cannot see why a public authority should simply be regarded as liable in cases where it owes a duty to its employees or an occupier’s liability. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says about that on behalf of the Government. We have had an extensive debate about custody. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, carefully. He will not be surprised to hear that I disagreed with his arguments that these were matters of resources and public policy, when most of the Committee was convinced that it was a matter of management, organisation and failures thereof. We invite the Government to engage in argument on why public authorities should be allowed not to be liable in those circumstances.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c218-9GC 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Contracts Breach of contract Children in care Detainees Death Companies Directors Crown immunity Custodial treatment Corporate manslaughter Inspections Liability Health and safety Exemptions Government departments Mental illness Prosecutions Prisoners Prisons Management Public bodies Staff Negligence Safety Suicide
Legislation
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 2005-06 to 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk