Perhaps I could finish answering this question before I answer the next one. That would necessitate a judge looking at the activity in question and deciding whether, in relation to the activity in question that is being examined by the court, a generally responsible approach was exhibited by the defendant. What that would not involve would be going through his or her safety record for the previous 10 years, if that is what is being suggested. In fact, as the noble Lord may or may not know from personal injuries claims, very often disclosure of the history of accidents in a factory or documents on previous injuries is done in conventional personal injury claims, as the law is now—there is nothing different about that. So with great respect I do not accept the noble Lord’s suggestion that there would be a lengthening of trial or a greater complication in those terms.
Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Faulks
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 15 December 2014.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
758 c36 
Session
2014-15
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2015-05-22 08:14:34 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-12-15/14121519000174
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-12-15/14121519000174
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-12-15/14121519000174