House of Lords portcullis
House of Lords
Session 2006 - 07
Internet Publications
Other Bills before Parliament

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill


 
 

 

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

commons INSISTENCE, NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU

[The page and line references are to HL Bill 19, the bill as first printed for the Lords.]

Clause 2

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 2

2

Page 2, line 29, at end insert—

 

“(d)    

a duty owed to anyone held in custody.”

 

COMMONS disAGREEMENT and amendment in lieu

 

The Commons disagree to Lords Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 but propose

 

Amendment 10A in lieu.

 

lords insistence and reason

 

The Lords insist on their Amendment 2 for the following Reason—

2A

Because it is appropriate that a relevant duty of care should be owed to anyone held in

 

custody

 

COMMONS INSISTENCE, NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU

 

The Commons insist on their disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments Nos. 2, 3,

 

5, 6 and 10, do not insist on their Amendment 10A in lieu but propose Amendments 10C

 

and 10D in lieu.

 

LORDS INSISTENCE AND REASON

 

The Lords insist on their Amendment 2 for the following Reason—

2B

Because the Lords remain of the view that it is appropriate that a relevant duty of

 

care should be owed to anyone held in custody

 
 
HL Bill 8754/2

 
 

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

2

 
 

COMMONS INSISTENCE, NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU

 

The Commons insist on their disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments Nos. 2, 3,

 

5, 6 and 10, do not insist on their Amendments 10C and 10D in lieu but propose

 

Amendments 10F, 10G, 10H and 10I in lieu.

 

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 3

3

Page 3, line 12, at end insert—

 

““custody” includes being held in prison, secure mental healthcare

 

facilities, secure children’s homes, secure training centres,

 

immigration removal centres, court cells and police cells, and being

 

subject to supervision by court, prisoner and detainee escort

 

services;”

 

COMMONS disAGREEMENT and amendment in lieu

 

The Commons disagree to Lords Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 but propose

 

Amendment 10A in lieu.

 

lords insistence and reason

 

The Lords insist on their Amendment 3 for the following Reason—

3A

Because it is appropriate that a relevant duty of care should be owed to anyone held in

 

custody

 

COMMONS INSISTENCE, NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU

 

The Commons insist on their disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments Nos. 2, 3,

 

5, 6 and 10, do not insist on their Amendment 10A in lieu but propose Amendments 10C

 

and 10D in lieu.

 

LORDS INSISTENCE AND REASON

 

The Lords insist on their Amendment 3 for the following Reason—

3B

Because the Lords remain of the view that it is appropriate that a relevant duty of

 

care should be owed to anyone held in custody

 

COMMONS INSISTENCE, NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU

 

The Commons insist on their disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments Nos. 2, 3,

 

5, 6 and 10, do not insist on their Amendments 10C and 10D in lieu but propose

 

Amendments 10F, 10G, 10H and 10I in lieu.

Clause 3

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 5

5

Page 3, line 37, leave out “or (b)” and insert “, (b) or (d)”


 
 

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

3

 
 

COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT IN LIEU

 

The Commons disagree to Lords Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 but propose

 

Amendment 10A in lieu.

 

lords insistence and reason

 

The Lords insist on their Amendment 5 for the following Reason—

5A

Because it is appropriate that a relevant duty of care should be owed to anyone held in

 

custody

 

COMMONS INSISTENCE, NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU

 

The Commons insist on their disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments Nos. 2, 3,

 

5, 6 and 10, do not insist on their Amendment 10A in lieu but propose Amendments 10C

 

and 10D in lieu.

 

LORDS INSISTENCE AND REASON

 

The Lords insist on their Amendment 5 for the following Reason—

5B

Because the Lords remain of the view that it is appropriate that a relevant duty of

 

care should be owed to anyone held in custody

 

COMMONS INSISTENCE, NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU

 

The Commons insist on their disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments Nos. 2, 3,

 

5, 6 and 10, do not insist on their Amendments 10C and 10D in lieu but propose

 

Amendments 10F, 10G, 10H and 10I in lieu.

 

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 6

6

Page 3, line 40, leave out “or (b)” and insert “, (b) or (d)”

 

COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT IN LIEU

 

The Commons disagree to Lords Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 but propose

 

Amendment 10A in lieu.

 

lords insistence and reason

 

The Lords insist on their Amendment 6 for the following Reason—

6A

Because it is appropriate that a relevant duty of care should be owed to anyone held in

 

custody

 

COMMONS INSISTENCE, NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU

 

The Commons insist on their disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments Nos. 2, 3,

 

5, 6 and 10, do not insist on their Amendment 10A in lieu but propose Amendments 10C

 

and 10D in lieu.


 
 

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

4

 
 

LORDS INSISTENCE AND REASON

 

The Lords insist on their Amendment 6 for the following Reason—

6B

Because the Lords remain of the view that it is appropriate that a relevant duty of

 

care should be owed to anyone held in custody

 

COMMONS INSISTENCE, NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU

 

The Commons insist on their disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments Nos. 2, 3,

 

5, 6 and 10, do not insist on their Amendments 10C and 10D in lieu but propose

 

Amendments 10F, 10G, 10H and 10I in lieu.

Clause 5

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 10

10

Page 5, line 8, leave out “or (b)” and insert “, (b) or (d)”

 

COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT IN LIEU

 

The Commons disagree to Lords Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 but propose

 

Amendment 10A in lieu—

10A

Page 2, line 43, at end insert—

 

“(5A)    

The Secretary of State may by order make amendments to this section to the

 

effect that a duty of care owed by an organisation under the law of

 

negligence to a person who—

 

(a)    

is in any specified form of custody or detention, or is otherwise on

 

premises of a specified description or on premises in specified

 

circumstances, and

 

(b)    

is by reason of that fact a person for whose safety the organisation

 

is responsible,

 

    

is a “relevant duty of care”.

 

(5B)    

An order under subsection (5A)—

 

(a)    

may amend this Act so as to specify exceptions with respect to the

 

application of any provision contained in this section as a result of

 

such an order;

 

(b)    

may make any amendment to this Act that is incidental or

 

supplemental to, or consequential on, an amendment made by such

 

an order.

 

(5C)    

An order under subsection (5A) is subject to affirmative resolution

 

procedure.”

 

lords insistence and reason

 

The Lords insist on their Amendment 10 and disagree with the Commons in their

 

Amendment 10A in lieu for the following Reason—

10B

Because it is appropriate that a relevant duty of care should be owed to anyone held in

 

custody


 
 

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

5

 
 

COMMONS INSISTENCE, NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU

 

The Commons insist on their disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments Nos. 2, 3,

 

5, 6 and 10, do not insist on their Amendment 10A in lieu but propose Amendments 10C

 

and 10D in lieu—

10C

Page 2, line 31, leave out “subsection (1)” and insert “this Act”

10D

Page 13, line 3, at end insert the following new Clause:—

 

         

“Power to extend meaning of “relevant duty of care”

 

(1)    

The Secretary of State may by order make amendments to this Act to the

 

effect that a duty of care owed by an organisation under the law of

 

negligence to a person who—

 

(a)    

is in any specified form of custody or detention, or is otherwise on

 

premises of a specified description or on premises in specified

 

circumstances, and

 

(b)    

is by reason of that fact a person for whose safety the organisation

 

is responsible,

 

    

is a “relevant duty of care”.

 

(2)    

An order under this section—

 

(a)    

may amend this Act so as to specify exceptions, or to restrict or

 

disapply exceptions, as regards the application of any provision

 

contained in this Act as a result of such an order;

 

(b)    

may make any amendment to this Act that is incidental or

 

supplemental to, or consequential on, an amendment made by such

 

an order.

 

(3)    

An order under this section is subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”

 

LORDS INSISTENCE AND REASON

 

The Lords insist on their Amendment 10 and disagree with the Commons in their

 

Amendments 10C and 10D in lieu for the following Reason—

10E

Because the Lords remain of the view that it is appropriate that a relevant duty of

 

care should be owed to anyone held in custody

 

COMMONS INSISTENCE, NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU

 

The Commons insist on their disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments Nos. 2, 3,

 

5, 6 and 10, do not insist on their Amendments 10C and 10D in lieu but propose

 

Amendments 10F, 10G, 10H and 10I in lieu—

10F

Page 2, line 31, leave out “subsection (1)” and insert “this Act”

10G

Page 3, leave out line 25

10H

Page 13, line 3, at end insert the following new Clause:—


 
 

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

6

 
 

         

“Power to extend meaning of “relevant duty of care”

 

(1)    

The Secretary of State may by order make amendments to this Act to the

 

effect that a duty of care owed by an organisation under the law of

 

negligence to a person who—

 

(a)    

is in any specified form of custody or detention, or is otherwise on

 

premises of a specified description or on premises in specified

 

circumstances, and

 

(b)    

is by reason of that fact a person for whose safety the organisation

 

is responsible,

 

    

is a “relevant duty of care”.

 

(2)    

An order under this section—

 

(a)    

may amend this Act so as to restrict or disapply exceptions as

 

regards the application of any provision contained in this Act as a

 

result of such an order;

 

(b)    

may make any amendment to this Act that is incidental or

 

supplemental to, or consequential on, an amendment made by such

 

an order.

 

(3)    

An order under this section is subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”

10I

As an amendment to the Clause inserted into the Bill after Clause 19 by Lords

 

Amendment No. 33:—

 

Line 30, at end insert—

 

““premises” includes land, buildings and moveable structures;”


 
contents
 
House of Lords home page Houses of Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Revised 29 June 2007