Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

May I say in response to earlier comments in the debate that everybody in the House wants to see the Bill passed? Indeed, I have been campaigning for it for 20 years, and I do not think that anybody is trying to frustrate it. Also, the amendments before us are a major change from the original position, which is very good. Personally, I would always like to see ““shall”” rather than ““may””. My right hon. Friend referred to the criminal injuries compensation case. In fact, I was the solicitor in that case on behalf of the appeal of the applicants against the then Conservative Government, and I was pleased that we beat them in the House of Lords. Putting that to one side, I have to say that the real issue that we are talking about is the timetable. Like others, I am concerned about the timetable, but giving a date is at least a starting point. I saw that Lord Hunt, speaking on behalf of the Opposition in the other place, agreed with me that"““naming the day is more important than the specific date.””" I therefore hope that the Opposition will not resile from that. In response to the debate, my right hon. Friend Baroness Ashton said:"““the Government are committed to bringing the custody issue forward through the order-making power””—" as it then was—"““when it is clear that we not only understand the implications of the legislation as it now stands but have taken part in discussions with those directly affected, in order to ensure that the implications of such a power are fully understood in public policy especially as it applies to the Prison Service and to custody in general.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 July 2007; Vol. 694, c. 146-49.]" That is absolutely right. That is what should happen: we should work out what the implications of the proposal are and then come forward with the date when we are going to implement it. That has not happened, but if it were to happen, we would come up with a much earlier date. I understand the position that my right hon. Friend is in, however. He cannot do that. In the seven days that we have, perhaps more work could be done on that and perhaps we could find a compromise timetable—three to five at the outside perhaps, but with the proposal being implemented much earlier, as I have suggested, for the police, for example, who do not have the problem of overcrowding in police cells. We heard about the problem of risk aversity, but there is no issue of risk aversity in some of those places. What we are looking for is the deterrent effect, which the proposal would bring into effect, to ensure that things are done properly. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s undertaking that we will have regular reports on implementation, so I shall certainly be voting with the Government. There is still a little way to go, but they have moved significantly by naming the date, which was the key demand when this battle started many months ago.