Proceeding contribution from Lord Davidson of Glen Clova (Labour) 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
The fault is doubtless mine. At the beginning of my response, I sought to set out the basis on which one looks at a public authority and finds within it public functions that by their nature are not suited to being levered into this type of offence because they are in broad areas, such as considering priorities within policy, rather than the specific areas that Clause 2(1)(c) identifies. I am happy to provide the noble and learned Lord with a copy of what I sought to say if that would elucidate matters. I have tried to get across the reason why there is a difference with public functions.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 688 c225GC
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:50:47 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369282
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369282
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369282