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
I regret that I must disappoint the noble and learned Lord in that I do not accept that the terms of Clause 2(1)(c) provide an argument as to why Clause 3(2) is somehow lacking in relevance. The point that Clause 3(2) seeks to get across is that where an exclusively public function is concerned, an exemption should apply. Per contra, Clause 2(1)(c) sets out descriptions of items which are plainly not within the notion of public function. We may simply have to agree to differ on this point. One needs to draw a particular line in relation to public authorities when one moves into the area of public policy.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 688 c226GC
- 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 12:48:44 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369284
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369284
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369284