75. Memorandum submitted by Kevin McCloskey
I am concerned about Section 3 (2) (b) of the
Bill, in particular part (iii):
— Parts (i), (ii) and (iii) appear
to all need satisfying in order to meet the criteria.
— However, part (iii) is an active
clause ie the organisation positively sought to cause themselves
to profit from that failure.
— If an organisation is "ignorant"
and under parts (i) and (ii) are in the "ought to have known"
category, then part (iii) is likely to fail, as if you are ignorant
of a duty then you can't actively seek to profit from non-compliance
with that duty.
I would therefore delete (iii) altogether because
of the difficulties raised in the points above and after all the
general assumption is that "ignorance is no defence"
rather than some connection to profits which may be impossible
to prove.
23 May 2005
|
