Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

I have listened carefully to the Minister and to the debate on new clause 3. I listened carefully to the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I recognise his point in relation to the concept of piercing the corporate veil and making holding companies liable in some way for the acts of their subsidiaries. In tabling the new clause, my intention was to highlight the issue. There is a gap, and the issue has been aired this evening. I hope that it will receive further consideration in the other place. Unfortunately, the Minister’s arguments in relation to unincorporated associations and partnerships have not taken the debate much further forward from where it was on Second Reading, in Committee or even before the Bill was published yet again. The argument was advanced that the matter could not be dealt with because of the complexity of structure. As we have highlighted, however, in other cases, unincorporated associations and partnerships are covered and liability can arise. As for the distinction of not wanting to extend the common law offence widely and to other unincorporated associations and partnerships, the argument is not particularly strong. In relation to the argument about the small number of cases, I reiterate that I would not want to have to explain to someone who has lost a loved one that an offence does not lie merely because a business was constructed in the form of a partnership rather than a corporate structure, particularly when partnerships can have hundreds of employees and be large businesses in their own right. The Minister said in Committee, and repeated this evening, that he sees this question as one for the future. Tonight, we have the opportunity to consider the matter. Unless another of the signatories to amendment No. 1 seeks to press it to a vote, I should like to do so. Meanwhile, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.