Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

I am not sure that I share the enthusiasm expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). The purpose of the motion is to extend the timetable by seven days—I do not mind that at all because, in principle, I am in favour of the Bill. However, I am not in favour of the Government’s position on the Lords amendments. The Secretary of State has tabled a package of amendments, which I studied with considerable interest. They are extraordinarily difficult to understand. If they were tabled as a basis for compromise, I rather doubt that they serve as such. The first thing that the Secretary of State must do, either in this debate or in the subsequent one, is tell us the extent to which the present package of amendments—and there are many of them—differs in kind from amendments Nos. 10A, 10C and 10D, which we debated on previous occasions. Are they substantially different, or not? Secondly, and quite differently, it is difficult for a layman to attach the various amendments to the Bill. It would be very much better, as we have seven days in which to do so, to produce a consolidated document so that Members of the Commons and the Lords can see in the Bill what we have been asked to do. I have expressed doubt that the Government amendments serve as the basis of compromise, which is why I am sceptical about what we have been asked to do. If they had provided such a basis, I would have been the first not to rise to my feet.