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

MARSHALLED LIST OF MOTIONS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

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

MOTION A

(LORDS AMENDMENTS NOS. 2, 3, 5, 6 AND 10)

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.

 
 
HL Bill 87—I54/2

 
 

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

2

 
 

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.

Clause 3

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 5

5

Page 3, line 37, 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 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 AMENDMENT NO. 6

6

Page 3, line 40, 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 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.

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—


 
 

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

4

10B

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—

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

5

 
 

         

“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;”

 

 

MOTION A

A

Baroness Ashton of Upholland to move, That this House do not insist on its

 

Amendments 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 and do agree with the Commons in their Amend­

 

ments 10F to 10I in lieu.

A1

Lord Ramsbotham to move, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out from

 

“House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10

 

and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 10F to 10I in lieu.”


 
 

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

6


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

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Revised 2 July 2007