---

Companies Bill [Lords]

The hon. Gentleman should hang around for a bit, as he might find that that is no longer the case. The Government appear to have changed their mind on that matter, and very glad we are about it, too. There is a problem with amendment No. 762. I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman said was correct. The problem relates to the concept of the corporation sole, which is not a sort of fish, but is largely a sort of bishop. Most corporations sole are traditional offices, such as the office of bishop, where the aim of the law is to separate the person who holds the office from the office itself. If one were to leave money to the Bishop of Ely, the question would be whether one left it to the bishopric—that is, the ongoing office of Bishop of Ely—or to the human being who holds that office for the time being. The two things are separate. The hon. Gentleman commented that it was more difficult to track down individuals who are office holders. It seems to me that precisely the opposite is true in the case that I have just outlined—that of the Bishop of Ely. It is quite easy to find the present Bishop of Ely: he is usually in his palace. It would, however, be quite difficult to find the former Bishops of Ely. If a company is set up in which a directorship is held by the Bishop of Ely as an office—that is, the corporation sole—accountability is far easier under the present arrangements than it would be if amendment No. 762 were passed and it was impossible to offer the directorship to the office of Bishop of Ely, with the result that the company had to keep changing the person to the new holder of the office. I see the hon. Gentleman’s general point about office holders, but I am not entirely convinced that the amendment would work as he says it would, especially with regard to bishops. On the under-16s debate, I shall not detain the House by reciting my own list of young entrepreneurs, but I am sympathetic to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). It is true that many young directors—those aged less than 16—are directors by reason of family settlements: for example, their parents died younger than expected and the way in which the family settlement works requires them to count as a director. There is a worry that if we impose on directors, as we do in the Bill, a long series of onerous criminal law duties, it might not be sensible to expect very young children to meet those duties. On the other hand, the age of criminal responsibility is 10, not 16. I therefore wonder whether 16 is the correct age to cut off directorships and whether, in the light of the research that has been done into young people holding directorships and the evidence about young entrepreneurs, 16 might be thought to be too advanced an age for the cut-off point. Another age, less than 16, might be more appropriate. The transitional arrangements remain bothersome. I cannot see why the Bill should take the line of insisting that all existing under-age directors be cut off before their prime. A big issue in the Committee, to which I hope Ministers will give some thought, was the question whether we should allow existing under-16 directors to continue as directors—obviously, the situation would last no more than 16 years, and in most cases considerably less than that—rather than make the arrangements necessary to change directorships almost on the fly.