Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

Amendment No. 1 is my amendment, but as the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) has supported it, I should perhaps say a few words. I am concerned that the original, broader, definition used, for example, in the Government’s 2000 consultation, which referred to ““undertakings””, has been removed so as to exclude, in particular, partnerships and unincorporated associations. The amendment would rectify that. It has been suggested that for small businesses in this category, where prosecutions that have succeeded under the existing law are to be abolished, we would see cases brought against the named trader. As for large partnerships, it has been said that they are ““low risk””, but that does not mean ““no risk””. Organisations such as schools, clubs and even trade unions are outside the scope of the Bill. In their response to the Select Committees on Human Rights and on Work and Pensions, the Government said that they would consider this further but appear to be sticking to the limited scope of the Bill as it stands. When they consulted in 2000, they accepted that to restrict the scope of the offence by excluding unincorporated bodies"““could lead to an inconsistency of approach and these distinctions might appear arbitrary.””"